The W
Views: 101479009
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.12.07 1419
The 7 - Pro Wrestling - Brock Lesnar vs. WWE - some more documents
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
(1351 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (15 total)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 214

Posts: 7145/16400
EXP: 144883089
For next: 842331

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 23 hours
Last activity: 13 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#1 Posted on 12.12.05 2241.37
Reposted on: 12.12.12 2242.33
On the heels of the latest round of lawyerball that is the Lesnar/WWE litigation, and in the spirit of the last time I spent some board money to grab court dox (The W), I've grabbed the latest series of filings related to WWE's failed attempt to keep Brock Lesnar from competing for New Japan, and they're all placed in http://the-w.com/downloads (the last batch has been moved into an /old subdirectory). The REALLY interesting stuff was sealed (apparently, WWE submitted the entire Lesnar deposition as an exhibit, but you and I aren't allowed to pay for it) but the dueling arguments for and against the TRO are pretty entertaining...if you're into that kind of stuff. I must be into that kind of stuff because I'm sharing it with you now. Also interesting are two exhibits Lesnar's side decided to introduce - a copy of the infamous USA Today "wrestler deaths" story AND a copy of the Star-Tribune's Eddie Guerrero death story.

If you only want the REAL meat, get document #44 (WWE's request of the TRO) and document #47 (Lesnar's response). The rest are... procedural whatsits that the lawyers among us can translate. I think.

Anyway, hope someone likes them this time around, too.
Promote this thread!
thecubsfan
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 132

Posts: 1527/5294
EXP: 26569712
For next: 562292

Since: 10.12.01
From: Aurora, IL

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 36 min.
#2 Posted on 12.12.05 2330.35
Reposted on: 12.12.12 2333.41
Odd that Lesnar's motorcycles injuries have gone from something he was completely recovered from to the reason he had to retire from football.
cdlawrence3
Haggis
Level: 17

Posts: 20/53
EXP: 23147
For next: 1596

Since: 11.2.05
From: miramichi, NB, canada

Since last post: 595 days
Last activity: 26 days
Y!:
#3 Posted on 12.12.05 2353.18
Reposted on: 12.12.12 2355.10
very interesting read. I thought that the court already threw out the non-compete due to it being too far reaching for too long a period of time.

I also thought that there was an issue where there was a problem with WWE offering Brock an lower offer which null and voided the previous contract.
sweetroll
Cotechino
Level: 22

Posts: 55/82
EXP: 50664
For next: 7687

Since: 23.3.02
From: Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Since last post: 389 days
Last activity: 10 days
#4 Posted on 13.12.05 0012.00
Reposted on: 13.12.12 0012.14
    Originally posted by CRZ
    The rest are... procedural whatsits that the lawyers among us can translate.


42) WWE asks the court to seal the appendix, including the transcripts of the depositions.
43) WWE asks the court to keep Lesnar from hitting Japan.
44) WWE tells its side of the story. (BTW, this is a great f-ing memo. But for what the 'E is probably paying their lawyers, it better be.)
45) WWE didn't file the appendix electronically. This form explains why (see 42).
46) WWE asks for a hearing ASAP. I dont know if it was granted or not.
47) Lesnar tells his side of the story in response to 43 and 44.
ekedolphin
Scrapple
Level: 133

Posts: 2879/5387
EXP: 27179735
For next: 673005

Since: 12.1.02
From: Indianapolis, IN; now residing in Suffolk, VA

Since last post: 185 days
Last activity: 23 days
#5 Posted on 13.12.05 0030.22
Reposted on: 13.12.12 0033.01
Check the misspelling of the word "versus" in document 47, page 2, second line. Sorry but that just made me giggle for some reason. I love when ultra-smart, well-paid lawyers make boo-boos like that.

Also, near the bottom of page 6, when asked to identify who he meant when he referred to "Shane", he said "Shane McMahon." "That is Mr. McMahon's [WWE Chairman's] son"? "Yeah, I believe so" (emphasis mine).



(edited by ekedolphin on 13.12.05 0142)
JALman
Boerewors
Level: 42

Posts: 97/384
EXP: 507515
For next: 13851

Since: 7.7.02
From: Almost there

Since last post: 142 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#6 Posted on 13.12.05 0117.42
Reposted on: 13.12.12 0119.33
    Originally posted by ekedolphin
    Check the misspelling of the word "versus" in document 47, page 2, second line. Sorry but that just made me giggle for some reason. I love when ultra-smart, well-paid lawyers make boo-boos like that.

    Also, near the bottom of page 6, when asked to identify who he meant when he referred to "Shane", he said "Shane McMahon." "That is Mr. McMahon's [WWE Chairman's] son"? "Yeah, I believe so" (emphasis mine).



    (edited by ekedolphin on 13.12.05 0142)


I'm suffering from the most severe case of deja-news...er, vu just reading that.

Oh, and congrats on being a W-mod.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 133

Posts: 3399/5405
EXP: 27342781
For next: 509959

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 16 hours
AIM:  
#7 Posted on 13.12.05 1008.01
Reposted on: 13.12.12 1008.16
Am I the only one who feels like just on reading these that Lesnar's lawyers leave a lot to be desired? They make most of his argument seem like "well, the WWE guys all seemed really nice so Brock didn't think he needed to have a lawyer look at the multi-million dollar multi-year contracts he was signing" which kind of makes Brock seem a bit dumb. I just have trouble fathoming that "they weren't as nice as they seemed" will suffice as a legal argument.
RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me
Level: 63

Posts: 387/961
EXP: 2039045
For next: 58118

Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO

Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 21 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on 13.12.05 1146.17
Reposted on: 13.12.12 1146.20
spf: Am I the only one who feels like just on reading these that Lesnar's lawyers leave a lot to be desired? They make most of his argument seem like "well, the WWE guys all seemed really nice so Brock didn't think he needed to have a lawyer look at the multi-million dollar multi-year contracts he was signing" which kind of makes Brock seem a bit dumb. I just have trouble fathoming that "they weren't as nice as they seemed" will suffice as a legal argument

Ignorance and poor me are the best lines of defense, at this point. Brock, after he walked out, * was * dumb to sign anything in good faith but he really hadnt been conditioned to be paranoid of WWE Management. He took Vince, Ross and Ace at their words and ended up out in the cold.

Thats not really a defense (or excuse), legally, but WWE has gone so far out of their way to maliciously prevent Lesnar from making a living - in particular, offering him a joke of a contract to return and making assertions that his wrestling in Japan causes irreparable harm to WWE business - that its starting to appear that THEY are at fault, as opposed to Brock bringing this all on himself.

Which he did but that fact is becoming more and more moot by the day. Brocks Lawyers are representing a big, dumb, trusting jock who has been wronged / continues to be wronged, spitefully, by a monopolistic corporate empire and needs to be allowed to ply his trade in an effort to support his family. Good Legal representation will make the courts believe bullshit like that. And thats whats happening in this case.

And - according to Brocks lawyers all they *really* are trying to prove here is the no-compete Settlement Agreement signed is null and void under Connecticut law. All else is slander !. Woe is me, indeed. Funny thing is - WWEs brilliant legal team is getting played like a fiddle

Speaking of suckers I stumbled upon this the other day and cant resist taking a shot...

BROCK LESNAR ABOUT TO RETURN TO WWE

by Dave Scherer @ 6:31:00 PM on 7/27/2005

In the latest follies of the WWE "are we gonna work or are we gonna shoot" website, they just posted the following:

Lesnar offered WWE contract

WWE.com has learned that Brock Lesnar has met with his attorney, David Olsen, to discuss the written contract offer Lesnar received last week from World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. It is unclear when the contract will be signed. The terms were not disclosed.


Yeah, it's unclear. Right! Anyway, Brock is on his way back to WWE folks. Given the lawsuit he filed and the fact that it made sense for both sides to settle, it was inevitable. I wonder if they will do a Ricky Williams-Miami Dolphins angle out of it.

I, personally, loved, and still love seeing Brock back in WWE. Glad Scherer was around to clear that up for me. God forbid I got worked or something

FLEA
Mike Zeidler
Pepperoni
Level: 67

Posts: 162/1117
EXP: 2520830
For next: 72056

Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 129 days
Last activity: 89 days
#9 Posted on 13.12.05 1219.20
Reposted on: 13.12.12 1219.40
I asked this on another board, but could Lesnar's legal team use Tajiri's recent contract renewal and subsequent agreeable release to their advantage?
Destrucity
Boerewors
Level: 39

Posts: 123/339
EXP: 389540
For next: 15235

Since: 21.4.04
From: New York, NY, USA

Since last post: 2955 days
Last activity: 2863 days
#10 Posted on 13.12.05 1320.52
Reposted on: 13.12.12 1320.57
For what it's worth, I asked two actual lawyers about this -- one of whom knows absolutely nothing about wrestling and the other of whom used to work for the WWF, so how's that for variety -- and both agreed that the settlement agreement is 100-percent illegal and has little chance of standing up in court. Whether or not Lesnar violated the agreement is irrelevant if the agreement was invalid in the first place. That's his ace in the hole.
TheOldMan
Landjager
Level: 61

Posts: 42/932
EXP: 1871819
For next: 4788

Since: 13.2.03
From: Chicago

Since last post: 173 days
Last activity: 9 days
#11 Posted on 13.12.05 1602.13
Reposted on: 13.12.12 1602.25
So I read a couple of legal briefs, and come to the conclusion that WWE is from Mars, Lesnar is from Venus. The trial (if we ever get to it) appears to come down to which agreement applies - the original 2003 contract, or the settlement agreement signed when Brock wanted to do a reverse Goldberg.

Certainly an interesting read from McDevitt and Associates, but I don't think a court will be interested with storytelling so much as facts and precedent. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, I only translate legalese for people that are too cheap to hire them ) I see the E's problem being that Lesnar won the IWGP championship on October 7, but they didn't file an injunction until December 6th? Obviously the judge hasn't granted the injunction (likely not ruled on?) - so it looks like they will need to go after damages, should their position prevail.

My favorite part was invoking Philadelphia Ball Club v. Napoleon Lajoie (1902) - that's old school! - but I really don't think Vince wants to be on the same side as olde tyme MLB owners trying to enforce the reserve clause. At least not in the courtroom.

My own opinion is that the E makes a pretty good argument based on contract law, but considering the near monopoly and power Vince has over big-time wrestling, the courts will be reluctant to force Brock to crawl back and work for relative crumbs, or nothing. And that the case is being heard in a more liberal state like Connecticut can't hurt Lesnar's chances any. Not likely to find many 'strict constructionists' on that court.


Thanks to Zed for the freebie!
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 2855/6371
EXP: 33964434
For next: 155664

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 2 min.
#12 Posted on 13.12.05 1617.59
Reposted on: 13.12.12 1618.02
I am just shocked that Brad Rheingans is still alive and working in the industry.
Phantom
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 696/777
EXP: 1478675
For next: 7262

Since: 17.3.02

Since last post: 2433 days
Last activity: 2410 days
#13 Posted on 13.12.05 1739.48
Reposted on: 13.12.12 1740.07
    Originally posted by ekedolphin
    Check the misspelling of the word "versus" in document 47, page 2, second line. Sorry but that just made me giggle for some reason. I love when ultra-smart, well-paid lawyers make boo-boos like that.

    Also, near the bottom of page 6, when asked to identify who he meant when he referred to "Shane", he said "Shane McMahon." "That is Mr. McMahon's [WWE Chairman's] son"? "Yeah, I believe so" (emphasis mine).



    (edited by ekedolphin on 13.12.05 0142)
Eh. I deal with doctors and lawyers on a daily basis. When you get to the graduate-level schoolwork, the last thing anyone worries about is your spelling.

I can't remember where I read it, but there's a saying that goes something like: "There is no such thing as an ultra-genius. There are only people with different knowledge deficiencies."

Look at Brock. Brilliant athlete. Dumb at business.
too-old-now
Bockwurst
Level: 48

Posts: 401/545
EXP: 804675
For next: 18873

Since: 7.1.04

Since last post: 1357 days
Last activity: 282 days
#14 Posted on 14.12.05 1006.20
Reposted on: 14.12.12 1018.48
At the risk of repeating my comments from the earlier thread, I would welcome Brock back and think most fans would as well. He is remarkably talented in the ring, especially for someone still so young. Also, he is arguably the strongest draw not currently under contract (no pun intended).

The longer this drags out, the less likely we see Brock back in time for Mania.

As I read the documents, I think the WWE has the stronger case. I'd be very surprised if Brock gets to work elsewhere in a televised environment without having to pay some penalty to the WWE. When Brock says he can't work in his field, can Vince counter with well that's what they agreed to, but go ahead and work in an indy fed in front of 2000 people in a non-televised setting. It lets Brock work, not to his former high standard, but many wrestlers his age do so. I cannot say how this will end up, but I am curious as to if Brock will appear in Japan again soon (tomorrow? January 2006?)


But mostly, I wanted to say thank you to CRZ for shelling out a few more dollars to make these available to us.
flairforthegold13
Kishke
Level: 43

Posts: 102/411
EXP: 543255
For next: 21796

Since: 1.5.03
From: Gainesville, FL.

Since last post: 2573 days
Last activity: 2560 days
AIM:  
#15 Posted on 15.12.05 1637.16
Reposted on: 15.12.12 1637.29
The WWE seems to be losing a lot of legal cases (well, most noticably the Panda debacle and their inability to destroy Brock's life)


Isn't McDevitt supposed to be The Man?
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: TRW internet no longer free
Next thread: Smackdown Spoilers
Previous thread: TNA iMPACT Spoilers for 12/17, 12/24 & 12/31
(1351 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Pro Wrestling - Brock Lesnar vs. WWE - some more documentsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.298 seconds.