Welcome back to THE Sports Law Podcast! We keep you up to date on everything at the intersection of sports and the law! In this episode, The Dans reunite to take the reins to discuss the Brett Favre defamation lawsuits. The lawsuit centers around three different plaintiffs, Pat McAfee, Shannon Sharpe, and Shad White. While the first two names are fairly recognizable, White has been brought into this case for his role as a Mississippi auditor. Favre claims that these parties defamed his name through statements they made related to the alleged theft of public funds that Favre has been connected to in the state of Mississippi. Favre is currently facing a welfare fraud lawsuit brought by the Mississippi Department of Human Services. The Department connected Favre to alleged misappropriation of funds. (10:12) This included public appearances, speeches, and autograph sessions. The allegations also included that Favre attempted to use some of the public funds to build a volleyball facility for the University of Southern Mississippi, his alma mater. Dan Lust breaks down the legal basis by outlining the legal definition of General Defamation. (20:20) Brett Favre, in this case, will be held to the higher standard of a public figure. Because of this status, he will have to prove actual malice in the statements made by the three parties being sued. The Dans make sure to differentiate each claim and note the important differences between the claims that could lead to different outcomes for each defendant. (54:52) They also point out the way that Favre bringing these claims could cause a further investigation into whether or not these allegations are true. Dan Wallach breaks down the doctrine of a liable proof plaintiff and how he believes that this will not be applicable to this case. (59:02) Citing a Mississippi case he notes that this doctrine cannot be used pretrial, meaning this doctrine would have to come in once the case reaches a jury. The Dans also break down Anti-SLAPP statutes. (1:01:32) These statutes are in place to allow someone who believes they are facing a frivolous lawsuit to counter claiming that this suit was brought to wrongly suppress free speech. If successful, the damages can cover lawyers fees and other damages amounting to quite a lot. *** Have a topic you want to write about? ANYONE and EVERYONE can publish for ConductDetrimental.com. Let us know if you want to join the team. Dan Wallach (@WallachLegal) | Dan Lust (@SportsLawLust) | Mike Lawson (@mike_sonof_law) | Justin Mader (@MaderLaw) Twitter | Instagram | TikTok | YouTube | Website | Email

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related