pi-are-squared
Junior Member
What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? New York. But the states of North Caroline and California may have jurisdiction. That's for an expert to consider.
This starts as a case of simple assault, but read on.
The origins of this case were in New York, NY. For many years my son (now 34yrs) whom I'll call Joe has been an inveterate bridge (not really bridge, but something analagous to it) player who often played at public bridge clubs. In 2003 he was playing at a club and had lost a few rubbers. Away from the table, one of Joe's opponents - not a playing partner -- began to taunt him over his poor judgement and kept on ragging him. Joe told the guy to cut it out and made efforts to stay clear of him. Later, while Joe was having refreshments with some friends, the antagonist joined them at their table and started badmouthing him once more and told him to shut up. He didn't.
At this point the usually coolheaded Joe lost it. He bounded across the table and kicked the guy in the teeth. The cops were called and the policeman who handled the case listened to Joe's story and rather than arresting him, wrote a summons to appear in court.
I'm unsure of Joe's plea -- whatever it was, he appeared with a lawyer. At any rate the judge ordered an ACD -- New York court-ese for adjournment contemplating dismissal. An ACD judgement means that if the defendent doesn't get into trouble with the law for six months, the case is dismissed. And so it came to pass that Joe stayed out trouble ever since the ACD was decreed.
Until today the only consequence that Joe suffered on account of the incident was that he was barred from playing at the club ever again.
Here's where things get interesting.
Today I searched the Internet for pages containing my son's name. I was shocked to discover a web page listing the names of suspended members of a national bridge association. Joe's name was among them. It was announced that the association's penalty committee had suspended Joe for life on grounds of assault.
Here's why I believe Joe is being defamed/slandered/libelled:
If assault is a legal term, the announcement implies that Joe was convicted of assault. He was not: the case was dismissed.
The announcement appears in a public place, the Web, for anyone to read and draw his/her own conclusions. Absent any story or explanation, a casual reader would be inclined to have a low opinion of Joe's character.
It seems to me that the association has a perfect right to suspend Joe for cause, but that is a matter of concern only to members or officers of the association and not the general public.
Why am I so hot under the collar and why can't Joe speak for himself here? Joe works in North Carolina as a wilderness guide to early teenagers. He is on the trail most of the time (and as I write) and is very difficult to reach even after he's returned. There is a chance Joe could lose his job or be barred from similar jobs in future based on the website's assertion. Potentially his entire career could be in jeopardy.
The preceding paragraph accounts for my naming North Carolina as a possible jurisdiction. The sponsor of the website is located in California and in fact is an NYSE-listed corporation.
Some final comments:
I suspect the association learned about the initial incident from the local club which didn't bother to find out about the final disposition of Joe's case. I also suspect that an entity called a penalty committee does not exist and never existed. So I believe the decision was not the result of some kind of official deliberation by some body that weighed the facts, as the announcement implies.
That sums things up. Any thoughts, any advice? My impulse is to say sue the *******s. But only a lawyer can determine whether my son has a case he could win..
This starts as a case of simple assault, but read on.
The origins of this case were in New York, NY. For many years my son (now 34yrs) whom I'll call Joe has been an inveterate bridge (not really bridge, but something analagous to it) player who often played at public bridge clubs. In 2003 he was playing at a club and had lost a few rubbers. Away from the table, one of Joe's opponents - not a playing partner -- began to taunt him over his poor judgement and kept on ragging him. Joe told the guy to cut it out and made efforts to stay clear of him. Later, while Joe was having refreshments with some friends, the antagonist joined them at their table and started badmouthing him once more and told him to shut up. He didn't.
At this point the usually coolheaded Joe lost it. He bounded across the table and kicked the guy in the teeth. The cops were called and the policeman who handled the case listened to Joe's story and rather than arresting him, wrote a summons to appear in court.
I'm unsure of Joe's plea -- whatever it was, he appeared with a lawyer. At any rate the judge ordered an ACD -- New York court-ese for adjournment contemplating dismissal. An ACD judgement means that if the defendent doesn't get into trouble with the law for six months, the case is dismissed. And so it came to pass that Joe stayed out trouble ever since the ACD was decreed.
Until today the only consequence that Joe suffered on account of the incident was that he was barred from playing at the club ever again.
Here's where things get interesting.
Today I searched the Internet for pages containing my son's name. I was shocked to discover a web page listing the names of suspended members of a national bridge association. Joe's name was among them. It was announced that the association's penalty committee had suspended Joe for life on grounds of assault.
Here's why I believe Joe is being defamed/slandered/libelled:
If assault is a legal term, the announcement implies that Joe was convicted of assault. He was not: the case was dismissed.
The announcement appears in a public place, the Web, for anyone to read and draw his/her own conclusions. Absent any story or explanation, a casual reader would be inclined to have a low opinion of Joe's character.
It seems to me that the association has a perfect right to suspend Joe for cause, but that is a matter of concern only to members or officers of the association and not the general public.
Why am I so hot under the collar and why can't Joe speak for himself here? Joe works in North Carolina as a wilderness guide to early teenagers. He is on the trail most of the time (and as I write) and is very difficult to reach even after he's returned. There is a chance Joe could lose his job or be barred from similar jobs in future based on the website's assertion. Potentially his entire career could be in jeopardy.
The preceding paragraph accounts for my naming North Carolina as a possible jurisdiction. The sponsor of the website is located in California and in fact is an NYSE-listed corporation.
Some final comments:
I suspect the association learned about the initial incident from the local club which didn't bother to find out about the final disposition of Joe's case. I also suspect that an entity called a penalty committee does not exist and never existed. So I believe the decision was not the result of some kind of official deliberation by some body that weighed the facts, as the announcement implies.
That sums things up. Any thoughts, any advice? My impulse is to say sue the *******s. But only a lawyer can determine whether my son has a case he could win..