Harold Kasselman's Blog - Posts Tagged "bart-giamatti"
Pete Rose sues John Dowd
In yet another interesting law suit involving a baseball star in the last two months, (Mitch Williams won his case against the MLB Network) Pete Rose will face off against John Dowd. Dowd is currently representing President Trump in the Russia collusion probe. But more importantly, Dowd was Special Counsel to former baseball commissioner Bart Giamatti in his investigation of the gambling scandal which led to Rose's banishment from baseball for life. Dowd had led the investigation which resulted in a 225 page report filed in 1989 which Giamatti relied upon.
Yesterday a Philadelphia federal judge ruled that Rose's claim for defamation against Dowd was legally sufficient to move forward. Rose is claiming that his reputation was defamed by Dowd's words during two radio interviews in 2015. In one with Jim Rome, it is alleged that Dowd claimed that a gambling intermediary friend of Rose was also “running young women down in Florida for his(Rose's) satisfaction.” In another radio interview it is alleged that Dowd claimed that this same intermediary was running girls under the statutory age for legal consent; namely that the girls were 12 to 14.
If that were true, each occasion would have been a criminal offense. As such, the words are said to be libelous or defamatory per se. In other words Rose need not prove that Dowd's words would have hurt his reputation; they are presumed to be defamatory by their very nature.
Lawyers for the intermediary have denied as early as August of 2015 that any such "running" of young girls ever took place. They have also denied that the intermediary ever told such things to John Dowd.
No date has been set for trial of the matter. Depositions and other pre-trial matters will take place.
Yesterday a Philadelphia federal judge ruled that Rose's claim for defamation against Dowd was legally sufficient to move forward. Rose is claiming that his reputation was defamed by Dowd's words during two radio interviews in 2015. In one with Jim Rome, it is alleged that Dowd claimed that a gambling intermediary friend of Rose was also “running young women down in Florida for his(Rose's) satisfaction.” In another radio interview it is alleged that Dowd claimed that this same intermediary was running girls under the statutory age for legal consent; namely that the girls were 12 to 14.
If that were true, each occasion would have been a criminal offense. As such, the words are said to be libelous or defamatory per se. In other words Rose need not prove that Dowd's words would have hurt his reputation; they are presumed to be defamatory by their very nature.
Lawyers for the intermediary have denied as early as August of 2015 that any such "running" of young girls ever took place. They have also denied that the intermediary ever told such things to John Dowd.
No date has been set for trial of the matter. Depositions and other pre-trial matters will take place.
Shocking revelation in Pete Rose case
In a shocking revelation Monday in Philadelphia federal court, John Dowd's defense team submitted testimony from a minor who said she had had multiple sexual encounters with Pete Rose. In his defense of the law suit originally filed by Pete Rose against famed attorney John Dowd, Dowd's team introduced testimony from Jane Doe( used for minors or to protect the identity of statutory rape victims) that she was 14 and 15 when the encounters occurred both in Cincinnati, Ohio and outside Ohio. Rose cannot be prosecuted for a crime because the statute of limitations has run out on any charges.
Rose had filed a civil lawsuit against John Dowd, former lead counsel for baseball commissioner Bart Giamatti, after Dowd had alleged on radio shows in 2015 that an intermediary for Rose had been "running young girls for Rose" whose ages were 12-14. Now Jane Doe has alleged that in 1973 she began her illicit relationship with Rose.
Rose, through his lawyer, has acknowledged the relationship with Jane Doe but has maintained that she was sixteen at the time. The legal age of consent in Ohio in 1973 was sixteen which would mean that, even if it were morally repugnant to some, it was not a crime. Rose was married with two children at the time and was about thirty four.
Now the Philadelphia Phillies ownership has a dilemma because they have previously scheduled an induction day for Rose to be on the Phillies Wall of Fame on August 13th. That begs the question whether ownership will cancel the money making big payoff for the team. It's anyone's guess, but I think it will be postponed.
Post script: On December 17th 2017 both parties came to an agreement which disposed of the suit by dismissal. It was done right before Rose was to be deposed by Dowd's lawyers. The dismissal was with prejudice which means it cannot be resurrected. The court ordered the terms of the agreement sealed so we will never know the details.
Rose had filed a civil lawsuit against John Dowd, former lead counsel for baseball commissioner Bart Giamatti, after Dowd had alleged on radio shows in 2015 that an intermediary for Rose had been "running young girls for Rose" whose ages were 12-14. Now Jane Doe has alleged that in 1973 she began her illicit relationship with Rose.
Rose, through his lawyer, has acknowledged the relationship with Jane Doe but has maintained that she was sixteen at the time. The legal age of consent in Ohio in 1973 was sixteen which would mean that, even if it were morally repugnant to some, it was not a crime. Rose was married with two children at the time and was about thirty four.
Now the Philadelphia Phillies ownership has a dilemma because they have previously scheduled an induction day for Rose to be on the Phillies Wall of Fame on August 13th. That begs the question whether ownership will cancel the money making big payoff for the team. It's anyone's guess, but I think it will be postponed.
Post script: On December 17th 2017 both parties came to an agreement which disposed of the suit by dismissal. It was done right before Rose was to be deposed by Dowd's lawyers. The dismissal was with prejudice which means it cannot be resurrected. The court ordered the terms of the agreement sealed so we will never know the details.
