Harold Kasselman's Blog, page 2
June 12, 2017
Mitch Williams eats his words in law suit with MLB Network
Mitch Williams retook the stand today on direct examination from his attorney. Williams formally denied ever ordering his pitcher to "bean an opposing little league batter" in a tournament in Maryland in May of 2014. He also denied calling the opposing pitcher (a ten year old) a "pussy." In fact, Williams went further and said he was incapable of calling any young child a name because he has seen what his two autistic children have gone through in their lives with name calling. Williams also denied cursing at the games in the presence of children or cursing the umpire.
His counsel attempted to demonstrate that her client was hood winked by the network into thinking his job was safe, and then after a week of work was fired. Williams claimed he had no further conversations with former MLB Network CEO Anthony Petiti after a May 17th call. Petitti told Williams in that conversation that the second article from Deadspin and the video of the Sunday game were "bad". Petitti told Williams to go to the office of Lorraine Fischer of the network's publicity and human affairs department to view the video. Williams admitted on direct that he was frustrated and upset by his situation and expressed it in a loud manner. He said that he merely said, "what are you seeing here that I don't?" But he did admit that Fischer began to cry. Williams said he apologized and later texted the woman to again apologize. His demeanor on direct was calm, deliberate and he often made eye contact with the jury.
On cross examination, defense counsel demonstrated that the video did not begin until after the warm up tosses by the pitcher and suggested that the argument with the umpire was not captured on video. He also played a portion of the video and audio which purported to show Williams' disgust at a called strike by yelling "fuck" out loud from his first base coaching position. The jury will have to determine if that was said by Williams or even uttered. This writer was unable to determine whether it was uttered.. But Williams was thereafter ejected.
Williams got into trouble by volunteering in his answer on cross, a cardinal rule of law is never volunteer, that he has never cursed at a little league game. Defense counsel for MLB jumped on that statement and introduced into evidence a string email between Williams and a parent of one of Williams' players on his own team from a year earlier. The parent had said he no longer wanted his son to play on the team. In the email, which Williams reluctantly admitted he wrote, he admits cursing at the game and says it will never happen again. Williams admitted the authenticity of the emails but said he couldn't remember cursing. At this point Williams' face became very red, but he maintained his control. In a lesser relevant matter, the defense got Williams to admit that he had written an email saying he wanted to "run up the score" against the opposing team by scoring 50 runs to embarrass the other team's coach. That coach had cut Mitch's son from the team. Defense counsel suggested that he was using ten year olds to humiliate other ten year old children for a personal vendetta.
Defense counsel was able to demonstrate a more significant point in a video played to the jury. The video shows the pitcher for Williams' team throwing a ball that was wild and over the head of the batter in Saturday's game. The very next batter gets beaned in the head by the pitcher on a wild pitch. The ball hit with such force that the ball rolled half way up the first base line. The child had to leave the game as a result. Clearly defense counsel will argue that, even if Williams didn't deliberately instruct that same pitcher(he pitched both Saturday and Sunday games) to bean the opposing pitcher the next day, telling the pitcher to "knock the batter off the plate" was egregiously reckless. That is especially significant given the wildness of the pitcher on Saturday.
The jury was excused when defense counsel tried to ask Williams about an autograph signing event a few years ago in which allegedly Williams used the f word against Dykstra in public. The judge, with little hesitation ruled such behavior was totally irrelevant to the facts of the current case and ruled it out.
The case will continue tomorrow.
His counsel attempted to demonstrate that her client was hood winked by the network into thinking his job was safe, and then after a week of work was fired. Williams claimed he had no further conversations with former MLB Network CEO Anthony Petiti after a May 17th call. Petitti told Williams in that conversation that the second article from Deadspin and the video of the Sunday game were "bad". Petitti told Williams to go to the office of Lorraine Fischer of the network's publicity and human affairs department to view the video. Williams admitted on direct that he was frustrated and upset by his situation and expressed it in a loud manner. He said that he merely said, "what are you seeing here that I don't?" But he did admit that Fischer began to cry. Williams said he apologized and later texted the woman to again apologize. His demeanor on direct was calm, deliberate and he often made eye contact with the jury.
On cross examination, defense counsel demonstrated that the video did not begin until after the warm up tosses by the pitcher and suggested that the argument with the umpire was not captured on video. He also played a portion of the video and audio which purported to show Williams' disgust at a called strike by yelling "fuck" out loud from his first base coaching position. The jury will have to determine if that was said by Williams or even uttered. This writer was unable to determine whether it was uttered.. But Williams was thereafter ejected.
Williams got into trouble by volunteering in his answer on cross, a cardinal rule of law is never volunteer, that he has never cursed at a little league game. Defense counsel for MLB jumped on that statement and introduced into evidence a string email between Williams and a parent of one of Williams' players on his own team from a year earlier. The parent had said he no longer wanted his son to play on the team. In the email, which Williams reluctantly admitted he wrote, he admits cursing at the game and says it will never happen again. Williams admitted the authenticity of the emails but said he couldn't remember cursing. At this point Williams' face became very red, but he maintained his control. In a lesser relevant matter, the defense got Williams to admit that he had written an email saying he wanted to "run up the score" against the opposing team by scoring 50 runs to embarrass the other team's coach. That coach had cut Mitch's son from the team. Defense counsel suggested that he was using ten year olds to humiliate other ten year old children for a personal vendetta.
Defense counsel was able to demonstrate a more significant point in a video played to the jury. The video shows the pitcher for Williams' team throwing a ball that was wild and over the head of the batter in Saturday's game. The very next batter gets beaned in the head by the pitcher on a wild pitch. The ball hit with such force that the ball rolled half way up the first base line. The child had to leave the game as a result. Clearly defense counsel will argue that, even if Williams didn't deliberately instruct that same pitcher(he pitched both Saturday and Sunday games) to bean the opposing pitcher the next day, telling the pitcher to "knock the batter off the plate" was egregiously reckless. That is especially significant given the wildness of the pitcher on Saturday.
The jury was excused when defense counsel tried to ask Williams about an autograph signing event a few years ago in which allegedly Williams used the f word against Dykstra in public. The judge, with little hesitation ruled such behavior was totally irrelevant to the facts of the current case and ruled it out.
The case will continue tomorrow.
June 9, 2017
Mitch Williams takes the stand
I didn't go to court today, but I'm told by a reliable source that Pettita's testimony resumed but nothing new was developed. Then Williams took the stand for direct examination by his lawyer. His demeanor was affable and relaxed. The video of the first game on Saturday was played and no cursing could be heard. Williams denied that he had cursed at the umpire. He stated that he turned to the crowd, after a ball that almost hit the dirt was called a strike, and yelled "I have to get this guy another job".
His version of the alleged bean ball was that he told is catcher to tell the pitcher to pitch inside to the batter because this particular batter had previously hit a double off of an outside pitch. This is in direct conflict with the testimony of Anthony Pettiti(COO of major league baseball). Remember from yesterday's blog that Pettiti was adamant that in his conversation with Williams, the latter said admitted that he had told his pitcher to "knock the opposing pitcher off the plate". But it's also noteworthy that a day earlier, a player on the opposing team had been hit by a pitch and Williams ran onto the field to help the youngster. Apparently Williams helped his cause today. He will resume testimony Monday afternoon.
His version of the alleged bean ball was that he told is catcher to tell the pitcher to pitch inside to the batter because this particular batter had previously hit a double off of an outside pitch. This is in direct conflict with the testimony of Anthony Pettiti(COO of major league baseball). Remember from yesterday's blog that Pettiti was adamant that in his conversation with Williams, the latter said admitted that he had told his pitcher to "knock the opposing pitcher off the plate". But it's also noteworthy that a day earlier, a player on the opposing team had been hit by a pitch and Williams ran onto the field to help the youngster. Apparently Williams helped his cause today. He will resume testimony Monday afternoon.
June 7, 2017
Mitch Williams Vs MLB Newtwork testimony
The first witness called by Mitch Williams was an adverse party; namely former President of the MLB Network Anthony Petitti, who is currently the COO of Major League Baseball. (The Network is a subsidiary of Major League Baseball). Mr. Petitti, who succeeded Rob Manfred in the COO position, was the man who hired Williams in 2009 and who also terminated him on June 26th, 2014. Williams' lawyer successfully endeavored to narrow down the specific provision of the morals clause that was deemed worthy of termination of the contract. That provision allowed for termination if the artist(Williams):" committed an act(s)
that brought Williams into public disrepute, scandal, or offended a substantial group of the community, or reflected unfavorably on any party to the agreement." Then counsel for Williams went through the allegations individually with Petitti and suggested that they were based on hearsay, unnamed sources, and not reliable factual accounts of the events of the May 10 and 11 ball games in the tournament for 10 year old youngsters. Counsel also got Pettiti to admit that he had not waited for Williams to produce statements of individuals in his defense.
But Petitti retorted in a soft and barely audible tones that he had seen a photograph, which was also shown to the jury, of Williams chin to chin with an umpire. That he had thereafter been given a video of the games on Saturday and Sunday by Billy Ripken(current MLB Network analyst and former player) which confirmed that Williams had been ejected and that he had continued to argue with the umpires for seven minutes, including an alleged profanity filled rant, before he left the game. Pettiti admitted he had no direct knowledge of the "acts" but that he had spoken to Williams by phone after the first incident and yet again after Sunday's incident. He said he found Williams' explanation "not credible" when compared with the video and accounts from Deadspin(a sports website that published two articles about the "acts" alleged. Williams told him he had his back turned to the umpire and yelled into the crowd with a shrug that we will just have to get us some new umpires which resulted in his ejection. (The attorney for MLB Network had argued in his opening that turning one's back to an umpire and pretending to talk to the crowd was a ruse used to avoid ejection.) Testimony also revealed that one umpire had challenged Williams to a fight in the future during the episode. Pettiti also said he disbelieved Williams' account of the alleged instruction by Williams to his team's catcher(the catcher is the son of Williams) to tell his own pitcher to bean the opposing batter. (the other team's pitcher) The video which Petitti saw after the Sunday game show Williams talking to his son between innings. Then the son(catcher) is seen walking to the mound and talks to the pitcher. On the very first pitch the batter is struck with the pitched ball. Petitti quotes Williams' as saying that he merely told the catcher to tell the pitcher to "knock the batter off the plate" and not to throw at his head or hit him. Petitti said he felt even by his own admission Williams acted at least recklessly for telling a 10 year old to "knock him off the plate" because such tender years children don't have the necessary control to pin point where the ball will go.
Petitti said he felt Williams did not display in that conversation an understanding of the quality and nature of his inappropriate acts. Those acts also included an allegation by the child who was hit by the pitch that he was called "pussy" by Williams in hearing of many players.
Counsel for Williams primary examination was to suggest that Petitti had no real proof upon which to fire her client and that he had fired Williams in retaliation when Williams retained a lawyer. The examination revealed that Petitti had been willing, even after a commercial sponsor cancelled a Dove television spot with Williams, to try and save Williams' job based on the above conditions. Pettiti said he had been negotiating with Williams' agent Russ Spielman from May 16th, when Williams began his suspension, for an amended contract for several weeks about conditions which also included anger management and an admission of wrong doing. Spielman, according to MLB Network's lawyer, urged Williams to accept the offer and told Williams that if he didn't, he was looking at "scorched earth".
Negotiations continued until Williams retained a lawyer who wrote to Pettiti and said that MLB Network had breached the contract by not paying, that Williams denied any wrong doing, and that counsel wanted to negotiate a settlement. The next day Pettiti fired Willimas. Counsel for Williams suggested by her questioning that Petitti fired her client not because of any proof of wrong doing, but rather because he had hired a lawyer to defend his contractual rights. Pettiti denied that and said he fired Williams at that point because he had tried to reach out to Spielman and got no response for three weeks. When he got a letter from a different lawyer( not one who had negotiated the original contract) which denied any wrong doing, Pettiti felt he had no recourse but to terminate Williams. He also said another incident bolstered his opinion that Williams was unrepentant. During that interim, Williams had been in the office of a female publicity relations staffer and Williams had brought the woman to tears in the public office by cursing and pounding his hand on her desk. Testimony ended as the video of the games were about to be shown. Earlier Judge Kassel had ruled that MLB Network was not permitted to argue that the umpires had smelled alcohol on Williams' breath and that his eyes were red and his speech slurred. The basis was a discovery violation in that MLB Network did not specify that as a factor pre-trial.
that brought Williams into public disrepute, scandal, or offended a substantial group of the community, or reflected unfavorably on any party to the agreement." Then counsel for Williams went through the allegations individually with Petitti and suggested that they were based on hearsay, unnamed sources, and not reliable factual accounts of the events of the May 10 and 11 ball games in the tournament for 10 year old youngsters. Counsel also got Pettiti to admit that he had not waited for Williams to produce statements of individuals in his defense.
But Petitti retorted in a soft and barely audible tones that he had seen a photograph, which was also shown to the jury, of Williams chin to chin with an umpire. That he had thereafter been given a video of the games on Saturday and Sunday by Billy Ripken(current MLB Network analyst and former player) which confirmed that Williams had been ejected and that he had continued to argue with the umpires for seven minutes, including an alleged profanity filled rant, before he left the game. Pettiti admitted he had no direct knowledge of the "acts" but that he had spoken to Williams by phone after the first incident and yet again after Sunday's incident. He said he found Williams' explanation "not credible" when compared with the video and accounts from Deadspin(a sports website that published two articles about the "acts" alleged. Williams told him he had his back turned to the umpire and yelled into the crowd with a shrug that we will just have to get us some new umpires which resulted in his ejection. (The attorney for MLB Network had argued in his opening that turning one's back to an umpire and pretending to talk to the crowd was a ruse used to avoid ejection.) Testimony also revealed that one umpire had challenged Williams to a fight in the future during the episode. Pettiti also said he disbelieved Williams' account of the alleged instruction by Williams to his team's catcher(the catcher is the son of Williams) to tell his own pitcher to bean the opposing batter. (the other team's pitcher) The video which Petitti saw after the Sunday game show Williams talking to his son between innings. Then the son(catcher) is seen walking to the mound and talks to the pitcher. On the very first pitch the batter is struck with the pitched ball. Petitti quotes Williams' as saying that he merely told the catcher to tell the pitcher to "knock the batter off the plate" and not to throw at his head or hit him. Petitti said he felt even by his own admission Williams acted at least recklessly for telling a 10 year old to "knock him off the plate" because such tender years children don't have the necessary control to pin point where the ball will go.
Petitti said he felt Williams did not display in that conversation an understanding of the quality and nature of his inappropriate acts. Those acts also included an allegation by the child who was hit by the pitch that he was called "pussy" by Williams in hearing of many players.
Counsel for Williams primary examination was to suggest that Petitti had no real proof upon which to fire her client and that he had fired Williams in retaliation when Williams retained a lawyer. The examination revealed that Petitti had been willing, even after a commercial sponsor cancelled a Dove television spot with Williams, to try and save Williams' job based on the above conditions. Pettiti said he had been negotiating with Williams' agent Russ Spielman from May 16th, when Williams began his suspension, for an amended contract for several weeks about conditions which also included anger management and an admission of wrong doing. Spielman, according to MLB Network's lawyer, urged Williams to accept the offer and told Williams that if he didn't, he was looking at "scorched earth".
Negotiations continued until Williams retained a lawyer who wrote to Pettiti and said that MLB Network had breached the contract by not paying, that Williams denied any wrong doing, and that counsel wanted to negotiate a settlement. The next day Pettiti fired Willimas. Counsel for Williams suggested by her questioning that Petitti fired her client not because of any proof of wrong doing, but rather because he had hired a lawyer to defend his contractual rights. Pettiti denied that and said he fired Williams at that point because he had tried to reach out to Spielman and got no response for three weeks. When he got a letter from a different lawyer( not one who had negotiated the original contract) which denied any wrong doing, Pettiti felt he had no recourse but to terminate Williams. He also said another incident bolstered his opinion that Williams was unrepentant. During that interim, Williams had been in the office of a female publicity relations staffer and Williams had brought the woman to tears in the public office by cursing and pounding his hand on her desk. Testimony ended as the video of the games were about to be shown. Earlier Judge Kassel had ruled that MLB Network was not permitted to argue that the umpires had smelled alcohol on Williams' breath and that his eyes were red and his speech slurred. The basis was a discovery violation in that MLB Network did not specify that as a factor pre-trial.
June 6, 2017
Mitch Williams vs. MLB Network
A jury of four women and four men were sworn in today in Camden County Superior Court, New Jersey. They will be deciding the civil suit brought by former baseball player and legal analyst Mitch Williams against his former employer the MLB Network. Some of the those on the witness list include former players and current analysts Bill Ripken and Harold Reynolds. It's not clear if they will actually testify.Williams alleges that the network terminated his professional services contract unlawfully. He had been an analyst from 2009 until his termination in June of 2014. The MLB Network counters that Williams breached the terms of the contract by violating the" morals clause" of the contract, and therefor the firing was lawful.
The facts of the suit are presented in a prior blog(See below), but they concern a little league tournament in Maryland where Williams coached his son's team.
Today Judge Michael Kassel made some significant legal rulings on motions presented by the parties. Initially, the judge ruled that the defendant network would have to prove the incidents relied upon them for firing Williams. In other words, he ruled that it was not enough that the public had heard about the alleged offending incidents which then put the network in poor light with the public. Rather it is now incumbent upon the MLB Network to prove that Williams actually committed the acts which led to his termination.
Secondly, the judge ruled against Williams' attorney in seeking consequential damages in this contract case. The Williams' team had argued that he was entitled to sue, not only for the two lost years of income(about 1.2 million dollars), but also for the lost opportunities of jobs as a result of the bad publicity caused by the termination. In other words, they argued that Williams' reputation suffered so much that he was no longer asked to do analysis for Fox or other networks for baseball games. Those opportunities brought $4,500 per game and amounted to a loss of $35,000 per season for two years or more. The court relied on a federal decision involving the termination of actress Vanessa Redgrave in the 80's. She had been terminated by the Boston Symphony orchestra for political statements made by her about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. She thereafter had difficulty obtaining jobs and sued for consequential damages above and beyond the performance with Boston, alleging that the firing and not the statements were the cause of her difficulties. The court said her proofs were too speculative and Judge Kassel relied upon that decision as correct law in the area of a professional service contract.
But the judge did rule in favor of Williams on a motion to dismiss made by the network. The network sought to have his claim dismissed on the grounds that he had violated a confidentiality clause of their contract. In it, matters of compensation were to be kept confidential and not disclosed. But Williams filed a copy of his contract with his civil complaint and it was made public. Judge Kassel ruled that the disclosure of the contract was not a material breach and was necessary to pursue his claim in court.
Lastly the court dealt two evidentiary blows to the network. The court rules that the network could not introduce a portion of Williams' book "Straight Talk by Mitch Williams". The network wanted those portion admitted wherein Williams admitted that he had deliberately thrown or beaned batters when he played. That admission could have bolstered the network's case that Williams instructed his pitcher via his catcher to bean the opposing pitcher when he came to bat. The second ruling barred the network from bringing in evidence of similar "bad conduct" concerning Williams' daughter during a basketball in 2008.
Opening arguments will begin tomorrow at 9:30.
On January 3, 2017 Mitch Williams, former major league pitcher and television analyst, is scheduled to appear in Camden N.J. Superior Court for a civil trial. Williams, a former relief pitcher for several teams, is perhaps best known for the walk-off home run he delivered to Joe Carter of the Toronto Blue Jays in the sixth game in 1993 that clinched the World Series. In recent years, from 2011 to 2014, he had appeared on the MLB Network as an analyst.
Williams known as "Wild Thing" in his baseball career for his control problems and awkward pitching delivery(and perhaps related to the Charlie Sheen character Rickie "Wild Thing" Vaughn in the movie Major League), filed suit against MLB Network for breach of contract. In his own court pleadings, Williams revealed that his contract called for him to be paid $700,000 for the 2015 calendar year. (The contract was included in the court filings)The network initially suspended Williams for actions as a coach at a youth baseball tournament in Maryland(Ripken tournament) in May 2014. His son played on a N.J. team in that tournament and Williams was his coach.
Initially, MLB Network offered to reinstate Williams if he agreed to sign an amended contract that forbade him to attend any of his children's games and required "therapeutic counseling". Williams refused those conditions. He was terminated in June based on a morals clause in the contract which permitted termination if Williams committed an act(s)
that brought Williams into public disrepute, scandal, or offended a substantial group of the community, or reflected unfavorably on any party to the agreement.
So why was Williams terminated? During the course of the tournament a sports website called Deadspin published two separate accounts of Williams' behavior on the field during two games which the Network found to be a violation of that morals clause. (In the first game Williams was actually ejected from the game)Those actions were reported as follows:
1. He cursed and used the "f" word in the presence of ten year old players and umpires. 2. had heated arguments and confrontations with umpires(face to face in which others had to intervene) which caused delays in the game. 3. called an umpire a "mother****er. 4. yelled to parents in the stands something about getting an umpire fired. 5. called the opposing N.J. teams' pitcher a "pussy in the presence of his own team's players. 6. Directed his catcher to bean the opposing team's pitcher when he came to bat.
In that regard, Deadspin published pictures of Williams and an umpire face to face in an apparent heated argument, In addition they published a video of the second game which appears to show Williams talking to his catcher near home plate before the opposing pitcher came to bat. The catcher is then seen trotting out to the mound and talking to his pitcher. The first pitch thrown by the Williams coached pitcher hits the opposing pitcher in the ribs.
Williams denied all of the allegations and ultimately filed a law suit against Gawker Media, the former owner of the Deadspin website for defamation(and other related claims) and breach of contract against MLB Network.
In June 2016 Judge Michael Kassel granted a summary judgment motion in favor of Gawker Media on the allegation that they had defamed Williams. The judge found that Williams was a "public figure" within the meaning of first amendment free speech law. That finding is pertinent in the law because it then required a higher burden of proof for Williams to prevail. It was his burden to prove that the published stories were posted with "actual malice". In other words, Williams had to prove that the posts were made with actual knowledge that they were false or in reckless disregard of whether they were true or not. He also found that based upon Deadspin's multiple sources of witnesses(children, umpires, parents, spectators, photographs, and video), the posts were either "substantially true or protected opinion". Because they judge found there was insufficient evidence to allow the case to go forward against Gawker media, he dismissed the case as to them.
Now it is Williams against MLB Network for breach of contract. It is interesting to note that a unique legal issue remains to be sorted out at trial. Does the network have to prove that Williams actually said and did the things that were reported? Or is it enough that MLB Network has an honest belief that he did based on the reporting? Or does what really matter the public's perception of whether Williams did or said those things? If the public believes the reporting, doesn't that in and of itself demonstrate a violation of the morals clause? And how does one determine what the public believes?
Those questions may be answered if the case is actually tried on January 3, 2017.
UPDATE: The trial was postponed at Williams" attorney's request. The new date is in June.
The facts of the suit are presented in a prior blog(See below), but they concern a little league tournament in Maryland where Williams coached his son's team.
Today Judge Michael Kassel made some significant legal rulings on motions presented by the parties. Initially, the judge ruled that the defendant network would have to prove the incidents relied upon them for firing Williams. In other words, he ruled that it was not enough that the public had heard about the alleged offending incidents which then put the network in poor light with the public. Rather it is now incumbent upon the MLB Network to prove that Williams actually committed the acts which led to his termination.
Secondly, the judge ruled against Williams' attorney in seeking consequential damages in this contract case. The Williams' team had argued that he was entitled to sue, not only for the two lost years of income(about 1.2 million dollars), but also for the lost opportunities of jobs as a result of the bad publicity caused by the termination. In other words, they argued that Williams' reputation suffered so much that he was no longer asked to do analysis for Fox or other networks for baseball games. Those opportunities brought $4,500 per game and amounted to a loss of $35,000 per season for two years or more. The court relied on a federal decision involving the termination of actress Vanessa Redgrave in the 80's. She had been terminated by the Boston Symphony orchestra for political statements made by her about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. She thereafter had difficulty obtaining jobs and sued for consequential damages above and beyond the performance with Boston, alleging that the firing and not the statements were the cause of her difficulties. The court said her proofs were too speculative and Judge Kassel relied upon that decision as correct law in the area of a professional service contract.
But the judge did rule in favor of Williams on a motion to dismiss made by the network. The network sought to have his claim dismissed on the grounds that he had violated a confidentiality clause of their contract. In it, matters of compensation were to be kept confidential and not disclosed. But Williams filed a copy of his contract with his civil complaint and it was made public. Judge Kassel ruled that the disclosure of the contract was not a material breach and was necessary to pursue his claim in court.
Lastly the court dealt two evidentiary blows to the network. The court rules that the network could not introduce a portion of Williams' book "Straight Talk by Mitch Williams". The network wanted those portion admitted wherein Williams admitted that he had deliberately thrown or beaned batters when he played. That admission could have bolstered the network's case that Williams instructed his pitcher via his catcher to bean the opposing pitcher when he came to bat. The second ruling barred the network from bringing in evidence of similar "bad conduct" concerning Williams' daughter during a basketball in 2008.
Opening arguments will begin tomorrow at 9:30.
On January 3, 2017 Mitch Williams, former major league pitcher and television analyst, is scheduled to appear in Camden N.J. Superior Court for a civil trial. Williams, a former relief pitcher for several teams, is perhaps best known for the walk-off home run he delivered to Joe Carter of the Toronto Blue Jays in the sixth game in 1993 that clinched the World Series. In recent years, from 2011 to 2014, he had appeared on the MLB Network as an analyst.
Williams known as "Wild Thing" in his baseball career for his control problems and awkward pitching delivery(and perhaps related to the Charlie Sheen character Rickie "Wild Thing" Vaughn in the movie Major League), filed suit against MLB Network for breach of contract. In his own court pleadings, Williams revealed that his contract called for him to be paid $700,000 for the 2015 calendar year. (The contract was included in the court filings)The network initially suspended Williams for actions as a coach at a youth baseball tournament in Maryland(Ripken tournament) in May 2014. His son played on a N.J. team in that tournament and Williams was his coach.
Initially, MLB Network offered to reinstate Williams if he agreed to sign an amended contract that forbade him to attend any of his children's games and required "therapeutic counseling". Williams refused those conditions. He was terminated in June based on a morals clause in the contract which permitted termination if Williams committed an act(s)
that brought Williams into public disrepute, scandal, or offended a substantial group of the community, or reflected unfavorably on any party to the agreement.
So why was Williams terminated? During the course of the tournament a sports website called Deadspin published two separate accounts of Williams' behavior on the field during two games which the Network found to be a violation of that morals clause. (In the first game Williams was actually ejected from the game)Those actions were reported as follows:
1. He cursed and used the "f" word in the presence of ten year old players and umpires. 2. had heated arguments and confrontations with umpires(face to face in which others had to intervene) which caused delays in the game. 3. called an umpire a "mother****er. 4. yelled to parents in the stands something about getting an umpire fired. 5. called the opposing N.J. teams' pitcher a "pussy in the presence of his own team's players. 6. Directed his catcher to bean the opposing team's pitcher when he came to bat.
In that regard, Deadspin published pictures of Williams and an umpire face to face in an apparent heated argument, In addition they published a video of the second game which appears to show Williams talking to his catcher near home plate before the opposing pitcher came to bat. The catcher is then seen trotting out to the mound and talking to his pitcher. The first pitch thrown by the Williams coached pitcher hits the opposing pitcher in the ribs.
Williams denied all of the allegations and ultimately filed a law suit against Gawker Media, the former owner of the Deadspin website for defamation(and other related claims) and breach of contract against MLB Network.
In June 2016 Judge Michael Kassel granted a summary judgment motion in favor of Gawker Media on the allegation that they had defamed Williams. The judge found that Williams was a "public figure" within the meaning of first amendment free speech law. That finding is pertinent in the law because it then required a higher burden of proof for Williams to prevail. It was his burden to prove that the published stories were posted with "actual malice". In other words, Williams had to prove that the posts were made with actual knowledge that they were false or in reckless disregard of whether they were true or not. He also found that based upon Deadspin's multiple sources of witnesses(children, umpires, parents, spectators, photographs, and video), the posts were either "substantially true or protected opinion". Because they judge found there was insufficient evidence to allow the case to go forward against Gawker media, he dismissed the case as to them.
Now it is Williams against MLB Network for breach of contract. It is interesting to note that a unique legal issue remains to be sorted out at trial. Does the network have to prove that Williams actually said and did the things that were reported? Or is it enough that MLB Network has an honest belief that he did based on the reporting? Or does what really matter the public's perception of whether Williams did or said those things? If the public believes the reporting, doesn't that in and of itself demonstrate a violation of the morals clause? And how does one determine what the public believes?
Those questions may be answered if the case is actually tried on January 3, 2017.
UPDATE: The trial was postponed at Williams" attorney's request. The new date is in June.
November 28, 2016
Former major league pitcher seeks vindication in law suit against MLB network
On January 3, 2017 Mitch Williams, former major league pitcher and television analyst, is scheduled to appear in Camden N.J. Superior Court for a civil trial. Williams, a former relief pitcher for several teams, is perhaps best known for the walk-off home run he delivered to Joe Carter of the Toronto Blue Jays in the sixth game in 1993 that clinched the World Series. In recent years, from 2011 to 2014, he had appeared on the MLB Network as an analyst.
Williams known as "Wild Thing" in his baseball career for his control problems and awkward pitching delivery(and perhaps related to the Charlie Sheen character Rickie "Wild Thing" Vaughn in the movie Major League), filed suit against MLB Network for breach of contract. In his own court pleadings, Williams revealed that his contract called for him to be paid $700,000 for the 2015 calendar year. (The contract was included in the court filings)The network initially suspended Williams for actions as a coach at a youth baseball tournament in Maryland(Ripken tournament) in May 2014. His son played on a N.J. team in that tournament and Williams was his coach.
Initially, MLB Network offered to reinstate Williams if he agreed to sign an amended contract that forbade him to attend any of his children's games and required "therapeutic counseling". Williams refused those conditions. He was terminated in June based on a morals clause in the contract which permitted termination if Williams committed an act(s)
that brought Williams into public disrepute, scandal, or offended a substantial group of the community, or reflected unfavorably on any party to the agreement.
So why was Williams terminated? During the course of the tournament a sports website called Deadspin published two separate accounts of Williams' behavior on the field during two games which the Network found to be a violation of that morals clause. (In the first game Williams was actually ejected from the game)Those actions were reported as follows:
1. He cursed and used the "f" word in the presence of ten year old players and umpires. 2. had heated arguments and confrontations with umpires(face to face in which others had to intervene) which caused delays in the game. 3. called an umpire a "mother****er. 4. yelled to parents in the stands something about getting an umpire fired. 5. called the opposing N.J. teams' pitcher a "pussy in the presence of his own team's players. 6. Directed his catcher to bean the opposing team's pitcher when he came to bat.
In that regard, Deadspin published pictures of Williams and an umpire face to face in an apparent heated argument, In addition they published a video of the second game which appears to show Williams talking to his catcher near home plate before the opposing pitcher came to bat. The catcher is then seen trotting out to the mound and talking to his pitcher. The first pitch thrown by the Williams coached pitcher hits the opposing pitcher in the ribs.
Williams denied all of the allegations and ultimately filed a law suit against Gawker Media, the former owner of the Deadspin website for defamation(and other related claims) and breach of contract against MLB Network.
In June 2016 Judge Michael Kassel granted a summary judgment motion in favor of Gawker Media on the allegation that they had defamed Williams. The judge found that Williams was a "public figure" within the meaning of first amendment free speech law. That finding is pertinent in the law because it then required a higher burden of proof for Williams to prevail. It was his burden to prove that the published stories were posted with "actual malice". In other words, Williams had to prove that the posts were made with actual knowledge that they were false or in reckless disregard of whether they were true or not. He also found that based upon Deadspin's multiple sources of witnesses(children, umpires, parents, spectators, photographs, and video), the posts were either "substantially true or protected opinion". Because they judge found there was insufficient evidence to allow the case to go forward against Gawker media, he dismissed the case as to them.
Now it is Williams against MLB Network for breach of contract. It is interesting to note that a unique legal issue remains to be sorted out at trial. Does the network have to prove that Williams actually said and did the things that were reported? Or is it enough that MLB Network has an honest belief that he did based on the reporting? Or does what really matter the public's perception of whether Williams did or said those things? If the public believes the reporting, doesn't that in and of itself demonstrate a violation of the morals clause? And how does one determine what the public believes?
Those questions may be answered if the case is actually tried on January 3, 2017.
UPDATE: The trial was postponed at Williams" attorney's request. The new date is in June.
Williams known as "Wild Thing" in his baseball career for his control problems and awkward pitching delivery(and perhaps related to the Charlie Sheen character Rickie "Wild Thing" Vaughn in the movie Major League), filed suit against MLB Network for breach of contract. In his own court pleadings, Williams revealed that his contract called for him to be paid $700,000 for the 2015 calendar year. (The contract was included in the court filings)The network initially suspended Williams for actions as a coach at a youth baseball tournament in Maryland(Ripken tournament) in May 2014. His son played on a N.J. team in that tournament and Williams was his coach.
Initially, MLB Network offered to reinstate Williams if he agreed to sign an amended contract that forbade him to attend any of his children's games and required "therapeutic counseling". Williams refused those conditions. He was terminated in June based on a morals clause in the contract which permitted termination if Williams committed an act(s)
that brought Williams into public disrepute, scandal, or offended a substantial group of the community, or reflected unfavorably on any party to the agreement.
So why was Williams terminated? During the course of the tournament a sports website called Deadspin published two separate accounts of Williams' behavior on the field during two games which the Network found to be a violation of that morals clause. (In the first game Williams was actually ejected from the game)Those actions were reported as follows:
1. He cursed and used the "f" word in the presence of ten year old players and umpires. 2. had heated arguments and confrontations with umpires(face to face in which others had to intervene) which caused delays in the game. 3. called an umpire a "mother****er. 4. yelled to parents in the stands something about getting an umpire fired. 5. called the opposing N.J. teams' pitcher a "pussy in the presence of his own team's players. 6. Directed his catcher to bean the opposing team's pitcher when he came to bat.
In that regard, Deadspin published pictures of Williams and an umpire face to face in an apparent heated argument, In addition they published a video of the second game which appears to show Williams talking to his catcher near home plate before the opposing pitcher came to bat. The catcher is then seen trotting out to the mound and talking to his pitcher. The first pitch thrown by the Williams coached pitcher hits the opposing pitcher in the ribs.
Williams denied all of the allegations and ultimately filed a law suit against Gawker Media, the former owner of the Deadspin website for defamation(and other related claims) and breach of contract against MLB Network.
In June 2016 Judge Michael Kassel granted a summary judgment motion in favor of Gawker Media on the allegation that they had defamed Williams. The judge found that Williams was a "public figure" within the meaning of first amendment free speech law. That finding is pertinent in the law because it then required a higher burden of proof for Williams to prevail. It was his burden to prove that the published stories were posted with "actual malice". In other words, Williams had to prove that the posts were made with actual knowledge that they were false or in reckless disregard of whether they were true or not. He also found that based upon Deadspin's multiple sources of witnesses(children, umpires, parents, spectators, photographs, and video), the posts were either "substantially true or protected opinion". Because they judge found there was insufficient evidence to allow the case to go forward against Gawker media, he dismissed the case as to them.
Now it is Williams against MLB Network for breach of contract. It is interesting to note that a unique legal issue remains to be sorted out at trial. Does the network have to prove that Williams actually said and did the things that were reported? Or is it enough that MLB Network has an honest belief that he did based on the reporting? Or does what really matter the public's perception of whether Williams did or said those things? If the public believes the reporting, doesn't that in and of itself demonstrate a violation of the morals clause? And how does one determine what the public believes?
Those questions may be answered if the case is actually tried on January 3, 2017.
UPDATE: The trial was postponed at Williams" attorney's request. The new date is in June.
May 16, 2016
Texas brawl hurts Blue Jay
I was just watching MLB's Brian Kenny and a crew of John Smoltz, Ken Rosenthal, and another non-baseball guest discuss the baseball brawl that occured over the weekend at Texas between the Rangers and Jays. First, a little background. Last October during the playoffs, the Rangers and Jays were locked in a great duel. They were tied going into the deciding 5th game. The last game was very emotional and the game had a lot of highs and lows as the score and leader changed.
Jose Buatista hit a gigantic home run and the Jays went ahead. But it was the manner in which Bautista acted after he connected that really stuck in the craw of the Rangers. He stood there for seconds, and then flipped his bat in an "in your face manner" (at least to the Rangers) way up in the air and trotted around the bases in a majestic fashion.
Anyone who follows the game knew there would be hell to pay next season because Texas would pay back Bautista for showing them up. It happened Sunday. It was the last game of this paricular series between the two teams for the rest of the season.Texas pitcher Matt Bush, called up a day earlier, (and formerly incarcerated for a felony) threw a high fastball which slammed Bautista in the ribs. And apparently the Ranger need for retaliation outweighed putting the tying run aboard in the 8th inning.The plate umpire, considering the bat flip of October, immediately ejected the pitcher Bush and the Texas mananger.
For his part, Bautista then took off for second base on a ground ball hit to third. He slid late, hard, and based on the new rule, illegally into Rougned Odor the Texas second sacker. Bautista got up and stared at Odor. The latter pushed Bautista very hard. Bautista was about to wind up for a punch but Odor landed a tremendous overhhand right hand to the jaw of Bautista. (Odor did the same thing in the minors with equal success.) Then both teams circled the players but the worst was over.
Now back to the MLB show. John Smoltz acutally admitted that he had been ORDERED to retaliate against a batter before by hitting him with a fastball. I have never heard a player(former) say that, although I did hear former manager Kevin Kennedy admit he ordered it when he managed(on radio). The usual defense is that the "ball just got away from me", or "the ball was nicked". Why? To avoid or diminish the length of punishment.
Then Brian Kennedy asked what if Odor had broken Bautista's jaw and disabled him for 8 weeks. Should the punishment be greater? It's a good question. The next logical question, which was not asked but should have been, is whether a crime would have been committed if the jaw had been broken. Yes, even in a mutual fight.
In any event, it will be interesting to see what punishments Odor, Bautista, and Bush get for this unusual real fight in a baseball game.
If you'd enjoy reading a novel about such an incident and concept, please take a look at my novel called a Pitch For Justice available on Amazon.com
Jose Buatista hit a gigantic home run and the Jays went ahead. But it was the manner in which Bautista acted after he connected that really stuck in the craw of the Rangers. He stood there for seconds, and then flipped his bat in an "in your face manner" (at least to the Rangers) way up in the air and trotted around the bases in a majestic fashion.
Anyone who follows the game knew there would be hell to pay next season because Texas would pay back Bautista for showing them up. It happened Sunday. It was the last game of this paricular series between the two teams for the rest of the season.Texas pitcher Matt Bush, called up a day earlier, (and formerly incarcerated for a felony) threw a high fastball which slammed Bautista in the ribs. And apparently the Ranger need for retaliation outweighed putting the tying run aboard in the 8th inning.The plate umpire, considering the bat flip of October, immediately ejected the pitcher Bush and the Texas mananger.
For his part, Bautista then took off for second base on a ground ball hit to third. He slid late, hard, and based on the new rule, illegally into Rougned Odor the Texas second sacker. Bautista got up and stared at Odor. The latter pushed Bautista very hard. Bautista was about to wind up for a punch but Odor landed a tremendous overhhand right hand to the jaw of Bautista. (Odor did the same thing in the minors with equal success.) Then both teams circled the players but the worst was over.
Now back to the MLB show. John Smoltz acutally admitted that he had been ORDERED to retaliate against a batter before by hitting him with a fastball. I have never heard a player(former) say that, although I did hear former manager Kevin Kennedy admit he ordered it when he managed(on radio). The usual defense is that the "ball just got away from me", or "the ball was nicked". Why? To avoid or diminish the length of punishment.
Then Brian Kennedy asked what if Odor had broken Bautista's jaw and disabled him for 8 weeks. Should the punishment be greater? It's a good question. The next logical question, which was not asked but should have been, is whether a crime would have been committed if the jaw had been broken. Yes, even in a mutual fight.
In any event, it will be interesting to see what punishments Odor, Bautista, and Bush get for this unusual real fight in a baseball game.
If you'd enjoy reading a novel about such an incident and concept, please take a look at my novel called a Pitch For Justice available on Amazon.com
February 12, 2016
Kindle discount sale
My novel A Pitch For Justice, which examines where the line between conventional sports violence and actual criminality should be drawn, is now on sale. It is a suspenseful legal drama with a 4.5 rating with 216 reviews.
Today and for the next 6 days at just $0.99 on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Pitch-Justice-L...
Today and for the next 6 days at just $0.99 on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Pitch-Justice-L...
October 11, 2015
Deja Vu all over again
Last night's playoff game between the Mets and the Dodgers saw a crucial and controversial play involving Chase Utley(Dodgers) and Reuben Tejada(Mets) It was the bottom of the 7th and the Dodgers trailed by a run with runners on first and third and one out. Howie Kendrick hit a liner toward second which was grabbed by Daniel Murphy near second base. Murphy flipped the ball towards Reuben Tejada who approached second base for the toss with his back angled away from the runner Utley. Utley slid very late toward the bag and up-ended Tejada with a legal but brutal take out slide that led to Tejada's departure on a cart. It was later determined he sustained a broken fibula. Utley was called out but a challenge resulted in a reversal. That controversial call, since Utley failed to touch second base, opened the floodgates to several Dodger runs and a change of the lead.
The irony is that in 2010 Utley and Tejada were involved in a similar play when Utley was a member of the Phillies. In a game of little importance to the Mets as opposed to the division leading Phillies, Utley slid late and hard into Rueben Tejada and knocking down the Mets' shortstop. In that game, Mets' pitcher Mike Pelfrey and third baseman David Wright openly jawed at Utley for the late take-out slide. They later criticized the slide via the press. Pelfrey even made gestures to his head, mimicking a bean ball towards Utley.
Now Utley has taken out the starting Mets' shortstop in a critical championship series. Many ball players have already accused Utley of a dirty slide again; yet the umpiring crew did not call Utley out on an interference call. This begs the question of whether the Mets will seek retribution against Utley if they get an opportunity or even against an innocent Dodger. This question formed the basis for the theme of my novel A Pitch For Justice. It follows a similar type incident which led to a deadly ending. You can find it on Amazon.
The irony is that in 2010 Utley and Tejada were involved in a similar play when Utley was a member of the Phillies. In a game of little importance to the Mets as opposed to the division leading Phillies, Utley slid late and hard into Rueben Tejada and knocking down the Mets' shortstop. In that game, Mets' pitcher Mike Pelfrey and third baseman David Wright openly jawed at Utley for the late take-out slide. They later criticized the slide via the press. Pelfrey even made gestures to his head, mimicking a bean ball towards Utley.
Now Utley has taken out the starting Mets' shortstop in a critical championship series. Many ball players have already accused Utley of a dirty slide again; yet the umpiring crew did not call Utley out on an interference call. This begs the question of whether the Mets will seek retribution against Utley if they get an opportunity or even against an innocent Dodger. This question formed the basis for the theme of my novel A Pitch For Justice. It follows a similar type incident which led to a deadly ending. You can find it on Amazon.
August 30, 2015
Kindle Discount
For anyone who enjoys realistic legal suspense or baseball novels, my book A Pitch For Justice is on sale for the next four days for just 0.99 cents down from the regular $3.99 cents. You can find it on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Pitch-Justice-L...
It's a novel about violence in sports, specifically baseball, and explores the issue of when a sports custom crosses the line to criminality and prosecution.
http://www.amazon.com/Pitch-Justice-L...
It's a novel about violence in sports, specifically baseball, and explores the issue of when a sports custom crosses the line to criminality and prosecution.
August 11, 2015
Will New Jersey prosecute NFL player for aggravated assault?
ESPN has just reported today August 11. 2015 that the NFL Jets' quarterback Geno Smith will be out of action for six to ten weeks. The reason? He suffered a broken jaw after he was allegedly sucker punched by former linebacker teammate IK Enempkpali. Enempkpali allegedly sucker punched Smith in the training camp locker room.
The motive is said to have been the failure of Smith to reimburse the linebacker for a $600 air fare that Enempkpali laid out so that Smith could fly to Enempkpali's football camp in Texas. Smith did not make the flight because of a personal matter.
Enempkpali was immediately released by the Jets but the bigger question for the linebacker is whether the New Jersey authorities will seek an indictment against him for aggravated assault. That crime requires that a victim suffer "serious bodily injury". There is no question that a broken jaw qualifies as such. If convicted he could face anywhere from 5-10 years in prison and would have to serve a mandatory 85% of that sentence before he could be paroled.
Even if Geno Smith declines to sign a criminal complaint, it is most likely, in my opinion, that the Morris County prosecutor's office may very well bring the matter to a grand jury in ensuing weeks regardless of Smith's intentions. The State of New Jersey also has an interest in preventing aggravated assaults and may want to use this case to deter other violent behavior, especially when dealing with high profile individuals. It will be interesting to learn whether Smith wants to pursue charges, and whether Morris County will proceed regardless of Smith's intentions.
If you would enjoy a novel about an MLB incident that results in a homicide prosecution, please check out this link.
http://www.amazon.com/Pitch-Justice-L... A Pitch For Justice
The motive is said to have been the failure of Smith to reimburse the linebacker for a $600 air fare that Enempkpali laid out so that Smith could fly to Enempkpali's football camp in Texas. Smith did not make the flight because of a personal matter.
Enempkpali was immediately released by the Jets but the bigger question for the linebacker is whether the New Jersey authorities will seek an indictment against him for aggravated assault. That crime requires that a victim suffer "serious bodily injury". There is no question that a broken jaw qualifies as such. If convicted he could face anywhere from 5-10 years in prison and would have to serve a mandatory 85% of that sentence before he could be paroled.
Even if Geno Smith declines to sign a criminal complaint, it is most likely, in my opinion, that the Morris County prosecutor's office may very well bring the matter to a grand jury in ensuing weeks regardless of Smith's intentions. The State of New Jersey also has an interest in preventing aggravated assaults and may want to use this case to deter other violent behavior, especially when dealing with high profile individuals. It will be interesting to learn whether Smith wants to pursue charges, and whether Morris County will proceed regardless of Smith's intentions.
If you would enjoy a novel about an MLB incident that results in a homicide prosecution, please check out this link.
http://www.amazon.com/Pitch-Justice-L... A Pitch For Justice
