FFS, it's not revisionist history when the entire exchange above is still there and can be read in full, and in context, by anyone. Once again, the "legal inaccuracies" I initially responded to were two very specific things, and only those two things: (1) the original commenter's general misunderstanding of how the legal concept of standing works based on his/her mistaken assumption that the legal domicile of these plaintiffs mattered; and (2) his/her mistaken belief that Citizens United had any applicability in this situation. Nothing more, period, full stop.
Correct, everyone can see your post, but the only thing that has changed is that now that the first decision has been rendered, you're trying to walk back what you meant. If you thought that standing or the 1st Amendment was relevant at the time you made that post, you would have said so. You explicitly did not.
Instead, you:
- Wrote the other post had "lots of legal inaccuracies."
- Argued that if small businesses owners were affected by the decision, they had standing.
- Directly implied the 1st Amendment was not relevant.
- Argued the "real legal issue" was your since debunked contractual claim.
It is fine if you've changed you mind since the initial court decision, but let's not pretend you meant something you very clearly did not.
I don't need your sanctimonious legal lecture in the quoted post above, as it was you, not me, that expanded the discussion to bring up alternative tort theories, a point I had never spoken to. (Since I know you won't let it rest, a true tortious interference claim in this context would have to be based on MLB's allegedly tortious act of withdrawing the game from Atlanta, thereby harming an existing contract between the plaintiffs and the Braves. In that scenario, MLB itself is the harming third party. To beat a dead horse even more, I don't know whether such a contract exists, but I highly doubt it. But either way, I don't care.).
Clearly you do, given that you still don't seem to understand tortious interference with contract, and you still haven't read the complaint given you once again got the claim
wrong. That is
not the true tort claim here. JCN's claim alleges that MLB interfered with contracts between JCN, or more accurately, the small and medium-sized businesses that JCN represents, and other third parties (but explicitly not the Braves). Even if JCN was referring to a contract with the Braves, that would be no more "true" a claim than this one.
And for the record, the tort claim was raised to show to you that (1) you haven't read the complaint; and (2) you have no grounds to say what the "real legal issue" of the case will be when you don't have an accurate grasp of the legal issues at play in the complaint.
And nowhere did I ever say that equitable principles were the "only legal issue" in the case. I said the "real legal issue," meaning--in common English--that's the heart of the dispute. Everything else will probably rise or fall based on the relative strength of that central claim. Regardless, it's an internet bulletin board post, not a legal brief. I was distilling a couple of key points concisely for the hopeful benefit of non-lawyers here. If you expected me (or anyone) to get into the nuances of Rule 12(b)(6) and federal court civil practice and procedure, as applied to every single legal theory promulgated in ths lawsuit, this isn't really the venue for that.
Let's not play this semantic game. Even if we are to accept your definition of what "real legal issue" means (and to be clear, I do not), you are still wrong. A quasi-contractual claim (more accurately, promissory estoppel) is not "the heart of this dispute", it is not the central claim of the complaint. Rather, it is one of several in a hodgepodge of claims upset with the decision to retract Atlanta's hosting of the All-Star Game.
The real heart of the dispute is much broader: that is was allegedly unlawful for MLB to move the All-Star Game. Certainly much broader than a contractual claim that for reasons I have already stated, you did not describe accurately.
All of this is so plainly apparent that I can't tell whether you're sincere in your continuing comments, or whether you're just trolling for the sake of trolling and entertainment. If you disagree with my insight, I don't care in the slightest. You do you.
It's not disagreement. You asserted expertise in the subject area, and then got your analysis wrong. I am forcefully dismantling your analysis because you asserted this expertise. Don't be upset, be more informed next time.