PDA

View Full Version : Richard Williams collapsed in court!


CondiLicious
Nov 30th, 2006, 04:35 PM
BREAKING NEWS
Breaking news at the Palm Beach County courthouse, where Richard Williams, the father of tennis stars Venus and Serena Williams has apparently collapsed. Reports say, the tennis stars' father has the flu and was under a certain amount of duress.
The Williams sisters and their father are in court facing allegations of re-negging on a Battle of the Sexes tennis match.
Richard Williams concluded nearly four days of testimony earlier this week. He also insists that he never committed his daughters to play in the match.

The Williams sisters have won a combined 59 singles events on the WTA Tour, including 12 Grand Slam singles titles, with more than 32-million dollars in prize money.

We do not have any additional information on the his condition, but stay tuned to Midday on Five beginning at Noon for updates.




http://www.wptv.com/News/113006_RichardWIlliamsTakenToHospital.cfm

Oh the drama of it all!

Cat's Pajamas
Nov 30th, 2006, 04:37 PM
:eek:

Hope he is okay! :unsure:

Brooklyn90
Nov 30th, 2006, 04:38 PM
omg :eek: i hope everything is alright!!!

Viktymise
Nov 30th, 2006, 04:41 PM
:eek: drama

Viktymise
Nov 30th, 2006, 05:12 PM
What happened to this thread :scratch:

dreamgoddess099
Nov 30th, 2006, 05:15 PM
:eek:

Hope he is okay! :unsure:

Thank you, this should be the first thought in every decent person's mind. We don't even know if the man is ok.

Craigy
Nov 30th, 2006, 05:15 PM
:haha: :haha: I wonder which new admin keeps deleting these posts...

Brooklyn90
Nov 30th, 2006, 05:20 PM
:haha: :haha: I wonder which new admin keeps deleting these posts...

:lol: i was wondering the same thing

MrSerenaWilliams
Nov 30th, 2006, 05:21 PM
Thank you, this should be the first thought in every decent person's mind. We don't even know if the man is ok.

:worship: that man loves his daughters more than any man I've known. I wish I had a dad like Richard

I hope he's ok :hug:

Brooklyn90
Nov 30th, 2006, 05:22 PM
Thank you, this should be the first thought in every decent person's mind. We don't even know if the man is ok.

:worship:

Marcell
Nov 30th, 2006, 05:28 PM
UPDATED: 11:34 a.m. November 30, 2006

WEST PALM BEACH — Richard Williams, the father of Venus and Serena Williams, collapsed in a Palm Beach County courtroom this morning and was taken to the hospital. He had not been in court on Wednesday.

His lawyers said he had experienced flu-like symptoms and was at his doctor's office. He is 64 years old.


His daughters, Venus and Serena, were at an exhibition match in Denver and were not in the courtroom when their father became ill.

The family has spent most of the last three weeks in court defending themselves in a multi-million-dollar breach of contract suit. The trial is continuing.

Would-be promoters Carol Clarke and Keith Rhodes are suing them for as much as $9 million, claiming they reneged on a planned 2001 battle-of-the-sexes tournament that would have pitted Venus and Serena against two male players, possibly John and Patrick McEnroe

CondiLicious
Nov 30th, 2006, 07:05 PM
WEST PALM BEACH Richard Williams, the father of tennis phenoms Venus and Serena Williams, became ill Thursday outside a Palm Beach County courtroom where the family is fighting a multi-million-dollar breach of contract suit.
While sheriff's deputies offered to call paramedics to take the 64-year-old Palm Beach Gardens resident to the hospital, he declined. His attorney, David Slutsker, said he went to his doctor's office.

"He's sick. It's a serious situation. I don't feel comfortable talking about the details of it," Slutsker said. "He tried to be here, he wants to be here but he can't be here because he needs to be under the care of his doctor."
Neither of his daughters were in the courtroom when their father became ill. Both left the trial early on Wednesday to travel to Denver, Colo. to appear in an exhibition tennis match. They are expected back on Friday.
The jury was not told of Williams' illness and the trial continued.
Had he collapsed in front of the jury, there is a chance a mistrial would have been declared because his illness could have created sympathy among the jurors.
Last year, after roughly two weeks of testimony, a mistrial was declared after Circuit Judge Jeffrey Winikoff ruled that one of Richard Williams' attorneys had asked a potentially prejudicial question to a witness.
While the family has spent almost every day in court since mid-November, Richard Williams was not in court Wednesday. Slutsker said his client was suffering "flu-like symptoms" and had gone to his doctor.
He has also left the courtroom regularly to take smoking breaks outside the courthouse.

At issue in the trial that is expected to last until Dec. 15 is the validity of an agreement Richard Williams signed, promising to have his daughters compete in a battle of the sexes match against two males, possibly retired tennis greats John and Patrick McEnroe. Would-be promoters Carol Clarke and Keith Rhodes are seeking as much as $9 million, claiming the three reneged on the contract.
Venus and Serena Williams have claimed they knew nothing about the so-called Wow Event that Clarke and Rhodes claim would have netted the family at least $37 million. Further, they claim, their father can't commit them to do anything.
Richard Williams testified that the agreement was simply a letter that Clarke was to take to IMG, a sports management company that represented his daughters.
After Richard Williams left, the jury continued listening to video-taped testimony of Rick Gentile, a former executive producer at CBS Sports. Gentile, who was to serve as executive producer of the event, said he thought the tournament could net at least $100 million.

from palmbeachpost.com

QUEENLINDSAY
Nov 30th, 2006, 07:07 PM
Poor Richard, he's getting all the pressure on this.

Sally Struthers
Nov 30th, 2006, 07:09 PM
was Michael Jackson an adviser? :lol:

pigam
Nov 30th, 2006, 11:25 PM
from palmbeachpost.com

mmm... a "mistrial" :confused:
I study law in Belgium and I never heard anything alike :o :bolt: :unsure:
I better go look that up :eek: Such a strange principle, if you ask me... Isn't the intent of a trial to "win the jury over"?

dreamgoddess099
Dec 1st, 2006, 01:02 AM
mmm... a "mistrial" :confused:
I study law in Belgium and I never heard anything alike :o :bolt: :unsure:
I better go look that up :eek: Such a strange principle, if you ask me... Isn't the intent of a trial to "win the jury over"?

Yeah, but in this trial, the Judge won't allow anything that might make the Plaintiffs look bad such as reasons behind their need for money, or information that makes them look like cons. But every detail about the Williamses is allowed.

slk45
Dec 1st, 2006, 03:47 AM
mmm... a "mistrial" :confused:
I study law in Belgium and I never heard anything alike :o :bolt: :unsure:
I better go look that up :eek: Such a strange principle, if you ask me... Isn't the intent of a trial to "win the jury over"?In this country, virtually anything can result in a mistrial. The intent of the trial allegedly is to arrive at the "truth" of the matter, and the function of the attorney is to "win the jury over." But you're supposed to win the jury over based on the merits of the case, not from disconnected motives of sympathy. Anything that prejudices the jury's openness to the facts, or undermines the "fairness" of the trial can be grounds for a mistrial.

Yeah, but in this trial, the Judge won't allow anything that might make the Plaintiffs look bad such as reasons behind their need for money, or information that makes them look like cons. But every detail about the Williamses is allowed.This is silly. The obvious reason for their "need for money" is a profit motive, the reason anyone promotes a tournament or exhibition. The plaintiffs keep talking about the potential earnings from the match, so the jury is well aware of the fact that it is about money. And that's the whole point of a breach of contract suit.

Information that makes them look like cons? Do you have any? If there is evidence pointing to fraud, it's certainly relevant and would not be excluded. On the other side, "every detail" about the Williamses is allowed that supports the theory of the case, e.g., tax returns that show deductions for "management fees," or tapes or documents showing Richard claiming he has authority to act for his daughters. Both are relevant if the Williamses are claiming Richard is not their manager. In other words, if the "details" are relevant, they are allowed.

Time to get out of victim mode.

MrSerenaWilliams
Dec 1st, 2006, 04:09 AM
I honestly doubt though, that Venus and Serena's IMG representation would have signed onto this deal. And Serena's testimony alluded to the grossly unprofessional manner of the promoters. Not to mention the fact that Richard said that the promoters had promised to help him reconcile with Oracene....so I mean, the promoters come off really dishonest.

Yeah, Richard may have acted as their managers, but IMG was the REAL manager. If they signed on, then they'd have a case IMO

slk45
Dec 1st, 2006, 04:29 AM
I honestly doubt though, that Venus and Serena's IMG representation would have signed onto this deal. And Serena's testimony alluded to the grossly unprofessional manner of the promoters. Not to mention the fact that Richard said that the promoters had promised to help him reconcile with Oracene....so I mean, the promoters come off really dishonest.

Yeah, Richard may have acted as their managers, but IMG was the REAL manager. If they signed on, then they'd have a case IMO
Nothing here points to dishonesty. Richard's claim that the promoters would help him reconcile with Oracene comes off as surreal; if it had any commercial relevance whatever, it would seem only to bolster the promoters' case. Assuming Serena's statements are true, at worst the promoters are obnoxious and unprofessional, a not uncommon standard of behavior among promoters and agents, unfortunately.

Richard has testified that he told the promoters they would have to clear the deal with IMG, the sisters' agency. Which is only logical. IMG is not a mom-and-pop operation, and nothing of commercial significance with their clients is going to elude their grasp. But if he told the promoters that he had authority to commit the sisters' to a deal, and they acted in reliance on that assurance, then they would seem to have a case. But these are precisely the facts for the jury to determine.

drake3781
Dec 1st, 2006, 04:47 AM
Yeah, but in this trial, the Judge won't allow anything that might make the Plaintiffs look bad such as reasons behind their need for money, or information that makes them look like cons. But every detail about the Williamses is allowed.

What's that supposed to mean? Are you alleging that the judge is biased? Do you know enough about law to make that allegation? Are outside lawyers who are observing the trial making these allegations, or did you come to this conclusion on your own? I suppose if the Williams do lose then in your mind that conclusion will be unfair?

Brooklyn90
Dec 1st, 2006, 04:48 AM
What's that supposed to mean? Are you alleging that the judge is biased? Do you know enough about law to make that allegation? Are outside lawyers who are observing the trial making these allegations, or did you come to this conclusion on your own? I suppose if the Williams do lose then in your mind that conclusion will be unfair?

:rolleyes:

Ben.
Dec 1st, 2006, 04:56 AM
hope he's ok.

vettipooh
Dec 1st, 2006, 05:39 AM
Get well, Richard. :hug:

meyerpl
Dec 1st, 2006, 05:57 AM
Thank you, this should be the first thought in every decent person's mind. We don't even know if the man is ok.

I'm sure you're right, although I'll admit, the first thought in my mind was, "I wonder when this story is going to get weird?"

parn2257
Dec 1st, 2006, 05:59 AM
I hope nothing is worng with him and hope that he is now ok

drake3781
Dec 1st, 2006, 06:47 AM
:rolleyes:


What's that supposed to mean? You know the details of this trial better than legal experts too? Do tell us all about it. I'm waiting.

pigam
Dec 1st, 2006, 09:17 AM
thinking about it...
there was an interesting case about a "mistrial" recently in the Belgian jurisprudence. But it was for something totally different. It was because a judge told one of the attourneys to "stop acting like a monkey". (wich can still be perfectly fair, imo). But it was also considered to be an intrusion of his "impartiality" (??), so a new judge had to be assigned.
But in this case, it's one of the parties (richard) and not the judge.... that's what makes it so strange to me :confused:

Kunal
Dec 1st, 2006, 09:27 AM
whats up with the deleting posts?

slk45
Dec 1st, 2006, 04:08 PM
But in this case, it's one of the parties (richard) and not the judge.... that's what makes it so strange to me :confused:
Why is this difficult? The trial is supposed to be about the terms of the dispute, the facts in the case, and the evidence for each party's claims. The parties' personalities, physical conditions, and external phenomena are not supposed to be considered, unless relevant to an element of the case.

If a man beats his wife, that's irrelevant to a charge of holding up a bank. If a man is blind, that's irrelevant if he's charged with drug trafficking. Or do you buy the argument of the man convicted of killing his parents who asked the judge for leniency on the grounds that he was an orphan?

If an attorney or witness (which could be one of the parties) reveals information to the jury that the judge has ruled must be excluded from the trial, that also could be grounds for a mistrial.

The Palm Beach story simply said this: "The jury was not told of Williams' illness and the trial continued. Had he collapsed in front of the jury, there is a chance a mistrial would have been declared because his illness could have created sympathy among the jurors." It's possible the jury might have ignored the evidence in the trial and returned a verdict favoring the Williamses, because they felt sorry for Richard because he was ill. To prevent that from happening the judge would declare a mistrial, and they would start over with a new jury. We have juries that do any number of stupid things.

In any event, none of that happened. He did not collapse in front of the jury, and there is no consideration pending for a mistrial.

Shimizu Amon
Dec 1st, 2006, 05:55 PM
Well I just want to wish him well!

Brooklyn90
Dec 1st, 2006, 05:58 PM
What's that supposed to mean? You know the details of this trial better than legal experts too? Do tell us all about it. I'm waiting.

over reacting again......

drake3781
Dec 2nd, 2006, 01:22 AM
over reacting again......

I'm not overreacting, I am questioning your use of the roll eye smily, when there was no valid reason to do it based on what I wrote. I will beat you in any contest of the brains; I am older, more educated, and just plain smarter. And I don't overpost. I rarely even acknowledge assholic 16 year old boys, but this is your chance. Either you can explain why you think what I wrote was wrong, or acknowledge that you roll your eyes with no apparent reason.

supergrunt
Dec 2nd, 2006, 01:25 AM
I'm not overreacting, I am questioning your use of the roll eye smily, when there was no valid reason to do it based on what I wrote. I will beat you in any contest of the brains; I am older, more educated, and just plain smarter. And I don't overpost. I rarely even acknowledge assholic 16 year old boys, but this is your chance. Either you can explain why you think what I wrote was wrong, or acknowledge that you roll your eyes with no apparent reason.

I don't even know what you ar arguing about but you are annoying so shut up. :)

drake3781
Dec 2nd, 2006, 02:38 AM
With a quick look into it, here are some common ground for mistrial in the US. (I find this interesting).

- A hung jury.

- Poisoning the jury pool: a juror with inside information on the case tells the other jurors that the plaintiff has already received a large insurance settlement, this influences the jury to decide against the plaintiff even though the defendant was grossly negligent.

- The judge comments on the evidence - for example if a witness was clearly lying, the judge may not comment on that. Function of court and jury are sharply divided. The court only makes decisions on legal issues and the conduct of the trial, but makes no factual determinations. The jury alone is charged with making factual conclusions based on the evidence admitted.

- In this NPR story on the Michael Jackson child molestation case (2005), Jackson's defense team was expected to ask the judge for a mistrial on the grounds prosecutors didn't make their case.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4632048

- In the only trial (March 2006) in the United States involving a known conspirator in the September 11 terrorist acts, the judge is considering a mistrial. Why? Because he has reason to believe that prosecutors have 'coached' their witnesses, which is indeed grounds for a mistrial.

- Not receiving your right to a speedy trial (traffic ticket case): Your trial will be within the next 45 days if you request a Speedy Trial. Should you elect to have a Speedy Trial and the courts respond that the officer will be off work that day, or possibly on vacation and would like to reschedule, you should say no and refuse to waive your rights to a Speedy Trial. If they proceed to reschedule, then you may now have grounds.

- Improper defense argument: the attorney quotes from the bible. "If anyone offend these little ones, it would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he were cast into the sea." Then, asks the jurors to hang a millstone around my client's neck and drop him into the metaphorical drink, i.e., the clink.

- Improper comments by the prosecutor: comments might have prejudiced the jury, according to court documents. Despite the judge's admonitions, the prosecutor told jurors he wanted to talk with one defendant about another robbery in which "he may or may not have been involved."

- False testimony - In the infamous Andrea Yates trial, acording to Suzanne O'Malley, an investigative journalist who writes for the series "Law & Order," Andrea Yates owes her life to the NBC hit series. During the Yates trial, forensic psychiatrist and "Law & Order" consultant, Park Dietz testified that Yates was perfectly sane when she drowned her kids. Dietz based his argument on the fact that "Law & Order" was Yates' favorite program and that she planned her children's murders after watching an episode in which a mother drowns her kids, claims post-partum depression, and is acquitted. Dietz theorized that Yates used the show as a "blueprint" to escape her rotten life and marriage. O'Malley told Yates' lawyer that no such episode had ever been written. The night before sentencing, Parnham had Dietz admit to false testimony, raising grounds for a mistrial and forcing prosecutors to give up the death penalty.

- False testimony -Michael P. Malone, an FBI forensic specialist, was exposed by the Inspector-General's report. "Mr Malone has indeed testified falsely and outside his expertise," reported the Wall Street Journal of April 16, 1997. "In 1987 and 1988, Florida appellate courts overturned guilty verdicts - citing insufficient evidence - in cases in which Mr Malone had testified for the prosecution," the article continues.

- Judges never discuss jury nullification and, in fact, if mentioned by a
defense attorney during a trial, can be grounds for a mistrial.

- Objectionable evidence is heard: Trial judges exclude objectionable evidence so that the trier of fact will not be allowed to hear it or, if is heard, instruct the trier to ignore that evidence. an extreme case the admission of such evidence would be grounds for a mistrial which would bring in a new trier of fact whose decisions would not be tainted by exposure to the faulty evidence.

- Improper juror behavior - Juror No. 4, who apparently has been the holdout among the jurors, on Friday flashed an OK signal to the defense table as she walked by. (in this case the judge did not grant the mistrial, but it was discussed)

- Mention of prior unsuccessful mediation: In the event that the parties to mediation are unable to reach a mutually acceptable agreement and any party to the mediation wishes to terminate the mediation, then the mediator shall file a statement of nonagreement. Any reference to a mediation during any subsequent trial is an irregularity in the proceedings and grounds for a mistrial.

slk45
Dec 2nd, 2006, 04:55 AM
I rarely even acknowledge assholic 16 year old boys, but this is your chance.A new word? Is that in the dictionary? :lol:


- In this NPR story on the Michael Jackson child molestation case (2005), Jackson's defense team was expected to ask the judge for a mistrial on the grounds prosecutors didn't make their case.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4632048

- Judges never discuss jury nullification and, in fact, if mentioned by a
defense attorney during a trial, can be grounds for a mistrial.

A fairly reasonable summary. The request for a mistrial is fairly strange (to be expected, I guess) in the Michael Jackson case mentioned. If the prosecutors failed to make their case, I would expect the defense to ask for a directed verdict. Declaring a mistrial generally implies the likelihood of having a new trial. But it's California :silly:, so maybe they're different.

The refusal to inform a jury about "jury nullification" ought to be grounds for a mistrial, but...there you are. It happens anyway, cf. Rodney King and OJ Simpson.

vswfan
Dec 2nd, 2006, 04:59 AM
I don't even know what you ar arguing about but you are annoying so shut up. :)

you always annoy people. so shut up too!

Brooklyn90
Dec 2nd, 2006, 05:09 AM
I'm not overreacting, I am questioning your use of the roll eye smily, when there was no valid reason to do it based on what I wrote. I will beat you in any contest of the brains; I am older, more educated, and just plain smarter. And I don't overpost. I rarely even acknowledge assholic 16 year old boys, but this is your chance. Either you can explain why you think what I wrote was wrong, or acknowledge that you roll your eyes with no apparent reason.

i'll roll my eyes at who ever the motha fuck i want! If i feel like rolling my eyes then i will with no explanation! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
p.s. i love the assholic thing :lol: :yeah: :wavey: :kiss:

supergrunt
Dec 2nd, 2006, 05:10 AM
you always annoy people. so shut up too!

no :p

Mother_Marjorie
Dec 2nd, 2006, 05:45 AM
no :p

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Justine Fan
Dec 2nd, 2006, 07:36 AM
I'm not overreacting, I am questioning your use of the roll eye smily, when there was no valid reason to do it based on what I wrote. I will beat you in any contest of the brains; I am older, more educated, and just plain smarter. And I don't overpost. I rarely even acknowledge assholic 16 year old boys, but this is your chance. Either you can explain why you think what I wrote was wrong, or acknowledge that you roll your eyes with no apparent reason.

Fabulous!!!!!!!!!! :worship: :worship:

BTW "assholic 16 year old boys who says they've gotten married to a guy" :haha: :haha: :cuckoo: