PDA

View Full Version : Richard Williams Held Liable But No Damages


Denise4925
Dec 21st, 2006, 06:42 PM
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - The father of tennis stars Venus and Serena Williams is liable but doesn't have to pay damages in a lawsuit that claimed he reneged on a deal for his daughters to play in an exhibition match, a jury ruled Thursday.


The dispute centered on whether Richard Williams had authority to commit his daughters. Venus and Serena Williams testified during the more than monthlong trial that only they have authority to approve contracts.

Venus Williams was also cleared of all allegations in the lawsuit, although the jury said Serena Williams let her father act as an agent for her. Neither sister had to pay damages.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061221/ap_on_sp_te_ne/ten_williams_sisters_lawsuit_2

darrinbaker00
Dec 21st, 2006, 06:46 PM
As usual, the only real winners are the lawyers..... :fiery:

FaceyFacem
Dec 21st, 2006, 06:49 PM
so what, he gets a slap on the wrist? how he could be liable without paying a penalty confuses me...

Helen Lawson
Dec 21st, 2006, 06:57 PM
I posted this in the other threads, that damage theory by the plaintiffs was insane, too speculative, a real joke. I can't believe it was even submitted to the jury. I'm glad the jury did the right thing.

Helen Lawson
Dec 21st, 2006, 07:00 PM
As usual, the only real winners are the lawyers..... :fiery:

I'm sure the plaintiffs' lawyer was doing it on a contingency, which means he spent weeks and weeks on two trials and months preparing--for nothing.

Direwolf
Dec 21st, 2006, 07:07 PM
so...
the Williams Sisters with their father who plans to practice for the next season was halted because of nothing...!!

well.. im just glad that its over....
and hope that the sisters return to the courts asap...

Marcell
Dec 21st, 2006, 07:17 PM
Jury finds Williams liable but awards no damages
Palm Beach Post Staff Report

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Although a jury found that Richard Williams did in fact breach a contract he signed promising his famous daughters, Venus and Serena Williams, would participate in a tennis match, they did not order him to pay the would-be promoters a dime.

Richard Williams was not in the courtroom when the jury returned with its decision. Venus and Serena Williams, however, were visibly elated, hugging each other and an older sister, Isha Williams, who came in from out of town for the final days of the multi-million dollar breach of contract trial.

The jury's decision brings an end to the nearly five-week trial, punctuated by such acrimony and histrionics that several times, Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Winikoff has had to chastise the litigants and their attorneys.

Attorney F. Malcolm Cunningham Jr., who represented the Williams sisters, raised his hands over his head and yelled, "Yes! Yes! Yes!" in a small office inside the courthouse where he met privately with the family after the verdict.

At issue was a contract that Richard Williams signed promising his daughters would participate in a match that was to pit Venus and Serena Williams against two unnamed retired male tennis stars, possibly John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors.

The family had insisted the document was meaningless because Richard Williams had no authority to commit Venus and Serena Williams to anything, much less participate in a match that the promoters claimed would net $45 million.

However, attorneys representing shunned promoters Carol Clarke and Keith Rhodes, who say they stood to make as much as $9 million, produced several documents to dispute the family's claims.

Throughout the trial, the Williams sisters insisted they sign their own contracts. But on Tuesday, spurned business adviser Leland Hardy took the stand armed with documents that punched holes in their claims that Richard Williams didn't speak for them. Hardy offered four documents that Richard Williams apparently signed on his daughters' behalf. He also offered a letter in which Richard Williams outlined the correct way to do business with the family.

The jury found the contract was indeed valid, but awarded no damages to Clarke and Rhodes.

Various experts testified about the potential success of the failed tennis match. A Boca Raton accountant hired by lawyers representing Clarke and Rhodes said it could have made between $27.8 million or $37.8 million depending on whether it was held at a casino or an arena.

But Ray Benton, who founded the now-defunct Worldwide Senior Tennis Circuit along with his one-time client Jimmy Connors, said the match offered the Williams sisters nothing but the possibility of humiliation. He said he would have advised them not to step onto the tennis court for less than $5 million each. And if the promoters agreed to pay them that much, the planned match would have been a bust, Benton said.

darrinbaker00
Dec 21st, 2006, 07:21 PM
I posted this in the other threads, that damage theory by the plaintiffs was insane, too speculative, a real joke. I can't believe it was even submitted to the jury. I'm glad the jury did the right thing.
Yep. If CCKR had claimed $4.5 million instead of $45 million, they might have gotten something. The only person who didn't come out of this looking like a complete idiot was Venus.

Marcell
Dec 21st, 2006, 07:25 PM
http://postpix.palmbeachpost.com/images/photos/100044/2006/12/21/gallery/1589105.jpg
http://postpix.palmbeachpost.com/images/photos/100044/2006/12/21/gallery/1588969.jpg

Denise4925
Dec 21st, 2006, 07:32 PM
I'm sure the plaintiffs' lawyer was doing it on a contingency, which means he spent weeks and weeks on two trials and months preparing--for nothing.

I don't know of any lawyer who would take and try a breach of contract suit on a contingency fee basis. Those cases are normally retainer cases.

Denise4925
Dec 21st, 2006, 07:35 PM
Yep. If CCKR had claimed $4.5 million instead of $45 million, they might have gotten something. The only person who didn't come out of this looking like a complete idiot was Venus.

How did Serena look like an idiot?:confused:

lizchris
Dec 21st, 2006, 07:37 PM
It should be noted that Venus was cleared of ALL charges, but that Serena was held liable for saying that her father was her manager.

Helen Lawson
Dec 21st, 2006, 07:37 PM
I don't know of any lawyer who would take and try a breach of contract suit on a contingency fee basis. Those cases are normally retainer cases.

Yes, a rational lawyer would believe so, but South Florida is full of a lot of people who do nothing but commercial cases on a contingency--as crazy as that sounds--and I mean no case too big or too small. It didn't sound like these plaintiffs had the money to pay a real lawyer, but who knows.

MisterMan
Dec 21st, 2006, 07:39 PM
They would probably rather pay the money than be held 'liable' and not pay.

Pride is big in that family.

Denise4925
Dec 21st, 2006, 07:40 PM
Yes, a rational lawyer would believe so, but South Florida is full of a lot of people who do nothing but commercial cases on a contingency--as crazy as that sounds--and I mean no case too big or too small. It didn't sound like these plaintiffs had the money to pay a real lawyer, but who knows.

Wow, really. Damn :lol:

kiwifan
Dec 21st, 2006, 07:40 PM
so what, he gets a slap on the wrist? how he could be liable without paying a penalty confuses me...

Even Sir Nose knows that sometimes parties enter into agreements with people without doing "due dilligence" because they really don't want to know the truth once they've found someone willing to sign.

In my industry we have people sending things to us and signing contracts giving us permission to use "their" material all the time.

But then we check with and do deals with "all material parties affected" in order to cover our asses. ;)

Sometimes we have to get the same permission a dozen times from a dozen different places. While not personally familiar with the specifics of this case, it appears that once they had Richard on the hook they were probably more interested in forcing the issue on a monetary level than they were in achieving their claimed goal of a tennis event. Also the concept of mitigation of damages would probably dictate that they could have/should have continued with thier event with different players and their real damages would be the difference between what the Sisters would have brought in and whatever the replacement players brought in. Finally, without being familiar with the case, if there wasn't any evidence that the Sisters took actions to prevent them from putting on any event...and they haven't tried to actually put on any event...all their real damages were was whatever it took to wine and dine Richard Williams.

Originally Posted by Denise4925 http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/images/buttons/blue/viewpost.gif (http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?p=9662580#post9662580)
I don't know of any lawyer who would take and try a breach of contract suit on a contingency fee basis. Those cases are normally retainer cases.


In "show bidnez" with all those "zeroes" floating around out there, an attorney can be very tempted to go contingency if they think they've got a "slam dunk case" ;)...

...of course Ent Companies will drag out a lawsuit as long as possible and do everything to undermine an quick settlement, so the attorney usually ends up regretting it. :tape:

Marcell
Dec 21st, 2006, 07:47 PM
I saw an article that the promoter Carol Clarke got a $10,000 advancement from a company that loans people who are expecting a settlement. I think that she has a son that was sick and probably thought the Williams family would probably settle the case.

Vaidisova
Dec 21st, 2006, 07:48 PM
Tennis player Venus Williams, left, smiles at members of the Palm Beach County officials while leaving the Palm Beach County Courthouse with her sister, Serena, Thursday, Dec. 21, 2006, in West Palm Beach, Fla. The father of tennis stars Venus and Serena Williams is liable but doesn't have to pay damages in a lawsuit that claimed he reneged on a deal for his daughters to play in an exhibition match, a jury ruled Thursday.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20061221/capt.flsm60112212017.williams_sisters_lawsuit__fls m601.jpg

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20061221/capt.flsm60412212028.williams_sisters_lawsuit__fls m604.jpg

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20061221/capt.wxs10212212029.williams_sisters_lawsuit_wxs10 2.jpg

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20061221/capt.flsm60212212029.williams_sisters_lawsuit__fls m602.jpg

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20061221/capt.flsm60512212029.williams_sisters_lawsuit__fls m605.jpg

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20061221/capt.flsm60312212030.williams_sisters_lawsuit__fls m603.jpg

Denise4925
Dec 21st, 2006, 07:50 PM
Yeah, I didn't see any damages other than what they could have spent to promote the event, but since there was no event to promote what did they spend? You can't award damages based on speculation, i.e. what they could have made had the event taken place, and that was probably a jury instruction. It has to be actual damages.

CrossCourt~Rally
Dec 21st, 2006, 07:52 PM
SERENA breaking out the Snowy Cashmere Jacket complete with belt wrap around...what a DIVA! :hearts::worship:

venus_rulez
Dec 21st, 2006, 07:56 PM
Obviously the jury thought the contract was liable, but also realized that the promoters engaged in bad business and should not have done anything without 100% confirmation from venus and serena. I knew that this case couldn't have been as simple as Richard committed them (even if he was the manager) so they were liable.

Denise4925
Dec 21st, 2006, 08:01 PM
Obviously the jury thought the contract was liable, but also realized that the promoters engaged in bad business and should not have done anything without 100% confirmation from venus and serena. I knew that this case couldn't have been as simple as Richard committed them (even if he was the manager) so they were liable.

No, that is not what was concluded. It was concluded that the contract was breached by Richard Williams and Serena Williams (because of the video of her saying that her father was her manager when she was 17 years old), but that there was nothing to pay in damages because the plaintiffs didn't incur in damages in the breach of the contract.

Andy.
Dec 21st, 2006, 08:03 PM
Yay fantastic its over and they didnt have to pay anything, now girls its back to the tennis court

CrossCourt~Rally
Dec 21st, 2006, 08:08 PM
Yay fantastic its over and they didnt have to pay anything, now girls its back to the tennis court


What do you think of Serenas jacket :hearts:

Brooklyn90
Dec 21st, 2006, 08:10 PM
What do you think of Serenas jacket :hearts:

:lol: i love it :hearts:

Craigy
Dec 21st, 2006, 08:11 PM
What do you think of Serenas jacket :hearts:

:lol:
--
Now Serena, you better work your ass off and get ready to win again :armed:

darrinbaker00
Dec 21st, 2006, 08:17 PM
How did Serena look like an idiot?:confused:
She claimed that she signed all of her contracts, but the plaintiffs' attorneys produced documents to the contrary.

CrossCourt~Rally
Dec 21st, 2006, 08:19 PM
:lol: i love it :hearts:

:lol: My gayness is in full bloom today! Fuck everything else! Lets talk about the fashion! :lol: :lol: :lol: :p

Denise4925
Dec 21st, 2006, 08:38 PM
She claimed that she signed all of her contracts, but the plaintiffs' attorneys produced documents to the contrary.

Same thing for Venus :shrug:

CondiLicious
Dec 21st, 2006, 09:04 PM
http://www.wptv.com/

^^^ There's a video up there from yesterday. There will probably be an updated one after the 6pm news finishes.

Helen Lawson
Dec 21st, 2006, 09:09 PM
Same thing for Venus :shrug:

I thought they only impeached Venus with the tax returns (which I DO think was just legitimate tax advice, nothing sinister). I thought it was only Serena who actually had had him sign a few contracts.
Face it, Denise, Serena was a little bit of a bad girl at the trial! :D Luckily, nothing came of it.

Marcell
Dec 21st, 2006, 09:22 PM
Well it seems that the judge in the case had very warm affection for the sisters. This was in the Palmbeach Post.
"SEEN AND HEARD ...

... Lovefest in the courtroom: Judge Jeffrey Winikoff, who's presiding over the breach-of-contract trial of Serena and Venus Williams, seems to be starry-eyed when it comes to the tennis pair. When the jury's away, I'm told by spywitnesses he isn't shy about telling the two how impressed he is by what they've made of themselves. In return, the sisters have told him they were impressed with the fact that he's a judge.

Denise4925
Dec 21st, 2006, 09:46 PM
I thought they only impeached Venus with the tax returns (which I DO think was just legitimate tax advice, nothing sinister). I thought it was only Serena who actually had had him sign a few contracts.
Face it, Denise, Serena was a little bit of a bad girl at the trial! :D Luckily, nothing came of it.

No, both of them were impeached with an agreement to allow she and Venus to serve as grand marshals of the 2000 Orange Bowl parade. Two others were agreements for both to participate in anti-drug public service announcements.

The two contracts you are referring to regarding Serena are the Puma K's where she was 16 years of age (where he had to sign for her) and one also with Puma when she was 18.

StarDuvallGrant
Dec 21st, 2006, 10:22 PM
-sigh- over thank goodness!

Denise4925
Dec 21st, 2006, 10:23 PM
-sigh- over thank goodness!

I know, I'm glad it's over too.

darrinbaker00
Dec 21st, 2006, 10:25 PM
I know, I'm glad it's over too.

Not NEARLY as glad as Venus, Serena and Richard, I bet. Especially when it comes to the money.

Marcell
Dec 21st, 2006, 10:32 PM
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20061221/capt.wxs10612212225.williams_sisters_lawsuit_wxs10 6.jpg
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20061221/capt.wxs10912212233.williams_sisters_lawsuit_wxs10 9.jpg
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20061221/capt.wxs10812212232.williams_sisters_lawsuit_wxs10 8.jpghttp://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20061221/capt.wxs10712212228.williams_sisters_lawsuit_wxs10 7.jpg

Denise4925
Dec 21st, 2006, 10:33 PM
They look so cute together.

MrSerenaWilliams
Dec 21st, 2006, 10:53 PM
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20061221/capt.wxs10612212225.williams_sisters_lawsuit_wxs10 6.jpg
:hearts:

PRICELESS :worship:

I'm SO glad it's finally over *phew*

tonythetiger
Dec 21st, 2006, 10:55 PM
Yeh!! Glad it's over and the Williams won!!

darrinbaker00
Dec 21st, 2006, 11:00 PM
Yeh!! Glad it's over and the Williams won!!
They did not win; they just don't have to pay any damages to the plaintiffs. Their lawyers won.

MrSerenaWilliams
Dec 21st, 2006, 11:24 PM
yeah

Tenis Srbija
Dec 21st, 2006, 11:26 PM
This is ridiculouse!!!! :lol:

*JR*
Dec 21st, 2006, 11:45 PM
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20061221/capt.wxs10912212233.williams_sisters_lawsuit_wxs10 9.jpg

Rena, you're a tennis player, not an offensive guard for the Miami Dolphins. :o

MrSerenaWilliams
Dec 21st, 2006, 11:45 PM
:rolleyes:

Brooklyn90
Dec 22nd, 2006, 12:11 AM
-sigh- over thank goodness!

:worship:

Couver
Dec 22nd, 2006, 12:35 AM
I'm glad this is finally over. Though I have to wonder for how long, since apparently the Promoters and their lawyers plan to appeal. But it's done for now and all parties involved can move on.

winone23
Dec 22nd, 2006, 01:35 AM
They did not win; they just don't have to pay any damages to the plaintiffs. Their lawyers won.

That means they won!!!!!! I'm happy this is over and those bums are not getting a DIME!!!

mykarma
Dec 22nd, 2006, 01:50 AM
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - The father of tennis stars Venus and Serena Williams is liable but doesn't have to pay damages in a lawsuit that claimed he reneged on a deal for his daughters to play in an exhibition match, a jury ruled Thursday.


The dispute centered on whether Richard Williams had authority to commit his daughters. Venus and Serena Williams testified during the more than monthlong trial that only they have authority to approve contracts.

Venus Williams was also cleared of all allegations in the lawsuit, although the jury said Serena Williams let her father act as an agent for her. Neither sister had to pay damages.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061221/ap_on_sp_te_ne/ten_williams_sisters_lawsuit_2
I bet a lot of the detractors are pissed off. :bounce::bounce::bounce:

mykarma
Dec 22nd, 2006, 02:04 AM
They did not win; they just don't have to pay any damages to the plaintiffs. Their lawyers won.
They were going to have to pay the lawyers whether the won or lost. As long as they didn't have to pay additional monies out, I'm sure they felt as though they won.

cartmancop
Dec 22nd, 2006, 02:13 AM
i read a couple of the articles today but they never said why Serena was liable but Venus wasn't??

Dawn Marie
Dec 22nd, 2006, 03:38 AM
Team Williams 6

Team idiots 0

Game set and another match. :lol:

MrSerenaWilliams
Dec 22nd, 2006, 03:40 AM
:lol:

50Sense
Dec 22nd, 2006, 04:06 AM
...don't these people know not to mess with the Williams dynasty? You think they would have learned...

RunDown
Dec 22nd, 2006, 04:20 AM
Team Williams 6

Team idiots 0

Game set and another match. :lol:

:lol:

Mother_Marjorie
Dec 22nd, 2006, 05:21 PM
No, both of them were impeached with an agreement to allow she and Venus to serve as grand marshals of the 2000 Orange Bowl parade. Two others were agreements for both to participate in anti-drug public service announcements.

The two contracts you are referring to regarding Serena are the Puma K's where she was 16 years of age (where he had to sign for her) and one also with Puma when she was 18.

Mother Marjorie doesn't like all this talk about "impeachment." ;)

Mother_Marjorie
Dec 22nd, 2006, 05:22 PM
...don't these people know not to mess with the Williams dynasty? You think they would have learned...

The "Damages" levied were not monetary, but of credibility. And that's all I'll say about that.

Denise4925
Dec 22nd, 2006, 05:35 PM
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20061221/capt.wxs10912212233.williams_sisters_lawsuit_wxs10 9.jpg

Rena, you're a tennis player, not an offensive guard for the Miami Dolphins. :o

What does that mean?:confused:

Denise4925
Dec 22nd, 2006, 05:38 PM
The "Damages" levied were not monetary, but of credibility. And that's all I'll say about that.

Like their detractors gave them any credit before. :rolleyes: And, if you're talking about people not doing business with them, think again.

Vlover
Dec 22nd, 2006, 06:11 PM
What a relief!! I know in legal terms this is not considered a "victory" but I'm sure the Williams team and plaintiff consider it as such considering that this was about money. The plaintiff was hoping for a settlement but they gambled and lost.

Please focus on tennis now girls! I desparately need to see you guys playing tennis again. :help:

Infiniti2001
Dec 22nd, 2006, 06:11 PM
The "Damages" levied were not monetary, but of credibility. And that's all I'll say about that.

Please!! Credibility my ass--- The filmmakers would trade the Williames credibility for the 9 mil or however much they were seeking in a NY minute :lol: Hmm, I wonder if they will will appeal. I doubt it :tape: I think they thought they were going to get some easy money.:help:

StarDuvallGrant
Dec 22nd, 2006, 06:30 PM
What a relief!! I know in legal terms this is not considered a "victory" but I'm sure the Williams team and plaintiff consider it as such considering that this was about money. The plaintiff was hoping for a settlement but they gambled and lost.

Please focus on tennis now girls! I desparately need to see you guys playing tennis again. :help:

I fully agree :clap2:

Marcell
Dec 22nd, 2006, 06:46 PM
Please!! Credibility my ass--- The filmmakers would trade the Williames credibility for the 9 mil or however much they were seeking in a NY minute :lol: Hmm, I wonder if they will will appeal. I doubt it :tape: I think they thought they were going to get some easy money.:help:

As a matter of fact, the lawyer for Carol Clarke did mention that he might appeal. I saw a few months ago that Miss Clarke got a $10,000 advance from a company that give loans to people that are expecting settlements. She has a son that was sick and needed money to pay for his hospital bill. I think that she thought that the Williams family would settle the case and she would come out a winner anyway. As for the other plaintiff and their lawyers, here are their quotes.


"Rhodes said he has spent about $250,000, including on trips he took and phone calls he made preparing for trial. Clarke couldn't be reached for comment. Through Romano, she said she respected the jury's decision.

Romano said his law firm is out hundreds of thousands of dollars. But he said he doesn't regret taking the case.

"I took the case on a contingency basis because I believed in the clients and I believed in the cause," he said. "That money is smartly spent and well-spent."

Further, he said, it isn't over.

He said it is likely he will appeal the jury's decision. It's difficult to understand how they could find that Richard Williams breached the contract and engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation yet they awarded no money to his clients, he said".

*JR*
Dec 22nd, 2006, 06:48 PM
What does that mean?:confused:
It means she's gotten out of shape again. You watch enough football to know how big the linemen's butts are. :tape:

Mother_Marjorie
Dec 22nd, 2006, 06:49 PM
It means she's gotten out of shape again. You watch enough football to know how big the linemen's butts are. :tape:

http://postpix.palmbeachpost.com/images/photos/100044/2006/11/17/gallery/1572642.jpg

Its kinda tough to tell from this pic. But I don't recall ever seeing Serena's face that much larger than Venus'.
Its only about three weeks from the Australian Open. I'm getting a feeling that Serena might not play.

Kart could be right. Perhaps the Impeachment of Richard and Serena Williams has taken its toll, more on Serena than Venus.

Denise4925
Dec 22nd, 2006, 06:52 PM
It means she's gotten out of shape again. You watch enough football to know how big the linemen's butts are. :tape:

Oh she's not out of shape again. She's always had a big butt, that's no secret. How does big butt equate with being out of shape and why compare her to a lineman? She's certainly not that big.:rolleyes: You just want to say something nasty.

Denise4925
Dec 22nd, 2006, 06:57 PM
http://postpix.palmbeachpost.com/images/photos/100044/2006/11/17/gallery/1572642.jpg

Its kinda tough to tell from this pic. But I don't recall ever seeing Serena's face that much larger than Venus'.
Its only about three weeks from the Australian Open. I'm getting a feeling that Serena might not play.

Kart could be right. Perhaps the Impeachment of Richard and Serena Williams has taken its toll, more on Serena than Venus.

OMG :rolleyes: Stop with all the negative speculation will you. Let's just wait and see when the AO rolls around next month. For all we know Justine may come down with a virus and and stomach ache and she may not play, or at the very least quit when she's losing.

Mother_Marjorie
Dec 22nd, 2006, 07:04 PM
OMG :rolleyes: Stop with all the negative speculation will you. Let's just wait and see when the AO rolls around next month. For all we know Justine may come down with a virus and and stomach ache and she may not play, or at the very least quit when she's losing.

Denise, how does the fact that Richard and Serena Williams publicly lied to a jury in a court of law, under oath, have anything to do with Justine Henin-Hardenne?

I always knew Venus was the innocent one.

Denise4925
Dec 22nd, 2006, 07:10 PM
Denise, how does the fact that Richard and Serena Williams publicly lied to a jury in a court of law, under oath, have anything to do with Justine Henin-Hardenne?

I didn't say it did, I'm just speculating on Justine, just as you were speculating on Serena. And, what does this trial have anything to do with whether or not they are fit and ready and able to play in the Australian Open? That's just :weirdo:

And don't get it twisted. If they "publicly lied" to a jury in a court of law, under oath, as you put it, they would have been charged with perjury, which they were not. It was the plaintiff's word against the defendants and if you knew anything about the justice system you would know that the burden of proof is the preponderance of the evidence. In this case, the jury felt that the scales of justice weighed more in favor of the plaintiffs, but not enough to give them any money. So, please don't blow shit out of proportion just to make the Williams look bad. Because, with Justine as a favorite, you have no room to be talking about any other tennis player on the circuit lying and cheating, as big a liar as Justine is. :rolleyes:

Mother_Marjorie
Dec 22nd, 2006, 07:20 PM
I didn't say it did, I'm just speculating on Justine, just as you were speculating on Serena.

And don't get it twisted. If they "publicly lied" to a jury in a court of law, under oath, as you put it, they would be charged with perjury, which they were not. It was the plaintiff's word against the defendants and if you knew anything about the justice system you would know that the burden of proof is the preponderance of the evidence. In this case, the jury felt that the scales of justice weighed more in favor of the plaintiffs, but not enough to give them any money. So, please don't blow shit out of proportion just to make the Williams look bad. Because, with Justine as a favorite, you have no room to be talking about any other tennis player on the circuit lying and cheating, as big a liar as Justine is. :rolleyes:

KARMA

http://www.tennis-x.com/vachblog/2006-12-21/26.php

December 21st, 2006

Williams Trial Concludes; ATP, WTA Under Fire

by Richard Vach

Williams Lie-A-Thon Approaches Finish Line

As you attend Christmas parties and do your last-minute shopping, the Williams Family Unhappy Christmas Special continues to be played out in a West Palm Beach, Florida court, with this week’s 11th-hour witness adding to the drama.

Lots of lying has gone on in the trial to determine whether poppa Richard Williams signed documentation committing Venus and Serena to a “Battle of the Sexes” exhibition — with the father of the Williams clan going so far as to say he cannot and does not act as his daughter’s manager, but has (get this) NEVER been their manager. Poppa Williams later in the trial testified that he had lied, after opposing lawyers produced video tape of him trying to close a deal on behalf of his daughters.

But earlier this week, after everything was supposed to be said and done, with the final arguments made and the decision to be made by the jury, the “11th-hour witness” emerged.

Leland Hardy, the William’s family’s long-time business advisor, had enough of “disturbing phone calls” from friends watching the trial on Court TV who took in the lie-fest, and hearing the Williams’ family defense that Richard was not “a significant figure in the creation of stardom for Venus and Serena Williams” — and he decided he had to take action.

“I was supremely, emotionally motivated by being maligned and slandered to look for these documents,” said Hardy as reported by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. Hardy dug to find a Feb. 9, 1999, document where Richard outlined the protocol for doing business with Venus and Serena.

“No one is to speak directly to the women and then only with their father’s permission, according to the document bearing the signatures of Richard Williams, Hardy and Hardy’s wife, who was also the family’s physician, according to Hardy,” reported the Sun-Sentinel. “The Hardys signed the document at Richard Williams’ request.

The document refers to Rule No. 117S425844 that strictly prohibits direct communication with the sisters. “In order words, for example: If you wanted to ask Venus the color of her beads, it must be approved by Richard Williams first,” the document reads. When asked by Richard Williams’ lawyer if the verbiage seemed like a “sick joke,” Hardy said the note’s tenor was in line with Williams’ “genius eccentricity.” “It’s hyperbolic and not out of the ordinary with some eccentricities [Williams] might have exhibited,” Hardy said.”[/B]
Rule No. 117S425844? That’s good stuff.

While the Williams’ defense team can try and pass Richard Williams’ megalomaniacal misgivings off as a “sick joke,” I’ll take the word of their long-time lawyer, especially when you hear terms such as “genius eccentricity,” which is code for “yeah, he is that nutty.”

This case doesn’t need a jury as much as it needs everyone in the courtroom hooked up to lie detectors. Are promoters Carol Clarke and Keith Rhodes lying when they say Richard Williams tricked them as representing his daughters and committing them to the exhibition — and about Richard Williams telling Clark he wanted to be a founder of her company, Women’s Sports Zone, and saying he never agreed to let them use the daughters name for marketing purposes, and vigorously denying he has ever managed his daughters’ careers?

Hardy also produced a number of other documents showing him signing off on other events involving the sisters. But Richard Williams insists such documents were signed on behalf of himself, appearing with Venus and Serena — or he says the signatures are simply not his.

“Someone has been fraudulent,” Williams told the jury.

Someone certainly has, now it’s up to the jury to decide who. The jury will undoubtedly focus solely on the case, and not take into consideration the culture of lying that has always surrounded the Williams clan. Or maybe just lying to oneself, then going about the arduous task of making the rest of the world believe it.

You can’t count the number of press conferences where one of the sisters denies being injured, or denies something that just happened in a match, or denies reality. Last January Serena showed up at the Australian Open exceedingly overweight, yet as the press danced around the question, she insisted she was in great shape.

Serena likes to make the party scene with Hollywood directors and NFL players in tow, yet tells London’s Daily Telegraph that as Jehovah’s Witnesses, “We don’t believe in dating unless you’re ready to get married. I’ve never dated anybody.”

Back in the day as the sisters were rising on the tennis scene and in the public eye, Richard Williams also saw himself as a celebrity, holding up signs for the television audience which watching their matches and making outrageous claims for the media.

“This was a man who just doesn’t distinguish between fact and fiction,” said an unidentified industry insider during a CNN special on the family. “And he’s buying Rockefeller Center for $3.9 billion. And he owns thousands of buses. And he has a seat on the Shanghai Stock Exchange. And I’m not sure if it’s sort of controversy, so much as it’s amusement.”

Back in the day if you called Richard Williams on any of his b.s., you were likely to see the race card.

“The only thing I had a tendency of saying what I believe in,” said Williams years ago. “And I noticed when Mohammed Ali said what he said, people said that guy’s crazy. When any black person come along in this country and say anything, he’s crazy. Well I tell the world today I’m not crazy. I tell you one thing, I have plenty of money though, but I’m not crazy.”

Controversy or amusement, the Williams trial verdict will show if there’s any difference between lying to the media, lying to promoters, and lying to the court. Hopefully Venus and Serena can put this and their injuries behind them and American women’s tennis enters next year without a Top 10 American for the first time in the history of the rankings.

EPILOGUE:
On Thursday the court found Richard Williams liable of acting as an agent, but doesn’t have to pay damages. The jury also cleared Venus Williams of all allegations, but said Serena Williams let her father act as an agent for her. Neither sister must pay damages. Guilty without penalty.

“The first thing I said to the jury is this case is about the sanctity of a contract. And the jury understood that,” said John Romano, the promoters’ attorney, according to the AP. “To say that I’m disappointed would be the understatement of the century.” Romano said he almost certainly will appeal.

Denise4925
Dec 22nd, 2006, 07:24 PM
A detractor's opinion. So what? :shrug: It means that same as yours. Zilche!

And, it still doesn't change the fact that Justine is one of the biggest liars and cheat on the tennis court. At least the WS don't have that reputation.

Mother_Marjorie
Dec 22nd, 2006, 07:34 PM
A detractor's opinion. So what? :shrug: It means that same as yours. Zilche!

And, it still doesn't change the fact that Justine is one of the biggest liars and cheat on the tennis court. At least the WS don't have that reputation.

Not until now. All those Court TV viewers....

Again, I just don't see where Justine forced anyone to lie, or has anything to do with the Williams trial.

I guess this will re-open the Indian Wells issue.

Perhaps not. ;)

Now don't start throwing one of your pouty-fits, Denise. Its all public record now. Nothing to "spin" or hide.

Pureracket
Dec 22nd, 2006, 08:17 PM
Not until now. All those Court TV viewers....

Again, I just don't see where Justine forced anyone to lie, or has anything to do with the Williams trial.

I guess this will re-open the Indian Wells issue.

Perhaps not. ;)

Now don't start throwing one of your pouty-fits, Denise. Its all public record now. Nothing to "spin" or hide.:yawn:

StarDuvallGrant
Dec 22nd, 2006, 08:35 PM
A detractor's opinion. So what? :shrug: It means that same as yours. Zilche!


:worship:

And now Serena and Venus can fully concentrate on the new season. Hoping Venus' wrist is better soon and I can't wait to see Serena!

RVD
Dec 22nd, 2006, 08:51 PM
What a relief! So glad this is over. :cool: :worship:
It was due time for something positive to happen for the ladies.

RVD
Dec 22nd, 2006, 08:58 PM
Not until now. All those Court TV viewers....

Again, I just don't see where Justine forced anyone to lie, or has anything to do with the Williams trial.

I guess this will re-open the Indian Wells issue.

Perhaps not. ;)

Now don't start throwing one of your pouty-fits, Denise. Its all public record now. Nothing to "spin" or hide.Ooooh brother. :rolleyes:

Vlover
Dec 22nd, 2006, 09:01 PM
KARMA

http://www.tennis-x.com/vachblog/2006-12-21/26.php

December 21st, 2006

Williams Trial Concludes; ATP, WTA Under Fire

by Richard Vach



[QUOTE]As you attend Christmas parties and do your last-minute shopping, the Williams Family Unhappy Christmas Special continues to be played out in a West Palm Beach, Florida court, ....

Who's more unhappy now?:lol: Obviously Williams served up another big disappointment to the vultures.:haha:

Pureracket
Dec 22nd, 2006, 09:13 PM
[quote=Swami_Marjorie;9667139]KARMA

http://www.tennis-x.com/vachblog/2006-12-21/26.php

December 21st, 2006

Williams Trial Concludes; ATP, WTA Under Fire

by Richard Vach





Who's more unhappy now?:lol: Obviously Williams served up another big disappointment to the vultures.:haha:I'd say so.:)

*JR*
Dec 22nd, 2006, 10:57 PM
Oh she's not out of shape again. She's always had a big butt, that's no secret. How does big butt equate with being out of shape and why compare her to a lineman? She's certainly not that big.:rolleyes: You just want to say something nasty.
Come on Denise, this pic shows a much "larger" Serena than the superb athlete who dominated in '02, and has 4 other Slams between the '99 USO and the '05 AO. Call telling the truth nasty if you want, but I doubt all the pics of her in the white pantsuit are photoshopped. (The Annaholics also tried to deny the truth early this year, though her weight problem was worse, and the opposite of Serena's).

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20061221/capt.wxs10912212233.williams_sisters_lawsuit_wxs10 9.jpg

Infiniti2001
Dec 22nd, 2006, 11:39 PM
As a matter of fact, the lawyer for Carol Clarke did mention that he might appeal. I saw a few months ago that Miss Clarke got a $10,000 advance from a company that give loans to people that are expecting settlements. She has a son that was sick and needed money to pay for his hospital bill. I think that she thought that the Williams family would settle the case and she would come out a winner anyway. As for the other plaintiff and their lawyers, here are their quotes.


"Rhodes said he has spent about $250,000, including on trips he took and phone calls he made preparing for trial. Clarke couldn't be reached for comment. Through Romano, she said she respected the jury's decision.

Romano said his law firm is out hundreds of thousands of dollars. But he said he doesn't regret taking the case.

"I took the case on a contingency basis because I believed in the clients and I believed in the cause," he said. "That money is smartly spent and well-spent."

Further, he said, it isn't over.

He said it is likely he will appeal the jury's decision. It's difficult to understand how they could find that Richard Williams breached the contract and engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation yet they awarded no money to his clients, he said".

These people are fools. I doubt they can win, and it's clear they expected the sisters to just toss them an easy couple of hundred :lol: