Hunt Can Be Sued By Lesnar For Defamation.

Under the Canadian Constitution Act of 1892:

The Queen has the executive power in Canada, but in our democratic society the Queen’s powers are exercised by constitutional convention on the advice of Ministers who enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons. Together, the Prime Minister and other Ministers form the cabinet, which is responsible to Parliament for government business. Ministers are also responsible for government departments, such as the Department of Finance and the Department of Justice. When we say “the government,” we are usually referring to the executive branch. Henceforth, WWE douchebags who knowingly cheat their way onto UFC200 shall not be able to sue, if said party, cannot even pass a fucking drug test with a "special exemption."

So no, no he can't.

This suit wouldn't be filed in Canada. I doubt Canada has jurisdiction over Hunt, and that's not where the damages would be demonstrated anyways. Given that the U.S. is the most likely audience for Hunt's statements, it would probably be filed somewhere here.

Regardless, this is a baseless suit. Completely and utterly unwinnable. It would get laughed out of court, and I wouldn't be surprised if whatever slimeball attorney took it got reprimanded by the bar.
 
Would be hilarious of Lesnar successfully sued, and took Hunts fight purse lol
post-31074-J-Jonah-Jameson-laughing-gif-S-NWLY.gif
 
yes. I'm pretty sure Brock doesn't have gills.
 
Yeah, and I assume you're going to be representing Lesnar in this case? Obviously you have your law degree, passed the bar and are well versed in tort law to be throwing around legal advice.
 
Whether he was or wasn't is aside from the point. Your point was that he could sue for defamation, I gave you the requirements for a successful defamation suit and Brock doesn't have enough to win. I also left out one important thing about that. The courts would look at the defendant's state of mind at the time he made the alleged defamatory comments....and Hunt seems batshit crazy about the fact that he couldn't deal with the jacked white boy so there's no way Brock could win.

And with the defamatory case, pretty sure it's not up to Hunt to prove Brock was on steroids, but up to Brock to prove that Hunt knew he wasn't on steroids and proceeded to make the comments anyway.

By the way, I'm not a lawyer, never took a law course, learned everything I know about defamation (libel/slander) from an Accounting course in college.

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. There is no minimum requirement for a lawsuit other than filing it. But you'll end up having to pay court fees, and if you file too many frivolous suits there's a good chance you'll end up being judged a vexatious litigant, at which point you'll need approval from a judge to file any more.

Also, the "state of mind" thing is not a defense, unless Hunt intends to declare that he was legally insane when he made the statements and have a licensed professional testify as to such. I don't think he wants to do that, not that he would hav to anyways.
 
Benefits from roids last for years.
Bork was on roids when they fought no matter what the fight-day test says. Fact.

no they dont.


its sad & pathetic none of you complete dumbasses even read that shitty study you all keep citing.
 
Except for the fact that Lesnar is a public figure and would need to prove that not only did Hunt know he wasn't on steroids but Hunt made those allegations with malice....Good luck with that, considering the drug Lesnar took is often used for Post Cycle recovery by steroid users and that Hunt seems like he's not bright enough to know the difference between an estrogen blocker and a steroid. He just knows Brock violated the USADA policy.

Brock's a positive tested jacked white boy now we all have to deal with it.
You're absolutely right. Lesnar being a public figure changes everything and would make a case like that much more difficult to win according to the law. Public figures, unfortunately for them, are basically allowed to be targets of statements and allegations that aren't true. It's one of the prices people pay for fame.
 
Yep he tested for estrogen blockers in an out of competition test, he was clean in the octagon. Lesnar should sue he would 100% win.
 
Yep he tested for estrogen blockers in an out of competition test, he was clean in the octagon. Lesnar should sue he would 100% win.

I want to think you believe this, just for humor's sake.

Lesnar failed an in-comp test by the way.
 
Anyone can sue anyone for anything. There is no minimum requirement for a lawsuit other than filing it. But you'll end up having to pay court fees, and if you file too many frivolous suits there's a good chance you'll end up being judged a vexatious litigant, at which point you'll need approval from a judge to file any more.

Also, the "state of mind" thing is not a defense, unless Hunt intends to declare that he was legally insane when he made the statements and have a licensed professional testify as to such. I don't think he wants to do that, not that he would hav to anyways.

True which is why I said "successful defamation suit" in that post and that Brock doesn't have enough to win that case.

Pretty sure he wouldn't need to be declared legally insane as the standard for malice is different in that it doesn't focus on what a "reasonable person" would believe or act in the situation. Hunt would be someone that felt that he suffered a tremendous loss at the hands of someone that was proven to be cheating and put in a situation where he was in physical danger by that individual. This is something that could lead one to be quite emotional without necessarily being insane and still would be a viable defense for his actions and thoughts.
 
I can't imagine the tweets that HUNT would make if Lesnar actually did this ...
* Freakin hilarious.....
 
True which is why I said "successful defamation suit" in that post and that Brock doesn't have enough to win that case.

Pretty sure he wouldn't need to be declared legally insane as the standard for malice is different in that it doesn't focus on what a "reasonable person" would believe or act in the situation. Hunt would be someone that felt that he suffered a tremendous loss at the hands of someone that was proven to be cheating and put in a situation where he was in physical danger by that individual. This is something that could lead one to be quite emotional without necessarily being insane and still would be a viable defense for his actions and thoughts.

For the malice element, sure. Not a defense for defamation in general though.
 
Brock took the same stuff Bones did n will be reversed too n Hunt will be eating crow
 
I doubt that Lesnar gives a single fuck.

It's already going away. People are becoming sick of Hunt.

Why draw more attention by suing ? Especially since he did pop for a banned substance. Let it die away.
 
Didn't Lesnar get popped before the fight happened it just wasn't released? Also defamation has a 1% winning rate. Fun fact though Jesse Ventura sued Chris Kyle's family and won. Dude got money from the family of a dead man through defamation.

He failed an out of competition test, he didn't get popped before the fight, though. The test sample he failed for was taken like 12 days before the fight happened.
 
Didn't Lesnar get popped before the fight happened it just wasn't released? Also defamation has a 1% winning rate. Fun fact though Jesse Ventura sued Chris Kyle's family and won. Dude got money from the family of a dead man through defamation.

As he should've. Chris Kyle was a pathological liar who was brazenly and clearly defaming Ventura. Don't worry about Kyle's family, either, I'm sure they're getting plenty of money from that ridiculous movie they made.

Another gem from Chris Kyle: he claimed that he and a buddy of his went on top of the Superdome during hurricane Katrina and were sniping looters. He also claimed that he killed two carjackers in a parking lot somewhere.
 
Back
Top