RonP- UMMM yummy, maybe next time we can try popping the corn in truffle oil...ummm

LMAO :D :D

MIKE--real smart--drag apba and yourself through the mud because of your ego--the ones who suffer won't be crouse--the sport and the fans/racers will suffer more--i'm sure alot of potential sponcers will be watching closely--their wallets that is--john

The shame of it is MA could have had it all. SBI was on the ropes, MA gave them life through his heavy handed handling of the Fountain, Robertson, Gilbreath deals. Add to this the controversies with the race sites, Sarasota, St. Pete etc. Now there is a law suit, which I am personally surprised is the first after all the innuendos and veiled threats to anyone that disagreed with him.

Now MA has to PROVE what Crouse said is wrong, and show he (MA) was right. Not an easy task.

Even many officers of APBA it's self are upset with him, but he has the contract. MA has even misses 5 board meetings in violation of the APBA by-laws this year. Why is he even on the board overseeing APBA if he can't take the time to join in a confrence call?

Even his new race sites look like a bust. I understand the insurance company will not cover the race in downtown Savannah. Hell the river's only about 800 feet wide there!
So is Savannah a go? Not unless he moves it offshore, about 5 miles away. So much for spectator friendly.

The concept MA and the APBA LLC came up with and worked for at the beginning was great. If done properly it could have been the next great motorsport,maybe.

My opinion is nothing good will come of this. Too bad for the sport.

Mr Offshore and Audio once again your thinking is correct this was not a well chosen battle for the APBA John C did his home work as usual Mitch

Here is a good source for Mr. Crouse or anyone wanting to know about libel or defamation: http://www.ldrc.com/

From that site listed above.
=======================

Libel and slander are legal claims for false statements of fact about a person that are printed, broadcast, spoken or otherwise communicated to others. Libel refers to statements in written or other permanent form, while slander refers to verbal statements and gestures. The term defamation encompasses both libel and slander.

In order for the person about whom a statement is made to recover for libel, the false statement must be defamatory, meaning that it actually harms the reputation of the other person, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive.

The defamatory statement must also have been made with fault. The extent of the fault depends primarily on the status of the plaintiff. Public figures, such as government officials, celebrities, well-known individuals, and people involved in specific public controversies, are required to prove actual malice, a legal term which means the defendant knew his statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statement. In general, private individuals must show only that the defendant was negligent, that he failed to act with due care in the situation.

A defamation claim will fail if any of these elements are not met.

The primary defenses to a defamation claim are that the statements are true, are statements of opinion or otherwise not statements of fact, or are privileged. Truth and opinion are complete defenses to a defamation claim. In addition, some defamatory statements may be protected by privilege, meaning that in certain circumstances the interest in communicating a statement outweighs the interest in protecting reputation. For example, many jurisdictions recognize a privilege for media reports of government and judicial proceedings, and for reports of misconduct to the proper authorities.

A successful defamation plaintiff may be entitled to a jury award of money damages. In some instances, the plaintiff may also be awarded punitive damages for particularly reprehensible conduct. The parties to the claim are entitled to appeal and cases are carefully scrutinized on review to protect the defendant’s First Amendment rights.

UHOH, you would think being a lawyer and all Mike A would have his ducks in a row...time will tell, this is better than the OJ trial

Intimidation ? Only my opinion, don't sue! :D

BG,

Why would you think MikeA does not have his ducks in a row?