Legal Analysis on Reed vs. Chamblee & The Golf Channel
After hearing the news that Patrick Reed sued The Golf Channel and Brandel Chamblee on August 16 with a 30 page petition in the Southern District of Texas Federal Court Case # 4:22-cv-02778, one would think that his lawsuit is based on no facts and a large portion of the media dismisses his causes of actions. But are his causes of actions justified? If you believe the mainstream media, your answer would be a very sound no. But what they don’t tell you is that every different cause of action has certain elements, that if proven, is how you win your case. Plus, another tool both sides have is discovery and in Reed’s discovery, to be obtained from the defendants (The Golf Channel and Chamblee) can definitely incriminate them.
First, let’s delve into Reed’s causes of actions. In essence there are eight
1.Defamation: Against Chamblee for acting together jointly, severally and individually with The Golf Channel to defame Reed.
2.Defamation by Implication: Against Chamblee for acting together jointly, severally and individually with The Golf Channel to defame Reed. Defamation by implication is an intentional tort in Texas. Implication under the letter of the law means where the existence of an intention is inferred from acts not done for the sole purpose of communicating that act, but for some other purpose. It seems apparent Chamblee had some other purpose.
3. Defamation Per Se: Against Chamblee for acting together jointly, severally and individually with The Golf Channel to defame Reed. The difference here is that Texas defines defamation per se as words that “are so obviously harmful to the person aggrieved, that no proof of their injurious effect is necessary to make them actionable.” Alainz v. Hoyt, 105 S.W.3d 330, 345 (Tex. App. 2003). If this cause of action prevails, Reed does not need to prove his damages or injuries.
4. Civil Conspiracy: Against Chamblee. Both The Golf Channel and Chamblee (Defendants) acting together in concert, along with the PGA Tour, have agreed to and in fact sought to eliminate Mr. Reed, LIV, and other golfers signed to LIV as competitors by maliciously defaming them and smearing their reputations.
Causes of actions 5-6-7 & 8 essential name The Golf Channel in the same aforementioned 1 through 4 causes of action.
Defamation Per Se and Defamation of Implication with the elements being somewhat different in all of the defamation causes of action which fall under tort leaves a lot of subjectivity to the judge or a jury. It’s no secret that Chamblee has been riding high on his broadcasting horse for several years, making derogatory remarks about many players and recently, his criticism of LIV Golf and many players has been elevated. Recently he said that Phil Mickelson and Greg Norman should be removed from the Golf Hall of Fame. Does this rise to defamation? Probably not, but in Reed’s case he claims that he was damaged professionally, in a business manner, individually and his reputation. He is also asking for actual damages, compensatory damages and punitive damages and given the causes of action Chamblee and The Golf Channel could be held liable. With the above damages plead the shy is the limit with a Reed victory.
Keep in mind, when Chamblee is reporting on The Golf Channel, everything he says that can be construed as defamatory can create a cause of action against him and against The Golf Channel. The key word here is joint tortfeasors, which Reed is claiming The Golf Channel and Chamblee have been working in concert with the PGA, the PGA heads and the DP Tour to defame him, LIV Golf and other LIV Golf players.
The primary premise in the facts of the suit indicate that Chamblee and The Golf Channel have been working as agents of the PGA, Monahan, the DP Tour and the OWGR or the Official World Golf Ranking Board. Here is the statement in the lawsuit concerning the OWGR: “The Official World Golf Ranking board (“OWGR”), which in conjunction with Defendants has conspired to restrain trade on behalf of the PGA Tour and DP World Tour, was put the question in 2015 if the OWGR was biased, after three years of the PGA Tour and DP World Tour fighting not to change the system. As a result, a new system was conjured up and rolled out the week of August 14, 2022, by creating a world ranking system that depletes the amount of DP World Tour points by 33 percent and Asian Tour Official World Ranking points awarded (OWGR) by 66%. Yet the PGA Tour doesn’t even stand to lose one percent in the new OWGR system, making itself the most powerful tour and thus weakening every other tour. Jay Monahan sits on the board of the OWGR (which is a major conflict of interest) and has voting rights on decisions for OWGR to award world ranking points. The LIV Golf Tour lacks the ability to award OWGR points to their players. These OWGR points effectively determine which players qualify for major and world golf championships, for those players not otherwise exempt. Thus, the PGA Tour’s effective ability to earn and award OWGR points to it’s players would be significantly impacted if LIV players received the points they should be awarded by a fair, unbiased panel. Because if LIV players did receive the points they should earn for their strength of field, it would reduce the PGA Tour’s and DP World Tour’s competitive advantage, monopoly power and monopoly over professional golf.”
The lawsuit facts are extensive and lay out material statements by Chamblee again and again over the years, where his opinions very much appear to be elevated to an agenda, but do they raise to the level of defamation? Tee Box Times believe they do.
The first cause of action is General (Defamation). On a legal level the following elements of each cause of action must be proven to be successful in court and remember it is not beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the burden in criminal law. A reasonable doubt construes that you are 100% positive. In civil court the burden is by a preponderance of the evidence and that means that you as a judge or jury only feel that it is more true than it is false after reviewing all the evidence and testimony. The elements in Defamation are the defendant (1) published a false statement; (2) about another person; and (4) the falsity of the statement caused injury to the other person. It is usually easy to show in court that a statement is false (if it is indeed false), if it has been plead and that it was about another of person, but it is always a tougher burden to prove that an injury was caused. It is our opinion that Reed can prove all of these elements, because given the fact that Reed has lost potential contracts and has endured other injuries such as ridicule, hatred and other derogatory and financial losses pertaining to his business and personal life that can potentially be directly connected to the defendant’s acts.
Another cause of action, Defamation by Implication is a little different. Case law in Texas is very clear on this tort. A plaintiff can bring a claim for defamation when discrete facts, literally or substantially true, are published in such a way that they create a substantially false and defamatory impression by omitting material facts or juxtaposing facts in a misleading way. Turner v. KTRK Television, Inc., 38 S.W.3d 103, 115 (Tex. 2000). This case law is a supreme court case and is very clear. It is also clear that statements by Chamblee like “ So if they’re aligning themselves with a tyrannical, murderous leader… look if you if you look at who MBS is… centralizing power, committing all these atrocities, you look at what he’s doing to the citizens of his… of his country ask yourself I mean would you have played for Stalin would you have played for Hitler would you have played for Mao would you play for Pol Pot,” [Froggy] “would you have played for Putin?” [Chamblee in agreement] “would you have played for Putin… which… and this who this guy is. He settles disputes with bonesaws.” This is just one of many statements that Chamblee made publicly.
Another cause of action is Defamation Per Se. Texas case law defines defamation per se as words that “are so obviously harmful to the person aggrieved, that no proof of their injurious effect is necessary to make them actionable.” Alainz v. Hoyt, 105 S.W.3d 330, 345 (Tex. App. 2003). Chamblee definitely knew or had reason to believe that his statements were false and/or misleading. Furthermore, they were malicious and Reed claims that they caused him irreparable harm individually and to his trade and profession as a professional golfer. In essence, in this type of defamation, if Chamblee’s and The Golf Channel’s remarks or publications rise to this level, Reed need not have to prove injury. On the surface, it appears that Reed can win on this cause of action.
The other interesting cause of action on Reed’s original petition is Civil Conspiracy. If proven and we believe it can be proven by Reed, the PGA and its heads could be in for a serious ride and open the door to numerous other lawsuits from other LIV players and who knows, a massive lawsuit against the PGA by LIV Golf itself or even a huge class action lawsuit. Again, depending on Chamblee’s and The Golf Channel’s response, this cause of action could open the door to some serious and derogatory discovery if it reflects certain correspondence between the PGA, Monahan, OWRG, the DP Tour and any other higher ups of those entities with The Golf Channel and/or Chamblee. The questions are, did the PGA Tour act in concert with the defendant’s Chamblee and The Golf Channel to eliminate Reed and other players from signing or playing with LIV Golf? Did the defendants have a meeting of the minds with the PGA, Monahan or others on a plan to eliminate Reed and other players from the LIV Tour? Did the defendants take overt steps to eliminate Reed and other LIV players by maliciously defaming them and smearing their reputations in golf and personally?
It is apparent that the PGA has been working in concert with media outlets to maliciously damage and defame LIV Golf and LIV players. It’s hard to dispute that fact with the evidence that is public knowledge. Tee Box Times believes that Reeds causes of actions are only going to be strengthened to Reed’s advantage as discovery proceeds, whether it be production of documents, admissions, interrogatories or after depositions take place. Remember, discovery gives both sides of a lawsuit the ability to ask for information from the opposing party. In production a party can ask for anything from documents and memos to phone records and bank accounts. In interrogatories a party has a certain amount of questions to ask the other party for proof on claims or information that can prove other elements of their lawsuit. Admissions are the most interesting, because a party asks the other party direct questions, in which the other party has to either admit or deny. Parties can object to discovery, but then the party who originally asked for the discovery can file a motion to compel, in which the judge can make the other party answer.
In conclusion, one must keep in mind that a judge can decide anything on any given day and that our legal system has become very political, at all levels, therefore it all depends on who the judge is and what his leanings are. It’s sad to have to say that in America, but having a strong legal background, I know it to be true in all courts. Upon reviewing the petition several times, we can report that it is very likely that this is only the beginning and if a conspiracy is established by certain discovery, the PGA, Monahan, the DP tour and any other individuals who had involvement in trying to destroy players and LIV Golf could be named in numerous future lawsuits concerning the civil conspiracy.
Hold on, this may get interesting.
Photo, Video & Media Credit: All photos herein are the property of LIV Golf and the Tee Box Times and were published by the Tee Box Times with their permission and consent. All content herein, other than property published by permission stated, is the property of teeboxtimes.com and any reproduction, other than normal social media sharing, is strictly prohibited. Copyright ©, teeboxtimes.com. For reprint permission contact us a rick@groupduncan.com
