Thursday, March 31, 2011

Hot97 Street Soldiers with FOX 5 New York's Lisa Evers on Mixed Martial Arts

Here is the audio from the Hot 97 Street Soldiers with FOX 5 New York's Lisa Evers roundtable discussion about Mixed Martial Arts in New York. The roundtable took place on March 27, 2011.

As I noted in my earlier post, the panelists included:  The Fight Lawyer, Assemblyman Bob Reilly (the voice of the opposition to MMA in New York), Renzo Gracie (world-renown practitioner of Brazilian jiu jitsu and MMA and gym owner in New York), Ryan LaFlare (professional mixed martial artist and New Yorker), an underground fighter in New York, and Bloodstain Lane (hardcore mixed martial arts fan from New York).

There are two parts--the first includes, inter alia, Assemblyman Bob Reilly where I challenge him on his positions and the second includes, inter alia, Renzo Gracie.

Enjoy.

Part I

Part II

Update:

You can now play the audio here:



Fight Lawyer

Monday, March 28, 2011

MMA Legalization Segment on "Brooklyn Review" Tonight

There will be a segment on Brooklyn Independent Television's "Brooklyn Review" tonight re the legalization of MMA in New York.  I was interviewed for the segment, so I may be a part of it.

The episode premieres at 9pm in Brooklyn on Time Warner Cable 56, Cablevision 69, and in all five boroughs, on Verizon FIOS 44.

It will also stream live:  go to www.bricartsmedia.org/bcat and launch Channel Three.

I will post the video here once available.

Fight Lawyer

Chael Sonnen Sentencing Postponed Until April 8, 2011

Following up on my post, Chael Sonnen Guilty Plea, I checked the docket and it appears that the Court adjourned Sonnen's sentencing hearing from March 28, 2011 (i.e. today) to April 8, 2011.

As you may recall from my earlier post, here are some of the allegations from the Superseding Information:
On or about June 20, 2006, in the District of Oregon, CHAEL PATRICK SONNEN, defendant herein, did knowingly conduct and attempt to conduct a financial transaction affecting interstate commerce, to wit, he caused a check in the amount of $69,091.53 to be issued and negotiated from a bank account at U.S. Bank, which involved the proceeds of a specified unlawful activity, that is wire fraud. Defendant further knew that the financial transaction was designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the ownership and control of the proceeds of wire fraud, to wit, defendant and others devised and intended to devise a material scheme and artifice to defraud Decision One Mortgage, and to obtain money and property from Decision One Mortgage by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, and that while conducting and attempting to conduct such financial transaction, defendant knew that the property involved in the financial transaction represented the proceeds of the unlawful activity, wire fraud.
In his Petition to Enter Plea of Guilty, Sonnen "represent[ed] that [he] did the following acts and that the following facts are true:"
On or about June 20, 2006, in the District of Oregon, I knowingly caused a check to be issued by USNB in the amount of $69,091.53 to Crown Plumbing from the mortgage loan proceeds at the closing of the [] sale of 11249 S.E. Rolling Hills. I knew that these funds would not be paid to Crown Plumbing, but kicked back to the buyer, []. The purpose of this transaction was to further a scheme to defraud Decision One Mortgage by representing that these funds paid for repairs on the residence.
In the Petition, Sonnen pled guilty to the following elements of the charge alleged against him:
(1) Defendant conducted a financial transaction involving property that represented the proceeds of wire fraud; (2) defendant knew that the property represented the proceeds of wire fraud; and (3) defendant knew that the transaction was designed in whole or in part to disguise the ownership and control of the proceeds of wire fraud. I have had a full and adequate opportunity to disclose to my attorney all facts known to me that relate to my case. I understand that the Court may ask whether I am satisfied with the advice I have received from my attorney.
The Petition also stated as follows:
I am not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. I am not suffering from any injury, illness or disability affecting my thinking or my ability to reason except as follows:  None. I have not taken any drugs or medications within the past seven (7) days except as follows: Testosterone and Ambien
In addition, in the Petition Sonnen indicated that he understood the maximum possible sentence:
I know the maximum sentence which can be imposed upon me for the crime to which I am pleading guilty is twenty years imprisonment and a fine of $500,000.  I also know there is a mandatory minimum sentence of 0 years imprisonment.
The Plea Agreement between Sonnen and the Government provides as follows:
The Parties agree and will recommend that defendant serve a two (2) year probationary sentence and pay a fine of $10,000. Defendant also agrees and understands that as a condition of this recommendation, defendant will take all necessary steps to administratively forfeit his license in the state of Oregon and any other state in which defendant is currently licensed to engage in the sale and purchase of real estate by the time of his sentencing. Failure to do so is a breach of this agreement. The parties agree that a term of probation along with the other terms outlined in this agreement meet the criteria of 18 U. S.C. §3553 because it adequately protects the public from defendant, who is unlikely to engage in further criminal conduct, it promotes respect for the law and it provides for just punishment as defendant is giving up his livelihood and accepting a felony record. Moreover, the sentence and terms of this agreement promote general deterrence as well.
I will continue to monitor.

Fight Lawyer

Saturday, March 26, 2011

I will be on Hot 97 Tomorrow Talking MMA in New York Opposite Assemblyman Bob Reilly

I will be on Hot 97 Street Soldiers with FOX 5 New York's Lisa Evers tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. ET for a roundtable discussion about Mixed Martial Arts in New York. 

Also on the panel:  Assemblyman Bob Reilly (the voice of the opposition to MMA in New York), Renzo Gracie (world-renown practitioner of Brazilian jiu jitsu and MMA and gym owner in New York), Ryan LaFlare (professional mixed martial artist and New Yorker), an underground fighter in New York, and Bloodstain Lane (hardcore mixed martial arts fan from New York).

The show airs on the radio (Hot 97) from 9-10 a.m on Sunday and is available at that time via stream on the Internet as well.  In case you miss it, I will post a link to the podcast.

I do hope you tune in for what should be an educational discussion. 

Enjoy the fights tonight.

Fight Lawyer

My UFC Fight Night 24 Predictions

Here are my picks for tonight's UFC fights via Tapology.  I went back and forth on the Nogueira fight and the Hardy fight--but here is where I ended up (note, for some reason the embed list below still reflects Davis, but I am actually going with Nogueira via decision):

My UFC UFN 24 Predictions

Fight Lawyer

Monday, March 21, 2011

Reports of Three-Way Deal to Maintain the Salary of the New York State Athletic Commission Chair

I just received news via Twitter from Ray Krueger of the New York Times that there is a deal up in Albany to maintain Melvina Lathan's salary.

Specifically, Ray Krueger's tweet provided as follows:
Assembly budget committee member Bing says there is a three-way deal to restore the salary of the NYS Athletic Commission chair.
As you may recall from an earlier post, Governor Cuomo had proposed eliminating the New York State Athletic Commission Chair's salary as part of his Executive Budget.  I posted here why I thought this was a big mistake for combat sports generally and for MMA in New York if it is to be legalized.

The Assembly proposed budget accepted the elimination of the NYSAC Chair's salary and the Senate proposed budget maintained the salary.

I have not received any separate confirmation on the news from Ray Krueger, but, assuming it is true, it is welcome news and a very good development.

Fight Lawyer

Pacquiao Lawsuit Against Mayweather, Golden Boy et al. Survives Motion to Dismiss

As I predicted, on March 18, 2011, Judge Larry Hicks of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada entered an Order Denying Defendants' motions to dismiss Pacquiao's defamation claim in his action against Floyd Mayweather Jr., Floyd Mayweather Sr., Roger Mayweather, Mayweather Promotions, LLC, Richard Schaefer, and Oscar De La Hoya. 

I have covered this lawsuit in great depth--here is a link with a number of articles I have written on the issue.

In his decision, Judge Hicks first outlined the standard on a motion to dismiss and then held that Pacquiao had sufficiently stated a cause of action for defamation based upon the alleged statements at issue and had sufficiently alleged actual malice (he is a public figure).

With respect to the statements at issue, the Court held as follows:
The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter, as well as the arguments made by counsel at the March 3, 2011 motion hearing, and finds that defendants’ alleged statements are actionable defamatory statements because they falsely assert an objective fact; namely, that Pacquiao was using and had used PEDs. First, the court finds that a reasonable listener would understand and interpret the moving defendants’ statements to imply that Pacquiao has used and is using PEDs. See e.g., Doc. #13, ¶36 (defendant de la Hoya’s statement comparing Pacquiao’s punches as similar to other fighters who have taken PEDs); Doc. #13, ¶30 (defendant Mayweather, Jr.’s statement that Pacquiao’s physical development is a result of the Phillippines [sic] having access to the best performance enhancing drugs). Further, the court finds that the alleged statements are presupposed facts not available to a reasonable listener but that a reasonable listener would assume implied actual knowledge of the statement’s truth. See e.g., Doc. #13, ¶29 (defendant Schaefer’s statement that he “was sure” that Pacquiao uses PEDs); Doc. #13, ¶42 (defendant Mayweather, Jr.’s statement that Pacquiao has “the power pellets, yo, the steroid juice.”). “Any statement which presupposes defamatory facts unknown to the interpreter is defamatory.” Gordon, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 51863, *11. Therefore, taking all of the allegations in the amended complaint as true, the court finds Pacquiao has sufficiently alleged a cause of action for defamation per se against moving defendants.
Next the Court held that Pacquiao had sufficiently alleged actual malice, i.e “knowledge of the falsity of a statement or a reckless disregard for its truth.” 

As you can see from my earlier posts, I do not necessarily agree that all of the statements were actionable, i.e. I believed certain statements were more likely protected opinion.  That said, I agree with the Court that some of the statements, including the two quoted above, were actionable.

Fight Lawyer

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Donaire's Declaratory Judgment Action Against Top Rank

On March 17, 2011, Nonito Donaire filed a complaint against Top Rank in Clark County District Court seeking a declaratory judgment that, inter alia: "(1) Top Rank breached the Promotional Rights Agreement by failing to perform its obligations under the Minimum Bouts Provisions; and (2) as a result of Top Rank's [alleged] breaches, Donaire effectively terminated the Promotional Rights Agreement on March 4, 2011, and owes Top Rank no further obligations under the same."

That Donaire and Top Rank are engaged in litigation is not surprising given that Golden Boy announced last week that it had signed Donaire to a multi-year agreement.

As Dan Rafael wrote over at ESPN:
The ongoing battle between rival promotional companies Golden Boy and Top Rank was ratcheted up on Wednesday when Oscar De La Hoya's company announced that it signed unified bantamweight titlist Nonito Donaire to an "exclusive, multiyear agreement" and away from Bob Arum's Top Rank.

'Nonito Donaire is one of the top boxers in the world today and we're going to make sure he gets the chance to defend his world titles and stays as active as possible,' De La Hoya said in a statement. 'The bantamweight division is becoming one of the most competitive and exciting divisions in boxing and we look forward to promoting Nonito in great fights in the coming years.'
In his complaint, Donaire alleges that Top Rank failed to provide the minimum number of bouts under the promotional agreement and that he was within his rights to terminate the agreement due to this alleged breach.

Donaire filed the complaint seeking a declaratory judgment because he wants a court to adjudicate whether he was within his rights to terminate the agreement.

Fight Lawyer

Saturday, March 19, 2011

New York Times Article About MMA in New York

Check out the article in the New York Times by Ray Krueger, A Debate Rages On in Words, Not Punches, about the legalization of MMA in New York. 

In case you were wondering, Ray is not related to New York Senator Liz Krueger.

Looking forward to the fights tonight.

Fight Lawyer

UFC 128 Fight Predictions

I went with Rua largely because he has been there, i.e. the experience factor, and I was influenced by Jones' apparent overtraining sickness presented on the Spike special on Jones on Thursday night.

It is possible, of course, that Jones was faking sickness on the Spike show to plant a seed with Rua, e.g. Pacquiao training camp "issues" documented on HBO 24/7 prior to his fight with Margarito (and Cotto for that matter) that clearly either didn't exist or amazingly had no effect on Pacman's performance come fight night, but I don't think Jones has the brilliance of someone like Arum behind him necessary to pull that off.

Without further ado, my predictions for tonight's fights via Tapology:

My UFC 128 Predictions


Fight Lawyer

Friday, March 18, 2011

Zuffa v. Bellator/Pavia Litigation: Bellator Asserts Claim Against Julian Gregorio for Defamation & Some Theory of Misappropriation Based on Alleged Leak to Zuffa

Following up on my coverage of Zuffa's lawsuit against Bellator and Pavia -- -- a post with earlier links is here and here is my most recent post on the Court's denial of Bellator's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction -- on March 17, 2011, Bellator filed its answer to Zuffa's complaint and asserted a third-party claim, i.e. a claim against a non-party, against Julian Gregorio who is allegedly a citizen of the State of California and allegedly may have been a former employee of MMA Associates, of which Ken Pavia is the alleged "Principal."

At the outset, in its third-party complaint Bellator describes why its CEO, Bjorn Rebney, "requested from Pavia certain documents used by the UFC in connection with fighters." 

Specifically, Bellator alleges as follows:
In the summer of 2010 Bjorn Rebney determined to review the sufficiency of documents used by Bellator.  As part of that process he requested from Pavia certain documents used by the UFC in connection with fighters. At no time did Rebney request any document anticipated to contain trade secrets or information proprietary to Zuffa, LLC. Mr. Pavia requested confidentiality due to, as he put it, fear of retaliation by Zuffa for cooperating with Bellator. In any case, communications between the parties would be presumptively confidential.  Zuffa has a reputation for ruthlessly attempting to block competitors in the MMA field.
(emphasis added).

Bellator next alleges that Pavia did send the documents but that it never used the documents:
Pavia did, on a confidential basis, send certain documents to Bellator. However, those documents were not confidential and contained no proprietary information belonging to Zuffa.  The documents in question were sent on a confidential basis but were not confidential documents.  The format of the documents in question was changed from a PDF format to a Word format, but no Bellator representative substantively reviewed those documents as of the time of filing of the Complaint to which this Third Party Complaint is directed.  The documents supplied by MMA Associates were never utilized by Bellator in any way and in fact were not substantively reviewed by Bellator’s staff or by Mr. Rebney.
With respect to Mr. Gregorio, Bellator alleges (upon information and belief) that he was an employee of MMA Associates and that he allegedly "took privileged communications between the CEO of Bellator and the President of MMA Associates and, with the knowledge that he was not entitled to do so, transmitted same to representatives of Zuffa, LLC." 

Further, Bellator alleges upon information and belief that:
Gregorio informed representatives of Zuffa that Pavia and Bellator were conspiring to misappropriate Zuffa’s confidential information when this was untrue. This information was given either with knowing falsity or with reckless disregard of the truth.  Gregorio informed representatives of Zuffa that Bellator misappropriated trade secrets of Zuffa. This information was false and was either known to be false by Gregorio or was given in reckless disregard of the truth.
Bellator asserts claims against Gregorio for defamation and some theory of alleged violation of Bellator's right to privacy and confidentiality.

Quite frankly, I don't understand the second claim -- perhaps it is something specific to California or Nevada (or maybe Bellator is asserting a claim for misappropriation), but it is not really spelled out.  

With respect to confidentiality, the apparent (to me at least) alleged basis for some kind of confidentiality or privilege is that "Bjorn Rebney, the CEO of Bellator, is an attorney-at-law[,] Ken Pavia, the principal of MMA Associates, is a law school graduate and, at the time of the matter complained of, was believed in good faith by Rebney to be an attorney-at-law[,] and MMA Agents has on its staff at least one attorney-at-law."There is, of course, an attorney client privilege, but I don't see how it attaches under these alleged facts.  Certainly no explanation is provided. 

Even so, I don't understand why any communication between Rebney and Pavia would be privileged just because both went to law school.
 
While I know nothing about the third-party defendant, if he is in fact a resident of California (as alleged) my prediction is that we may see another jurisdictional motion.

Fight Lawyer  

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

More Good News: Senate Bill to Legalize MMA in New York Passes Overwhelmingly out of Tourism Committee

Following up on my post, Bill to Legalize MMA in New York Out of the Gate Early in the Senate, I am happy to report that  New York Senate Bill 1707A, i.e. the bill to authorize mixed martial arts in New York, overwhelmingly passed the Senate Standing Committee on Cultural Affairs, Tourism, Parks and Recreation, by a vote of 13-1 this morning. 

If last year is any indication, the bill will now go straight to the full Senate for a vote.   

The overwhelming support for the bill is a good sign and so is the fact that the bill is through the Tourism Committee this early in the legislative session, i.e. approximately three (3) months before the bill was referred out of the Tourism Committee last year.

As I said in my earlier post:
While I hesitate to read too much into anything when it comes to New York politics, in my view, the early action on the bill in the Senate (in particular, before the budget process has been resolved) is a step in the right direction.
By the time the bill passed the Senate last year it was near the end of the legislative session, which did not give proponents of legalizing MMA in the Assembly too much time to use that leverage and publicity to work on pushing the bill in the Assembly.

Now, however, if the Senate can pass the bill in April or even early-May, there will be more time to force the issue in the Assembly.

If this happens, I think the New York grassroots movement can be a critical force by getting the issue on the radar of representatives (who are not otherwise sponsors of the bill or aware of the issue) up in Albany.
UPDATE:

Here is the video from the Committee hearing where Dana White presented--starts at 2:37.



I will continue to monitor.

Fight Lawyer

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Statements in Court Filing re Competition in MMA No Longer Relevant Given Zuffa Acquisition of Strikeforce

On March 10, 2011, defendants in the Affliction M-1/Fedor litigation filed their opposition to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for an Order to File Certain Documents and Portions of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Under Seal.  According to the filing in connection with the application, the documents to be filed under seal included certain documents produced by Zuffa in the litigation. 

That Zuffa produced documents in connection with the litigation should not be a surprise if you have been following my coverage of the case because as you may recall from an earlier post, the deposition of Zuffa, LLC by its "30(b)(6) designees Dana White and Lawrence Epstein" had occurred.  Generally, in connection with a third-party subpoena, a party to a litigation seeks documents and a subpoena from a non-party. 

In connection with defendants filing on March 10, they argued why disclosure of the Zuffa documents would be detrimental. 

Specifically, defendants' memorandum of law provides, inter alia, as follows:
However, importantly, this cannot extend to documents and testimony relating to Zuffa. Zuffa agreed to produce documents and provide testimony pursuant to subpoena on the condition that they would be designated as confidential. This information . . . is crucial to Zuffa's domination is the industry. Disclosure of this information would clearly threaten their [sic] economic position in the industry and strictly benefit only M-l and Strikeforce. . . . Strikeforce would enjoy nothing more than obtaining Zuffa's confidential and proprietary information for gaining an (unfair) advantage in this highly competitive industry.
(emphasis added)

Given that Zuffa has now acquired Strikeforce, the concern of unfair advantage "in this highly competitive industry" -- at least as it relates to Strikeforce -- is obviously minimized.

The Court denied plaintiffs' application and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is scheduled to be filed tomorrow.

I will continue to monitor.

Fight Lawyer

Friday, March 11, 2011

Bill to Legalize MMA in New York Out of the Gate Early in the Senate

I am happy to report that New York Senate Bill 1707A, i.e. the bill to authorize mixed martial arts in New York, is off to an early start in the Senate Standing Committee on Cultural Affairs, Tourism, Parks and Recreation. 

Specifically, the bill is on the Tourism Committee Agenda for next week.

As you may recall from earlier posts, the bill is sponsored by District 47 Senator, Joseph A. Griffo, of Utica New York and originates in the Tourism Committee. 

Last year, although the bill passed the full Senate in mid-June, it was not debated and referred, i.e. passed, out of the Tourism Committee until June--near the end of the legislative session.

For a discussion on what happens after the bill passes the Senate, see this post.  Essentially, because there is a virtually identical bill that has been introduced in the Assembly, that bill must follow its committee progression (similar to the Senate bill) and ultimately pass the full Assembly before the joint bill would go to the Governor for signature.

The Assembly, of course, was the sticking point last year.  The bill was referred out of the Tourism Committee (of which Assemblyman Reilly is a member), the Codes Committee, and ultimately hit a wall in the Ways and Means Committee where no action was taken.

While I hesitate to read too much into anything when it comes to New York politics, in my view, the early action on the bill in the Senate (in particular, before the budget process has been resolved) is a step in the right direction.    

By the time the bill passed the Senate last year it was near the end of the legislative session, which did not give proponents of legalizing MMA in the Assembly too much time to use that leverage and publicity to work on pushing the bill in the Assembly.

Now, however, if the Senate can pass the bill in April or even early-May, there will be more time to force the issue in the Assembly. 

If this happens, I think the New York grassroots movement can be a critical force by getting the issue on the radar of representatives (who are not otherwise sponsors of the bill or aware of the issue) up in Albany.

I will continue to monitor.

Fight Lawyer

Monday, March 7, 2011

Court Hears Oral Argument on Motions to Dismiss in Pacquiao Mayweather Litigation

On March 3, 2011, Judge Larry R. Hicks of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada heard oral argument on Richard Schaefer and Oscar De la Hoya's motion to dismiss Pacquiao's complaint and Mayweather Promotions, LLC's motion to dismiss. 

After hearing argument, the Court took the motions under advisement except it denied the "Anti Slapp" portion of defendants Schaefer and De la Hoya's Motion to Dismiss.

Specifically, the Court's Minute Entry provides in relevant part as follows:
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - IT IS ORDERED that the Anti Slapp portion of defendants Schaefer and De la Hoya's Motion to Dismiss 15 is DENIED. The Court addresses counsel. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the remainder of defendant's motion 15 and defendant's motion 49 stands submitted. Court adjourns. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DBN) (Entered: 03/04/2011)
I will keep monitoring for a decision.  In the meantime, here is a post where I provide earlier links to my legal analysis on the motions.

Fight Lawyer

Saturday, March 5, 2011

Tonight's Fight Predictions

Here are my fight predictions for both Bellator and Strikeforce tonight courtesy of Tapology

I could see the Henderson fight going either way and am also not really sure about the Kennedy Manhoef fight--just have a feeling Manhoef gets the KO early. 

My Strikeforce Predictions

My Bellator 35 Predictions

Fight Lawyer

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Zuffa Gets Some Help From The Government in its Piracy Battle

In my earlier article, Zuffa’s Piracy Fight– Winning The Battle, But Can It Win The War?, I described Zuffa's multi-pronged attack against the piracy of its intellectual property.

In that article, after addressing the different prongs of the attack, I concluded as follows:
Despite all of its successes outlined above, it is important to remember that shutting down infringing streaming sites around the world is like the old game of “whac-a-mole,” i.e. just as quickly as you shut down one site, another site pops up and so on. Further, while Zuffa continues to file after the fact lawsuits against bar owners for publishing unauthorized broadcasts of UFC events, the problem is obviously continuing as is evidenced by the sheer number of lawsuits Zuffa is filing each month.
There is, of course, a deterrent effect – perhaps a website operator will be less likely to illegally stream a ppv (or a bar owner will be less likely to illegally publish a broadcast in its bar) knowing that it may be sued down the road, but clearly the deterrent effect alone will not completely curb the problem.

Further, the international nature of some of the streaming sites would, I imagine, make it even more difficult to obtain effective relief in the US courts.
Today Zuffa received some assistance in its battle from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York--assistance that will undoubtedly add to the deterrent effect mentioned above.

Specifically, according to a press release issued by the USAO today:
PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and JAMES T. HAYES, JR., the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Office of Homeland Security Investigations ("HSI"), announced the arrest today of BRIAN McCARTHY for criminal copyright infringement. McCARTHY illegally streamed live, copyrighted sporting event telecasts, Pay-Per-View events, and other television programming through Channelsurfing.net, a website he operated. Through advertising revenue he obtained for the website, McCARTHY made well over $90,000, in proceeds from the crime. The arrest follows the February 1, 2011, seizure of that website’s domain name, pursuant to a seizure warrant issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge FRANK MAAS in the Southern District of New York.
UFC events were among those allegedly streamed at Channelsurfing.net:

Indeed, as set forth in the press release:
According to the Complaint unsealed today in Manhattan Federal Court, and the Seizure Affidavit through which the "Channelsurfing.net" domain name was seized:
"Until it was seized by law enforcement on February 1, 2011, Channelsurfing.net provided access to illegal, pirated telecasts of sporting events of the National Football League ("NFL"), the National Basketball Association ("NBA"), the National Hockey League ("NHL"), World Wrestling Entertainment ("WWE"), and the Ultimate Fighting Championship ("UFC") –- all of which hold the copyrights to the televised broadcasts of their respective sporting events."
According to the press release, "McCARTHY, 32, of Deer Park, Texas, is charged with one count of criminal infringement of a copyright. If convicted, he faces a maximum of five years in prison." 

The press release concludes by stating that "[t]he charge contained in the Complaint is merely an accusation, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty."

The website has been taken down -- indeed, if you attempt to go to the URL, a government seizure notice comes up.

Fight Lawyer

My Predictions for UFC on Versus 3

Here are my picks for tonight's fights courtesy of Tapology:

My UFC on Versus 3 Predictions

Fight Lawyer

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

A Few More Pictures From Albany

I just came across some additional pictures from the trip to Albany last month over at Un-Caged, The Frank Shamrock Facebook page and downloaded them. 

My favorite is the first picture:

 Frank outside Assemblyman Reilly's office.  Assemblyman Reilly declined our request for a meeting.
 Frank with Assemblyman Bing, co-sponsor of the bill to legalize MMA.
Just so happened that the University of Albany MMA Club was doing a demonstration at the Capital that day.
Listening to Assemblyman Englebright, the Chair of the Assembly Committee on Tourism, Arts, and Sports Development -- where the bill to legalize MMA originates.

Next trip to Albany is scheduled this month.

Fight Lawyer