From: Todd E Van Hoosear (vanhoose@manetheren.cl.msu.edu)
Date: 10/22/03
AP ran a great story yesterday about a Rap Ruling, but only published a couple lines from the ruling. The Smoking Gun published the ruling in its entirety. The following rap appeared in a footnote to a ruling by the Honorable Deborah A. Servietto on October 17, 2003 regarding a request by Eminem to dismiss a suit against him brought by Deangelo Bailey claiming invasion of privacy and defamation of character. Judge Servietto honored the request and summarily disposed Bailey's case. I am unaware of any appeal. For a full copy of the ruling (see pages 13 and 14 for the lyrics), visit The Smoking Gun at http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/emjudge1.html. - Todd +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ EXCERPTED FROM PAGES 13 AND 14 OF A RULING IN CASE NO. 2001-3606-NO, "Deangelo Bailey vs. Marshall Bruce Mathers, III a/k/a Eminem Slim Shady." I typed it up myself from the document, so any errors are mine. - Todd +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ [...] Based upon the reasons set forth above, Defendant's motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) is GRANTED.11 In compliance with MCR 2.602(A)(3), the Court states this Opinion and Order resolves the last claim and closes the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signature) HONORABLE DEBORAH A. SERVITTO /al DATED: October 17, 2003 ------------------------------ [...] 11 To convey the Court's opinion to fans of rap, the Court's research staff has helped the Court put the decision into a universally understandable format: Mr. Bailey complains that his rep is trash So he's seeking compensation in the form of cash Bailey thinks he's entitled to some monetary gain Because Eminem used his name in vain Eminem says Bailey used to throw him around Beat him up in the john, shoved his face in the ground Eminem contends that his rap is protected By the rights guaranteed by the first amendment Eminem maintains that the story is true And that Bailey beat him black and blue In the alternative he states that the story is phony And a reasonable person would think it's baloney The Court must always balance the rights Of a defendant and one placed in a false light If the plaintiff presents no question of fact To dismiss is the only acceptable act If the language used is anything but pleasin' It must be highly objectionable to a person of reason Even if objectionable and causing offense Self-help is the first line of defense Yet when Bailey actually spoke to the press What do you think he didn't address? Those false light charges that so disturbed Prompted from Bailey not a single word So highly objectionable, it could not be -- Bailey was happy to hear his name on a CD Bailey also admitted he was a bully in youth Which makes what Marshall said substantial truth This doctrine is a defense well known And renders Bailey's case substantially blown The lyrics are stories no one would take as fact They're an exaggeration of a childish act Any reasonable person could clearly see That the lyrics could only be hyperbole It is therefore this Court's ultimate position That Eminem is entitled to summary disposition. +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ --
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : 10/22/03 EDT