ADVERTISEMENT

McMurphy Many Inaccuracies -- Where is the police report he accessed before it was sealed

I think you are reading too much into this. All attorneys try to act confident in public to give support to their clients. We are confident is not a veiled threat, simply support for the client. There would be no need to issue a veiled threat. OSU knows that it is in her crosshairs.

The attorney probably wants to spear OSU as a secondary goal, but the legal fight is with Zach Smith, which will be like getting blood out of a turnip.

In a case pretty close to the alleged facts here the University of Colorado was found not liable for an assistant coach's acts of domestic violence. See

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...intyre-other-school-officials-dismissed-judge
I think you are dead wrong. The deep pockets are Urban and tOSU. They don't have to win a case, they just have to get far enough to let a judge take it to trial. No way in hell tOSU lets this go to trial because they will lose in the court of public opinion. On top of that, the lawyer will gain discovery to ten years of emails of FL and tOSU. If they sent agents to talk her out of filing, and she was abused again? Case closed and she'll be a wealthy person. We'll never know because she'll have to sign an NDA, but she'll make a ton.

Urbs may survive but this isn't going away without money changing hands.
 
I think you are dead wrong. The deep pockets are Urban and tOSU. They don't have to win a case, they just have to get far enough to let a judge take it to trial. No way in hell tOSU lets this go to trial because they will lose in the court of public opinion. On top of that, the lawyer will gain discovery to ten years of emails of FL and tOSU. If they sent agents to talk her out of filing, and she was abused again? Case closed and she'll be a wealthy person. We'll never know because she'll have to sign an NDA, but she'll make a ton.

Urbs may survive but this isn't going away without money changing hands.

Up thread, I cited a Colorado case in a similar circumstance that said that the plaintiff had no case. Title 9 almost certainly does not create a private cause of action for an outsider from the University. It simply regulates those within the University. Also, the fundamental enforcement mechanism for Title Nine(I am pretty sure) is the withdrawal of federal funds that are supplied to the university.

. She can cause a lot of trouble with public relations and the football Department, which will cost Ohio State money, but she almost certainly cannot sue Ohio State directly. I doubt that she would have any rights to Discovery because she almost certainly doesn't have a viable claim. I would add that if she does somehow find a way to sue Ohio State that they would have a right of Discovery against her, and almost certainly she is made harmful statements that would not put her in a good light if all the dirty laundry came out.
 
Up thread, I cited a Colorado case in a similar circumstance that said that the plaintiff had no case. Title 9 almost certainly does not create a private cause of action for an outsider from the University. It simply regulates those within the University. Also, the fundamental enforcement mechanism for Title Nine(I am pretty sure) is the withdrawal of federal funds that are supplied to the university.

. She can cause a lot of trouble with public relations and the football Department, which will cost Ohio State money, but she almost certainly cannot sue Ohio State directly. I doubt that she would have any rights to Discovery because she almost certainly doesn't have a viable claim. I would add that if she does somehow find a way to sue Ohio State that they would have a right of Discovery against her, and almost certainly she is made harmful statements that would not put her in a good light if all the dirty laundry came out.
Don't agree with any of that....but a university hammering a battered woman in the days of #metoo? Good luck with that strategy. All she really has to do is gain discovery. She doesn't have to sue tOSU to get them to pay out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EdJumacated
Up thread, I cited a Colorado case in a similar circumstance that said that the plaintiff had no case. Title 9 almost certainly does not create a private cause of action for an outsider from the University. It simply regulates those within the University. Also, the fundamental enforcement mechanism for Title Nine(I am pretty sure) is the withdrawal of federal funds that are supplied to the university.

. She can cause a lot of trouble with public relations and the football Department, which will cost Ohio State money, but she almost certainly cannot sue Ohio State directly. I doubt that she would have any rights to Discovery because she almost certainly doesn't have a viable claim. I would add that if she does somehow find a way to sue Ohio State that they would have a right of Discovery against her, and almost certainly she is made harmful statements that would not put her in a good light if all the dirty laundry came out.

You think “she is almost certainly made harmful statements that would not put her in a good light”? Are you getting that from one of your reliable media sources? One of those trustworthy lawyers that defends people like the accused abuser in this case?
You seem desperate. You could use a good session with a quality life coach.
 
Don't agree with any of that....but a university hammering a battered woman in the days of #metoo? Good luck with that strategy. All she really has to do is gain discovery. She doesn't have to sue tOSU to get them to pay out.

I sued a high Ohio government official one time for conduct so bad that his employee's surreptitiously gave me documents related to the case because they were embarrassed by what happened. It went on for 10 years. And the court ultimately stated that there was no claim. I can understand you not wanting to rely on my opinion, which is fine with me. but if it is significant to you I would suggest that you ask the question somewhere else. If you were to do so, I would suggest that you ask for cases or statutes that would support the claim.
 
I sued a high Ohio government official one time for conduct so bad that his employee's surreptitiously gave me documents related to the case because they were embarrassed by what happened. It went on for 10 years. And the court ultimately stated that there was no claim. I can understand you not wanting to rely on my opinion, which is fine with me. but if it is significant to you I would suggest that you ask the question somewhere else. If you were to do so, I would suggest that you ask for cases or statutes that would support the claim.
I just recently won a large settlement from a previous employer. My attorney, a very good attorney with a ton of experience, thanked me for teaching him new tricks. Our strategy was to get under the legal wire and embarrass the living shit out of them. I had social media postings, internal emails of them talking about women, exchanging confidential information via email from previous employers, pirating software....etc. How would it have gotten in? Their strategy was to talk about their "culture". My strategy was to show the jury their real "culture". Judge approved it could come in if they talked about "culture". Two days before trial, they called my lawyer and increased their settlement offer by a factor of ten times.

Lawyers make a mistake when they think its about the law. Its not. The law is a template that needs to be managed, but the settlement is about embarrassment, loss of brand, individual executives afraid for their jobs. But probably more than anything, finding information to get them to turn on eachother, including their insurance company.
 
  • Like
Reactions: baircub1!
Our strategy was to get under the legal wire and embarrass the living shit out of them.

You probably had a claim under the EEOC statutes. Before she would get to Discovery, she would have to get past a motion for summary judgment. My judgment is that that would be difficult. I had very embarrassing documents also and filed them with the court. Didn't matter in that instance. In any event, if it matters to you, email your lawyer and ask him what he thinks off the top of his head. Wouldn't hurt to read the Colorado case if you wanted to.

Personally, I think that most of the damaging stuff will come out at the end of the investigation. Almost certainly, a great deal of that will be public record. I doubt that her Discovery would have much to add to that if somehow she was able to get Discovery. She did have a very contentious marriage for 10 years, and it is probable that she has made very damaging statements in the past in fits of anger.

Slightly later edit. Ohio State for sure, does not want to set a precedent for hundreds of people to sue them every year.
 
You probably had a claim under the EEOC statutes. Before she would get to Discovery, she would have to get past a motion for summary judgment. My judgment is that that would be difficult. I had very embarrassing documents also and filed them with the court. Didn't matter in that instance. In any event, if it matters to you, email your lawyer and ask him what he thinks off the top of his head.

Personally, I think that most of the damaging stuff will come out at the end of the investigation. Almost certainly, a great deal of that will be public record. I doubt that her Discovery would have much to add to that if somehow she was able to get Discovery. She did have a very contentious marriage for 10 years, and it is probable that she has made very damaging statements in the past in fits of anger.
Again, plenty of evidence to get past summary judgement. If FL sent agents to her to talk her out of filing. If Meyer was part of that, he brings that onto tOSU. If tOSU didn't follow protocol. If the police changed, or were coerced to change their story. All of the text evidence. Easy peazy.
 
I respect your opinion. however, you assume that there is a claim for every wrong. There isn't. If I get a chance, I may do a little research on my own.
you apparently, are a lawyer. You think in terms of what the law allows and doesn't allow. I will tell you that is a mistake. Of course, you have to hit legal thresholds. But the issue is to embarrass them. There is a lot of stuff they won't want to have go public. If there is an email from Meyer to Smith at FL or tOSU that postulates "I know your wife is a lunatic and deserved it", or anything close to that, its over. All she has to do is get discovery and take internal emails out of context.
 
you apparently, are a lawyer. You think in terms of what the law allows and doesn't allow. I will tell you that is a mistake. Of course, you have to hit legal thresholds. But the issue is to embarrass them. There is a lot of stuff they won't want to have go public. If there is an email from Meyer to Smith at FL or tOSU that postulates "I know your wife is a lunatic and deserved it", or anything close to that, its over. All she has to do is get discovery and take internal emails out of context.

What I am what I am saying, is that if Meyer says something like that they will fire him for that reason and it will be public record, and then the threat of private Communications going public goes away. I realize you think I am a traditional lawyer with my nose to the books, but I'm not. In any event, if your case made a lot of money for your lawyer, he probably wouldn't mind giving you an opinion off the top of his head so long as his name isn't mentioned. I'd be curious what he have to say.
 
Of course, you have to hit legal thresholds. But the issue is to embarrass them.

The Colorado case is almost exactly the same as the alleged OSU case. (Would add that the University penalties on those other than the Assistant coach were far less than termination) The plaintiff followed the strategy of embarrassment you suggested and lost. https://www.westword.com/news/order...-for-joe-tumpkin-abuse-but-looks-bad-10564349

Here are some quotes and context from the Colorado case. The writer of the article summarizing it stated:

"This roster [of wrongs] didn't convince Judge Martinez that MacIntyre, George, DiStefano, Benson or the university itself should remain targets of the suit."

"By this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover for injuries she sustained as a result of Defendants’ wrongdoing, including, inter alia, Tumpkin’s physical, psychological and verbal abuse of Plaintiff, Tumpkin’s supervisors’ disgraceful reaction and inaction following learning of Tumpkin’s abuse of Plaintiff and the danger he posed to Plaintiff as well as to the entire University community and beyond, and all Defendants’ willful and wanton lack of care, including MacIntyre’s decision, rather than to protect Plaintiff once she notified him of Tumpkin’s abuse, instead to cover up the abuse, protect his football program and, in doing so, jeopardize Plaintiff’s safety and well-being, all with the knowledge and complicity of the other Defendants.


********

More evidence that the suit pulls no punches comes in a section that outlines past embarrassments at the university. Central among them was the so-called CU recruiting scandal, which resulted in the school agreeing to pay $2.85 million to two women, Lisa Simpson and Anne Gilmore, whose claims of having been sexually assaulted in 2001 led to years of terrible publicity for the school and the departures of head football coach Gary Barnett and CU president Elizabeth "Betsy" Hoffman.

Years later, the inquiry also revealed a prior investigation of current Denver Broncos coach Vance Joseph.

Even more interesting is a list of happenings over the past decade or so "in which sex-based harassment and assault occurred outside the Athletic Department and was mishandled," the suit allows. Below, read about ten incidents, many of which received relatively little attention, especially in comparison with the Simpson-Gilmore matter:

A. In 2006, a female student reported to a University employee that she had been sexually assaulted. The University employee did not report the alleged assault to any University officials.

B. In 2007, a University faculty member reported race-based and gender-based discrimination to the Dean, who failed to report the allegations to the OIEC [Office of Institutional Equity and Compliance].

C. In 2009, two female University students reported concerns of sexual harassment by their supervisor to a male faculty member, who was unresponsive, told them there was “no issue,” and failed to report the allegations to the OIEC.

D. In 2010, a female University employee was harassed by a male University employee about her disability. A supervisor saw the harassment, did not intervene, and did not report the incident to the OIEC.

E. Also in 2010, a University student-employee reported to her supervisor that she felt sexually harassed by a manager. The supervisor did not report her allegations to the OIEC.

F. Again in 2010, despite previously having been disciplined for a failure to report an incident to the OIEC, a supervisor did not report a student-employee’s allegation that she felt sexually harassed by a manager for over a year.

G. In 2013, a University supervisor made harassing comments about an employee’s race, color and national origin and then fired him after he complained to a higher office. The University employee who received the employee’s complaint failed to file a report with the OIEC.

H. Also in 2013, a University student reported gender-based and sexual-orientation-based harassment by another student to a University employee who did not effectively address the alleged harassment or report the issue and then retaliated against the student.

I. Again in 2013, a University employee became aware of rumors that another employee was being subjected to sexual harassment in November, but did not report it to the OIEC until the following February.

J. In 2013, Sarah Gilchriese, a female University student, filed a grievance against the University under Title IX for delaying and insufficiently sanctioning a male student who sexually assaulted her. Gilchriese’s Complaint sparked a federal investigation into the way the Boulder campus sanctions sexual violence and otherwise handles sexual violence complaints."

 
Last edited:
For what it is worth. Former Journalist and author of 13 books Jeff Snook (with very close ties to OSU) states:

"There is so much more to this story, so much, that I think the public will be shocked." (After he says he made confidential calls to people highly placed in the Athletic Dept. -- supposedly)

Said don't be surprised if Urban is coaching on Sept. 1.

Just something out there. Not saying a lot of credibility. Can check back on it later. https://twitter.com/search?q=Jeff Snook&src=typd
 
For what it is worth. Former Journalist and author of 13 books Jeff Snook (with very close ties to OSU) states:

"There is so much more to this story, so much, that I think the public will be shocked." (After he says he made confidential calls to people highly placed in the Athletic Dept. -- supposedly)

Said don't be surprised if Urban is coaching on Sept. 1.

Just something out there. Not saying a lot of credibility. Can check back on it later. https://twitter.com/search?q=Jeff Snook&src=typd

I posted a link to this and another article from the Spun yesterday AM. Looking at the huge swing in odds that Meyer stays leads me to believe that word is out that others are involved and one or two other people are going to take real heat for their actions. Would not be surprised to see that Gene Smith, Hiram deFries, and maybe even the Powell Police dept. are shown to have committed some level of violations.

I dont see Meyer coming out of this "scot free". He will certainly get some type of suspension and reprimand, then its "back to football!!".
 
I posted a link to this and another article from the Spun yesterday AM. Looking at the huge swing in odds that Meyer stays leads me to believe that word is out that others are involved and one or two other people are going to take real heat for their actions. Would not be surprised to see that Gene Smith, Hiram deFries, and maybe even the Powell Police dept. are shown to have committed some level of violations.

I dont see Meyer coming out of this "scot free". He will certainly get some type of suspension and reprimand, then its "back to football!!".
Meyer is already damaged goods. How effective is he sitting in the living room with a recruit's mom after being allowed to coach while abetting a spouse abuser for a decade at multiple institutions? OK, send one of his assistant coaches who also knew?

No specific school will need to negatively recruit this. It will be a standard package with the text messages to Urban's wife, the other coach's wives, with photos of the abused mom, text messages of the Ohio St coach admitting guilt in causing it, all from anonymous sources from what appears to be Ohio St mailings sent to every major recruit's momma.

There will be video clips recruits will be directed to, some on youtube or whatever social media is currently popular, of Meyer outright lying about it all and then his non-apology statement retracting his lies without saying he lied. It'll show 10 different ESPN and other well known media personalities speaking out against Meyer's rehiring and covering for the wife beater coach. Meyer has lost all credibility. That means his word means absolutely nothing going forward. Whatever Ohio St coaches tell a recruit is going to taken with a large grain of salt. Because their word now means absolutely nothing for as long as they want Meyer and his current assistants to coach.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: odshowtime
NSIAP because I'm not going all the way back through this thread:

One of the differences between the Sandusky scandal and this (current) Ohio State scandal is the actions of law enforcement. In our situation, the governor and office of the AG wanted to bring down the football program. We will see the Powell Police department take the opposite approach. That is how Urban will get off completely.
 
NSIAP because I'm not going all the way back through this thread:

One of the differences between the Sandusky scandal and this (current) Ohio State scandal is the actions of law enforcement. In our situation, the governor and office of the AG wanted to bring down the football program. We will see the Powell Police department take the opposite approach. That is how Urban will get off completely.
wow!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bobpsu
For what it is worth. Former Journalist and author of 13 books Jeff Snook (with very close ties to OSU) states:

"There is so much more to this story, so much, that I think the public will be shocked." (After he says he made confidential calls to people highly placed in the Athletic Dept. -- supposedly)

Said don't be surprised if Urban is coaching on Sept. 1.

Just something out there. Not saying a lot of credibility. Can check back on it later. https://twitter.com/search?q=Jeff Snook&src=typd

And to this day PSU fans hear "there's much more to the story" from "sources" about the Sandusky scandal. And I certainly believe there is more. BUT, once public opinion is set and powerful people have their backs against the wall, funny how the "more" stays hidden
 
For what it is worth. Former Journalist and author of 13 books Jeff Snook (with very close ties to OSU) states:

"There is so much more to this story, so much, that I think the public will be shocked." (After he says he made confidential calls to people highly placed in the Athletic Dept. -- supposedly)

Said don't be surprised if Urban is coaching on Sept. 1.

Just something out there. Not saying a lot of credibility. Can check back on it later. https://twitter.com/search?q=Jeff Snook&src=typd

This guy must be one of those trustworthy media people? Tough to keep up with you.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mixolydian
The Colorado case is almost exactly the same as the alleged OSU case. (Would add that the University penalties on those other than the Assistant coach were far less than termination) The plaintiff followed the strategy of embarrassment you suggested and lost. https://www.westword.com/news/order...-for-joe-tumpkin-abuse-but-looks-bad-10564349

Here are some quotes and context from the Colorado case. The writer of the article summarizing it stated:

"This roster [of wrongs] didn't convince Judge Martinez that MacIntyre, George, DiStefano, Benson or the university itself should remain targets of the suit."

"By this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover for injuries she sustained as a result of Defendants’ wrongdoing, including, inter alia, Tumpkin’s physical, psychological and verbal abuse of Plaintiff, Tumpkin’s supervisors’ disgraceful reaction and inaction following learning of Tumpkin’s abuse of Plaintiff and the danger he posed to Plaintiff as well as to the entire University community and beyond, and all Defendants’ willful and wanton lack of care, including MacIntyre’s decision, rather than to protect Plaintiff once she notified him of Tumpkin’s abuse, instead to cover up the abuse, protect his football program and, in doing so, jeopardize Plaintiff’s safety and well-being, all with the knowledge and complicity of the other Defendants.


********

More evidence that the suit pulls no punches comes in a section that outlines past embarrassments at the university. Central among them was the so-called CU recruiting scandal, which resulted in the school agreeing to pay $2.85 million to two women, Lisa Simpson and Anne Gilmore, whose claims of having been sexually assaulted in 2001 led to years of terrible publicity for the school and the departures of head football coach Gary Barnett and CU president Elizabeth "Betsy" Hoffman.

Years later, the inquiry also revealed a prior investigation of current Denver Broncos coach Vance Joseph.

Even more interesting is a list of happenings over the past decade or so "in which sex-based harassment and assault occurred outside the Athletic Department and was mishandled," the suit allows. Below, read about ten incidents, many of which received relatively little attention, especially in comparison with the Simpson-Gilmore matter:

A. In 2006, a female student reported to a University employee that she had been sexually assaulted. The University employee did not report the alleged assault to any University officials.

B. In 2007, a University faculty member reported race-based and gender-based discrimination to the Dean, who failed to report the allegations to the OIEC [Office of Institutional Equity and Compliance].

C. In 2009, two female University students reported concerns of sexual harassment by their supervisor to a male faculty member, who was unresponsive, told them there was “no issue,” and failed to report the allegations to the OIEC.

D. In 2010, a female University employee was harassed by a male University employee about her disability. A supervisor saw the harassment, did not intervene, and did not report the incident to the OIEC.

E. Also in 2010, a University student-employee reported to her supervisor that she felt sexually harassed by a manager. The supervisor did not report her allegations to the OIEC.

F. Again in 2010, despite previously having been disciplined for a failure to report an incident to the OIEC, a supervisor did not report a student-employee’s allegation that she felt sexually harassed by a manager for over a year.

G. In 2013, a University supervisor made harassing comments about an employee’s race, color and national origin and then fired him after he complained to a higher office. The University employee who received the employee’s complaint failed to file a report with the OIEC.

H. Also in 2013, a University student reported gender-based and sexual-orientation-based harassment by another student to a University employee who did not effectively address the alleged harassment or report the issue and then retaliated against the student.

I. Again in 2013, a University employee became aware of rumors that another employee was being subjected to sexual harassment in November, but did not report it to the OIEC until the following February.

J. In 2013, Sarah Gilchriese, a female University student, filed a grievance against the University under Title IX for delaying and insufficiently sanctioning a male student who sexually assaulted her. Gilchriese’s Complaint sparked a federal investigation into the way the Boulder campus sanctions sexual violence and otherwise handles sexual violence complaints."
see, this is the problem with lawyers. You can also go through and find a ton of case law supporting the suites...but that really doesn't matter. I appreciate the rule of law and the challenges of getting beyond summary judgement. however, no two cases are exactly alike. And, I'll point out, nobody cared about the PR of the colorado case because they didn't involve Paterno and/or Meyer. There was no PR, no risk to the U in fighting the case, and probably, a lot lower standard of review (attorneys, PR, press, ChiTownLion, etc.). I'll also add, absent of the bad PR and ruining the brand, the plaintiff is really fighting the insurance company, not the University/Business.

Lawyers don't understand business because, for the most part, they aren't business people. In my case (literally and figuratively), I went after the individuals. I ruined their careers. I got two people fired (the SVP of HR because she let the EVP do what he did and then fought him and lost in the run up to the trial) and eventually the EVP that orchestrated everything. I was able to expose a lot of embarrassing things (my direct boss was having an affair with a co-worker and she also distributed confidential information internally from a previous employer to the executive team....if that had gotten out, that other company had grounds to sue her and my old company). I was also able to show a connection between my event and them manipulating times of things to falsely increase the numbers to report to shareholders. I bought ten shares so I could have someone expose this at the next shareholder meetings. Finally, and I knew this, but watching season one of Goliath it became clear to me that the insurance company was as much of a problem (perhaps more-so) than the company. So I began a plan to expose information to pit the insurance company against my former employer. In the end, when they settled, I got two different checks from two different banks. My conclusion is that the insurance company agreed to pay x amount and stop. The company chipped in the rest to make this go away before it all became public at trial.

One other significant event: two weeks before trial (after two years) they suddenly came up with an email from a former co-worker where the email had an attachment. The email was so-so regarding me but referred to the attachment. The attachment was ridiculously mean and scathing about me, my practices and my work. We got this on a Sunday night at 10pm. I was so pissed I couldn't sleep. I read the email and attachment ten times. Then it hit me...the paragraph and sentence structures were oddly different. And, the email and attachment were so different in tone that it seemed odd. I requested, then basically forced, my attorney to hire an IT forensic specialist to go back to the server and see if that attachment was the real attachment. You see, you can easily create a new document, of the same name, and print it off saying it was the attachment. The company then withdrew that artifact as a piece of evidence. So I then persisted and said that, since we were now aware of the artifact, we still wanted to have our forensic expert review their email server. They told us they would fight that discovery in court. I suspect, knowing they were going to be exposed to criminal activity of tampering evidence, was a big part of their large settlement.

In the end, my attorney (who is a great, GREAT guy and a great attorney) thanked me for helping him understand what goes on in big businesses. He actually cut his agreed upon "take" which, as I understand it, is unprecedented as he would have had to get that approved by his management team. (he was managing and founding partner).

Anyway, I don't want to divulge much more than that. And I am pretty much gassed on this subject. If you are an attorney, I'd suggest you look outside of the legal world and expand your horizons. Its like attorneys speak a different language (not one that is better or worse, but a different one).
 
  • Like
Reactions: odshowtime
Lawyers don't understand business because, for the most part, they aren't business people.

I practiced law as a litigator for about 20 years and had about 150 jury trials. Currently, 85% of what I do is real estate investing and 10-15% of what I do is law. Very little that I have done has been through the traditional mode. One minor example --I work with an extremely sophisticated self-made real estate investor who has owned at least 1500 properties (most single family rentals) He has been involved in maybe 2-4000 evictions over 25 years.

We had a particularly troublesome defaulting land contractee and I used a litigation tactic (not that novel for a litigator) that he called brilliant and had never seen before in all of the evictions he had seen, including those of non-vested land contractees. I have lived in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Santa Barbara and Naples, Florida.

Getting back to main points. 1. I would guess that your litigation involved contractual and Age Discrimination issues for which there are recognized causes of action. 2. As opposed to your situation with comparatively small companies (I saw your post in another thread), the threat of making things public (which could hurt small companies that are under the radar) in a lawsuit is not very significant to OSU. Virtually all will come out through FOIA. 3. If CS can sue OSU as a non-OSU employee in a domestic relations matter, it means OSU and other colleges will be sued all of the time in these matters. It will become standard. OSU and other colleges will fight it hard. Also, an unspoken factor that would not come out is that the judges looking at this will say to themselves, do they really want the extra work of adding this class of claims to domestic relations matters.

Thanks for your insightful comments. I think we have both beaten this subject to death.
 
We had a particularly troublesome defaulting land contractee and I used a litigation tactic (not that novel for a litigator) that he called brilliant and had never seen before in all of the evictions he had seen, including those of non-vested land contractees. I have lived in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Santa Barbara and Naples, Florida.

giphy.gif
 
I practiced law as a litigator for about 20 years and had about 150 jury trials. Currently, 85% of what I do is real estate investing and 10-15% of what I do is law. Very little that I have done has been through the traditional mode. One minor example --I work with an extremely sophisticated self-made real estate investor who has owned at least 1500 properties (most single family rentals) He has been involved in maybe 2-4000 evictions over 25 years.

We had a particularly troublesome defaulting land contractee and I used a litigation tactic (not that novel for a litigator) that he called brilliant and had never seen before in all of the evictions he had seen, including those of non-vested land contractees. I have lived in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Santa Barbara and Naples, Florida.

Getting back to main points. 1. I would guess that your litigation involved contractual and Age Discrimination issues for which there are recognized causes of action. 2. As opposed to your situation with comparatively small companies (I saw your post in another thread), the threat of making things public (which could hurt small companies that are under the radar) in a lawsuit is not very significant to OSU. Virtually all will come out through FOIA. 3. If CS can sue OSU as a non-OSU employee in a domestic relations matter, it means OSU and other colleges will be sued all of the time in these matters. It will become standard. OSU and other colleges will fight it hard. Also, an unspoken factor that would not come out is that the judges looking at this will say to themselves, do they really want the extra work of adding this class of claims to domestic relations matters.

Thanks for your insightful comments. I think we have both beaten this subject to death.
yep...appreciate the conversation and the professional tone. Over a beer, we'd "have a night"!
 
  • Like
Reactions: dailybuck777
So a self-acclaimed (with anectdotal story to boot) clever lawyer is so personally invested in his football team winning games that he has thrown how many hours over the last week in support on a rival team's site of a coach that twice hired at two different universities someone who has 9 domestics and photographic evidence of physical spouse abuse and provided protection for said abuser for about a decade while letting the abuser recruit kids and families and shape young men's formative years?

I didn't think I could hold a lower opinion of lawyers but you sir have lowered that bar. Happy protecting spouse abuse to you. You seem to have won over he crowd.
 
If the media hadn't picked up on the Smith story, he'd still have a job at Ohio State today.

Timeline

  • May 12th Zach Smith is cited for criminal trespass
  • July 18th Zach Smith appears in court
  • July 18th - OSU's student newspaper publishes a story on Smith's court appearance. The football team confirmed to them that they knew about the arrest on May 12, but declined further comment. 11 Warriors also picked up the story that day.
  • July 23rd McMurphy reports on 2009 incident
  • July 23rd OSU declines comment on matter
  • July 23rd The 2015 incident is made public (by McMurphy and other outlets)
  • July 23rd OSU fires Zach Smith
  • July 24th Meyer says he didn't know about 2015 incident
  • Aug 1st McMurphy reports Meyer did know about 2015
  • Aug 1st Meyer placed on leave by OSU
 
If the media hadn't picked up on the Smith story, he'd still have a job at Ohio State today.

Timeline

  • May 12th Zach Smith is cited for criminal trespass
  • July 18th Zach Smith appears in court
  • July 18th - OSU's student newspaper publishes a story on Smith's court appearance. The football team confirmed to them that they knew about the arrest on May 12, but declined further comment. 11 Warriors also picked up the story that day.
  • July 23rd McMurphy reports on 2009 incident
  • July 23rd OSU declines comment on matter
  • July 23rd The 2015 incident is made public (by McMurphy and other outlets)
  • July 23rd OSU fires Zach Smith
  • July 24th Meyer says he didn't know about 2015 incident
  • Aug 1st McMurphy reports Meyer did know about 2015
  • Aug 1st Meyer placed on leave by OSU

You could add

  • Aug 3rd Meyer says in letter to public that he DID know about 2015 and reported it up the ladder to OSU officials.
 

Section 5.0 deals with termination.

"fraud or dishonesty of coach in the performance of his duties or responsibilities under this agreement..."

"Commission of or participation in by Coach of any act, situation, or occurrence which, in Ohio State's judgment, brings Coach and/or Ohio State into public disrepute, embarrassment, contempt, scandal or ridicule or failure by Coach to conform Coach's personal conduct to conventional and contemporary standards of good citizenship, with such conduct offending prevailing social mores and values and/or reflecting unfavorably upon Ohio State's reputation and overall primary mission and objectives, including but not limited to, acts of dishonesty, misrepresentation, fraud or violence that may or may not warrant criminal prosecution by the relevant authorities."

If they want to can him, the language above gives them the latitude to do it based on the shit storm his lies at media days caused. The last line is also interesting, shockingly you can get fired as an OSU coach for things that don't result in prosecution. The fact that charges weren't brought against Zach would not have prevented his termination.
 
When my imagination runs wild I think of all the situations that a guy like Hiram DeFries could have been called in to fix. In Gainesville and Columbus. Think about all the stuff we never heard about. I would love to pull that thread and see what's underneath that sweater. Life coach... what a joke. Reminds me of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

fear-and-loathing-in-las-vegas.jpg
Pass the salt shaker!
Screen-Shot-2017-02-08-at-4.50.11-PM.png
 
As I posted earlier in this thread.....
2015....beat your wife, stay employed
2018....people find out you beat your wife, get fired.

Sorry, but that looks really $hitty for OSU.
"We will employ and enable a wife beater, until people find out about it"
good point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ILLINOISLION
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT