ADVERTISEMENT

Former Players v. Football Program *** Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

I have written many times that Civil Rights litigation in not my area of practice but, from what I've read to in an effort to become more well-versed as this case moves forward, the applicable statute of limitations looks to the law which most closely resembles the theory of recovery. I don't believe that Title VII specifically includes a statute of limitations. Thus, I believe that the case law to which you refer - holding that there is a two year statute of limitations - determined that the underlying cause of action most closely resembled personal injury tort litigation and, therefore, the 2 year SOL applied. I will be curious to see how Parrish responds to the MTD but will be quite surprised if they do not attempt to argue that the statute of limitations for contract claims applies as they are claiming that the players' civil rights claims are inextricably intertwined with the contract claims.

While I don't agreee (simply look at the ad damnum paragraphs), I'm far from convinced that what Parrish and Solomon-Simmons are attempting to claim fits under what Rule 11 is designed to prevent. I'm even less convinced that Judge Stephanie Rose (who had little civil experience before being nominated to her position as an Article III judge) would grant Rule 11 sanctions.

As for abuse of process, my personal opinion (and professional opinion) is that it would be a big mistake from a strategic standpoint - particularly if you believe that the merits of the underlying case are as weak as you believe them to be. Hell . . . Exhibit A against such a claim would be the Husch Blackwell report. Followed closely by coaches' admissions that "we had some blind spots."

Does that win you a Civil Rights claim? Unlikely. But it likely gets you past any claim that you are "abusing process."

I still maintain that I would have preferred to see Iowa go with an outside law firm but, thus far, the AG's office has done what it needs to do.

As for your wide-sweeping indictment of the University community as a whole, I couldn't disagree with you more. Are there some who believe as you attest?
Absolutely. But I stress "some." And it is by no means close to the majority. You want to look at the likely motivation for the lawsuit? Look no further than some former Hawkeyes who are drawing nice paychecks from NFL teams who initially tweeted about the culture and then visit Soloman-Simmons' website.
 
Last edited:
Like most, they probably get their ideas from their parents and friends. This doesn’t seem like rocket science.
Right, Parents, Siblings, Teachers, HS Coaches, Community, Church....the truth is the culture supporting each of us, is to each his own. It is highly possible that many athletes in urban or ethnocentric area, receive and entirely different kind of support and coaching and feel nothing but love and nurturing to help them overcome and stay clear of the challenges and dangers there. Its conceivable that as local HS stars and celebrities, they where never challenged and forced to conform to a team (as adults often are) through adversity either designed by college coaches or present as part of adopting an entirely new culture they find in college so far away from home. It is also possible that young men who have frequently suffered from racially charged experiences, and so traumatized, can not help to see all of there experiences thru these racially colored glasses.

A militaristic like system of breaking down one's individual self image and rebuilding it through adversity of extremely hard work and physical training challenges to redevelop your self image as a team player, could easily be misconstrued by young men coming form these diverse cultures, with the bias created by experiencing racism first hand and having an ultra sensitivity to racism in their rearing, and yes, they could easily see these experiences as racist.

One should also consider that the brain of all young men ages 17-25 is still very much developing, immature. Any racial charged trauma experienced in their communities and on campus at this young age could be easily dominate their thinking and be over applied to all uncomfortable situations, just because they are young.

In the end, life is the ultimate teacher.
 
I have written many times that Civil Rights litigation in not my area of practice but, from what I've read to in an effort to become more well-versed as this case moves forward, the applicable statute of limitations looks to the law which most closely resembles the theory of recovery. I don't believe that Title VII specifically incluedes a statute of limitations. Thus, I believe that the case law to which you refer holding that there is a two year statute of limitations held that the underlying cause of action most closely resembled personal injury tort litigation and, therefore, the 2 year SOL applied. I will be curious to see how Parrish responds to the MTD but will be quite surprised if they do not attempt to argue that the statute of limitations for contract claims applies as they are claiming that the players' civil rights claims are inextricably intertwined with the contract claims.

While I don't agreee (simply look at the ad damnum paragraphs), I'm far from convinced that what Parrish and Solomon-Simmons are attempting to claim fits under what Rule 11 is designed to prevent. I'm even less convinced that Judge Stephanie Rose (who had little civil expereince before being nominated to her position as an Article III judge) would grant Rule 11 sanctions.

As for abuse of process, my personal opinion (and professional opinion) is that it would be a big mistake from a strategic standpoint - particularly if you believe that the merits of the underlying case are as weak as you believe them to be. Hell . . . Exhibit A against such a claim would be the Husch Blackwell report. Followed closely by coaches' admissions that "we had some blind spots."

Does that win you a Civil Rights claim? Unlikely. But it likely gets you past any claim that you are either "abusing process."

I still maintain that I would have preferred to see Iowa go wiht an outside law frim but, thus far, the AG's office has done what it needs to do.

As for your wide-sweeping indictment of the University community as a whole, I couldn't disagree with you more. Are there some who believe as you attest?
Absolutely. But I stress "some." And it is by no means close to the majority. You want to look at the likely motivation for the lawsuit? Look no further than some former Hawkeyes who are drawing nice paychecks and who initially tweeted about the culture and then visit Soloman-Simmons' website.
Thank you for your hard work on this. It helps us non lawyers understand the process.
I have had 2 children graduate from Iowa in the past 3 years, in their opinion ‘some’ would not be accurate. If it were only some the political climate in the community would be very different.
 
You want to look at the likely motivation for the lawsuit? Look no further than some former Hawkeyes who are drawing nice paychecks and who initially tweeted about the culture and then visit Soloman-Simmons' website.
Please elaborate
 
I'll respectfully decline. If you really want to dig further, go back and find the threads around the time that Doyle resigned. Then go to Soloman-Simmons' website. I'll leave it at that.
I only see this dude likes Purple. But thanks for filling in the blanks :) Another unfounded you do the work not me claim by attorney on here. Much appreciated as now it makes what you wrote same as the other guys, personal bias :)
 
I only see this dude likes Purple. But thanks for filling in the blanks :) Another unfounded you do the work not me claim by attorney on here. Much appreciated as now it makes what you wrote same as the other guys, personal bias :)

No comprende.
 
I appreciate all the insite but the pissing match on who’s really right or wrong and not backing up on both sides really feels like this whole case in a nut shell to me 😃 Comprende
 
I appreciate all the insite but the pissing match on who’s really right or wrong and not backing up on both sides really feels like this whole case in a nut shell to me 😃 Comprende

I started this thread for the sole purpose of providing updates with what is happening in the case. And . . . that's what I've done. Others have chimed in with their opinions relating to what the merits of the case may be and what procedural strategies could be pursued. From time to time, I've chimed in with my thoughts about what might happen, what could happen and what we can expect to see.

When, as was the case in Post #112, someone has responded to one of my questions, I'll substantively respond as I did in Post #123.

As for what may be motivating these plaintiffs, tweets from more than 40 former Iowa football players commented upon the perception that black football players were treated differently than white football players. A couple of current NFL playing former Hawkeyes are widely recognized as starting the Twitter conversation (as it relates to Doyle, B. Ferentz and K. Ferentz). Since then, Doyle has resigned (undoubtedly pressured to do so), both Kirk Ferentz and Brian Ferentz have apologized for "blind spots" in the program (pretty sure that Phil Parker did as well), revelations have come to the surface that there were concerns about graduation rates of black players, transfer rates of black players, complaints of treatment by black players, the university hired a law firm to perform an independent investigation and the final result wasn't exactly a complete exoneration. Throw all of those facts into a hat and then look at Solomon-Simmons' website and what motivates him. I don't think that you need to be a rocket scientist to reach a conclusion as to what likely led to these players retaining Soloman-Simmons to be their attorney and moving forward with a lawsuit. So . . . no . . . I'm not buying the idea that these players have been indoctrinated by liberal professors who would like to take down the football program let alone the idea that the university community is secretly rooting for the players to win.

But hey . . . that's just me.

Do I think that any and all of the above give rise to a successful civil rights lawsuit? Not necessarily. Do I think that what the players are doing constitutes an abuse of process or violates Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? No.

Simply pursuing a weak case that doesn't stand a good chance of winning is not an abuse of process nor is it sanctionable. Completely different issues.
 
I started this thread for the sole purpose of providing updates with what is happening in the case. And . . . that's what I've done. Others have chimed in with their opinions relating to what the merits of the case may be and what procedural strategies could be pursued. From time to time, I've chimed in with my thoughts about what might happen, what could happen and what we can expect to see.

When, as was the case in Post #112, someone has responded to one of my questions, I'll substantively respond as I did in Post #123.

As for what may be motivating these plaintiffs, tweets from more than 40 former Iowa football players commented upon the perception that black football players were treated differently than white football players. A couple of current NFL playing former Hawkeyes are widely recognized as starting the Twitter conversation (as it relates to Doyle, B. Ferentz and K. Ferentz). Since then, Doyle has resigned (undoubtedly pressured to do so), both Kirk Ferentz and Brian Ferentz have apologized for "blind spots" in the program (pretty sure that Phil Parker did as well), revelations have come to the surface that there were concerns about graduation rates of black players, transfer rates of black players, complaints of treatment by black players, the university hired a law firm to perform an independent investigation and the final result wasn't exactly a complete exoneration. Throw all of those facts into a hat and then look at Solomon-Simmons' website and what motivates him. I don't think that you need to be a rocket scientist to reach a conclusion as to what likely led to these players retaining Soloman-Simmons to be their attorney and moving forward with a lawsuit. So . . . no . . . I'm not buying the idea that these players have been indoctrinated by liberal professors who would like to take down the football program let alone the idea that the university community is secretly rooting for the players to win.

But hey . . . that's just me.

Do I think that any and all of the above give rise to a successful civil rights lawsuit? Not necessarily. Do I think that what the players are doing constitutes an abuse of process or violates Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? No.

Simply pursuing a weak case that doesn't stand a good chance of winning is not an abuse of process nor is it sanctionable. Completely different issues.
I appreciate the posts you’ve made.
Been involved in alot of legal stuff and it doesn’t take long sometimes for the logic to escape me.
 
I started this thread for the sole purpose of providing updates with what is happening in the case. And . . . that's what I've done. Others have chimed in with their opinions relating to what the merits of the case may be and what procedural strategies could be pursued. From time to time, I've chimed in with my thoughts about what might happen, what could happen and what we can expect to see.

When, as was the case in Post #112, someone has responded to one of my questions, I'll substantively respond as I did in Post #123.

As for what may be motivating these plaintiffs, tweets from more than 40 former Iowa football players commented upon the perception that black football players were treated differently than white football players. A couple of current NFL playing former Hawkeyes are widely recognized as starting the Twitter conversation (as it relates to Doyle, B. Ferentz and K. Ferentz). Since then, Doyle has resigned (undoubtedly pressured to do so), both Kirk Ferentz and Brian Ferentz have apologized for "blind spots" in the program (pretty sure that Phil Parker did as well), revelations have come to the surface that there were concerns about graduation rates of black players, transfer rates of black players, complaints of treatment by black players, the university hired a law firm to perform an independent investigation and the final result wasn't exactly a complete exoneration. Throw all of those facts into a hat and then look at Solomon-Simmons' website and what motivates him. I don't think that you need to be a rocket scientist to reach a conclusion as to what likely led to these players retaining Soloman-Simmons to be their attorney and moving forward with a lawsuit. So . . . no . . . I'm not buying the idea that these players have been indoctrinated by liberal professors who would like to take down the football program let alone the idea that the university community is secretly rooting for the players to win.

But hey . . . that's just me.

Do I think that any and all of the above give rise to a successful civil rights lawsuit? Not necessarily. Do I think that what the players are doing constitutes an abuse of process or violates Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? No.

Simply pursuing a weak case that doesn't stand a good chance of winning is not an abuse of process nor is it sanctionable. Completely different issues.
I appreciate the insite and reading this thread to help understand legally what was wrong. I just think what’s been said about Iowa and culture wasn’t racist. Again my view and I wasn’t there and based off what’s been put out there.

I look forward to the courts deciding and ruling on the facts in this matter. We all shall see
 
No, you have it backwards. YOU can't articulate your claim. You haven't provided a shred of support for the specific accusation you're leveling. And I could do this without calling names but I choose not to because people like you need to be firmly reminded that you suck.

Oh bullshit.

Oh my god, how are you a lawyer? You're the one accusing university faculty of brainwashing these specific players. You don't just get to do that and say "Now prove they didn't or I'm right!" YOU'RE the one who has to put up or shut up. YOU'RE the one who has to explain how specific courses taken at Iowa by these specific players affected them. You'd think someone who fancies himself a lawyer would have a better grasp of burden of proof.

You understand this board does not involve a lot of research. Kind of a place for summary opinions.

But I will answer your childlike bleating.

The Trump hat thing happened to me and several other people. Screamed at by students and stopped by the Campus Security as having been accused of causing a public disturbance. I did it because we were also considering suing the University and I wanted test my potential plaintiffs' story. The only disturbances were the people that screamed at me and the special little karen that began crying. I was on the Pentacrest less than 10 minutes. Told campus security that I would only tell them my name after I called the finance office to identify my then donor status. I did tell them I think the story would probably not be appreciated by their supervisors after the donor office called them. So they left. One rule is always true young man-the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

As for black studies text books there are droves of excerpts on line but you know that. We're not in courtroom or your ass would be buried in text books. Also, in a project on which I worked sometime between George W. Bush's first election and Donald Trump's first election I had the thrilling opportunity to read several text books from black studies, women's studies and some really freaking crazy shit about trans-sexuality that basically repudiated ten million generations of mammalian biology from whatever acronymically named course of study handles that assault on reality.

I can tell you're a kid more comfortable being the smart kid at the dumb kid's table. You don't think the readers notice your infantile repetition of some collateral argument about "what books" is really a common leftie ploy to distract from the larger point-someone, and the U of Iowa and almost every other college in the country are in the universe of "someone", is teaching black kids, actually all kids, that things like being told to lower one's expectation in academia and football when you're not intellectually capable, or insufficiently disciplined, of doing both is racist, or thinking that private underage possession in a dorm party is somehow the social equivalent of being arrested for OWI so a less severe punishment for the non public criminal is discriminatory. Those are the thoughts of either morons or a political belief that defies the normal functions of life.

You expose your true ideological purpose by your demented justification of name calling because I'm just so stupid. Only creatures of the left have that sense of absolute moral authority. Unlike most conservatives I'm not intimidated by your scree. I do not like to get personal, but I can. If you choose to go down that road it will end with a great deal of frustration and loss of self esteem; it always does for those who choose to take that journey with me. You've already beclowned yourself. Please conclude your participation in this conversation, you really will feel better about yourself.
 
Last edited:
I have written many times that Civil Rights litigation in not my area of practice but, from what I've read to in an effort to become more well-versed as this case moves forward, the applicable statute of limitations looks to the law which most closely resembles the theory of recovery. I don't believe that Title VII specifically includes a statute of limitations. Thus, I believe that the case law to which you refer - holding that there is a two year statute of limitations - determined that the underlying cause of action most closely resembled personal injury tort litigation and, therefore, the 2 year SOL applied. I will be curious to see how Parrish responds to the MTD but will be quite surprised if they do not attempt to argue that the statute of limitations for contract claims applies as they are claiming that the players' civil rights claims are inextricably intertwined with the contract claims.

While I don't agreee (simply look at the ad damnum paragraphs), I'm far from convinced that what Parrish and Solomon-Simmons are attempting to claim fits under what Rule 11 is designed to prevent. I'm even less convinced that Judge Stephanie Rose (who had little civil experience before being nominated to her position as an Article III judge) would grant Rule 11 sanctions.

As for abuse of process, my personal opinion (and professional opinion) is that it would be a big mistake from a strategic standpoint - particularly if you believe that the merits of the underlying case are as weak as you believe them to be. Hell . . . Exhibit A against such a claim would be the Husch Blackwell report. Followed closely by coaches' admissions that "we had some blind spots."

Does that win you a Civil Rights claim? Unlikely. But it likely gets you past any claim that you are "abusing process."

I still maintain that I would have preferred to see Iowa go with an outside law firm but, thus far, the AG's office has done what it needs to do.

As for your wide-sweeping indictment of the University community as a whole, I couldn't disagree with you more. Are there some who believe as you attest?
Absolutely. But I stress "some." And it is by no means close to the majority. You want to look at the likely motivation for the lawsuit? Look no further than some former Hawkeyes who are drawing nice paychecks from NFL teams who initially tweeted about the culture and then visit Soloman-Simmons' website.

It is mine. The Civil Rights statute of limitations, or at least Title VI sections, adopt the state's tort limitation. I lost this in the Devries case (hate to talk about losses but they happen). Iowa tort claims require prior submission to the AG and prevent suit until the AG decides the claim, classic exhaustion of remedies statute. They decided against our claim shortly after the 2 years ran. And then the state presented the 2 year argument. I argued it was barred by estoppel because the state couldn't prohibit suits without administrative exhaustion and then assert statute of limitations if you followed state law on exhaustion of remedies. The 8th Cir stuck firm to the old case law and iterated that the state cannot force admin exhaustion on federal civil rights claims so we did not need to comply with the state exhaustion of remedies. The rare tricky move I did not see coming. That was a hard one to take hence I am highly certain Iowa's two year statute for injuries will absolutely be imposed on the ten plaintiffs outside the statute.

Actually having read your opinion I would revise my strategy somewhat-the benefit of collaboration. Abuse of process is not a compulsory counterclaim-you can wait on the outcome so I'd await the outcome. Of course, in federal practice almost no one files a Rule 11 motion until the end of the case, but I think I said that initially. If the U wins I think they also have a malicious prosecution action because they would have special damages-to recruiting for example-that every civil rights defendant would not have.

If the university wins the people that perpetrate these kinds of make believe racism cases need to be deterred. from future claims.

Remember you are reading the Petition, that's Plaintiff's best statement and without any factual refutation. I can think of 100 questions I'd like to ask the surviving plaintiffs and that is without any prep.

Plus, what do you think will happen if the U calls say 100 black ex players to contradict the very subjective and frequently nonsensical allegations of actionable facts? Remember the trial lawyer's axiom, a case is never better than the first time you hear it. This is a weak and feeble case on first reading. I predict the parts of discovery that we see in the summary judgment motions will be devastating to the plaintiffs.

I might express my ideological beliefs more openly than I would were I litigating the case. I would focus on the case law that requires a much higher threshold of misconduct to constitute a Title VI case. The case is a dog but it is worth millions in publicity.
 
Last edited:
You understand this board does not involve a lot of research. Kind of a place for summary opinions.

But I will answer you childlike bleating.

The Trump hat thing happened to me and several other people. Screamed at by students and stopped by the Campus Security as having been accused of causing a public disturbance. I did it because we were also considering suing the University and I wanted test my potential plaintiffs' story. The only disturbances were the people that screamed at me and the special little karen that began crying. I was there less than 10 minutes. Told campus security that I would only tell them my name after I called the finance office to identify my then donor status. I did tell them I think the story would probably not be appreciated by their supervisors after the donor office called them. So they left. One rule is always true young man-the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

As for black studies text books there are droves of excerpts on line but you know that. We're not in courtroom or your ass would be buried in text books. Also, in a project on which I worked sometime between George W. Bush's first election and Donald Trump's first election I had the thrilling opportunity to read several text books from black studies, women's studies and some really freaking crazy shit about trans-sexuality that basically repudiated ten million generations of mammalian biology from whatever acronymically named course of study handles that assault on reality.

I can tell you're a kid more comfortable being the smart kid at the dumb kid's table. You don't think the readers notice your infantile repetition of some collateral argument about "what books" is really a common leftie ploy to distract from the larger point-someone, and the U of Iowa and almost every other college in the country are in the universe of "someone", is teaching black kids, actually all kids, that things like being told to lower one's expectation in academia and football when you're not intellectually capable, or insufficiently disciplined, of doing both is racist, or thinking that private underage possession in a dorm party is somehow the social equivalent of being arrested for OWI so a less severe punishment for the non public criminal is discriminatory. Those are the thoughts of either morons or a political belief that defies the normal functions of life.

You expose your true ideological purpose by your demented justification of name calling because I'm just so stupid. Only creatures of the left have that sense of absolute moral authority. Unlike most conservatives I'm not intimidated by your scree. I do not like to get personal, but I can. If you choose to go down that road it will end with a great deal of frustration and loss of self esteem; it always does for those who choose to take that journey with me. You've already beclowned yourself. Please conclude your participation in this conversation, you really will feel better about yourself.
Don’t forget person could be a professor🤪
 
tenor.gif
 
You understand this board does not involve a lot of research. Kind of a place for summary opinions.

But I will answer you childlike bleating.

The Trump hat thing happened to me and several other people. Screamed at by students and stopped by the Campus Security as having been accused of causing a public disturbance. I did it because we were also considering suing the University and I wanted test my potential plaintiffs' story. The only disturbances were the people that screamed at me and the special little karen that began crying. I was there less than 10 minutes. Told campus security that I would only tell them my name after I called the finance office to identify my then donor status. I did tell them I think the story would probably not be appreciated by their supervisors after the donor office called them. So they left. One rule is always true young man-the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

As for black studies text books there are droves of excerpts on line but you know that. We're not in courtroom or your ass would be buried in text books. Also, in a project on which I worked sometime between George W. Bush's first election and Donald Trump's first election I had the thrilling opportunity to read several text books from black studies, women's studies and some really freaking crazy shit about trans-sexuality that basically repudiated ten million generations of mammalian biology from whatever acronymically named course of study handles that assault on reality.

I can tell you're a kid more comfortable being the smart kid at the dumb kid's table. You don't think the readers notice your infantile repetition of some collateral argument about "what books" is really a common leftie ploy to distract from the larger point-someone, and the U of Iowa and almost every other college in the country are in the universe of "someone", is teaching black kids, actually all kids, that things like being told to lower one's expectation in academia and football when you're not intellectually capable, or insufficiently disciplined, of doing both is racist, or thinking that private underage possession in a dorm party is somehow the social equivalent of being arrested for OWI so a less severe punishment for the non public criminal is discriminatory. Those are the thoughts of either morons or a political belief that defies the normal functions of life.

You expose your true ideological purpose by your demented justification of name calling because I'm just so stupid. Only creatures of the left have that sense of absolute moral authority. Unlike most conservatives I'm not intimidated by your scree. I do not like to get personal, but I can. If you choose to go down that road it will end with a great deal of frustration and loss of self esteem; it always does for those who choose to take that journey with me. You've already beclowned yourself. Please conclude your participation in this conversation, you really will feel better about yourself.
All those words and you still don't even begin to approach providing evidence for your accusation. You are nothing but a verbose jackoff. Just a straight up obvious fraud.

Instead of indulging all your unhinged, meandering projection, baseless speculation and hypocrisy, I'm going to do my best to keep things focused and brief:

1. You weren't "stopped by campus security for wearing a Trump hat". Even if one were to accept your version of events as true, a claim that you were stopped simply for wearing a Trump hat is an obvious distortion.

2. I told you to show your work, just like even the most minimally responsible fact finder would, and your petulant response is "It feels true! Everyone knows it's true! Look at my larger point!" The simple fact is you can't come up with specific examples that implicate the University of Iowa. You're admitting this. You're admitting you can't win this argument. So I accept your concession.
Only creatures of the left have that sense of absolute moral authority.
Oh look, you're proving what I said about you earlier is 100% true. "Liberals bad! Conservatives good!" Nice baby brain, idiot.
 
You understand this board does not involve a lot of research. Kind of a place for summary opinions.

But I will answer you childlike bleating.

The Trump hat thing happened to me and several other people. Screamed at by students and stopped by the Campus Security as having been accused of causing a public disturbance. I did it because we were also considering suing the University and I wanted test my potential plaintiffs' story. The only disturbances were the people that screamed at me and the special little karen that began crying. I was there less than 10 minutes. Told campus security that I would only tell them my name after I called the finance office to identify my then donor status. I did tell them I think the story would probably not be appreciated by their supervisors after the donor office called them. So they left. One rule is always true young man-the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

As for black studies text books there are droves of excerpts on line but you know that. We're not in courtroom or your ass would be buried in text books. Also, in a project on which I worked sometime between George W. Bush's first election and Donald Trump's first election I had the thrilling opportunity to read several text books from black studies, women's studies and some really freaking crazy shit about trans-sexuality that basically repudiated ten million generations of mammalian biology from whatever acronymically named course of study handles that assault on reality.

I can tell you're a kid more comfortable being the smart kid at the dumb kid's table. You don't think the readers notice your infantile repetition of some collateral argument about "what books" is really a common leftie ploy to distract from the larger point-someone, and the U of Iowa and almost every other college in the country are in the universe of "someone", is teaching black kids, actually all kids, that things like being told to lower one's expectation in academia and football when you're not intellectually capable, or insufficiently disciplined, of doing both is racist, or thinking that private underage possession in a dorm party is somehow the social equivalent of being arrested for OWI so a less severe punishment for the non public criminal is discriminatory. Those are the thoughts of either morons or a political belief that defies the normal functions of life.

You expose your true ideological purpose by your demented justification of name calling because I'm just so stupid. Only creatures of the left have that sense of absolute moral authority. Unlike most conservatives I'm not intimidated by your scree. I do not like to get personal, but I can. If you choose to go down that road it will end with a great deal of frustration and loss of self esteem; it always does for those who choose to take that journey with me. You've already beclowned yourself. Please conclude your participation in this conversation, you really will feel better about yourself.
Lol you are really dumb
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawks4Life86
All those words and you still don't even begin to approach providing evidence for your accusation. You are nothing but a verbose jackoff. Just a straight up obvious fraud.

Instead of indulging all your unhinged, meandering projection, baseless speculation and hypocrisy, I'm going to do my best to keep things focused and brief:

1. You weren't "stopped by campus security for wearing a Trump hat". Even if one were to accept your version of events as true, a claim that you were stopped simply for wearing a Trump hat is an obvious distortion.

2. I told you to show your work, just like even the most minimally responsible fact finder would, and your petulant response is "It feels true! Everyone knows it's true! Look at my larger point!" The simple fact is you can't come up with specific examples that implicate the University of Iowa. You're admitting this. You're admitting you can't win this argument. So I accept your concession.

Oh look, you're proving what I said about you earlier is 100% true. "Liberals bad! Conservatives good!" Nice baby brain, idiot.
[/QUOTE
The humility just pours out when you write. It is just overwhelming.😉
 
Question for the attorneys here. If phone records are accessible for state employees with job provided phones, can the records of their private phones be pulled into any case? Would they be or have been wise to have a work provided phone and a personal phone, which maybe also gets used to discuss work. Just wondering how that works in cases where phone records / texts are subject to a subpoena and whether it matters if job provided phone vs private phone. Same could be said for work e-mail vs private also.
 
Question for the attorneys here. If phone records are accessible for state employees with job provided phones, can the records of their private phones be pulled into any case? Would they be or have been wise to have a work provided phone and a personal phone, which maybe also gets used to discuss work. Just wondering how that works in cases where phone records / texts are subject to a subpoena and whether it matters if job provided phone vs private phone. Same could be said for work e-mail vs private also.

The employer provided phones can be directly accessed by the employers because the employer owns the phone and the account to which it is provided.

However, private call and text history for private cell, and even landlines that still exist, can be obtained via subpoena or a discovery request. Some cell providers cooperate and some make it impossible to recover their call history (e.g. charging $30K for a records search deters most litigants). It is sometimes a very hotly litigated issue.

Free legal advice. The "send" icon, not always your friend guys. The content exists forever.
 
You expose your true ideological purpose by your demented justification of name calling because I'm just so stupid. Only creatures of the left have that sense of absolute moral authority. Unlike most conservatives I'm not intimidated by your scree. I do not like to get personal, but I can. If you choose to go down that road it will end with a great deal of frustration and loss of self esteem; it always does for those who choose to take that journey with me. You've already beclowned yourself. Please conclude your participation in this conversation, you really will feel better about yourself.
As an individual who is usually perceived as being strongly "left leaning" ... the religious conservative right blusters about with every bit as much moral authority (even more absolute in their eyes ... given that the moral authority is dictated by [some] god).

However, I prefer to defer to intellect first ... and if ANYONE is willing to critically think and step away from their dogmatic "baggage" ... then there are plenty of conservatives and liberals alike who impress me.

Many classes to which you've been referring ... it really is worthwhile for ANYONE to be more reflective and introspective. To understand and recognize our own prejudices and biases - that is valuable and allows us to productively and proactively interact with a greater swath of humanity.

Certainly, some folks are perhaps a little too sensitive/defensive when they take such classes ... and they totally miss the point of the courses. Worrying too much about thinking that folks are trying to assign "blame" ... when the reality is that it's much more about empathy and trying to truly understand others.
 
Docket #19 (filed 2/22/21) - Plaintiffs file another unresisted Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The motion cites to "extraordinary severe winter weather" and that "inclement weather left Plaintiffs' out-of-state counsel and families experiencing and addressing power outages and water shortages." Defendants did not resist the motion.

Docket #20 (entered 2/22/21) - Judge Adams enters an Order extending the deadline to file Response to the Motion to Dismiss from 2/24/21 to 3/1/21.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iowahaha1
The employer provided phones can be directly accessed by the employers because the employer owns the phone and the account to which it is provided.

However, private call and text history for private cell, and even landlines that still exist, can be obtained via subpoena or a discovery request. Some cell providers cooperate and some make it impossible to recover their call history (e.g. charging $30K for a records search deters most litigants). It is sometimes a very hotly litigated issue.

Free legal advice. The "send" icon, not always your friend guys. The content exists forever.

I think a lot of today's youth is going to learn the lesson the hard way with texts and even e-mail. Also with identity theft.
 
I think a lot of today's youth is going to learn the lesson the hard way with texts and even e-mail. Also with identity theft.

You have no idea. I see the crazy crazy shit people put in emails and text messages, 17 year old minor girls sending naked pics (a crime) and other young women over 18 creating a little home made porn that maybe their grandkids will get to see in 40 years. The admissions people make in emails are stunning.

Best "send ain't your friend" story I have is from this $11 million case I had in Phoenix. There was conspiracy between the minority, and I mean a small minority, of shareholders and the investment lenders in NYC. Well we flipped a couple of conspirators (never a good idea to have children outside your marriage and especially bad idea to never tell your wife if you are planning on turning on your friends/bosses) because things like that become public, that's how we flipped the first conspirator. So the conspiracy falls apart. One of the rebels was this archetypical goth IT guy. Well the little goth was smart enough to realize the conspiracy was falling apart after about six weeks. Since he and a couple other rebels had nothing to offer for peace he knew he was metaphorically dead.

So, thinking he can regain support for the conspiracy he sent an email to all the conspirators, two of whom were feeding the emails back to us. The email began "I know Herb said not to put anything in writing" and then proceeded to write a detailed history of the conspiracy and each conspirator's role in it.

Moral of the story-don't put anything in an email or other IT media that you would not want to see published on the front page of a newspaper, especially to ex wives and business colleagues and even more so if you're pissed (either the American or British meaning). Those kinds of emails/publications can really come around and bite you in the ass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: just_somebody
Docket #21 - Joint Motion for Scheduling Conference.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties are to jointly prepare a Scheduling Order which details a number of key dates (i.e. deadlines for amending pleadings, Rule 26 expert disclosures, discovery deadlines, dispositive motion deadlines, etc). The rules set forth a deadline by which the parties are required to submit the proposal for the court to review. In more complicated cases, it is not uncommon for the parties to ask the court to preside over a conference in which the court will provide guidance with respect to the applicable deadlines. In light of the pending motion to dismiss, which could result in some of the plaintiffs' claims disappearing, it isn't much of a surprise that the parties are jointly seeking the court's assistance and guidance regarding how to proceed with creation of a schedule going forward.

Docket #22 should be the Plaintiffs' response in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. As of the time of this post (4:22:25 p.m. CST), it has not yet been filed. They have until 11:59:59 CST tonight to get it timely filed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flyfishstout_CO
Docket #21 - Joint Motion for Scheduling Conference.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties are to jointly prepare a Scheduling Order which details a number of key dates (i.e. deadlines for amending pleadings, Rule 26 expert disclosures, discovery deadlines, dispositive motion deadlines, etc). The rules set forth a deadline by which the parties are required to submit the proposal for the court to review. In more complicated cases, it is not uncommon for the parties to ask the court to preside over a conference in which the court will provide guidance with respect to the applicable deadlines. In light of the pending motion to dismiss, which could result in some of the plaintiffs' claims disappearing, it isn't much of a surprise that the parties are jointly seeking the court's assistance and guidance regarding how to proceed with creation of a schedule going forward.

Docket #22 should be the Plaintiffs' response in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. As of the time of this post (4:22:25 p.m. CST), it has not yet been filed. They have until 11:59:59 CST tonight to get it timely filed.
Thanks Aurora. Really appreciate your updates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawkfan_08
Docket #21 - Joint Motion for Scheduling Conference.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties are to jointly prepare a Scheduling Order which details a number of key dates (i.e. deadlines for amending pleadings, Rule 26 expert disclosures, discovery deadlines, dispositive motion deadlines, etc). The rules set forth a deadline by which the parties are required to submit the proposal for the court to review. In more complicated cases, it is not uncommon for the parties to ask the court to preside over a conference in which the court will provide guidance with respect to the applicable deadlines. In light of the pending motion to dismiss, which could result in some of the plaintiffs' claims disappearing, it isn't much of a surprise that the parties are jointly seeking the court's assistance and guidance regarding how to proceed with creation of a schedule going forward.

Docket #22 should be the Plaintiffs' response in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. As of the time of this post (4:22:25 p.m. CST), it has not yet been filed. They have until 11:59:59 CST tonight to get it timely filed.

Does this case not strike you as discovery intensive? There are probably 1000 people that could be deposed and twenty two years of records regarding the "atmosphere" in the Ferentz program.
 
Docket #22 - Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

I checked the docket at about 8:30 p.m. last night and it had not yet been filed. Someone was working later than the average working day and there is a fair amount to digest.

If you recall, the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint included eight separate counts of recovery.

In its latest filing, the Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss, with prejudice, Counts V and VI which attempted to state a cause of action for civil conspiracy. The term "with prejudice" means that they will not have the opportunity to resurrect that particular claim at any point in the future.

That leaves Counts I, II, III, IV, VII and VIII.

Counts I, II and III seek recovery under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Plaintiffs' counsel concedes that the applicable statute of limitations is "generally" two years but, in this case, it should be four years. With the caveat that I have not read the case law and this is not my area of expertise, Plaintiffs' counsel contends that, when a party asserts a Section 1981 claim for racial discrimination under Section 1983 (authorizing civil actions against state governmental employees) the statute of limitations is four years. Plaintiffs' counsel cites a case decided out of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa (not exactly a reputed "liberal" haven) that supposedly states for this proposition. For those who are interested in reading the case, it is Williams v. Hawkeye Community College, 494 F.Supp. 1032 (N.D. Iowa 2007). Plaintiffs' counsel further claims that the Williams decision is consistent with a U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Jones v. R.R. Donnelly & Sons, 541, U.S. 369 (2004).

I haven't read either case and cannot comment one way or the other. What's the practical effect? Plaintiffs' counsel argues that, if the SOL is four years, Wadley, Parker, Joey and Cooper's claims under Section 1981 as articulated in Counts I, II and III survive and should be allowed to go forward.

As for Count VIII (breach of contract) . . . Plaintiffs' counsel is dismissing (does not reference whether it is with or without prejudice) all of the individual defendants. Plaintiffs' counsel is only seeking to proceed against the University of Iowa, the Board of Regents and the State of Iowa.

Plaintiffs' counsel is agreeing to voluntarily dismiss (without prejudice) Gary Barta as an individual in every count in which he is named (IV, VII and VIII). By seeking a dismissal without prejudice, it is possible that Barta re-enters the picture as a defendant later in the case - presumably if the case survives and information unearthed in discovery supports such a claim.

There's more but "real work" beckons. Will try to log on later and supplement from above.

Last thing . . . according to the rules, Defendants' Reply is due in 7 days (3/8/21) but I anticipate that they will seek and receive another extension . . . probably another 14 days which would take us out to 3/22/21.
 
So AuroraHawk do you think the University will engage External Counsel once these initial motions are dealt with and they know for sure what exactly they are facing? I share others thoughts that External Counsel that specialize in this area of the law would better serve Iowa than the Attorney Generals Office but would appreciate your thoughts as well.

Thanks for your updates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iowahaha1
Docket #22 - Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

I checked the docket at about 8:30 p.m. last night and it had not yet been filed. Someone was working later than the average working day and there is a fair amount to digest.

If you recall, the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint included eight separate counts of recovery.

In its latest filing, the Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss, with prejudice, Counts V and VI which attempted to state a cause of action for civil conspiracy. The term "with prejudice" means that they will not have the opportunity to resurrect that particular claim at any point in the future.

That leaves Counts I, II, III, IV, VII and VIII.

Counts I, II and III seek recovery under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Plaintiffs' counsel concedes that the applicable statute of limitations is "generally" two years but, in this case, it should be four years. With the caveat that I have not read the case law and this is not my area of expertise, Plaintiffs' counsel contends that, when a party asserts a Section 1981 claim for racial discrimination under Section 1983 (authorizing civil actions against state governmental employees) the statute of limitations is four years. Plaintiffs' counsel cites a case decided out of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa (not exactly a reputed "liberal" haven) that supposedly states for this proposition. For those who are interested in reading the case, it is Williams v. Hawkeye Community College, 494 F.Supp. 1032 (N.D. Iowa 2007). Plaintiffs' counsel further claims that the Williams decision is consistent with a U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Jones v. R.R. Donnelly & Sons, 541, U.S. 369 (2004).

I haven't read either case and cannot comment one way or the other. What's the practical effect? Plaintiffs' counsel argues that, if the SOL is four years, Wadley, Parker, Joey and Cooper's claims under Section 1981 as articulated in Counts I, II and III survive and should be allowed to go forward.

As for Count VIII (breach of contract) . . . Plaintiffs' counsel is dismissing (does not reference whether it is with or without prejudice) all of the individual defendants. Plaintiffs' counsel is only seeking to proceed against the University of Iowa, the Board of Regents and the State of Iowa.

Plaintiffs' counsel is agreeing to voluntarily dismiss (without prejudice) Gary Barta as an individual in every count in which he is named (IV, VII and VIII). By seeking a dismissal without prejudice, it is possible that Barta re-enters the picture as a defendant later in the case - presumably if the case survives and information unearthed in discovery supports such a claim.

There's more but "real work" beckons. Will try to log on later and supplement from above.

Last thing . . . according to the rules, Defendants' Reply is due in 7 days (3/8/21) but I anticipate that they will seek and receive another extension . . . probably another 14 days which would take us out to 3/22/21.
Thank you for your continued input. Case law difficult for non attorney to fully absorb but does Waterman v. Nashua-Plainfield Cmty. Sch. Dist., 446 F. Supp. 2d 1018, 1025-26 (N.D. Iowa 2006) suggest SOL will be two years rather than four?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT