Hey Akrum, I’m still waiting for my signed mini helmet I sent you $80 about three years ago, any chance you can get that in the mail soon?
Former Players v. Football Program *** Thread
- Thread starter AuroraHawk
- Start date
- Status
It is all hear-say, you have coaches (black coaches) that can testify that they never heard Doyle say anything like what these players are stating.
"He said\He said" isn't much to go on.
I sure wish the law was such that if you are going to sue someone, that if you lose you will pay that person(s) said amount. PUt your money where your mouth is.
"He said\He said" isn't much to go on.
I sure wish the law was such that if you are going to sue someone, that if you lose you will pay that person(s) said amount. PUt your money where your mouth is.
They may , but no reason to do it now, the defendants can keep chipping away at the claims and charges against them and get to a point where the plaintiffs and they lawyers see the writing on the wall and settle with all allegations dismissed and maybe $1,000 for the defendants.
Question for lawyers: Only Mends, Foy and Simon can move forward on Count 1. If Uof I found guilty, would remedy most likely include financial payment to those three? Count IV names Brian Ferentz and Chris Doyle as defendants. Would they be agents of the state or personally liable if found guilty?
Take him to small claims court.
Can I sue my former school for making me complete English instruction which is an old imperialist european means of communication? It was forced on me and I hated it! Is not that biased and discriminatory?
Is it okay if his Mom buys a plastic one at Wal Mart and she signs it?
We are moving to a world where we will all be wearing body cameras.
Thank you for the excellent summary.
My 2 cents:
The judge threw out, or Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed, the low hanging fruit —- the claims that were legally deficient.
What’s left is legally viable, but may be very difficult to prove, I.e., the facts may not support the allegations.
Defendants will get another chance to dismiss what’s left after discovery and before a trial (if any). That will depend on the facts that Plaintiffs develop in discovery to support their claims. Expect their to be legal skirmishes that generate written opinions by the judge on discovery disputes.
Close calls on facts in dispute will go to jury to decide at trial.
The statue of limitations also may be factor such that even if facts support claims, the lawsuit may not have been filed in time for the law to provide a remedy.
With respect to Count I . . . only Mends, Foy and Simon were named as Plaintiffs for that count. No player was dismissed from Count I. All three have sued for money damages. So, if the Defendants in Count I (UI and Board of Regents) are found to be liable by the jury, the jury would award money damages. In order to receive money damages, each player would have to prove entitlement to damages. I suppose it is possible that a jury could find in favor of one player and against the other players. At this juncture, that would seem unlikely but it isn't completely outside the realm of possibility.
As for your second question on Count IV, I strongly suspect that neither Brian Ferentz nor Chris Doyle face individual liability and that the UI would cover any judgment (either directly or via some sort of insurance coverage - or some combination thereof).
By your logic, if a woman doesn't not mind being touched by her significant other/partner/spouse in sexually suggestive ways and finds such behavior to be stimulating and exciting . . . then it would be OK for her boss to do the same. If she's OK in one setting then it is necessarily OK in a completely different setting, right?
Bad take.
Nice stretch, words vs physical contact.. but hey, it's 2021 words are weapons. I would say an example would be more closely to if you call your wife a bitc# and are okay with it, then if some other guy does you shouldn't care either.
Or were the players physically assaulted and I missed that statement?
File a suit. If he wins part of his lawsuit it would be karma that he’d have to give some of it back to the fans he stole from.
So, is it correct to assume at this point, Big Money and deeper pockets are out of the case? No U of I, Barta and Kirk Farentz? Even if the players win something on the remaining counts, which is not a sure thing by any means, with counts only against Brien and Doyle, after the Players lawyer takes his 3rd, how much would be left to divide among how may Players? Sounds hardly worth it .
Not a stretch by any means of the imagination. But, since you seem to want to create distinctions, I'll amend my prior post.
By your logic, if a woman doesn't not mind having her significant other/partner/spouse comment favorably about "her ass" in particular clothing, commenting that a particular shirt makes her chest look sexy, commenting that she has a really "nice rack" or "those jeans make me want to jump you" and actually may be flattered by such comments . . . then it would be OK for her boss to do the same? If she's OK in one setting then it is necessarily OK in a completely different setting, right?
Still a bad take.
No . . . that's not correct.
Under a typical contingency fee contract, a plaintiff's lawyer would take one-third of any settlement/judgment, then costs would be paid and the remainder would go to the plaintiff. To answer your question generally "two-thirds less costs."
So, you were ‘kind of’ able to walk yourself through your terrible take. Did the dots connect for you?
You're the one who brought up "sexual" thoughts.
Just take the L and move on.
EDIT: okay, wasn't sexual thoughts, but it was a valid comparison to your bad argument.
Last edited:
Where exactly did I mention sexual thoughts? Do you consider calling someone a bit##, sexual?
I've moved on now.
OK so just a correction. Hearsay statements are out of court statements introduced in court for the truth of the statement. There are numerous exceptions and one such exception is a statement by a party opponent. Doyle's statements are coming in because a) they aren't for the truth of the matter... for example it isn't true he had the power to send the players back to the ghetto or whatever that ridiculous phrase was; b) even if they were for the truth of the matter asserted it comes in as a party opponent. This is why a police officer can testify at trial about every statement a defendant makes to them in a criminal case.
Second, who jury's believe is unpredictable. What you are describing is a classic mistake confusing evidence and proof. All of these statements are evidence. The testimony others didn't hear such talk is evidence. A jury then decides who they believe and whether the accuser(s) have met their burden of proof. Then the jury decides what damages shuttles be.
Words always have mattered. This is not new. He said/he said or pick your gender has always been enough even in criminal cases where the burden is higher, but only when the jury finds unanimously the burden is met.
As for the last, at first glance there is some appeal to the standard of loser pays attorney fees. But the greater policy implications could be very devastating because it alters the risk dynamics in ways which ultimately will only benefit the few at the cost of the many. But that's an entirely different discussion.
Aurora's analysis is partially correct as to the issue of voluntariness, but it does go to the issues of damages and credibility.
It is known as situational outrage.
Actual case, my defendant won.
Facts: very attractive professional young woman. All the witnesses testified that she was generally very professional at work. After passing her boss's office, past the doorway where she could no longer be seen she heard a male coworker say to the boss, "you should see her tits." She sued, workplace harassment. Claimed damages were emotional distress caused by hearing a male coworker describe her breasts, because that's so personal.
Then........the male co worker confessed to what I would call a crush on this chick. Had downloaded almost every pic from this chick's FB page. There were 37 pictures of her in swim suits that were basically naked and available to every person with her name and an internet connection. So she couldn't really explain why she would feel a violation of her privacy or "private space" when she had published virtually naked photos for anyone going to her FB page.
She couldn't, the jury thought her outrage was insincere, as she was, and she got 0. Most people, I think most people, understand that one cannot engage in behavior or language and then claim legally cognizable emotional damage from witnessing or hearing the same behavior and language in their presence or directed at them.
So the racial slur will become an issue if the defense wants to make it one. I would get the guy's entire playlists off computers and phones, get people close to him to describe the complainants. They are claim emotional distress damages so let's see how distressful he really finds it.
There is another important distinction between purely private conversation between spouses and regular course of the day conversations between random people, or a music catalogue that bombards the listener with racial slurs, indeed slurs of every kind.
But if it comes down to a situational outrage the case will go to a jury. The players will look idiotic.
It is known as situational outrage.
Actual case, my defendant won.
Facts: very attractive professional young woman. All the witnesses testified that she was generally very professional at work. After passing her boss's office, past the doorway where she could no longer be seen she heard a male coworker say to the boss, "you should see her tits." She sued, workplace harassment. Claimed damages were emotional distress caused by hearing a male coworker describe her breasts, because that's so personal.
Then........the male co worker confessed to what I would call a crush on this chick. Had downloaded almost every pic from this chick's FB page. There were 37 pictures of her in swim suits that were basically naked and available to every person with her name and an internet connection. So she couldn't really explain why she would feel a violation of her privacy or "private space" when she had published virtually naked photos for anyone going to her FB page.
She couldn't, the jury thought her outrage was insincere, as she was, and she got 0. Most people, I think most people, understand that one cannot engage in behavior or language and then claim legally cognizable emotional damage from witnessing or hearing the same behavior and language in their presence or directed at them.
So the racial slur will become an issue if the defense wants to make it one. I would get the guy's entire playlists off computers and phones, get people close to him to describe the complainants. They are claim emotional distress damages so let's see how distressful he really finds it.
There is another important distinction between purely private conversation between spouses and regular course of the day conversations between random people, or a music catalogue that bombards the listener with racial slurs, indeed slurs of every kind.
But if it comes down to a situational outrage the case will go to a jury. The players will look idiotic.
Great post. Most cases come down to a swearing contest between the competing sides. You look at things like corroboration, common sense concepts like people do not hide things if they have nothing to hide, and most importantly I think is willing candor. I once had an alluding case when I was young. So I went out and actually measured the number of feet my guy would have driven in less than three minutes.
For the police theory to have been true it would have required my guy to travel 212 mph through narrow side streets south of Ingersoll. So my guy's version of the events was more rather than less likely because the police told such a monumentally stupid lie just so they could overcharge him.
And, as beerhawk aptly noted, juries are extremely volatile critters, you never what they'll believe or why. That's why 90% of civil cases settle.
So a number of claims got dismissed for whatever reason. Some claims (I think 2) remain— at least in part. And Scott Frost’s ween is an inny.
Is that about right?
Is the alleged factual basis presented to the Court supporting the plaintiff's theory (ruled sufficient by Judge Rose for Counts I and VI) available for us to read?
I am curious about exactly what alleged facts have been considered and accepted as sufficient basis by Judge Rose.
I am curious about exactly what alleged facts have been considered and accepted as sufficient basis by Judge Rose.
you should contact Akrum's football camp he is working and see if they will pay you money directly. I'm sure they wont, but I bet there sure would be character concerns, especially if you have a thief working with youths.
Unfortunately with these damn cell phones we're pretty much there now......
Yep. If you are carrying your cell phone and it's on, you can be tracked. If there is anybody who wants to know where you are.
Docket Entry #32 - Status conference held this morning. Simply identifies who appeared for the parties. Conference lasted 16 minutes.
Docket Entry #33 - The text order identifies that the parties' counsel were ordered to collaborate and jointly submit a proposed scheduling order/discovery plan by 5/21. There will be a scheduling conference on 5/26 for confirmation and entry of the proposed scheduling order and, more than likely, to set a trial date.
Docket Entry #33 - The text order identifies that the parties' counsel were ordered to collaborate and jointly submit a proposed scheduling order/discovery plan by 5/21. There will be a scheduling conference on 5/26 for confirmation and entry of the proposed scheduling order and, more than likely, to set a trial date.
can Doyle file a counter suit for defamation of character and emotional distress against said players?
Can he? Yes. Whether such a claim could be viable? Highly unlikely.
Thanks for your work in this thread Aurora.
Join Aurora's opinion. You cannot defame someone in pleadings filed in Court.
I'm assuming the plaintiff's filed ICRC complaints first. Those statements are not immune if defamatory. Plaintiff's claims are so highly subjective that proving actual falsity might not be possible. I think this is the unviable claim to which Aurora refers. This would also be unlikely to succeed
I think the best counterattack is getting cell phone and email histories, and the state has the resources to do that, and see what the various plaintiffs have said about the suit. There could be many adverse admissions that lead to an abuse of process claims.
The defendants could counterclaim for abuse of process, although that is not an easy claim to prove. There could also be Rule 11 sanctions for a bad pleading. Discovery may move in that direction but its called discovery for a reason-you actual do discover evidence the other side would prefer you not see.
I'm assuming the plaintiff's filed ICRC complaints first. Those statements are not immune if defamatory. Plaintiff's claims are so highly subjective that proving actual falsity might not be possible. I think this is the unviable claim to which Aurora refers. This would also be unlikely to succeed
I think the best counterattack is getting cell phone and email histories, and the state has the resources to do that, and see what the various plaintiffs have said about the suit. There could be many adverse admissions that lead to an abuse of process claims.
The defendants could counterclaim for abuse of process, although that is not an easy claim to prove. There could also be Rule 11 sanctions for a bad pleading. Discovery may move in that direction but its called discovery for a reason-you actual do discover evidence the other side would prefer you not see.
- Status
