For The Fans, By The Fans
https://usufans.com/Forums/
My guess from Frank's statement and the news about an investigation that university counsel (and her own) aren't going to permit any such meeting anytime soon. This is in full litigation status.
i think your right. It is sad it came to this. Does anyone know if Frank hired a lawyer of a possible lawsuit?
Its hearsay except for those on the zoom call except as for inconsistent statements by those on the call. And of course consistent statements across the Plaintiffs witnesses are the key. Defense is always going to allege coordination if they are but such is the nature of it.rAggie wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 2:04 pmAgreed with above. Now that there will be an investigation, they'll keep the parties segregated. It didn't have to be this way.
My big concern is this will be a he said, she said game, and I'm very concerned that the players have coordinated their stories. I'm curious from our attorneys on the board (@usu78) in an investigation, if let's say 30 people are asked what was said and they all come back with the exact same quote, does that suggest coordination or suggest credibility in the accusation?
Yup. Heh, @brownjeans , you still thinking this isn't on litigation track?
Can I please, please, please do the cross examination on Frank and Bond?rAggie wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 2:04 pmAgreed with above. Now that there will be an investigation, they'll keep the parties segregated. It didn't have to be this way.
My big concern is this will be a he said, she said game, and I'm very concerned that the players have coordinated their stories. I'm curious from our attorneys on the board (@usu78) in an investigation, if let's say 30 people are asked what was said and they all come back with the exact same quote, does that suggest coordination or suggest credibility in the accusation?
His defenses have been in freefall the last three years.NavyBlueAggie wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 3:00 pmIf anyone has access to much more than simple drive by blather about how experienced Noelle is with public venues and how accomplished she is, these assertions would have been D O A. Just pause and think about the assertions now against her, and how respected Frank has been in our circles.
It isn't up to her to prove herself innocent, the players are required to provide proof of guilt. I side with her until proven otherwise, as it should be in every case. For people to point out that it's out of character is not "blather", it's context and is the only thing any of us are qualified to talk about at this point since no evidence has been presented.NavyBlueAggie wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 3:00 pmIf anyone has access to much more than simple drive by blather about how experienced Noelle is with public venues and how accomplished she is, these assertions would have been D O A. Just pause and think about the assertions now against her, and how respected Frank has been in our circles.
Did JD Salinger write Catcher in the Rye intending to inspire killings?USU78 wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 2:23 pmYup. Heh, @brownjeans , you still thinking this isn't on litigation track?
Start with “why did you punt on 4th and 1 from midfield against Air Force”USU78 wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 2:25 pmCan I please, please, please do the cross examination on Frank and Bond?rAggie wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 2:04 pmAgreed with above. Now that there will be an investigation, they'll keep the parties segregated. It didn't have to be this way.
My big concern is this will be a he said, she said game, and I'm very concerned that the players have coordinated their stories. I'm curious from our attorneys on the board (@usu78) in an investigation, if let's say 30 people are asked what was said and they all come back with the exact same quote, does that suggest coordination or suggest credibility in the accusation?
I agree to this extent: Frank's counsel could give a crap about his long-term best interests.brownjeans wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 3:23 pmDid JD Salinger write Catcher in the Rye intending to inspire killings?USU78 wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 2:23 pmYup. Heh, @brownjeans , you still thinking this isn't on litigation track?
You know what causes litigation? Lawyers. The law is the only service industry where the presence of one service provider stimulates the need for another. It's an industry that scales itself. Like vultures to carion, I'm sure lawyers see an opportunity here. That doesn't mean it's why the team boycotted the game.
Just note though the burden in a civil case is a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s a low bar to clear to assess damages or at minimum get the university to settle.Aggie19 wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 3:08 pmIt isn't up to her to prove herself innocent, the players are required to provide proof of guilt. I side with her until proven otherwise, as it should be in every case. For people to point out that it's out of character is not "blather", it's context and is the only thing any of us are qualified to talk about at this point since no evidence has been presented.NavyBlueAggie wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 3:00 pmIf anyone has access to much more than simple drive by blather about how experienced Noelle is with public venues and how accomplished she is, these assertions would have been D O A. Just pause and think about the assertions now against her, and how respected Frank has been in our circles.
Yes, but at this point, no case has even been presented; only an accusation.rAggie wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 3:53 pmJust note though the burden in a civil case is a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s a low bar to clear to assess damages or at minimum get the university to settle.Aggie19 wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 3:08 pmIt isn't up to her to prove herself innocent, the players are required to provide proof of guilt. I side with her until proven otherwise, as it should be in every case. For people to point out that it's out of character is not "blather", it's context and is the only thing any of us are qualified to talk about at this point since no evidence has been presented.NavyBlueAggie wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 3:00 pmIf anyone has access to much more than simple drive by blather about how experienced Noelle is with public venues and how accomplished she is, these assertions would have been D O A. Just pause and think about the assertions now against her, and how respected Frank has been in our circles.
There will be no case. Only a demand and a settlement. No way USU drags their football program through a 3-4 year lawsuit. While the statement is in question the case is as straightforward as these things get (an alleged direct admission). Further there is no recording to put it in perspective.Aggie19 wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 4:04 pmYes, but at this point, no case has even been presented; only an accusation.rAggie wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 3:53 pmJust note though the burden in a civil case is a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s a low bar to clear to assess damages or at minimum get the university to settle.Aggie19 wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 3:08 pmIt isn't up to her to prove herself innocent, the players are required to provide proof of guilt. I side with her until proven otherwise, as it should be in every case. For people to point out that it's out of character is not "blather", it's context and is the only thing any of us are qualified to talk about at this point since no evidence has been presented.NavyBlueAggie wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 3:00 pmIf anyone has access to much more than simple drive by blather about how experienced Noelle is with public venues and how accomplished she is, these assertions would have been D O A. Just pause and think about the assertions now against her, and how respected Frank has been in our circles.
How was Frank discriminated against? I don't see how he can connect the zoom meeting to personal damages.hickaggie wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 4:10 pmThere will be no case. Only a demand and a settlement. No way USU drags their football program through a 3-4 year lawsuit. While the statement is in question the case is as straightforward as these things get (an alleged direct admission). Further there is no recording to put it in perspective.Aggie19 wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 4:04 pmYes, but at this point, no case has even been presented; only an accusation.rAggie wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 3:53 pmJust note though the burden in a civil case is a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s a low bar to clear to assess damages or at minimum get the university to settle.Aggie19 wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 3:08 pmIt isn't up to her to prove herself innocent, the players are required to provide proof of guilt. I side with her until proven otherwise, as it should be in every case. For people to point out that it's out of character is not "blather", it's context and is the only thing any of us are qualified to talk about at this point since no evidence has been presented.NavyBlueAggie wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 3:00 pmIf anyone has access to much more than simple drive by blather about how experienced Noelle is with public venues and how accomplished she is, these assertions would have been D O A. Just pause and think about the assertions now against her, and how respected Frank has been in our circles.
You have to understand federal employment discrimination lawsuits. A case involving race and religion is the gold standard because government agencies (EEOC and state equivalent) pay your investigation costs and help to settle. If you win $1.00 in court the University pays all of your attorney fees and court costs so those risks factor in.
So basically, we will never know what was actually said in that zoom meeting?hickaggie wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 4:10 pmThere will be no case. Only a demand and a settlement. No way USU drags their football program through a 3-4 year lawsuit. While the statement is in question the case is as straightforward as these things get (an alleged direct admission). Further there is no recording to put it in perspective.Aggie19 wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 4:04 pmYes, but at this point, no case has even been presented; only an accusation.rAggie wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 3:53 pmJust note though the burden in a civil case is a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s a low bar to clear to assess damages or at minimum get the university to settle.Aggie19 wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 3:08 pmIt isn't up to her to prove herself innocent, the players are required to provide proof of guilt. I side with her until proven otherwise, as it should be in every case. For people to point out that it's out of character is not "blather", it's context and is the only thing any of us are qualified to talk about at this point since no evidence has been presented.NavyBlueAggie wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 3:00 pmIf anyone has access to much more than simple drive by blather about how experienced Noelle is with public venues and how accomplished she is, these assertions would have been D O A. Just pause and think about the assertions now against her, and how respected Frank has been in our circles.
You have to understand federal employment discrimination lawsuits. A case involving race and religion is the gold standard because government agencies (EEOC and state equivalent) pay your investigation costs and help to settle. If you win $1.00 in court the University pays all of your attorney fees and court costs so those risks factor in.
He was playing field position, our defense had stopped them all night long.Intermeddler wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 3:26 pmStart with “why did you punt on 4th and 1 from midfield against Air Force”USU78 wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 2:25 pmCan I please, please, please do the cross examination on Frank and Bond?rAggie wrote: ↑December 13th, 2020, 2:04 pmAgreed with above. Now that there will be an investigation, they'll keep the parties segregated. It didn't have to be this way.
My big concern is this will be a he said, she said game, and I'm very concerned that the players have coordinated their stories. I'm curious from our attorneys on the board (@usu78) in an investigation, if let's say 30 people are asked what was said and they all come back with the exact same quote, does that suggest coordination or suggest credibility in the accusation?