A Sea Of Red

Cam coming back to get us!
Is this a joke??? And being represented by LU law grad Joshua Farmer!

He's really swinging for the fences with the 100 million. Dude has no case.

ballah09 wrote:He's really swinging for the fences with the 100 million. Dude has no case.

He wants to make a name for himself, but this isn't going to do it. I bet that if Jr had his way, he'd take this guy to school.

rogers3 wrote:

ballah09 wrote:He's really swinging for the fences with the 100 million. Dude has no case.

He wants to make a name for himself, but this isn't going to do it. I bet that if Jr had his way, he'd take this guy to school.

Can't really argue with this:
"The lawsuit filed by Jackson’s attorney, Joshua Farmer, casts doubts on the accuser’s charges and alleges Jackson’s accuser acted maliciously and the response of LU and its employees was inept."

Not sure it's worth $100 million though. I expect LU to fight it all the way because of Jr's new mentor. If I was on that jury (and I'm now nullifying myself from being on it!) I would think the kid deserves something. Not $100 million, but something.

That wont happen. Its his one opportunity to try to get rich. He certainly wasnt going to be a nfl player which is why the future earnings part is a joke.

Like it or not ive seen several instances recently where schools are disclosing more rather than less. I personally dont think he has much of a shot because i think it would be hard to rule against eering on the side of caution when you have potential rape allegations out there. Basically, is releasing the name worth money. I dont think so and i think the ludicrous amount will hurt the case as well. Poor legal counsel.

Sounds to me as if some lawyer should be disbarred. Some lawyers give the profession a bad name, in their quest for money , in stupid lawsuits

jinxy wrote:That wont happen. Its his one opportunitt to try to get rich. He certainly wasnt going to be a nfl player which is why the future earnings part is a joke.

Like it or not ive seen several instances recently where schools are disclosing more rather than less. I personally dont think he has much of a shot because i think it would be hard to rule against eering on the side of caution when you have potential raoe allegations out there. Basically, is releasing the name worth money. I dont think so and i think the ludicrous amount will hurt the case as well. Poor legal counsel.

The University said he was dismissed due to sexual assault
The authorities said there wasn't enough evidence to back that allegation

So for the rest of his life he has to find a creative way to say 'Why did you leave LU?'
He has lost access to any type of LU connections in gaining employment
And people who are acquainted with the situation on a passing basis will only look at him and think 'rapist'

I didn't see Gill's name mentioned did I miss it?

ballcoach15 wrote:Sounds to me as if some lawyer should be disbarred. Some lawyers give the profession a bad name, in their quest for money , in stupid lawsuits

Please, in your infinite wisdom of the Bar why should this lawyer be disbarred? What has he done that is unethical and should cost him his license? Certainly not this law suit. This has a lot of merit

He's asking for $100M on the basis of hypothetical repercussions and some folks being inept? I believe the financials are the portion of the suit that screams scurrilous.

Sly Fox wrote:He's asking for $100M on the basis of hypothetical repercussions and some folks being inept? I believe the financials are the portion of the suit that screams scurrilous.

I am with you on the financial part. But DUKE makes a really good point on that. Asking for $100 million will get people's attention

Purple Haize wrote:

jinxy wrote:That wont happen. Its his one opportunitt to try to get rich. He certainly wasnt going to be a nfl player which is why the future earnings part is a joke.

Like it or not ive seen several instances recently where schools are disclosing more rather than less. I personally dont think he has much of a shot because i think it would be hard to rule against eering on the side of caution when you have potential raoe allegations out there. Basically, is releasing the name worth money. I dont think so and i think the ludicrous amount will hurt the case as well. Poor legal counsel.

The University said he was dismissed due to sexual assault
The authorities said there wasn't enough evidence to back that allegation

So for the rest of his life he has to find a creative way to say 'Why did you leave LU?'
He has lost access to any type of LU connections in gaining employment
And people who are acquainted with the situation on a passing basis will only look at him and think 'rapist'

I didn't see Gill's name mentioned did I miss it?

My understanding is that Gill backed his players in contesting the sexual assault charges even though he dismissed them from the team for violating the "covenant" they signed, which prohibits extra-marital sex. If true, this would explain why he is not named.

I have to figure Carone has retired from posting here for good. If anything would have brought him out of the woodwork it would be this.

I'm still trying to figure out what the school did wrong. Maybe i need to read the case again. It certainly seems to be the opposite of the normal, hence the turnabout. Most scenarios leave the supposed victim in the lurch as opposed to the athlete.

I think LU went a little far in how the handled this but on the flip side had they not gone to these length and the charges ended up having validity then it would've completely blown up on them in a much more troublesome way.

but the fact they are asking for so much kind of hurts their case a little bit but I think he will be awarded something.

rogers3 wrote:I'm still trying to figure out what the school did wrong. Maybe i need to read the case again. It certainly seems to be the opposite of the normal, hence the turnabout. Most scenarios leave the supposed victim in the lurch as opposed to the athlete.

I think re reading the events and putting yourself in the kids shoes might give you a different perspective. My read is that there was an accusation that was being investigated which is as it should be. The wicket gets sticky when the school comes out and publicly says the player is being expelled because of sexual assault before the investigation is complete and then right after the investigators say there isn't enough evidence So now the kid has been publicly defamed as committing sexual assault and expelled for an action he was not found to have committed
To OLD's point my man crush on Gill grows

Gill may have his faults as a football coach, but from what I can tell his moral compass is working just fine.

I know that LE determined there was not enough evidence to press charges, but I am still a bit confused as to whether Liberty's investigation actually came to the same conclusion. It seems they did not.

oldflame wrote:Gill may have his faults as a football coach, but from what I can tell his moral compass is working just fine.

I know that LE determined there was not enough evidence to press charges, but I am still a bit confused as to whether Liberty's investigation actually came to the same conclusion. It seems they did not.

I am thinking the burden of proof may be at a substantially lower level for the school to take action.

Class of 20Something wrote:

oldflame wrote:Gill may have his faults as a football coach, but from what I can tell his moral compass is working just fine.

I know that LE determined there was not enough evidence to press charges, but I am still a bit confused as to whether Liberty's investigation actually came to the same conclusion. It seems they did not.

I am thinking the burden of proof may be at a substantially lower level for the school to take action.

I believe it is similar to a civil suit where you can prevail with a "preponderance of the evidence" as opposed to needing to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" The fact that the DA did not pursue charges is really irrelevant in that light.

Even the suit seems to recognize that there is a lack of malice on behalf the school and its employees.

Sly Fox wrote:Even the suit seems to recognize that there is a lack of malice on behalf the school and its employees.

I didn't get that. I think that's true for some. I mean Len Stephens? Yeah he's just reading what's written. But intent of malice isn't really the point. I don't think they are going for a 'hate crime' conviction

Purple Haize wrote:

rogers3 wrote:I'm still trying to figure out what the school did wrong. Maybe i need to read the case again. It certainly seems to be the opposite of the normal, hence the turnabout. Most scenarios leave the supposed victim in the lurch as opposed to the athlete.

I think re reading the events and putting yourself in the kids shoes might give you a different perspective. My read is that there was an accusation that was being investigated which is as it should be. The wicket gets sticky when the school comes out and publicly says the player is being expelled because of sexual assault before the investigation is complete and then right after the investigators say there isn't enough evidence So now the kid has been publicly defamed as committing sexual assault and expelled for an action he was not found to have committed
To OLD's point my man crush on Gill grows

This reminds me of the McCaw thread on this. There, some argued that McCaw didn't do enough (at least in some cases) because he did NOT do more than the PD. And now here, there's arguments that Liberty is to blame because it DID more than the PD could do. Maybe it's a problem with aspects of IX.

Bingo that was my point earlier and the insane amount of money. Like i said, i have a hard time seeing a court rule against a school protecting the victim. I still think the name is the only part that is debateable. Look at coastal they just suspended the whole squad. Its a tough decision to come to. I personally dont have any problem with what the school did.

If any of the Coastal Cheerleaders were falsely accused I wonder how much they will sue for? This stuff never ends?

I fail to see where he has a case to win remotely anything. In his lawsuit he's basically suing for being discriminated because he's a male. They basically admit Liberty followed their code of conduct and their sexual assault policies. He's throwing crap against the wall hoping something will stick. IF anything he should go after the NCAA and their BS title IX rules.

I think where liberty went wrong was going public with it. Other then that I have zero problem with what they did. Better be safe than sorry and indirectly send the message that kind of behavior is ok.

I wasn't a fan of how liberty handled it publicly but that's kind of par for the course.