Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

The lawyers giving opinions here certainly have interesting thoughts, but few have discussed the board structure, insurance costs, or the criminal aspects to these cases.

Baylor is ruled by a Board of Directors, not unlike a corporation. That board of directors is required to pay for something called Directors and Officers Liability Insurance. That gets expensive and if you have a serious, multi million dollar claim, those premiums go up fast. The president at Stanford liked to say his title was "Chief Defendent," as they were sued as much as any university in the US in one year.

So let's say you're the humble board member from First Baptist of Cuero and you're on the board and you see Sports Illustrated, ESPN, Texas Monthly, and some random ***** blogger from Belo Corp ranting about a rape at Baylor University and how university officials have been stonewalling media attempts to obtain information.

With the interest in keeping the university out of expensive litigation and keeping the D&O liability premiums at a minimum, you ask for an interview with the Athletic Director and Head FB coach to discuss details of the allegations.

What do some of the fine opinions here think the first response was?

---

You do know board members don't have to pay their own D&O premiums themselves, right? And a large claim may not effect their premiums at all. Baylor may very well be keeping the first several million per claim or have a large annual deductible. Now, essentially announcing that you're handing out checks and the line forms to the left is going to effect just about everything.

---

I know it quite well I'm keeping this generic for that reason.

I want to hear opinions as to how this played in the board room that earned a greater than 50% vote to terminate.

---

I'm sure we'd all love to know, but I suspect we won't until one of the ones who voted against it talks. I suspect that a small group controlled the narrative and a number of others were duped into thinking things were worse than they were. I also suspect we have several members who are extremely naive about what goes on in any football program and what goes on among Baylor students in general. Also, panic. Lots and lots of panic. If we ever learn the details, it will likely replace the Challenger launch as the textbook example of groupthink with disastrous consequences.

---

17 rape victims (yes alleged!) that involved 19 football players is not what goes on in any football program.

Group think is the clinging to these ridiculous conspiracy theories such as revenge of flirting with UT

---

Briles firing had nothing to do with the footsies being played with him and the University of Texas. It had everything to do with getting rid of Ken Starr and "protecting the brand." Briles was collateral damage. Your buddies on the BOR fed all kinds of numbers to the media, including 52 rapes, yet we have seen no proof. Your work is done here, Keyser. The football program has been destroyed.

---

This is so laughable. No it is no the ridiculous UT conspiracy theory, it is the smart well thought out get Ken Starr theory.

Murff, Gray, and Harper gave you 19/17/4 to the WSJ. That is the only number that has been given. You can't even keep straight the differences between what they said and what some plaintiff attorney threw up against the wall.

---

You should reread the 19/17/4 allegation. It doesn't say what you think it says.

---

OK spit it out

Keyser Soze said:

---

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

The lawyers giving opinions here certainly have interesting thoughts, but few have discussed the board structure, insurance costs, or the criminal aspects to these cases.

Baylor is ruled by a Board of Directors, not unlike a corporation. That board of directors is required to pay for something called Directors and Officers Liability Insurance. That gets expensive and if you have a serious, multi million dollar claim, those premiums go up fast. The president at Stanford liked to say his title was "Chief Defendent," as they were sued as much as any university in the US in one year.

So let's say you're the humble board member from First Baptist of Cuero and you're on the board and you see Sports Illustrated, ESPN, Texas Monthly, and some random ***** blogger from Belo Corp ranting about a rape at Baylor University and how university officials have been stonewalling media attempts to obtain information.

With the interest in keeping the university out of expensive litigation and keeping the D&O liability premiums at a minimum, you ask for an interview with the Athletic Director and Head FB coach to discuss details of the allegations.

What do some of the fine opinions here think the first response was?

---

You do know board members don't have to pay their own D&O premiums themselves, right? And a large claim may not effect their premiums at all. Baylor may very well be keeping the first several million per claim or have a large annual deductible. Now, essentially announcing that you're handing out checks and the line forms to the left is going to effect just about everything.

---

I know it quite well I'm keeping this generic for that reason.

I want to hear opinions as to how this played in the board room that earned a greater than 50% vote to terminate.

---

I'm sure we'd all love to know, but I suspect we won't until one of the ones who voted against it talks. I suspect that a small group controlled the narrative and a number of others were duped into thinking things were worse than they were. I also suspect we have several members who are extremely naive about what goes on in any football program and what goes on among Baylor students in general. Also, panic. Lots and lots of panic. If we ever learn the details, it will likely replace the Challenger launch as the textbook example of groupthink with disastrous consequences.

---

17 rape victims (yes alleged!) that involved 19 football players is not what goes on in any football program.

Group think is the clinging to these ridiculous conspiracy theories such as revenge of flirting with UT

---

Briles firing had nothing to do with the footsies being played with him and the University of Texas. It had everything to do with getting rid of Ken Starr and "protecting the brand." Briles was collateral damage. Your buddies on the BOR fed all kinds of numbers to the media, including 52 rapes, yet we have seen no proof. Your work is done here, Keyser. The football program has been destroyed.

---

This is so laughable. No it is no the ridiculous UT conspiracy theory, it is the smart well thought out get Ken Starr theory.

Murff, Gray, and Harper gave you 19/17/4 to the WSJ. That is the only number that has been given. You can't even keep straight the differences between what they said and what some plaintiff attorney threw up against the wall.

---

You should reread the 19/17/4 allegation. It doesn't say what you think it says.

---

OK spit it out

---

Good grief, man. You're worse than ESPN.

"...17 women who reported sexual OR DOMESTIC assaults involving 19 players..."

We have no idea how many alleged rape victims there were, but it wasn't 17. Now ask yourself why they would choose to lump that all together instead of being precise.

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

The lawyers giving opinions here certainly have interesting thoughts, but few have discussed the board structure, insurance costs, or the criminal aspects to these cases.

Baylor is ruled by a Board of Directors, not unlike a corporation. That board of directors is required to pay for something called Directors and Officers Liability Insurance. That gets expensive and if you have a serious, multi million dollar claim, those premiums go up fast. The president at Stanford liked to say his title was "Chief Defendent," as they were sued as much as any university in the US in one year.

So let's say you're the humble board member from First Baptist of Cuero and you're on the board and you see Sports Illustrated, ESPN, Texas Monthly, and some random ***** blogger from Belo Corp ranting about a rape at Baylor University and how university officials have been stonewalling media attempts to obtain information.

With the interest in keeping the university out of expensive litigation and keeping the D&O liability premiums at a minimum, you ask for an interview with the Athletic Director and Head FB coach to discuss details of the allegations.

What do some of the fine opinions here think the first response was?

---

You do know board members don't have to pay their own D&O premiums themselves, right? And a large claim may not effect their premiums at all. Baylor may very well be keeping the first several million per claim or have a large annual deductible. Now, essentially announcing that you're handing out checks and the line forms to the left is going to effect just about everything.

---

I know it quite well I'm keeping this generic for that reason.

I want to hear opinions as to how this played in the board room that earned a greater than 50% vote to terminate.

---

I'm sure we'd all love to know, but I suspect we won't until one of the ones who voted against it talks. I suspect that a small group controlled the narrative and a number of others were duped into thinking things were worse than they were. I also suspect we have several members who are extremely naive about what goes on in any football program and what goes on among Baylor students in general. Also, panic. Lots and lots of panic. If we ever learn the details, it will likely replace the Challenger launch as the textbook example of groupthink with disastrous consequences.

---

17 rape victims (yes alleged!) that involved 19 football players is not what goes on in any football program.

Group think is the clinging to these ridiculous conspiracy theories such as revenge of flirting with UT

---

Briles firing had nothing to do with the footsies being played with him and the University of Texas. It had everything to do with getting rid of Ken Starr and "protecting the brand." Briles was collateral damage. Your buddies on the BOR fed all kinds of numbers to the media, including 52 rapes, yet we have seen no proof. Your work is done here, Keyser. The football program has been destroyed.

---

This is so laughable. No it is no the ridiculous UT conspiracy theory, it is the smart well thought out get Ken Starr theory.

Murff, Gray, and Harper gave you 19/17/4 to the WSJ. That is the only number that has been given. You can't even keep straight the differences between what they said and what some plaintiff attorney threw up against the wall.

---

You should reread the 19/17/4 allegation. It doesn't say what you think it says.

---

OK spit it out

---

Good grief, man. You're worse than ESPN.

"...17 women who reported sexual OR DOMESTIC assaults involving 19 players..."

We have no idea how many alleged rape victims there were, but it wasn't 17. Now ask yourself why they would choose to lump that all together instead of being precise.

---

You are correct - next time just say so and save us some time.

Not idea why - are you thinking domestic assault is no big deal


Just for future reference, I am probably going to forget to put "alleged' in a sentence at some point in time.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Just for future reference, I am probably going to forget to put "alleged' in a sentence at some point in time.

---

Least surprising post you have made this week.

Smear campaign

Robert Wilson said:

---

Smear campaign

---

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action


Your telling me Shillinglaw and Briles are walking away from money ?

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Smear campaign

---

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action


Your telling me Shillinglaw and Briles are walking away from money ?

---

Truth is an absolute defense in a libel case, facts are not.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Smear campaign

---

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action


Your telling me Shillinglaw and Briles are walking away from money ?

---

If my boss offers me $25 million to leave tomorrow, I am outta there. He can even say bad things about me when I'm gone.

Is the guidance that has almost destroyed Baylor going to be overturned or overhauled?


DeVos: Replace Obama-era rules on campus sexual assault cases with more 'fair system'
Published September 07, 2017
Fox News

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Comments
• Email
• Print

[url=http://video.foxnews.com/v/5508415818001/education-secretary-considers-reversing-campus-rape-guidance][/url]

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos on Thursday called for replacing the Obama administration's rules for investigating allegations of sexual violence on campuses across the country with a more "workable, effective and fair system."


During a speech at George Mason University, DeVos announced plans to review and overhaul the way colleges and universities handle investigations.
"Here is what I've learned: the truth is that the system established by the prior administration has failed too many students," DeVos said.
She added, "Survivors, victims of a lack of due process, and campus administrators have all told me that the current approach does a disservice to everyone involved. That's why we must do better, because the current approach isn't working."
DeVos said the department will seek public comment and university expertise to develop rules to replace the current policy.
"We will seek public feedback and combine institutional knowledge, professional expertise, and the experiences of students to replace the current approach with a workable, effective, and fair system," DeVos said.

The Title IX law, enacted in 1972, forbids discrimination based on sex in education. It was once seen as a measure to ensure equity in college sports, but in recent years has become associated with efforts to address sexual assault and harassment at college campuses.
The Obama administration reshaped how colleges handle complaints of sexual assault, setting new rules and starting hundreds of investigations into colleges accused of straying from them.
Central to the debate is a 2011 department memo that laid out rules colleges must follow when responding to complaints of sexual assault from their students.
The memo requires colleges to investigate complaints even if there's a separate criminal inquiry. It also established what has become a polarizing standard of evidence used to judge cases.
Unlike in criminal courts, where guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, colleges judge students based on whether it's "more likely than not" they committed the offense.
Colleges that are found to have violated Title IX rules can lose federal funding entirely, although the department has never imposed that penalty.
Some advocacy groups say the Obama-era policies are flawed but worth saving. They argue the policies have protected many students and forced colleges to confront problems that were long kept quiet.
On Thursday, about two dozen protesters gathered outside the auditorium where DeVos delivered her speech.
DEVOS PLANS TITLE IX CHANGES IN WAKE OF REPORT ON CAMPUS DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
The protesters included women who said they were assaulted on campus and victims' advocates. "Donald Trump supports Betsy DeVos supports perpetrators," read the sign of one protester.
But opponents say the rules have swung the pendulum too far and pressure colleges to take hasty and heavy action against students accused of misconduct.
"Every survivor of sexual misconduct must be taken seriously," DeVos said Thursday. "Every student accused of sexual misconduct must know that guilt is not predetermined. These are non-negotiable principles."
She added: "Due process either protects everyone, or it protects no one. The notion that a school must diminish due process rights to better serve the 'victim' only creates more victims."
Fox News' Alex Pappas and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Smear campaign

---

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action


Your telling me Shillinglaw and Briles are walking away from money ?

---

But is it really a legal case? Sure about that?

You get paid millions and you turn around and write a book where you casually mention that you nearly dumped your employer for fickle reasons.

Next, you are caught negotiating for a new position with a hated rival, claiming that it was done for salary leverage. NeverMind that you could have gone the traditional approach and asked for a raise.

National media then runs a story about criminal problems with your program.

And the response is to let the athletic director handle it because your answer is you don't know.(delegated it, ya)

My belief is the board had a negative opinion of Briles LONG before this came to light.

But that the way he and his minions responded to it was the final straw.

Glad to see Sec. DeVos at least talking about the issue. Would rather she just rescind the Dear Colleague letters.

80sBEAR said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Smear campaign

---

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action


Your telling me Shillinglaw and Briles are walking away from money ?

---

If my boss offers me $25 million to leave tomorrow, I am outta there. He can even say bad things about me when I'm gone.

---

That money was in his pocket long before these lawsuits were even filed in late 2016. Zero to do with what I am talking about.

Keyser Soze said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

17 rape victims (yes alleged!) that involved 19 football players is not what goes on in any football program.

---

Please cite a source for your information.

---

You know where it came from, just stop it -


If it is not accurate there is little good reason (of course we can always add an extra layer of conspiracy) Briles and Shillinglaw should drop their lawsuits.

About 50 people would know it is a lie and not one of them will break their silence. We have been told it was not a unanimous vote, but we are to believe those who voted not to terminate are going to let this slide.

PH would know their professional name is being used to support a lie ..... and just do nothing about it

You have to believe that two upper level attorneys would knowingly expose themselves to a massive libel suit with a lie.


Look, I try and play fair, so yes I can not prove it to you. I would like you to make your own list as to why we should not believe it and compare it to what I wrote above. Do that and then we can talk about it. Maybe your list will change my mind.



(edit: rape & assault --- you buy that? )

---

Kinda got crickets on this one - too hard? someone want to take champion this

Keyser Soze said:

---

Just for future reference, I am probably going to forget to put "alleged' in a sentence at some point in time.

---

Which leads to leaving the word out ALL of the time. Media post office begets public hysteria.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Smear campaign

---

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action


Your telling me Shillinglaw and Briles are walking away from money ?

---

Most often the defense is, "We didn't know for sure that is was untrue when we said it."

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Smear campaign

---

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action


Your telling me Shillinglaw and Briles are walking away from money ?

---

You don't know much about lawsuits.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

17 rape victims (yes alleged!) that involved 19 football players is not what goes on in any football program.

---

Please cite a source for your information.

---

You know where it came from, just stop it -


If it is not accurate there is little good reason (of course we can always add an extra layer of conspiracy) Briles and Shillinglaw should drop their lawsuits.

About 50 people would know it is a lie and not one of them will break their silence. We have been told it was not a unanimous vote, but we are to believe those who voted not to terminate are going to let this slide.

PH would know their professional name is being used to support a lie ..... and just do nothing about it

You have to believe that two upper level attorneys would knowingly expose themselves to a massive libel suit with a lie.


Look, I try and play fair, so yes I can not prove it to you. I would like you to make your own list as to why we should not believe it and compare it to what I wrote above. Do that and then we can talk about it. Maybe your list will change my mind.



(edit: rape & assault --- you buy that? )

---

Kinda got crickets on this one - too hard? someone want to take champion this

---

It's too boring. It's a long, reductionist straw man. To counterpoint it would be folly.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

17 rape victims (yes alleged!) that involved 19 football players is not what goes on in any football program.

---

Please cite a source for your information.

---

You know where it came from, just stop it -


If it is not accurate there is little good reason (of course we can always add an extra layer of conspiracy) Briles and Shillinglaw should drop their lawsuits.

About 50 people would know it is a lie and not one of them will break their silence. We have been told it was not a unanimous vote, but we are to believe those who voted not to terminate are going to let this slide.

PH would know their professional name is being used to support a lie ..... and just do nothing about it

You have to believe that two upper level attorneys would knowingly expose themselves to a massive libel suit with a lie.


Look, I try and play fair, so yes I can not prove it to you. I would like you to make your own list as to why we should not believe it and compare it to what I wrote above. Do that and then we can talk about it. Maybe your list will change my mind.



(edit: rape & assault --- you buy that? )

---

Kinda got crickets on this one - too hard? someone want to take champion this

---

It's too boring. It's a long, reductionist straw man. To counterpoint it would be folly.

---

Nonsense

Keyser Soze said:

---

Nonsense

---

A pithy summation of your posts in this thread, agreed.

Bingo.
Then came in and doubled down on stupidity. Advanced Juveniles would have backed up a little before spilling out with that game plan.

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Smear campaign

---

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action


Your telling me Shillinglaw and Briles are walking away from money ?

---

Most often the defense is, "We didn't know for sure that is was untrue when we said it."

---

It is a basis of defense for the negligence / reckless disregard portion, but not at all a get out of jail free card.


So do you believe two lawyers, Gray & Harper, sincerely believed 19/17/4 to be true when they said it to the WSJ?

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Smear campaign

---

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action


Your telling me Shillinglaw and Briles are walking away from money ?

---

Most often the defense is, "We didn't know for sure that is was untrue when we said it."

---

It is a basis of defense for the negligence / reckless disregard portion, but not at all a get out of jail free card.


So do you believe two lawyers, Gray & Harper, sincerely believed 19/17/4 to be true when they said it to the WSJ?

---

Are you saying they knew it wasn't true?

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Smear campaign

---

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action


Your telling me Shillinglaw and Briles are walking away from money ?

---

Most often the defense is, "We didn't know for sure that is was untrue when we said it."

---

It is a basis of defense for the negligence / reckless disregard portion, but not at all a get out of jail free card.


So do you believe two lawyers, Gray & Harper, sincerely believed 19/17/4 to be true when they said it to the WSJ?

---

Are you saying they knew it wasn't true?

---

No

Do You (Mr Malbec) think they knowingly put out false information or do you think they believed it to be true?

100% they know it's not true

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Smear campaign

---

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action


Your telling me Shillinglaw and Briles are walking away from money ?

---

Most often the defense is, "We didn't know for sure that is was untrue when we said it."

---

It is a basis of defense for the negligence / reckless disregard portion, but not at all a get out of jail free card.


So do you believe two lawyers, Gray & Harper, sincerely believed 19/17/4 to be true when they said it to the WSJ?

---

Are you saying they knew it wasn't true?

---

No

Do You (Mr Malbec) think they knowingly put out false information or do you think they believed it to be true?

---

I believe they put plenty of spin on it.

lumping the two together alone was an attempt to make it all about sex.

it might be 15 domestic and 2 sex for all we know... and the domestic could have been loud arguments... did have to reach Mixon level

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Smear campaign

---

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action


Your telling me Shillinglaw and Briles are walking away from money ?

---

Most often the defense is, "We didn't know for sure that is was untrue when we said it."

---

It is a basis of defense for the negligence / reckless disregard portion, but not at all a get out of jail free card.


So do you believe two lawyers, Gray & Harper, sincerely believed 19/17/4 to be true when they said it to the WSJ?

---

Are you saying they knew it wasn't true?

---

No

Do You (Mr Malbec) think they knowingly put out false information or do you think they believed it to be true?

---

I believe they put plenty of spin on it.

lumping the two together alone was an attempt to make it all about sex.

it might be 15 domestic and 2 sex for all we know... and the domestic could have been loud arguments... did have to reach Mixon level

---

Based on other info I known rape may be close to 8 or 9 - no argument it better to separate.

Keyser Soze said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Smear campaign

---

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action


Your telling me Shillinglaw and Briles are walking away from money ?

---

Most often the defense is, "We didn't know for sure that is was untrue when we said it."

---

It is a basis of defense for the negligence / reckless disregard portion, but not at all a get out of jail free card.


So do you believe two lawyers, Gray & Harper, sincerely believed 19/17/4 to be true when they said it to the WSJ?

---

Are you saying they knew it wasn't true?

---

No

Do You (Mr Malbec) think they knowingly put out false information or do you think they believed it to be true?

---

I believe they put plenty of spin on it.

lumping the two together alone was an attempt to make it all about sex.

it might be 15 domestic and 2 sex for all we know... and the domestic could have been loud arguments... did have to reach Mixon level

---

Based on other info I known rape may be close to 8 or 9 - no argument it better to separate.

---

how many of the 8-9 were actually just drunk sex with second thoughts?

I'm guessing most since only one player has ever been convicted

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Smear campaign

---

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action


Your telling me Shillinglaw and Briles are walking away from money ?

---

Most often the defense is, "We didn't know for sure that is was untrue when we said it."

---

It is a basis of defense for the negligence / reckless disregard portion, but not at all a get out of jail free card.


So do you believe two lawyers, Gray & Harper, sincerely believed 19/17/4 to be true when they said it to the WSJ?

---

I'm sure they came up with a list of incidents that could be construed as allegations of sexual or domestic assault, so that they could claim they believed it was technically accurate. I read somewhere that the list included Chafin grabbing his girlfriend's arm and Dixon punching the guy who took his stuff as "domestic assault" allegations, but I don't know if that's true or not. But you can see how it isn't a black and white issue. I'm sure they categorized any incident involving more than 2 people as "gang rape".

So I'm sure they have a way of backing it up, no matter how far-fetched it might be so that no one can say they knew it was false. But I am 100% certain that they knew the 19/17/4 figures were misleading and intended them to be so. They absolutely knew people would read that and think there were 17 rape victims when they know that's not true.

Firing Briles instead of suspending him or employing any number of other remedies was beyond stupid, but I can forgive stupid. Making those statements to the WSJ was petty and selfish and helped feed the media narrative that Baylor is Rape U. And that is inexcusable and unforgivable. Those three Pharisees should be banned from Baylor for life for that alone.

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Smear campaign

---

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action


Your telling me Shillinglaw and Briles are walking away from money ?

---

Most often the defense is, "We didn't know for sure that is was untrue when we said it."

---

It is a basis of defense for the negligence / reckless disregard portion, but not at all a get out of jail free card.


So do you believe two lawyers, Gray & Harper, sincerely believed 19/17/4 to be true when they said it to the WSJ?

---

Are you saying they knew it wasn't true?

---

No

Do You (Mr Malbec) think they knowingly put out false information or do you think they believed it to be true?

---

I believe they put plenty of spin on it.

lumping the two together alone was an attempt to make it all about sex.

it might be 15 domestic and 2 sex for all we know... and the domestic could have been loud arguments... did have to reach Mixon level

---

Based on other info I known rape may be close to 8 or 9 - no argument it better to separate.

---

how many of the 8-9 were actually just drunk sex with second thoughts?

I'm guessing most since only one player has ever been convicted

---

All of them although some weren't even drunk.

It's nice seeing that the definition of chivalry in millennial America is, "didn't press charges."


Ladies must love some of you guys.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Keyser Soze


If it is not accurate there is little good reason (of course we can always add an extra layer of conspiracy) Briles and Shillinglaw should drop their lawsuits.

About 50 people would know it is a lie and not one of them will break their silence. We have been told it was not a unanimous vote, but we are to believe those who voted not to terminate are going to let this slide.

PH would know their professional name is being used to support a lie ..... and just do nothing about it

You have to believe that two upper level attorneys would knowingly expose themselves to a massive libel suit with a lie.


Look, I try and play fair, so yes I can not prove it to you. I would like you to make your own list as to why we should not believe it and compare it to what I wrote above. Do that and then we can talk about it. Maybe your list will change my mind.



(edit: rape & assault --- you buy that? )



Kinda got crickets on this one - too hard? someone want to take champion this

---

Sorry that I have other things to do than to respond to Keyser Sore.

If it is not accurate there is little good reason (of course we can always add an extra layer of conspiracy) Briles and Shillinglaw should drop their lawsuits.
The defendants then "overloaded" Briles "in an endless supply of money, lawyers, resources, and no restraints on anything they'll do to achieve their goals," Cannon said. "Art wants some peace in his life for him and his family, and to put as much distance between him and his family and Baylor as he can," the lawyer told KWTX, "and I wholeheartedly agree with him." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/02/01/former-coach-art-briles-drops-libel-lawsuit-against-baylor-officials/

About 50 people would know it is a lie and not one of them will break their silence. We have been told it was not a unanimous vote, but we are to believe those who voted not to terminate are going to let this slide.
They signed the secrecy agreement (with penalty risks for violations) when they put on their BOR hats. Do you not consider their vulnerability to the rabid media's scorched earth agenda as a deterrent to telling the truth.

PH would know their professional name is being used to support a lie ..... and just do nothing about it. I
I think that Pepper Hamilton has resolved that issue - the upper level attorneys no longer work for PH.

You have to believe that two upper level attorneys would knowingly expose themselves to a massive libel suit with a lie.

Yes, I think that Smith would take risks.

Smith has exposed herself to suit by taking unreasonable risks before: On July 29, 2011, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's denial of Smith's prosecutorial immunity claim. "No reasonable prosecutor would think that she could indefinitely detain an innocent witness pending trial without obtaining reauthorization," the Judges held. "And there can be no doubt that is what Smith intended." Relying upon their own previous experience as prosecutors, the Judges called Smith's conduct "outrageous" and unconstitutional. "Whether to keep Schneyder in jail should have been the court's decision, and Smith knew it."

Smith cost Philadelphia $275,000 on that settlement.
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2012/may/15/philadelphia-woman-detained-54-days-as-material-witness-settles-for-275000/

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Smear campaign

---

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action


Your telling me Shillinglaw and Briles are walking away from money ?

---

Most often the defense is, "We didn't know for sure that is was untrue when we said it."

---

It is a basis of defense for the negligence / reckless disregard portion, but not at all a get out of jail free card.


So do you believe two lawyers, Gray & Harper, sincerely believed 19/17/4 to be true when they said it to the WSJ?

---

Are you saying they knew it wasn't true?

---

No

Do You (Mr Malbec) think they knowingly put out false information or do you think they believed it to be true?

---

I think they knowingly distorted information, and included "allegations" of acts that were only alleged by PH and themselves and not by any "victim."

Definitely a "sit in the middle *****" world.

Robemcdo said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Smear campaign

---

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action


Your telling me Shillinglaw and Briles are walking away from money ?

---

Most often the defense is, "We didn't know for sure that is was untrue when we said it."

---

It is a basis of defense for the negligence / reckless disregard portion, but not at all a get out of jail free card.


So do you believe two lawyers, Gray & Harper, sincerely believed 19/17/4 to be true when they said it to the WSJ?

---

Are you saying they knew it wasn't true?

---

No

Do You (Mr Malbec) think they knowingly put out false information or do you think they believed it to be true?

---

I believe they put plenty of spin on it.

lumping the two together alone was an attempt to make it all about sex.

it might be 15 domestic and 2 sex for all we know... and the domestic could have been loud arguments... did have to reach Mixon level

---

Based on other info I known rape may be close to 8 or 9 - no argument it better to separate.

---

how many of the 8-9 were actually just drunk sex with second thoughts?

I'm guessing most since only one player has ever been convicted

---

All of them although some weren't even drunk.

---

Baylor women are liars? Not buying it.

quash said:

---

Robemcdo said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Smear campaign

---

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action


Your telling me Shillinglaw and Briles are walking away from money ?

---

Most often the defense is, "We didn't know for sure that is was untrue when we said it."

---

It is a basis of defense for the negligence / reckless disregard portion, but not at all a get out of jail free card.


So do you believe two lawyers, Gray & Harper, sincerely believed 19/17/4 to be true when they said it to the WSJ?

---

Are you saying they knew it wasn't true?

---

No

Do You (Mr Malbec) think they knowingly put out false information or do you think they believed it to be true?

---

I believe they put plenty of spin on it.

lumping the two together alone was an attempt to make it all about sex.

it might be 15 domestic and 2 sex for all we know... and the domestic could have been loud arguments... did have to reach Mixon level

---

Based on other info I known rape may be close to 8 or 9 - no argument it better to separate.

---

how many of the 8-9 were actually just drunk sex with second thoughts?

I'm guessing most since only one player has ever been convicted

---

All of them although some weren't even drunk.

---

Baylor women are liars? Not buying it.

---

The problem is being able to tell which ones.