K Starr financially supports Oakman's defense & maintains SamU's innocence

boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Several quotes from Starr in here about both cases



Starr helped raise money for Oakman's legal defense

By TOMMY WITHERSPOON

Ken Starr, who was fired as Baylor University president after presiding over what investigators called a "fundamental failure" in the way the school handled sexual assault allegations, raised money to help former Baylor football player Shawn Oakman fight a rape charge.

Throughout his career, Starr has served as a federal appellate judge, a special prosecutor, a U.S. solicitor general, a defense attorney, a clerk for a chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, a law school dean and president and chancellor of Baylor University.

Starr's extensive experience has allowed him to view the criminal justice system from multiple vantage points. His stint as a dogged special counsel led to the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton, and his two years clerking for former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger opened Starr's eyes to flaws in the system and the potentials for wrongful convictions, he said.

"I believe fervently in the right of all defendants to have a fair trial," Starr said. "In our country's system of justice, far too many innocent individuals are wrongly convicted of crimes they did not commit."

Starr said he and his wife, Alice, played host to a gathering at their home to raise money for Oakman's legal defense fund. Starr said he could not remember the date of the gathering, but said it was before Oakman's first two attorneys withdrew and he was given two court-appointed attorneys, a court-appointed investigator and access to county funds to pay for consultants and expert witnesses.

Starr declined to say who attended the event, only that it involved a "goodly number of concerned friends." He also declined to say how much money it raised for Oakman's defense. He did, however, say the money was not used to pay Alan Bennett or Jessi Freud, Oakman's court-appointed attorneys.

A jury in Waco's 19th State District Court acquitted Oakman last month of sexually assaulting a Baylor graduate student with whom he had a previous sexual relationship. The woman, who said her memory was "spotty" because she was drunk, testified Oakman raped her in April 2016 at his off-campus duplex after a night of drinking at two Waco bars.

Related
Oakman, who transferred to Baylor from Penn State University, ended his career as Baylor's all-time sack leader and was considered a sure NFL draft pick before his arrest. He is the third defensive end from Baylor to be tried for sexually assaulting fellow Baylor students.

Tevin Elliott is serving 20 years in prison after four women said he sexually assaulted them. Sam Ukwuachu also was convicted of sexual assault and placed on probation by a 54th State District Court jury. His conviction was overturned by Waco's 10th Court of Appeals, but that reversal later was overturned by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

The high court ruled the 10th Court was wrong in overturning Ukwuachu's conviction and returned it to the 10th Court to consider two other points of appeal that the Waco intermediate appellate court did not consider. His appeal is pending.

Ukwuachu's trial focused a glaring spotlight on Baylor's shortcomings in dealing with sexual assault and Title IX-related accusations, led to the ouster of Starr and football coach Art Briles, the resignation of athletics director Ian McCaw and sparked an NCAA investigation.

Starr said he decided to help raise money for Oakman's defense after one of Oakman's first attorneys, Michelle Tuegel, told Starr that Oakman's family didn't have the money to "retain much-needed experts to help Shawn prove his innocence."

Also, donors wanted to help Oakman because of a "widely shared belief that Sam Ukwuachu did not mount an adequate defense," Starr said. When asked who shared that belief, Starr said, "lots of people, especially lawyers."

"We responded to this compelling need because our community had done little or nothing to assist or support Sam Ukwuachu, who many of us felt had been wrongly convicted," Starr said. "I did not want another injustice to be done. Alice and I therefore hosted a gathering at our home where a volunteer lawyer reviewed the records in Sam's case, especially cellphone records, which fully corroborated Sam's explanation that he was entirely innocent of the serious charges brought against him. Our financial support in Shawn's case was limited to retaining those much-needed experts who could help prove Shawn's innocence, not compensating the defense lawyers."

Neither Starr nor Bennett would divulge the name of the attorney who attended the fundraiser. Bennett was appointed to represent Oakman after Tuegel and Russ Hunt withdrew because they had not been paid. Bennett said that after he was appointed, the attorney who was at Starr's home sent him the funds that had been raised and he deposited them in his office trust account.

Paying experts

The funds were used to pay an investigator, two expert witnesses and another consulting expert who did not testify, Bennett said. He and Freud were paid by the county as court-appointed attorneys. Bennett presented time forms to the county Friday that would pay him $17,240 for 200 hours of out-of-court preparation time at $75 an hour and 28 hours of in-court time at $80 an hour, pending approval by Judge Ralph Strother.

Freud said Tuesday she has not turned in her time forms but that she spent fewer hours on the case because she was appointed after Bennett.

"Shawn is deeply grateful to those who generously donated their time and resources, significantly contributing to his ability to prove his innocence," Bennett said. "Though it is theoretically true that an accused person bears no burden at trial and enjoys the presumption of innocence, the reality is otherwise. Very few accused persons who rest on the presumption alone are acquitted, even though the courts instruct jurors that this is a sufficient basis for acquittal.

"Because of the generosity of those who contributed, we were able to go above and beyond the norm, offer affirmative evidence of innocence, and secure an acquittal. Sadly, Shawn's case also demonstrates the continuing gap between indigent accused persons and those with resources available to vigorously contest the allegations against them. It raises the question of whether there truly is equal justice under the law for indigent accused persons. This is an ongoing concern that needs to be meaningfully addressed by the Texas Legislature," Bennett said.

Starr, who said he has not met Ukwuachu, intervened on Elliott's behalf, allowing him back in school in 2011 by helping lift an academic misconduct suspension, The Wall Street Journal reported in 2016. Three sexual assault allegations against Elliott came after he was reinstated at Baylor.

Starr acknowledged that he stood up for Elliott to get him back in school, but declined to discuss his reasons, saying the topic is the possible subject of the NCAA investigation.

"I collaborated closely with Ian McCaw on all issues affecting the welfare and future of Baylor student-athletes," Starr said.

McLennan County District Attorney Barry Johnson said he agrees with Starr that all defendants have a right to a fair trial and said he has no problem with Starr's fundraising efforts. He declined comment when asked why he thinks Starr sided with Oakman and Ukwuachu over their accusers, who also were Baylor students.

"If he is saying our victims were not worthy of belief, I do disagree with that completely," Johnson said. "It was my decision to go forward with the (Oakman) case, and I would have instructed the lawyers not to go forward with the case if they were frivolous charges or charges that should not be pursued. In my opinion, it should have been pursued. The evidence we had was such that I told the lawyers to proceed to trial, and the 12 jurors heard both sides of it and made the decision for a not-guilty on behalf of the defendant. I do take exception to anybody saying we went to trial on false charges or frivolous charges, because that is just incorrect."

Prosecutors offered Oakman deferred probation in exchange for a guilty plea several months before the trial. Oakman turned it down, saying he wanted his day in court to prove his innocence.
Forest Bueller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have no problem with this.

I wish though all other poor people had this access to adequate representation.


Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I wish Starr was still our President.

And the next time the Big 12 is on the verge of imploding with part of the potential result being BU is banished to a G5 conference, I've got a feeling a lot of us will be wishing he was still our President as well.
chorne68
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have a lot of respect for Judge Starr.
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?

A couple of points. Starr's not doing what he was supposed to in terms of Title IX is why we had the mess in the first place with football and all the lawsuits. In short we never will know but Starr could very well have cost Baylor at least one national title run in football this decade.

Secondly what saved the Big XII 9 years ago was Texas deciding it was more profitable to stay in the Big XII. It had nothing to do with Starr. Just to show how irrelevant Starr was to that, several schools left the Big XII despite Starr's moves. His legal threats were irrelevant.

In short I'm not fond of Starr. He was ultimately a disaster for the school.

Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:


A couple of points. Starr's not doing what he was supposed to in terms of Title IX is why we had the mess in the first place with football and all the lawsuits. In short we never will know but Starr could very well have cost Baylor at least one national title run in football this decade.

Secondly what saved the Big XII 9 years ago was Texas deciding it was more profitable to stay in the Big XII. It had nothing to do with Starr. Just to show how irrelevant Starr was to that, several schools left the Big XII despite Starr's moves. His legal threats were irrelevant.

In short I'm not fond of Starr. He was ultimately a disaster for the school.
Wrong.

At a minimum, Starr's wise decision to not sign away BU's right to sue when A&M jumped to the SEC (that multiple other B12 schools in a similar situation with us were inexplicably willing to do) slowed the whole implosion that was about to happen down enough for the conference to get its act together and come up with the proper plan and incentive to keep UT and OU on board and ultimately save the B12 at that point in time. I shudder to think what might have happened if Livingstone had been our President at that time. His legal mind was far from "irrelevant" at that time and we benefitted accordingly.
Bear8084
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:


A couple of points. Starr's not doing what he was supposed to in terms of Title IX is why we had the mess in the first place with football and all the lawsuits. In short we never will know but Starr could very well have cost Baylor at least one national title run in football this decade.

Secondly what saved the Big XII 9 years ago was Texas deciding it was more profitable to stay in the Big XII. It had nothing to do with Starr. Just to show how irrelevant Starr was to that, several schools left the Big XII despite Starr's moves. His legal threats were irrelevant.

In short I'm not fond of Starr. He was ultimately a disaster for the school.




This. Livingstone is already 100x the President he ever was just by guiding Baylor through the mess he was a part of.
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm not sure how good Livingstone is at this point, but Starr was a disaster. Again his legacy is all of the settlements, all of the pending suits, and the burning down of a football program on the verge of entering an era similar to what our women's hoops has been in. I'm sure based on this there are alot of other debacles left behind that arent as high of profile.
Bearish
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

PartyBear said:


A couple of points. Starr's not doing what he was supposed to in terms of Title IX is why we had the mess in the first place with football and all the lawsuits. In short we never will know but Starr could very well have cost Baylor at least one national title run in football this decade.

Secondly what saved the Big XII 9 years ago was Texas deciding it was more profitable to stay in the Big XII. It had nothing to do with Starr. Just to show how irrelevant Starr was to that, several schools left the Big XII despite Starr's moves. His legal threats were irrelevant.

In short I'm not fond of Starr. He was ultimately a disaster for the school.
Wrong.

At a minimum, Starr's wise decision to not sign away BU's right to sue when A&M jumped to the SEC (that multiple other B12 schools in a similar situation with us were inexplicably willing to do) slowed the whole implosion that was about to happen down enough for the conference to get its act together and come up with the proper plan and incentive to keep UT and OU on board and ultimately save the B12 at that point in time. I shudder to think what might have happened if Livingstone had been our President at that time. His legal mind was far from "irrelevant" at that time and we benefitted accordingly.
I have no idea why you "shudder" thinking about Livingstone being in those shoes. Ken Starr is a brilliant lawyer, no doubt. However, the decision to not waive our right to a lawsuit was, in my opinion, more of a business decision than it was a legal one. I think the Ph.D. and former GWU and Pepperdine business school dean would have made the choice to avoid losing millions of dollars, too.
MilliVanilli
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Starr was a great fundraiser because of his rolodex in high places, he didn't do much of anything else, one reason the scandal slapped him up one side of the head and then the other is he was a symbolic hire that never intended to actually behave as an administrator.

Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bearish said:

Johnny Bear said:

PartyBear said:


A couple of points. Starr's not doing what he was supposed to in terms of Title IX is why we had the mess in the first place with football and all the lawsuits. In short we never will know but Starr could very well have cost Baylor at least one national title run in football this decade.

Secondly what saved the Big XII 9 years ago was Texas deciding it was more profitable to stay in the Big XII. It had nothing to do with Starr. Just to show how irrelevant Starr was to that, several schools left the Big XII despite Starr's moves. His legal threats were irrelevant.

In short I'm not fond of Starr. He was ultimately a disaster for the school.
Wrong.

At a minimum, Starr's wise decision to not sign away BU's right to sue when A&M jumped to the SEC (that multiple other B12 schools in a similar situation with us were inexplicably willing to do) slowed the whole implosion that was about to happen down enough for the conference to get its act together and come up with the proper plan and incentive to keep UT and OU on board and ultimately save the B12 at that point in time. I shudder to think what might have happened if Livingstone had been our President at that time. His legal mind was far from "irrelevant" at that time and we benefitted accordingly.
I have no idea why you "shudder" thinking about Livingstone being in those shoes. Ken Starr is a brilliant lawyer, no doubt. However, the decision to not waive our right to a lawsuit was, in my opinion, more of a business decision than it was a legal one. I think the Ph.D. and former GWU and Pepperdine business school dean would have made the choice to avoid losing millions of dollars, too.
Because had that been the case, I've got a feeling there's a good chance we'd be playing Homecoming games against a conference "rival" like Rice in front of 12K fans in the coolest stadium in Conference USA (or something similar) these days. And that could still yet happen at some point in the future (certainly hope it doesn't, but it could).
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Did he raise that much money? Money was pouring in because his presidency coincided with a football program he inherited that was raking in money and donations, which as I mentioned his legacy is the burning down of the rain maker.
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

Did he raise that much money? Money was pouring in because his presidency coincided with a football program he inherited that was raking in money and donations, which as I mentioned his legacy is the burning down of the rain maker.
The "rain maker" got burned down not because of Starr, but because of a largely manufactured "scandal" that could've been handled vastly different by a BOR that immediately bent over and grabbed its ankles. There were all kinds of ways to deal with that situation that didn't involve burning the program to the ground and killing the goose that laid the golden egg (note how differently Tennessee, Florida State and especially Michigan State handled similar if not even worse "scandals" and none of them involved nuking their programs or anything remotely close to that). I'll give you that Starr could've done a better job with dealing with the overly expanded Title IX obligations, but I completely understand and agree with his position that everything related to that issue had become ridiculous as far as colleges being expected to be a virtual judge, jury and executioner for issues that should be dealt with exclusively through the criminal and civil justice systems (thank you President Obummer!). In any event, laying all of that or even most of it at Starr's feet is way off base.
oldbear69
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

Did he raise that much money? Money was pouring in because his presidency coincided with a football program he inherited that was raking in money and donations, which as I mentioned his legacy is the burning down of the rain maker.
Party bear , notice u only get 1 star on all ur posts.......u little devil .. u still voting for ur self??
Bearish
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

Bearish said:

Johnny Bear said:

PartyBear said:


A couple of points. Starr's not doing what he was supposed to in terms of Title IX is why we had the mess in the first place with football and all the lawsuits. In short we never will know but Starr could very well have cost Baylor at least one national title run in football this decade.

Secondly what saved the Big XII 9 years ago was Texas deciding it was more profitable to stay in the Big XII. It had nothing to do with Starr. Just to show how irrelevant Starr was to that, several schools left the Big XII despite Starr's moves. His legal threats were irrelevant.

In short I'm not fond of Starr. He was ultimately a disaster for the school.
Wrong.

At a minimum, Starr's wise decision to not sign away BU's right to sue when A&M jumped to the SEC (that multiple other B12 schools in a similar situation with us were inexplicably willing to do) slowed the whole implosion that was about to happen down enough for the conference to get its act together and come up with the proper plan and incentive to keep UT and OU on board and ultimately save the B12 at that point in time. I shudder to think what might have happened if Livingstone had been our President at that time. His legal mind was far from "irrelevant" at that time and we benefitted accordingly.
I have no idea why you "shudder" thinking about Livingstone being in those shoes. Ken Starr is a brilliant lawyer, no doubt. However, the decision to not waive our right to a lawsuit was, in my opinion, more of a business decision than it was a legal one. I think the Ph.D. and former GWU and Pepperdine business school dean would have made the choice to avoid losing millions of dollars, too.
Because had that been the case, I've got a feeling there's a good chance we'd be playing Homecoming games against a conference "rival" like Rice in front of 12K fans in the coolest stadium in Conference USA (or something similar) these days. And that could still yet happen at some point in the future (certainly hope it doesn't, but it could).
Ok, but what exactly makes you think that? Has she shown a propensity to throw money away? Or not care about athletics?
canoso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
God bless Ken Starr
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

PartyBear said:

Did he raise that much money? Money was pouring in because his presidency coincided with a football program he inherited that was raking in money and donations, which as I mentioned his legacy is the burning down of the rain maker.
The "rain maker" got burned down not because of Starr, but because of a largely manufactured "scandal" that could've been handled vastly different by a BOR that immediately bent over and grabbed its ankles. There were all kinds of ways to deal with that situation that didn't involve burning the program to the ground and killing the goose that laid the golden egg (note how differently Tennessee, Florida State and especially Michigan State handled similar if not even worse "scandals" and none of them involved nuking their programs or anything remotely close to that). I'll give you that Starr could've done a better job with dealing with the overly expanded Title IX obligations, but I completely understand and agree with his position that everything related to that issue had become ridiculous as far as colleges being expected to be a virtual judge, jury and executioner for issues that should be dealt with exclusively through the criminal and civil justice systems (thank you President Obummer!). In any event, laying all of that or even most of it at Starr's feet is way off base.


I think people here know my position about the BOR. But Starr had a large role. Other presidents of major universities managed to implement the system. Starr should have as well. Having a law degree and being a former federal judge makes his direlection even more unconscionable.

As to stars I rarely star anyone. I sure as hell don't star myself. Is there not a way to see who makes stars?
Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

Johnny Bear said:

PartyBear said:

Did he raise that much money? Money was pouring in because his presidency coincided with a football program he inherited that was raking in money and donations, which as I mentioned his legacy is the burning down of the rain maker.
The "rain maker" got burned down not because of Starr, but because of a largely manufactured "scandal" that could've been handled vastly different by a BOR that immediately bent over and grabbed its ankles. There were all kinds of ways to deal with that situation that didn't involve burning the program to the ground and killing the goose that laid the golden egg (note how differently Tennessee, Florida State and especially Michigan State handled similar if not even worse "scandals" and none of them involved nuking their programs or anything remotely close to that). I'll give you that Starr could've done a better job with dealing with the overly expanded Title IX obligations, but I completely understand and agree with his position that everything related to that issue had become ridiculous as far as colleges being expected to be a virtual judge, jury and executioner for issues that should be dealt with exclusively through the criminal and civil justice systems (thank you President Obummer!). In any event, laying all of that or even most of it at Starr's feet is way off base.


I think people here know my position about the BOR. But Starr had a large role. Other presidents of major universities managed to implement the system. Starr should have as well. Having a law degree and being a former federal judge makes his direlection even more unconscionable.

As to stars I rarely star anyone. I sure as hell don't star myself. Is there not a way to see who makes stars?
That's a fallacy. Very few universities had fully implemented the OCR guidance prior to the Baylor "scandal." In fact, it was very difficult for institutions to even find administrators to lead these departments because there simply were hardly any with experience since the guidance didn't exist before 2011 and the number of institutions that had implemented full-time staff was miniscule. Universities were building these departments "on the fly" with people who had to try and understand the guidance as they built.
TellMeYouLoveMe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MilliVanilli said:

Starr was a great fundraiser because of his rolodex in high places, he didn't do much of anything else, one reason the scandal slapped him up one side of the head and then the other is he was a symbolic hire that never intended to actually behave as an administrator.


Yep. I like the guy, but he was at best, a figurehead fund raiser.
Stranger
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He was hired to be a figurehead fund raiser. Problem was, he was never able to raise much money. He was a freaking disaster as an administrator allowing a couple of rogue regents to take over day to day operations. He basically enjoyed the rights, lights and benefits of his lofty position.

When the title IX problems arose, he took no action and basically fiddled while Rome burned. The buck should have stopped with him but he blamed others. He should have taken responsibility.

A couple of other points. People who were in the room said he played absolutely no role in saving the Big XII.

Also, ask yourself why the law school faculty vehemently opposed allowing him back into the law school after he was fired as president. Baylor ended up buying him out of his tenure because he wasn't welcome. Apparently his "great legal mind" is not an opinion shared by many faculty and law alumni.

He will go down as the worst Baylor President ever.
I'm a Bearbacker
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well.....he may tie for worst or come close to that title. I'm not sure I agree that he achieved that title.
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Probably the first time Starr did something for a defendant. I m not surprised his handlers made sure it made the news.

Stranger, law enforcement officials think Starr was a sorry US Attorney.
Brian Ethridge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Stranger said:

He will go down as the worst Baylor President ever.

via GIPHY

PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
xiledinok said:

Probably the first time Starr did something for a defendant. I m not surprised his handlers made sure it made the news.

Stranger, law enforcement officials think Starr was a sorry US Attorney.


Actually he helped Epstein. Who as you know was trafficking girls.
4yrletterbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear, you are right on with your analysis.

As for saving the Big XII, I have a family member who is a national expert in tort law and he was on speed dial with Starr during the legal negotiations. Those who dismiss Starr's influence on saving the Big XII are poorly informed or have been given very poor Intel.
whitetrash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Brian Ethridge said:

Stranger said:

He will go down as the worst Baylor President ever.
<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/6Eujzr2UoUPNbA6wRH" width="480" height="270" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/kimsconvenience-kc-kims-convenience-113-6Eujzr2UoUPNbA6wRH">via GIPHY</a></p>
https://www.baylor.edu/alumni/magazine/0403/news.php?action=story&story=38185

Game set match
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't think Lilley quite achieved that title either.

X is actually right about another point. Starr would have allowed this little fundraiser to remain a secret had Oakman been convicted and become a felon. This fundraiser did not just percolate into the public domain organically 2 and a half years after the fact and just coincidentally after an acquittal occurred. Starr thinks revealing this helps him for some reason in terms of PR. I think it back fires actually PR wise.
George Truett
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:


A couple of points. Starr's not doing what he was supposed to in terms of Title IX is why we had the mess in the first place with football and all the lawsuits. In short we never will know but Starr could very well have cost Baylor at least one national title run in football this decade.

Secondly what saved the Big XII 9 years ago was Texas deciding it was more profitable to stay in the Big XII. It had nothing to do with Starr. Just to show how irrelevant Starr was to that, several schools left the Big XII despite Starr's moves. His legal threats were irrelevant.

In short I'm not fond of Starr. He was ultimately a disaster for the school.


I don't think we really know how important Starr was to keeping us in the Big XII. His failure on Title IX more than offsets any success he may have had there.

Apparently a good legal mind, but a poor administrator.

On the subject at hand, good for him for helping Oakman. As others have said, it would be great if other young men of color had that kind of help.
Thee University
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:


A couple of points. Starr's not doing what he was supposed to in terms of Title IX is why we had the mess in the first place with football and all the lawsuits. In short we never will know but Starr could very well have cost Baylor at least one national title run in football this decade.

Secondly what saved the Big XII 9 years ago was Texas deciding it was more profitable to stay in the Big XII. It had nothing to do with Starr. Just to show how irrelevant Starr was to that, several schools left the Big XII despite Starr's moves. His legal threats were irrelevant.

In short I'm not fond of Starr. He was ultimately a disaster for the school.


Thank God there is still some backbone and truth around here.

It is amazing how many of you limp wrists clamor all over one another if there is even a popcorn fart of a chance to spin some positive out of a debacle.
Thee University
How long do you want to ignore this user?
xiledinok said:

Probably the first time Starr did something for a defendant. I m not surprised his handlers made sure it made the news.

Stranger, law enforcement officials think Starr was a sorry US Attorney.
What did Art do for Oakman?
Mitch Henessey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The fact that Starr isn't even in competition for worst President we've had in the past 25 years is damning evidence as to how sorry our leadership has been.

I've said it several times here before, but for those holding Starr up on a pedestal, he refused to implement a compliant Title IX program because he believed it to be unconstitutional and was preparing a challenge to it that he hoped would go all the way to the Supreme Court, almost like that would be his legacy. I have that from a very good source in the Athletic Department.

Say what you want about Title IX and its probable overreaches, but simply not complying with a federal mandate is the DUMBEST way to handle that situation. I lay most of the blame for this whole debacle at the feet of our wholly incompetent BOR, but Starr is far from blameless, nor is Briles.

In truth, everyone deserved to lose their jobs, and yet the BOR found a way to save their own (that they burned down the school in the process seems to have little effect on the culpable parties, unfortunately).
REX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thee University said:

xiledinok said:

Probably the first time Starr did something for a defendant. I m not surprised his handlers made sure it made the news.

Stranger, law enforcement officials think Starr was a sorry US Attorney.
What did Art do for Oakman?

Do you really want to know?
Maybe he helped him out a lot and doesn't want everyone to know. Believe it or not but that kind of stuff happens. Have you ever helped anyone without standing on a pedestal and beating your chest ?
Just curious
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
REX said:

Thee University said:

xiledinok said:

Probably the first time Starr did something for a defendant. I m not surprised his handlers made sure it made the news.

Stranger, law enforcement officials think Starr was a sorry US Attorney.
What did Art do for Oakman?

Do you really want to know?
Maybe he helped him out a lot and doesn't want everyone to know. Believe it or not but that kind of stuff happens. Have you ever helped anyone without standing on a pedestal and beating your chest ?
Just curious
Art guaranteed Oakman's name was linked to his name. Art did do that for Oakman. Oakman apparently still needs help to the point he is asking for it. Where is Art?
The NFL won't be bothering with either one of them. Oakman wasn't good enough to be a big trouble maker and make it.
Art comes off as not remorseful and a rootin tootin country bumpkin with little class. The NFL doesn't need his association and already has had a legendary country ball coach, the great Bum Phillips.

Party, Starr shows up after the fact to get his press clippings. He has done more damage in his life than good.
REX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
xiledinok said:

REX said:

Thee University said:

xiledinok said:

Probably the first time Starr did something for a defendant. I m not surprised his handlers made sure it made the news.

Stranger, law enforcement officials think Starr was a sorry US Attorney.
What did Art do for Oakman?

Do you really want to know?
Maybe he helped him out a lot and doesn't want everyone to know. Believe it or not but that kind of stuff happens. Have you ever helped anyone without standing on a pedestal and beating your chest ?
Just curious
Art guaranteed Oakman's name was linked to his name. Art did do that for Oakman. Oakman apparently still needs help to the point he is asking for it. Where is Art?
The NFL won't be bothering with either one of them. Oakman wasn't good enough to be a big trouble maker and make it.
Art comes off as not remorseful and a rootin tootin country bumpkin with little class. The NFL doesn't need his association and already has had a legendary country ball coach, the great Bum Phillips.

Party, Starr shows up after the fact to get his press clippings. He has done more damage in his life than good.

Are you and thee one in the same?
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Starr is such a monster.....how dare he help a young man prove his innocence in a court of Law.
Page 1 of 4
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.