Judge orders USF to release Leavitt notes (Per Greg's Blog)

[Bull-by-Marriage]

I feel very badly for mizzou/leavitt/who cares. He has truly convinced himself that he didn't do anything wrong at all. He's tried to defend himself in public and here. He has Failed at both. When asked a direct question to prove that he was there and witnessed the entire incident, he refuses to answer, because either;

A: He's full of **** and was not there.

B: He's leavitt, or a player, or coach or anyone else in the room that wants to talk ****, but can't back it up with proof.

[Bull-by-Marriage]

Last time I looked it was XCJL suing USF... that would mean that it's on XCJL to prove what did or didn't happen... not USF. So what say you Jim... errrrr Mizzou... what proof do you have that nothing happened?

See, that is where your logic is flawed.  Leavitt is suing for breach of contract.  USF says they fired him for cause and don't have to pay out his contract.  It is incumbent upon USF to prove there was cause and Leavitt's attorneys to show there was no cause.  It's Leavitt's right to examine and challenge their evidence.

From my perspective it appears USF has a very weak case and that is why they are stonewalling.  The judge in the case appears to agree.

You are full of it.  A Judge would never make a statement or have an open opinion of someone having a "weak case".  That is just stupid. 

The judge may make motions on whether or not to release info, and if there were no evidence of a crime in a criminal proceding (which this isn't its civil) they may throw out a case.  But that isn't the case here.  They have just allowed more info to be released.

What is it you did not understand about the title of this thread and the article posted by Bouncer?  Try reading it again and I'll try to help you comprehend the judge's orders.

Why are you ducking the direct question that has been asked of you? Were you there, did you witness the entire interaction, and if so, then prove it. Anything you say until that admission, or proof is supplied is even more evidence that you are full of ****, and a HUGE coward! It's very simple even for someone that has been concussed several times. Admit you weren't there, or provide proof that you were?

[Southshore26]

Last time I looked it was XCJL suing USF... that would mean that it's on XCJL to prove what did or didn't happen... not USF. So what say you Jim... errrrr Mizzou... what proof do you have that nothing happened?

See, that is where your logic is flawed.  Leavitt is suing for breach of contract.  USF says they fired him for cause and don't have to pay out his contract.  It is incumbent upon USF to prove there was cause and Leavitt's attorneys to show there was no cause.  It's Leavitt's right to examine and challenge their evidence.

From my perspective it appears USF has a very weak case and that is why they are stonewalling.  The judge in the case appears to agree.

You are full of it.  A Judge would never make a statement or have an open opinion of someone having a "weak case".  That is just stupid. 

The judge may make motions on whether or not to release info, and if there were no evidence of a crime in a criminal proceding (which this isn't its civil) they may throw out a case.  But that isn't the case here.  They have just allowed more info to be released.

What is it you did not understand about the title of this thread and the article posted by Bouncer?  Try reading it again and I'll try to help you comprehend the judge's orders.

One thing that may help you understand legal proceedings is judges do not make motions, attorneys arguing the case before the judge do and then the judge would make a ruling on the motions.  The judge in this case has ruled against USF.

Are you really this dense??? Jim... the judge ruled that USF couldn't redact the information based on student privacy grounds... nowhere did he say the case was weak and nowhere did USF start shaking in their shorts... now they're covered for future litigation... the judge told them to do it. Be careful what you ask for... the redacted text will most likely be just another nail in your coffin.

[Southshore26]

Last time I looked it was XCJL suing USF... that would mean that it's on XCJL to prove what did or didn't happen... not USF. So what say you Jim... errrrr Mizzou... what proof do you have that nothing happened?

See, that is where your logic is flawed.  Leavitt is suing for breach of contract.  USF says they fired him for cause and don't have to pay out his contract.  It is incumbent upon USF to prove there was cause and Leavitt's attorneys to show there was no cause.  It's Leavitt's right to examine and challenge their evidence.

From my perspective it appears USF has a very weak case and that is why they are stonewalling.  The judge in the case appears to agree.

You are full of it.  A Judge would never make a statement or have an open opinion of someone having a "weak case".  That is just stupid. 

The judge may make motions on whether or not to release info, and if there were no evidence of a crime in a criminal proceding (which this isn't its civil) they may throw out a case.  But that isn't the case here.  They have just allowed more info to be released.

What is it you did not understand about the title of this thread and the article posted by Bouncer?  Try reading it again and I'll try to help you comprehend the judge's orders.

One thing that may help you understand legal proceedings is judges do not make motions, attorneys arguing the case before the judge do and then the judge would make a ruling on the motions.  The judge in this case has ruled against USF.

Are you really this dense??? Jim... the judge ruled that USF couldn't redact the information based on student privacy grounds... nowhere did he say the case was weak and nowhere did USF start shaking in their shorts... now they're covered for future litigation... the judge told them to do it. Be careful what you ask for... the redacted text will most likely be just another nail in your coffin.

No, but apparently you are, but let's see if I can guide you through a thought process one step at a time and see if we can make some progress.

Is there any doubt USF is withholding documents pertaining to the case?

Not that I'm aware of. If they are show me where?

[Who'sYourData?]

No, that is factually incorrect.  A couple of players that were 50 feet away across the locker room said they saw Leavitt grab Miller by the throat and slap him.  These are the same two players Miller talked to later.  These are the same two players that went to Bowel Movement who wrote a hit piece that started all this.  Then you have other players, coaches and a current FBI agent that said they were within a few feet of Leavitt and Miller and no such slap or choke occurred.  You have no evidence at all in this case just conflicting eyewitness accounts.  It's really that simple.  Who do you think a judge and jury is going to believe, a self-admitted liar or a highly trained FBI agent?

You're statement is factually incorrect.

I've already shown in direct quotes from your FBI agent that his statement was that he did not SEE a slap.  He did not say a slap did not occur.  I'm not sure why you continue to mischaracterize the statement from the now FBI agent which is written in black and white.

In fact, it would be next to impossible for anyone to truthfully testify that there was no slap unless they were standing between the two people in question for the entire duration of the incident.

[SANJAY]

No, but apparently you are, but let's see if I can guide you through a thought process one step at a time and see if we can make some progress.

Is there any doubt USF is withholding documents pertaining to the case?

Not that I'm aware of. If they are show me where?

From the article:

USF's attorneys are still protecting 800 documents that they argue are exempted from release, either by attorney-client privilege or other measures, and the judge gave USF attorney Richard McCrea two weeks to submit a new privilege log that details why the documents -- which have been read in chambers by the judge -- shouldn't be entered in discovery.

[Southshore26]

No, but apparently you are, but let's see if I can guide you through a thought process one step at a time and see if we can make some progress.

Is there any doubt USF is withholding documents pertaining to the case?

Not that I'm aware of. If they are show me where?

From the article:

USF's attorneys are still protecting 800 documents that they argue are exempted from release, either by attorney-client privilege or other measures, and the judge gave USF attorney Richard McCrea two weeks to submit a new privilege log that details why the documents -- which have been read in chambers by the judge -- shouldn't be entered in discovery.

Ok... I stand corrected... but I'd argue that USF is still covering themselves from future litigation more than anything else.

[IncrediBULL]

No, but apparently you are, but let's see if I can guide you through a thought process one step at a time and see if we can make some progress.

Is there any doubt USF is withholding documents pertaining to the case?

Not that I'm aware of. If they are show me where?

From the article:

USF's attorneys are still protecting 800 documents that they argue are exempted from release, either by attorney-client privilege or other measures, and the judge gave USF attorney Richard McCrea two weeks to submit a new privilege log that details why the documents -- which have been read in chambers by the judge -- shouldn't be entered in discovery.

Ok... I stand corrected... but I'd argue that USF is still covering themselves from future litigation more than anything else.

Now you are simply inventing excuses for USF's stonewalling.  That's not an exuse to withhold documents pertaining to this case.

There is a difference between stonewalling, and only providing information you are legally required to provide.  If I were USF, I would not provide anything to anyone unless the court made me do it.  It is a matter of principle.  They are in the driver's seat. 

[IncrediBULL]

Last time I looked it was XCJL suing USF... that would mean that it's on XCJL to prove what did or didn't happen... not USF. So what say you Jim... errrrr Mizzou... what proof do you have that nothing happened?

See, that is where your logic is flawed.  Leavitt is suing for breach of contract.  USF says they fired him for cause and don't have to pay out his contract.  It is incumbent upon USF to prove there was cause and Leavitt's attorneys to show there was no cause.  It's Leavitt's right to examine and challenge their evidence.

From my perspective it appears USF has a very weak case and that is why they are stonewalling.  The judge in the case appears to agree.

You are full of it.  A Judge would never make a statement or have an open opinion of someone having a "weak case".  That is just stupid. 

The judge may make motions on whether or not to release info, and if there were no evidence of a crime in a criminal proceding (which this isn't its civil) they may throw out a case.  But that isn't the case here.  They have just allowed more info to be released.

What is it you did not understand about the title of this thread and the article posted by Bouncer?  Try reading it again and I'll try to help you comprehend the judge's orders.

One thing that may help you understand legal proceedings is judges do not make motions, attorneys arguing the case before the judge do and then the judge would make a ruling on the motions.  The judge in this case has ruled against USF.

This is an effin message board.  Don't lecture me on the law.

And you are somewhat incorrect.  The judge did not say that USF has to provide all documents to Leavitt's attorneys.  Only certain ones which have been deemed to be. 

[IncrediBULL]

Last time I looked it was XCJL suing USF... that would mean that it's on XCJL to prove what did or didn't happen... not USF. So what say you Jim... errrrr Mizzou... what proof do you have that nothing happened?

Exactly.  No one on this board has to prove anything.  Leavitt was fired. There was just cause per their investigation.  There seems to be a ton of evidence that would allow even an outisder to conclude that something happened.   Now it is up to the lawyers, witnesses, and jury to sort it out (if it gets that far).

And for Mizzou saying we don't know anything because we were not there.  That is somewhat true, but most people use evidence to draw conclusions.  For example, I have never been to Japan, but I have seen pictures, and I have friends who have been there so using their hearsay I have concluded that Japan does in fact exist.

Along those same lines, I believe that an incident occured, Leavitt was fired, and that there appears to be probable cause.   Again, none of these effect me, and I cannot prove on my own that they did as I didn't witness them, but just as I have to believe from the papers that Leavitt was in fact fired, I also have to believe that an incident occured and it was not a complete fabrication of the news.  Otherwise, he would also be suing the paper.

A "ton" of evidence?  Please share some of it with us.  You don't have to present the whole "ton" just a couple hundred pounds.

How about witnesses who said they directly saw what happened, and it happened.  How about the victim who said the same.

Leavitt's counter is that some people in the room "didn't see anything".  Well, I have been in traffic and an accident occured up in front of me.  It doesn't mean I was looking when it happened, or that I was in the direct line of site. But that also does not mean that the accident didn't happen.

Leavitts defense is weak.  It hinges on a few guys who did not say that it "didn't" happen.  But that they "didn't see it happen".   Very different lingo.

Leavitt will settle, for a small fraction.

Mizzou = Leavitt.

No, that is factually incorrect.  A couple of players that were 50 feet away across the locker room said they saw Leavitt grab Miller by the throat and slap him.  These are the same two players Miller talked to later.  These are the same two players that went to Bowel Movement who wrote a hit piece that started all this.  Then you have other players, coaches and a current FBI agent that said they were within a few feet of Leavitt and Miller and no such slap or choke occurred.  You have no evidence at all in this case just conflicting eyewitness accounts.  It's really that simple.  Who do you think a judge and jury is going to believe, a self-admitted liar or a highly trained FBI agent?

Umm, Miller was within a few feet of the incident and he said it occured.  Hmm, how does a "first hand" account work for it.  Seems like Leavitt was busy head butting and beyoch slapping around the locker room that day.  It probably went something like "what? son, you are not listening to me, let me make you listen".  whack whack....  "Did I get your attention now"?  "I am the most powerful person in this lockeroom, all of you remember that.  Nothing happened here today, you saw nothing.".