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

[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. 

So you admit USF is stonewalling and dragging this out?

And being in the driver's seat is not a good thing when you are driving the vehicle over a cliff, Thelma.

USF is doing what any smart person or organization would do if being sued.  Provide only what you legally are bound to provide.  Nothing more.  Just like the old piece of advice, never answer the unasked question. 

In my opinion, the vehicle went off the cliff last fall during the louisville game.  I think Leavitt is trying to drive it back up the cliff in hopes of pretending he didn't drive over the edge.  That was a long steep drop at 90 degrees, and then gravity took effect.  Will be pretty hard driving straight up the cliff's wall back to the top in my opinion.

[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.

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. 

Without seeing the privilege log it would be difficult to know exactly what the bases are for not turning over any documents requested.  Generally the basis for not turning documents over in litigation is for attorney client privilege, attorney work-product, trade secrets, etc.  This is a different issue than redacting documents to hide any personal student information.

Given that the judge has looked at the 800 pages which were withheld and ordered USF to provide a new privilege log on why the documents should not be turned over, it seems, at least implicitly, that the judge is not buying the argument that these documents are protected but is affordng USF the opportunity to show him that they are.  If the judge thought the documents were not subject to be turned over he could have ordered Leavitt to show why he was entitled or made a ruling since he has seen the documents in question, but he put the onus on USF.

[Southshore26]

So you think Miller is credible??

He's more credible than you are Jim.

[2000bull]

So you think Miller is credible??

He's more credible than you are Jim.

I think the underlying point is that public opinion in general puts more credibility in what Miller says versus Leavitt.

Basically you have 2 stories: a) Leavitt says nothing happened and Miller says Leavitt hit him, he lied to cover up for Leavitt and then he stopped lying for Leavitt and hired Barry Cohen.

You can add up Joel's story....you could follow along and see it happening.

If you follow Jim's version then you still have a lot of questions:

Why was there an article.

Why did Joel Miller need to have a meeting with Leavitt.

Why did Ben Busbee need a meeting with Leavitt.

Why were players talking about an incident at halftime during the game even to Louisville players.

Why was Joel Miller's father upset.

Why did Joel Miller ask the Equipment Manager not to talk to the players about the "Incident".

Why did around 15 players give varying accounts of a situation at halftime in the locker room during the investigation, all of which said there was some kind of an incident.

Why did Joel Miller change his story and hire Barry Cohen.

Why did Carl Franks say he was aware Joel Miller was upset but thought Jim Leavitt resolved the "issue" with him.

The public knows, none of those questions would be out there from "Nothing Happened"...thus they automatically will go to the other side....at least the other side's story could fit....Jim's present story....doesn't fit.

Kinda like Clinton's I did not have relations with that woman or Nixon's I am not a crook speech. You can deny all you want......the public will base your credibility on which story makes sense.

That doesn't mean public perseption is always correct but if Jim want's the public's perception to change about him....then he is going to have to provide a version of the story that explains what set the events in motion. Like OJ....he needs to find the killer.  ;D

or he just needs to use the chewbacca defense 

[usf97]

Hey wait.....why was my post deleted? That is a legit point with no attacks. At least 2000bull quoted me.

[2000bull]

Hey wait.....why was my post deleted? That is a legit point with no attacks. At least 2000bull quoted me.

i'm guessing collateral damage 

[usf97]

Probably too much logic and reason....I know that's boring.

I should have just called someone a poo poo head instead.

[2000bull]

Probably too much logic and reason....I know that's boring.

I should have just called someone a poo poo head instead.

i think i dosed off reading it  ;D

[mikebeau]

One thing is certain, Mizzou is not in PR.  by the time he is done on here everyone will hate Leavitt

[usf97]

Probably too much logic and reason....I know that's boring.

I should have just called someone a poo poo head instead.

i think i dosed off reading it  ;D

Here's some easy listening to finish you off.

Notice had Leavitt given thought to the words of this song, he might not be in the situation he is in.