Jump to content

res ipsa loquitur

Members
  • Posts

    124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

res ipsa loquitur last won the day on May 8

res ipsa loquitur had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

res ipsa loquitur's Achievements

Collaborator

Collaborator (7/14)

  • Conversation Starter
  • Very Popular
  • One Month Later
  • Week One Done
  • Dedicated

Recent Badges

116

Reputation

  1. Hi All, It's been real, but, as my family member has agreed to join the MD administration, I will no longer be posting to this message board. Best, Res Ipsa Loquitur
  2. Likely no. California Penal Code 118 defines perjury as “knowingly providing false testimony while under oath.” If she misremembers things and thinks she’s telling the truth, she’s not committing perjury. I genuinely believe she is telling the truth to her best knowledge/memory. And, even if she was knowingly lying, that’s tremendously hard to prove without a confession or smoking gun document.
  3. I do not know what the security footage shows re security personnel. But, why would anyone escort someone less than 100 ft if they come out of a locker with injuries that are not nearly as significant as originally described (again plaintiff has not seen a Dr for his injuries since 14 days after they happen) and not noticeable unless one looked right at him? As he was jogging up to the trainer, someone should have jumped out and grabbed him to escort him? That scenario only makes sense if he was actually stumbling and super injured—as originally claimed. The video and medical records show that’s not true.
  4. Because locker rooms were even more private for players due to COVID-19 protocols (ie, limited foot traffic to limit exposure); all other sports had head coaches and/or assistants sitting outside their relevant lockers to listen for issues; but Rollo apparently made clear he would not personally do that (ie, the “I don’t have time for that shit” quote). It’s unclear what Rollo said re having assistant coaches sit outside locker room because plaintiff’s counsel cuts off the excerpt from the former ADs deposition just before her testimony of what Rollo said re assistant coaches sitting outside of lockers instead of him personally. In other words, the security was a substitute for coaches sitting outside lockers. But every sports locker room—boys and girls—had additional security in some form sitting outside lockers while students used them (coaches for all other sports and security guards/a rotation of assistant ADs for football). The implication by you and others that there was specific concern re football more than any other locker room (apparently seeking to imply that there must have been hazing and that’s what triggered a special concern re football) is false.
  5. Not sure. I share only what I know from court documents and (on a few occasions) personal knowledge. Also worth nothing that there is is private security throughout campus just for the students generally. MD simply paid and posted additional security outside the locker room, per the former AD’s testimony.
  6. Not the surveillance video of him going up to and being treated by the trainer—it’s not publicly available and I’m not an attorney on this case. But, among other things, the latest filing summarizes the video and states that plaintiff took x amount of seconds to go down the stairs and jog up to the trainer and that he received immediate care. This filing also states that the content of the video as described is not in dispute. And, plaintiff has filed nothing disputing that description of the video.
  7. He walked up to trainer tent and received immediate treatment (there’s a video and apparently it was within seconds). Re the other facts, they are not available in any of the public filings so far as, again, this case is generally under seal.
  8. There may be some chance at a case re #2. But, I wrote my original post--where I noted that the former AD's testimony possibly supported an argument for inadequate care--before it came out that the AD's relevant testimony was false. Security camera footage, medical records, and text messages show plaintiff not being nearly as injured as originally alleged, and, most significantly, the former AD was never in the area, did not see plaintiff's injuries/what care he received, was not prevented from calling 911. Her testimony that supported #2 claimed she saw plaintiff staggering down the stairs to the trainer, that she spoke to plaintiff and his speech was slurred, and that she saw an MD official intervene and prevent others from calling 911. None of this was true (hence, the statement MD released regarding the former AD's testimony). As I said before, I think she has a false memory as there is a message she sent from the day after wherein she says she was told about the fight by someone. In the year and two months since the incident, what she was told and likely what she read in the news got mixed up in her head as something she witnessed.
  9. Fair enough re your opinions. But, one quibble: plaintiff's counsel is arguably the top litigation boutique in Orange County. Plaintiff's parent's are likely paying his attorneys around $1000 per hour. If they couldn't prove hazing, it's unlikely that anyone could.
  10. I apologize that my phrasing was crass and offensive.
  11. There is no counter suit. And I doubt that there will ever be one. Rather, plaintiff improperly withheld damning evidence that proved much of what has been posted on here (and is apparently accepted as fact by some of you even today) to be a lie. Next month, MD is seeking sanctions equal to the cost associated with obtaining that evidence: a little under $7K. Similarly, as you all might remember, plaintiff argued a few months ago that MD improperly sought to prevent the former AD’s depo. Plaintiff similarly sought sanctions for the cost of obtaining an order to have the former AD deposed. Plaintiff did not get that money though because the claim that the AD’s depo was being blocked was a total lie amplified by the media. Rather, MD won its argument that the depo was properly delayed until all counsel were available as originally agreed by the parties. (Plaintiff had sought to take the depo when MD’s counsel was traveling outside the country and wouldn’t be able to attend). Further, assuming plaintiff doesn’t give up his case or it isn’t settled for some nominal amount, he can still pursue a case for “simple negligence.” Thus, he can still try to prove to a jury that MD more likely than not did not act reasonably in either (1) preventing him from fighting or (2) providing sufficient medical care. The claims that plaintiff was hazed or retaliated against are effectively dead through—as a legal matter.
  12. It's worth noting that, while plaintiff's strongest evidence has been made public through strategic leaks to specific media sources, the evidence in this case is "sealed" by default as it involves a minor. In other words, it's safe to assume that there is additional strong evidence on MD's side that is not public yet (though the judge saw much of it before this ruling). Next month, MD's motion to compel and for sanctions against plaintiff--who raised completely baseless arguments for redacting much of his texts and emails from around the time of the incident--will come up for hearing. I've been two for two in my legal predictions so far. And I further predict that next month, MD will win to the extent that plaintiff will have to reveal what is in those redacted text messages. Regarding sanctions, judges are generally reluctant to award monetary sanctions unless one repeatedly violates a court's rulings; however, given plaintiff's brazen behavior so far to withhold evidence and mislead the general public, I would also not be shocked if plaintiff and/or his attorneys are forced to pay MD's attorneys fees regarding next month's motion. So, in short, MD resoundingly defeated the hazing claim (and all others it sought to dismiss), and MD is now on the cusp of possibly getting paid by plaintiff.
  13. And there it is. MD wins on hazing claim per the tentative. Moreover, MD gets sweeping win regarding negligence per se and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Tentatives on such dispositive motions become the final ruling of the court more than 99% of the time. Unfortunately, the damage by the media is done: MD football will forever be associated with hazing despite a police and DA investigation finding not “a shred of evidence” of hazing and now a court—with the plaintiff’s best evidence and arguments before it—has found the same.
  14. What edition of the Hornbook is that from? Where'd you get your law license? LOL
×
×
  • Create New...