I'm shocked USC publicly responded in the first place and second, that they actually said "most" of Sark's allegations are untrue implying there is some truth to it. Jury to decide which part I guess.
It is factually true that Bleacher Report gave him an A+ grade for the ASU game.
No. It's not a fact; it's an opinion, which is why inclusion in the lawsuit is so absurd. The only way that the Bleacher report writer's opinion that Sark deserved an A+ grade for the ASU game would be admissible at trial is if Sark's lawyers were able to first qualify him as an expert. This seems unlikely. If watching a lot of college football is sufficient to qualify the writer as an expert competent to render an opinion at trial, then all of us on this board and half the male population of America would be similarly qualified. Accordingly, even if the witness were qualified as an expert, under this standard USC would be able to bring in their own "experts" to refute the testimony. Sark will never gain any traction with this. Bullshit, time-wasting lawyering.
I'm shocked USC publicly responded in the first place and second, that they actually said "most" of Sark's allegations are untrue implying there is some truth to it. Jury to decide which part I guess.
It is factually true that Bleacher Report gave him an A+ grade for the ASU game.
No. It's not a fact; it's an opinion, which is why inclusion in the lawsuit is so absurd. The only way that the Bleacher report writer's opinion that Sark deserved an A+ grade for the ASU game would be admissible at trial is if Sark's lawyers were able to first qualify him as an expert. This seems unlikely. If watching a lot of college football is sufficient to qualify the writer as an expert competent to render an opinion at trial, then all of us on this board and half the male population of America would be similarly qualified. Accordingly, even if the witness were qualified as an expert, under this standard USC would be able to bring in their own "experts" to refute the testimony. Sark will never gain any traction with this. Bullshit, time-wasting lawyering.
It is a fact that some random basement dweller held that opinion.
Probably admissible not for it's truth or as a fact, but for it's impact on Sark or Haden's state of mind. Whether it's true isn't the issue. Whether it impacted their states of mind is. That's relevant, and it probably jumps the hearsay fence since it's not offered for it's truth, but for it's impact on their minds. Plus, it's touchy-feely Cali, where the courts are as liberal as their politicians. I agree it's ridiculous, but they could worm it into court somehow. That's why this turd case will settle out of court for 2 to 5 mil.
Love the comments section, ex addicts saying it's not a disability
It's disabling, but it's not a disability. Obese people have been disabled but they're not a special class deserving of special treatment for something they did to themselves.
Neither are alcoholics.
nice rant. Butt, the only thing that matters now is what will PeoplesInsurance look like and what will it limit in terms of care
I'm shocked USC publicly responded in the first place and second, that they actually said "most" of Sark's allegations are untrue implying there is some truth to it. Jury to decide which part I guess.
It is factually true that Bleacher Report gave him an A+ grade for the ASU game.
No. It's not a fact; it's an opinion, which is why inclusion in the lawsuit is so absurd. The only way that the Bleacher report writer's opinion that Sark deserved an A+ grade for the ASU game would be admissible at trial is if Sark's lawyers were able to first qualify him as an expert. This seems unlikely. If watching a lot of college football is sufficient to qualify the writer as an expert competent to render an opinion at trial, then all of us on this board and half the male population of America would be similarly qualified. Accordingly, even if the witness were qualified as an expert, under this standard USC would be able to bring in their own "experts" to refute the testimony. Sark will never gain any traction with this. Bullshit, time-wasting lawyering.
A millionaire CFB coach plays the Victim card. Well, one thing is certain: Sark will forever be known as the wannabe pussy who couldn't win big games, keep his marital promises, or, worst of all, hold his liquor. No single trait would doom him, but going 0 for 3 in those categories is unforgivable.
Man this latest stunt by Sark makes my blood boil.
Just because you have a disability or a disease doesn't give you an excuse to not do your job! My understanding of the ADA is it gives you (as I believe it should) protection to take time off to get treatment and/or ask for reasonable accommodation. You can still be fired if you aren't meeting the standards of the position. Sark is taking advantage of legislation that is meant to help people that are genuinely trying to get their lives back on track.
I hope the USC lawyers rake him through the coals.
The ADA was practically gutted by the Supreme Court years ago. I don't know if it's been amended much since, but CA disability law might be more generous? Maybe I should read the Complaint? Naaaaaaaaaaah. I'll be busy with this instead.
- in California, the law is written and upheld in court with some basis to the claim.
- Sark's attorneys know he has no money and took this as a 1/3 contingency.
- Sark's attorneys know they won't win in court even with California precedent, they are looking to settle. Settling for $6 million nets them $2 million with little work.
- USC doesn't want a long drawn out legal battle even tho they know they will win. If they do win, Sark won't be able to pay their attorney fees. So they will be enticed to settle.
I figure Sark will net a couple million to sit on his floor (couch is sold) and not do anything.
I figure Sark Sarks ex-wife will net a couple million to sit on her couch and not do anything.
SC will probably settle, guy from the LA Times said they have insurance for this sort of thing but on the other hand they and their underwriters may just say FTG and fight it out. Either way it will be interesting.
If this could get to trial the amount of material we will get is mind boggling.
Dirty laundry, from multiple sources, to the bazillionth degree.
Prayingdog.gif
I've got pretty good tolerances, but even I would probably tire of the pathetic, nauseous, gory, icky details of Sark's & Haden's lives. Blech. Rather eat my own shit.
Is this bad lip reading or was that actually it, and in reference to what? This is an amazing gif, and it has been neatly packed into my bookmarks. Thank you, some beers for you.
- in California, the law is written and upheld in court with some basis to the claim.
- Sark's attorneys know he has no money and took this as a 1/3 contingency.
- Sark's attorneys know they won't win in court even with California precedent, they are looking to settle. Settling for $6 million nets them $2 million with little work.
- USC doesn't want a long drawn out legal battle even tho they know they will win. If they do win, Sark won't be able to pay their attorney fees. So they will be enticed to settle.
I figure Sark will net a couple million to sit on his floor (couch is sold) and not do anything.
Is this bad lip reading or was that actually it, and in reference to what? This is an amazing gif, and it has been neatly packed into my bookmarks. Thank you, some beers for you.
Comments
Tee Vee
Case closed.
Just because you have a disability or a disease doesn't give you an excuse to not do your job! My understanding of the ADA is it gives you (as I believe it should) protection to take time off to get treatment and/or ask for reasonable accommodation. You can still be fired if you aren't meeting the standards of the position. Sark is taking advantage of legislation that is meant to help people that are genuinely trying to get their lives back on track.
I hope the USC lawyers rake him through the coals.
- in California, the law is written and upheld in court with some basis to the claim.
- Sark's attorneys know he has no money and took this as a 1/3 contingency.
- Sark's attorneys know they won't win in court even with California precedent, they are looking to settle. Settling for $6 million nets them $2 million with little work.
- USC doesn't want a long drawn out legal battle even tho they know they will win. If they do win, Sark won't be able to pay their attorney fees. So they will be enticed to settle.
I figure Sark will net a couple million to sit on his floor (couch is sold) and not do anything.
SC will probably settle, guy from the LA Times said they have insurance for this sort of thing but on the other hand they and their underwriters may just say FTG and fight it out. Either way it will be interesting.
Dirty laundry, from multiple sources, to the bazillionth degree.
Prayingdog.gif