Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

USC: Sark is full of shit

1356

Comments

  • MisterEm
    MisterEm Member Posts: 6,685
    HeretoBeatmyChest said:

    AlCzervik said:

    FremontTroll said:

    Meek said:

    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.
    Legal superiority guy.
    Check with @creepycoug, first.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FremontTroll
    FremontTroll Member Posts: 4,744
    AlCzervik said:

    FremontTroll said:

    Meek said:

    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TurdBomber
    TurdBomber Member Posts: 20,051 Standard Supporter
    edited December 2015
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sarktastic
    sarktastic Member Posts: 9,208
    dnc said:

    section8 said:

    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
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sarktastic
    sarktastic Member Posts: 9,208
    HeretoBeatmyChest said:

    AlCzervik said:

    FremontTroll said:

    Meek said:

    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.
    Legal superiority guy.
    Hollywood jury.

    Tee Vee

    Case closed.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Doog_de_Jour
    Doog_de_Jour Member Posts: 8,042 Standard Supporter
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • doogsinparadise
    doogsinparadise Member Posts: 9,320
    I want Sark to win just so USC is proven wrong.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter