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.
We were right.
Love the comments section, ex addicts saying it's not a disability
http://www.usctrojans.com/blog/2015/12/usc-response-to-sarkisian-lawsuit.htmlNo way, ya think?The only way this could get any better is if by some miracle it ends up at trial. Then we could finally find out who ordered the cosmo.
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.
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. Legal superiority guy.
We were right. "We"? Mr. 248 poasts?
We were right. "We"? Mr. 248 poasts? Actually he's Mr. 20,247 poasts.
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.
