Im sure this will not make many happy around here.

[Harrydawg]

What to do about proof that UM employees planted bad information to news outlets about Nutt being the primary suspect.......

Is this not a direct breach of the ageeement?

[gravedigger]

What to do about proof that UM employees planted bad information to news outlets about Nutt being the primary suspect.......

Is this not a direct breach of the ageeement?

The agreement was that OM was to instruct control groups and employees not to. If the court (rightfully) interprets that as the same thing as being libel for the failed results of their instruction, then I will have a renewed faith in our legal system to 'get it right' to steal a phrase. A it stands, I think that language was intentional because they knew it was bound to happen....and thus...a loophole. What they didnt count on is the price they'd pay in the leading up to the verdict.

[yjnkdawg]

What to do about proof that UM employees planted bad information to news outlets about Nutt being the primary suspect.......

Is this not a direct breach of the ageeement?

From what I read in the severance agreement it is. And the agreement refers to UM employees as well.

[Todd4State]

From what I read in the severance agreement it is. And the agreement refers to UM employees as well.

Yep. And the sticking point is Freeze was an Ole Miss employee when the wrongdoing towards Nutt occurred. I almost want to say slander but I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure if that is the legally correct term.

[HeCannotGo]

Gravedigger is correct in his original post in this thread. UM will "win" the case but lose the war.

The severance agreement doesn't say that Ole Miss agrees not to say negative things about Nutt. Instead, it says that Ole Miss will direct its "control group" (presumably its high-level employees) not to say anything negative about Nutt.

If the parties intended to have a real nondisparagement clause, the severance agreement would have said something like: "Ole Miss agrees that it shall refrain from making any disparaging comments about Coach Nutt to any member of the media or in any public forum." There's a million different ways to say this, all of which are quite different from what the contract actually says.

The fact that Ole Miss actually did say negative things about Nutt to members of the media doesn't mean that there was a breach of the contract. All Ole Miss has to do is produce a memo to its employees in which they are directed not to say bad things about Nutt. Even if such a memo wasn't originally sent, I have no doubt that one will be created after the fact and back-dated accordingly.

Ole Miss will likely produce earlier drafts of the contract in which Nutt's attorney wanted real nondisparagement language in order to show that what ended up in the contract was the watered-down, toothless language that the parties finally agreed to after trading four or five drafts.

The fact that Mars has been rather public about this litigation is further evidence of the weakness of his case. It's not his fault; he was dealt a bad hand here with the contract language. He's doing a good job of using the media to make Ole Miss look foolish even though Ole Miss has a sound legal position. This situation is proof of the old adage that if the law is on your side, argue the law; if the facts are on your side, argue the facts; if the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. Mars is pounding the table, and Ole Miss is being bloodied.

[Mimi's Babies]

What to do about proof that UM employees planted bad information to news outlets about Nutt being the primary suspect.......

Is this not a direct breach of the ageeement?

Phone records and news articles. Phone records and I would guess statements from the people listed would put a ding in OM defense. OM RELEASED two students names that in itself is a FERPA LAW violation. Slander, defimation of character, liable have happened across the board with OM not only against Mr. Nutt but our two students.