The crux of the Nutt lawsuit

Here is the clause of the separation agreement that Mars is basing his case on:

?Outside of any obligation, legal or otherwise, to reveal the terms of this Agreement to third parties, the University agrees not to release or disclose information related to this agreement,? the clause reads. ?The University further agrees to direct members of the control groups for the Foundation and for UM not to make any statement relative to Nutt?s tenure as an employee that may damage or harm Nutt?s reputation as a football coach.?

The bears are countering that only the admin at the time was bound by that agreement, and that the current admin never was a party to that agreement and therefore is not bound to it.

Wow I'd certainly go to court with that.. and given the way the administration has lied in this whole process I'd be a touch scared ...but that would be i a real courtroom... given how overtly corrupt the Mississippi judicial sysytem is, I can see how they are confident of their position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starkvegasdawg34

Here is the clause of the separation agreement that Mars is basing his case on:

?Outside of any obligation, legal or otherwise, to reveal the terms of this Agreement to third parties, the University agrees not to release or disclose information related to this agreement,? the clause reads. ?The University further agrees to direct members of the control groups for the Foundation and for UM not to make any statement relative to Nutt?s tenure as an employee that may damage or harm Nutt?s reputation as a football coach.?

The bears are countering that only the admin at the time was bound by that agreement, and that the current admin never was a party to that agreement and therefore is not bound to it.

---

That's gray area lawyer language bullshit there. All I want it to do is go to trial and watch all the collateral damage. I don't give a damn who wins. It's like watching Iran play the Isis State.

This statement is the meat of the LACK of INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL......

The University further agrees to direct members of the control groups for the Foundation and for UM not to make any statement relative to Nutt?s
The bears are countering that only the admin at the time was bound by that agreement, and that the current admin never was a party to that agreement and therefore is not bound to it.

Anyone EMPLOYED by the said university is BOUND by the statement....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mimi's Babies

This statement is the meat of the LACK of INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL......

The University further agrees to direct members of the control groups for the Foundation and for UM not to make any statement relative to Nutt?s
The bears are countering that only the admin at the time was bound by that agreement, and that the current admin never was a party to that agreement and therefore is not bound to it.

Anyone EMPLOYED by the said university is BOUND by the statement....

---

^^This. The clause says The University. Not the current administration. The university/institution agreed to it, so anyone employed by it should be subject to the same regardless of when they were hired.

The agreement was that the university would "direct members". That means that when HF and RB were hired they should have been instructed in their employee training not to talk about Houston Nutt but from the current context we know that there are a lot of things that HF and RB obviously missed during their employee training for that NCAA institution.

I'm kind of like Spidey, I don't care who wins. I just want to see what other kind dirt Mars and his team of experts can drag up. We could be looking far beyond civil matters to possible criminal matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starkvegasdawg34

Here is the clause of the separation agreement that Mars is basing his case on:



The bears are countering that only the admin at the time was bound by that agreement, and that the current admin never was a party to that agreement and therefore is not bound to it.

---

by this logic we can now invade Cuba, take back the reservations, and finally move that Indian burial ground**

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mimi's Babies

This statement is the meat of the LACK of INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL......

The University further agrees to direct members of the control groups for the Foundation and for UM not to make any statement relative to Nutt?s
The bears are countering that only the admin at the time was bound by that agreement, and that the current admin never was a party to that agreement and therefore is not bound to it.

Anyone EMPLOYED by the said university is BOUND by the statement....

---

That's exactly right. And the argument I hear so many making is really not even relevant. The Foundation's outside attorney, or whoever, said that Nutt's people asked Umiss' people for language like that, and that Umiss' people said 'No'. So the argument being made is why would he lie? That's who the CL quoted in their article.

That is what all started the tweet fight between Wolken and the host of MS Gridiron radio show. When Wolken went on to be interviewed Wednesday, I think, the host started in on him about why his tweet was correct and Wolken was wrong. Wolken response was hilarious, but I'm thinking the way that interview went, the tone of it, is what pushed Wolken into what he said on Bo's show. Wolken's response was Why Would You Believe Them Now?.....haha...Said they all been lying for more than two years about everything, so why now? After the first interview the webels began attacking him worse on twitter with the "agenda" and the "he hates Umiss" crap. They got under his skin and he let them know their place, rightfully so, on Bo's show. I just hope Wolken don't get on our ass one day. He ain't taking their shit at all.