Live blog from Everson trial

[nolookpass]

Thanks for the well thought out response. You've really made your case here.

I never said she had a strong case. I did say I'm anticipating a civil claim being filed against the university as thats how these things usually go.

dont put words in my mouth and then attempt to get me to defend those words.

 

[nolookpass]

Thanks for the well thought out response. You've really made your case here.

I never said she had a strong case. I did say I'm anticipating a civil claim being filed against the university as thats how these things usually go.

dont put words in my mouth and then attempt to get me to defend those words.

 

[MikeyJoe]

Thanks for the well thought out response. You've really made your case here.

I never said she had a strong case. I did say I'm anticipating a civil claim being filed against the university as thats how these things usually go.

dont put words in my mouth and then attempt to get me to defend those words.

 

[MikeyJoe]

Thanks for the well thought out response. You've really made your case here.

I never said she had a strong case. I did say I'm anticipating a civil claim being filed against the university as thats how these things usually go.

dont put words in my mouth and then attempt to get me to defend those words.

 

[L. Wade Childress]

NLP, why would she file a civil claim three years after the fact and immediately after the trial?

 

[L. Wade Childress]

NLP, why would she file a civil claim three years after the fact and immediately after the trial?

 

[nolookpass]

NLP, why would she file a civil claim three years after the fact and immediately after the trial?

a couple reasons.

1. she feels wronged by the university and the court
2. theres more info available to her now thru the discovery process and the testimony on record

 

[nolookpass]

NLP, why would she file a civil claim three years after the fact and immediately after the trial?

a couple reasons.

1. she feels wronged by the university and the court
2. theres more info available to her now thru the discovery process and the testimony on record

 

[Verbal]

By the accused, or by others? If the accused were able to do something to her because of their proximity to her, that would be something. But you can't sue the University because other students were harassing her.

Sure you could, theoretically. Argue that (1) university was aware of harassment or threat of harassment; (2) university had duty to prevent harassment; (3) university failed to fulfill its duties; and (4) that failure proximately caused plaintiff's damages.

The facts of this case may not support such a claim, but you see this type of thing all the time in workplace situations. Not a huge stretch for a plaintiff's attorney to attempt to try it in this context.

Again, you're not understanding. I'm not saying that it isn't true. Of course she could sue if the above fact pattern is true.

What I'm saying is that the stuff that nolook has been saying here doesn't prove that it's true. So far we've gotten "They fired 2 people" and "She was harassed". I'm not saying that I know for certain that she wouldn't win a lawsuit, I'm just saying that the currently available information (at least as presented by No Lookpass, esq.) doesn't by itself make a strong case.

Sorry, I didn't read the whole exchange and the line that I emphasized in bold jumped out at me. I see what you're saying now.

 

[Verbal]

By the accused, or by others? If the accused were able to do something to her because of their proximity to her, that would be something. But you can't sue the University because other students were harassing her.

Sure you could, theoretically. Argue that (1) university was aware of harassment or threat of harassment; (2) university had duty to prevent harassment; (3) university failed to fulfill its duties; and (4) that failure proximately caused plaintiff's damages.

The facts of this case may not support such a claim, but you see this type of thing all the time in workplace situations. Not a huge stretch for a plaintiff's attorney to attempt to try it in this context.

Again, you're not understanding. I'm not saying that it isn't true. Of course she could sue if the above fact pattern is true.

What I'm saying is that the stuff that nolook has been saying here doesn't prove that it's true. So far we've gotten "They fired 2 people" and "She was harassed". I'm not saying that I know for certain that she wouldn't win a lawsuit, I'm just saying that the currently available information (at least as presented by No Lookpass, esq.) doesn't by itself make a strong case.

Sorry, I didn't read the whole exchange and the line that I emphasized in bold jumped out at me. I see what you're saying now.

 

[L. Wade Childress]

and this new info suddenly came available after the trial? wrong.

 

[L. Wade Childress]

and this new info suddenly came available after the trial? wrong.

 

[MikeyJoe]

No, I can see how you would think that. In the bolded quote, I should have said "just because other students were harassing her".

 

[MikeyJoe]

No, I can see how you would think that. In the bolded quote, I should have said "just because other students were harassing her".

 

[nolookpass]

and this new info suddenly came available after the trial? wrong.

I guess you know much more about criminal trials than I do.

 

[nolookpass]

and this new info suddenly came available after the trial? wrong.

I guess you know much more about criminal trials than I do.

 

[Legend12]

and this new info suddenly came available after the trial? wrong.

Dammit...don't make me take NLP's side!

Of course new info may have come out during the process that was not used during the trial for a variety of reasons.

The victim obviously feels she was raped, and if that is the case no way does she feel like justice was achieved by the courts as of yet. She is going to make someone pay...who it is at this time doesn't really matter. Is she going to sue Satterfield or Everson? No. She going to sue another party that has the ability to compensate her in the greatest fashion.

 

[Legend12]

and this new info suddenly came available after the trial? wrong.

Dammit...don't make me take NLP's side!

Of course new info may have come out during the process that was not used during the trial for a variety of reasons.

The victim obviously feels she was raped, and if that is the case no way does she feel like justice was achieved by the courts as of yet. She is going to make someone pay...who it is at this time doesn't really matter. Is she going to sue Satterfield or Everson? No. She going to sue another party that has the ability to compensate her in the greatest fashion.

 

[nolookpass]

and this new info suddenly came available after the trial? wrong.

Dammit...don't make me take NLP's side!

Of course new info may have come out during the process that was not used during the trial for a variety of reasons.

The victim obviously feels she was raped, and if that is the case no way does she feel like justice was achieved by the courts as of yet. She is going to make someone pay...who it is at this time doesn't really matter. Is she going to sue Satterfield or Everson? No. She going to sue another party that has the ability to compensate her in the greatest fashion.

he has to be trolling. he really cant be that stupid

 

[nolookpass]

and this new info suddenly came available after the trial? wrong.

Dammit...don't make me take NLP's side!

Of course new info may have come out during the process that was not used during the trial for a variety of reasons.

The victim obviously feels she was raped, and if that is the case no way does she feel like justice was achieved by the courts as of yet. She is going to make someone pay...who it is at this time doesn't really matter. Is she going to sue Satterfield or Everson? No. She going to sue another party that has the ability to compensate her in the greatest fashion.

he has to be trolling. he really cant be that stupid

 

[L. Wade Childress]

and this new info suddenly came available after the trial? wrong.

Dammit...don't make me take NLP's side!

Of course new info may have come out during the process that was not used during the trial for a variety of reasons.

The victim obviously feels she was raped, and if that is the case no way does she feel like justice was achieved by the courts as of yet. She is going to make someone pay...who it is at this time doesn't really matter. Is she going to sue Satterfield or Everson? No. She going to sue another party that has the ability to compensate her in the greatest fashion.

the info would have come out during the 3 years prior to the trial...i highly doubt she learned anything new at the trial, and she was not even present for 90% of it.

 

[L. Wade Childress]

and this new info suddenly came available after the trial? wrong.

Dammit...don't make me take NLP's side!

Of course new info may have come out during the process that was not used during the trial for a variety of reasons.

The victim obviously feels she was raped, and if that is the case no way does she feel like justice was achieved by the courts as of yet. She is going to make someone pay...who it is at this time doesn't really matter. Is she going to sue Satterfield or Everson? No. She going to sue another party that has the ability to compensate her in the greatest fashion.

the info would have come out during the 3 years prior to the trial...i highly doubt she learned anything new at the trial, and she was not even present for 90% of it.

 

[L. Wade Childress]

also...in iowa, you have two years to file a civil suit. you think that they are going to waive that just because she wants revenge now that the trial didnt go her way?

 

[L. Wade Childress]

also...in iowa, you have two years to file a civil suit. you think that they are going to waive that just because she wants revenge now that the trial didnt go her way?

 

[nolookpass]

also...in iowa, you have two years to file a civil suit. you think that they are going to waive that just because she wants revenge now that the trial didnt go her way?

there are times/circumstances where that can be waived. I do not know if this case would meet those standards or not.

good question for the lawyers

 

[nolookpass]

also...in iowa, you have two years to file a civil suit. you think that they are going to waive that just because she wants revenge now that the trial didnt go her way?

there are times/circumstances where that can be waived. I do not know if this case would meet those standards or not.

good question for the lawyers

 

[Legend12]

and this new info suddenly came available after the trial? wrong.

Dammit...don't make me take NLP's side!

Of course new info may have come out during the process that was not used during the trial for a variety of reasons.

The victim obviously feels she was raped, and if that is the case no way does she feel like justice was achieved by the courts as of yet. She is going to make someone pay...who it is at this time doesn't really matter. Is she going to sue Satterfield or Everson? No. She going to sue another party that has the ability to compensate her in the greatest fashion.

the info would have come out during the 3 years prior to the trial...i highly doubt she learned anything new at the trial, and she was not even present for 90% of it.

New stuff could have come at any point during the elapsed time but she may not have felt the urge to file a civil claim because she thought they 2 men would be held accountable by the courts.

 

[Legend12]

and this new info suddenly came available after the trial? wrong.

Dammit...don't make me take NLP's side!

Of course new info may have come out during the process that was not used during the trial for a variety of reasons.

The victim obviously feels she was raped, and if that is the case no way does she feel like justice was achieved by the courts as of yet. She is going to make someone pay...who it is at this time doesn't really matter. Is she going to sue Satterfield or Everson? No. She going to sue another party that has the ability to compensate her in the greatest fashion.

the info would have come out during the 3 years prior to the trial...i highly doubt she learned anything new at the trial, and she was not even present for 90% of it.

New stuff could have come at any point during the elapsed time but she may not have felt the urge to file a civil claim because she thought they 2 men would be held accountable by the courts.

 

[Verbal]

also...in iowa, you have two years to file a civil suit. you think that they are going to waive that just because she wants revenge now that the trial didnt go her way?

You have two years to file a suit for personal injury (including negligence). The clock runs at the time the injury occurred or when the plaintiff reasonably became aware of it. So if the plaintiff can argue that she could not reasonably have been aware of a claim against the UI until some point in the last two years, then she might still be able to file a claim. To me, the Stolar Report's issuance on 9/18/08 looks like the latest possible date for an accrual of a cause of action, and we're more than two years past that. But then, perhaps there is some other cause of action that she's become aware of in the interim that we don't know about. Statutes of limitations can also be tolled by agreement of the parties. Also, minors and persons with mental illnesses are afforded a year from the time they reach majority/recover from their illness.

From what we know, none of this is likely applicable here, but it's not as clear-cut as you make it out. Maybe she suffered from some sort of post-traumatic stress...

 

[Verbal]

also...in iowa, you have two years to file a civil suit. you think that they are going to waive that just because she wants revenge now that the trial didnt go her way?

You have two years to file a suit for personal injury (including negligence). The clock runs at the time the injury occurred or when the plaintiff reasonably became aware of it. So if the plaintiff can argue that she could not reasonably have been aware of a claim against the UI until some point in the last two years, then she might still be able to file a claim. To me, the Stolar Report's issuance on 9/18/08 looks like the latest possible date for an accrual of a cause of action, and we're more than two years past that. But then, perhaps there is some other cause of action that she's become aware of in the interim that we don't know about. Statutes of limitations can also be tolled by agreement of the parties. Also, minors and persons with mental illnesses are afforded a year from the time they reach majority/recover from their illness.

From what we know, none of this is likely applicable here, but it's not as clear-cut as you make it out. Maybe she suffered from some sort of post-traumatic stress...

 

[MikeyJoe]

http://hawkcentral.com/2011/03/09/satterfield-sentenced/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+hawkeyes-blog+(Hawk+Central+»+Iowa+Hawkeyes+coverage)

Satterfield gets time served plus a suspended sentence.

Good thing he provided the Johnson County DA with that super useful testimony.

 

[MikeyJoe]

http://hawkcentral.com/2011/03/09/satterfield-sentenced/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+hawkeyes-blog+(Hawk+Central+»+Iowa+Hawkeyes+coverage)

Satterfield gets time served plus a suspended sentence.

Good thing he provided the Johnson County DA with that super useful testimony.

 

[JD720]

Everson gets one week.

http://hawkcentral.com/2011/06/24/cedric-everson-sentenced-to-week-in-jail/

 

[JD720]

Everson gets one week.

http://hawkcentral.com/2011/06/24/cedric-everson-sentenced-to-week-in-jail/

 

[Talkin' Goat]

Lahey had asked for a 30-day jail sentence, while Everson’s attorney, Leon Spies, had asked for time served and community service, saying Everson had a clean criminal record aside from the assault conviction and was now married with a young daughter and attending community college classes in Detroit.

Whoa.

 

[Talkin' Goat]

Lahey had asked for a 30-day jail sentence, while Everson’s attorney, Leon Spies, had asked for time served and community service, saying Everson had a clean criminal record aside from the assault conviction and was now married with a young daughter and attending community college classes in Detroit.

Whoa.

 

[BuffettHawk]

Lahey had asked for a 30-day jail sentence, while Everson’s attorney, Leon Spies, had asked for time served and community service, saying Everson had a clean criminal record aside from the assault conviction and was now married with a young daughter and attending community college classes in Detroit.

Whoa.

There's a proud father-in-law somewhere out there.

 

[BuffettHawk]

Lahey had asked for a 30-day jail sentence, while Everson’s attorney, Leon Spies, had asked for time served and community service, saying Everson had a clean criminal record aside from the assault conviction and was now married with a young daughter and attending community college classes in Detroit.

Whoa.

There's a proud father-in-law somewhere out there.

 

[MikeyJoe]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/court-u-iowa-can-shield-07-assault-records

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — The Iowa Supreme Court says the University of Iowa can conceal hundreds of pages of records related to its investigation into an alleged 2007 sexual assault involving football players.
The court ruled 4-3 that the university can withhold records requested by the Iowa City Press-Citizen newspaper.
The court says releasing them could violate a federal law that prohibits the release of personally identifiable information about students. The court says the records can't be released in redacted form either, because the newspaper knows the identities of students involved in the case.
The newspaper filed the lawsuit in 2008 seeking records about Iowa's investigation of an assault of a female athlete by former football players Abe Satterfield and Cedric Everson. A judge ordered them released in 2009 but the university appealed.

 

[MikeyJoe]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/court-u-iowa-can-shield-07-assault-records

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — The Iowa Supreme Court says the University of Iowa can conceal hundreds of pages of records related to its investigation into an alleged 2007 sexual assault involving football players.
The court ruled 4-3 that the university can withhold records requested by the Iowa City Press-Citizen newspaper.
The court says releasing them could violate a federal law that prohibits the release of personally identifiable information about students. The court says the records can't be released in redacted form either, because the newspaper knows the identities of students involved in the case.
The newspaper filed the lawsuit in 2008 seeking records about Iowa's investigation of an assault of a female athlete by former football players Abe Satterfield and Cedric Everson. A judge ordered them released in 2009 but the university appealed.