|
Post by azvb on Oct 11, 2019 16:49:33 GMT -5
This is some serious money. Butler has skin in this game. "This is some serious money" 🤣 I feel sorry for your bank account. I think he pays more for his lawn maintenance. Let me see if I’ve got this right. It’s oerfectly okay with you for coaches to sleep with ex players as long as they’re 18?
|
|
|
Post by deohge on Oct 11, 2019 17:16:56 GMT -5
"This is some serious money" 🤣 I feel sorry for your bank account. I think he pays more for his lawn maintenance. Let me see if I’ve got this right. It’s oerfectly okay with you for coaches to sleep with ex players as long as they’re 18? I object to form, foundation, and scope. The question has already been answered.
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Oct 11, 2019 17:26:47 GMT -5
Up until I read the below on the prior page here, I had the impression everyone was talking about the ethics of a coach having sexual relations with a legal adult who was once in their program, more or less. But THIS, holy cow: BY MS. JANZEN: 4 Q At this meeting in the summer 2015 with 5 the upcoming senior class, did you state that the 6 USAV ethics and eligibility committee made the 7 following finding of fact, quote: 8 "Beginning in 1981, Rick Butler had 9 unprotected sexual intercourse and a subsequent 10 physical and emotional relationship with 11 16-year-old Sarah Powers, now Barnhard, while she 12 was a junior volleyball player with a program in 13 which Mr. Butler was a strength coach and at least 14 a substitute volleyball coach. That experience 15 caused Ms. Powers to lose her virginity," close 16 quote. 17 MS. D'AMBROSE: I object to form, 18 foundation, and scope. 19 A No. googling, I found that Sarah Barnhard claims multiple occurrence rape. www.syracuse.com/news/2019/08/elite-youth-volleyball-coach-sued-over-alleged-sex-abuse-of-teen-in-syracuse.html This lawsuit appears unrelated to the Mullens lawsuit.
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Oct 11, 2019 17:48:39 GMT -5
^ apparently this new lawsuit alleges multiple victims of rape under the age of 18. The lawsuit was made possible by the new, as of Jan. 2019, New York Child Victims Law, which removes the statute of limitations for these types of crimes.
In this current environment, Rick Butler is TOAST. If he doesn't do jail time, he will be sued for every penny he owns.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 11, 2019 17:55:08 GMT -5
Let me see if I’ve got this right. It’s oerfectly okay with you for coaches to sleep with ex players as long as they’re 18? I object to form, foundation, and scope. The question has already been answered. Objection denied. The witness is compelled to answer the question.
|
|
|
Post by reader on Oct 11, 2019 18:05:11 GMT -5
Up until I read the below on the prior page here, I had the impression everyone was talking about the ethics of a coach having sexual relations with a legal adult who was once in their program, more or less. But THIS, holy cow: BY MS. JANZEN: 4 Q At this meeting in the summer 2015 with 5 the upcoming senior class, did you state that the 6 USAV ethics and eligibility committee made the 7 following finding of fact, quote: 8 "Beginning in 1981, Rick Butler had 9 unprotected sexual intercourse and a subsequent 10 physical and emotional relationship with 11 16-year-old Sarah Powers, now Barnhard, while she 12 was a junior volleyball player with a program in 13 which Mr. Butler was a strength coach and at least 14 a substitute volleyball coach. That experience 15 caused Ms. Powers to lose her virginity," close 16 quote. 17 MS. D'AMBROSE: I object to form, 18 foundation, and scope. 19 A No. googling, I found that Sarah Barnhard claims multiple occurrence rape. www.syracuse.com/news/2019/08/elite-youth-volleyball-coach-sued-over-alleged-sex-abuse-of-teen-in-syracuse.html This lawsuit appears unrelated to the Mullens lawsuit. You sound new to this outrage. Let me introduce you to the fine work of Emily Swanson. Here are some docs she posted on behalf of one of the victims. They're handwritten letters from Rick to her when she was well under 18. You will be appalled. facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10214083741917733&id=1537830062
|
|
|
Post by azvb on Oct 11, 2019 18:31:16 GMT -5
Let me see if I’ve got this right. It’s oerfectly okay with you for coaches to sleep with ex players as long as they’re 18? I object to form, foundation, and scope. The question has already been answered. Humor me.
|
|
|
Post by why on Oct 16, 2019 0:15:43 GMT -5
Few points this non-lawyer has gleaned from courtlistener.com: Motions pending ruling: -plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions (docket 141 filed 5.24.19) -defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (docket 144 filed 5.28.19) -defendants Cross-Motion for Sanctions (docket 160 filed 6.20.19) -Depositions have been completed (wish I could access full transcripts, but will post portion of RBs that was included as exhibit #1 {spoiler, per RB - NO PARENT EVER ASKED HIM SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ALLEGATIONS, EVER!} of docket# 171) -discovery was 'paused' till ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment is rendered. -most importantly, ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment is scheduled for 10.16.19 I would like to see CB's deposition when it becomes available. Thank you for the updates.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2019 9:12:56 GMT -5
Looks like the judge has postponed his ruling: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: At the Court's instance, the ruling and status hearing set for 10/16/2019 is vacated and reset to 11/4/2019 at 9:30 AM. (mk) (Entered: 10/15/2019)
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Oct 16, 2019 12:50:38 GMT -5
Looks like the judge has postponed his ruling: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: At the Court's instance, the ruling and status hearing set for 10/16/2019 is vacated and reset to 11/4/2019 at 9:30 AM. (mk) (Entered: 10/15/2019) I am trying to read the tea leaves here. Is this a good or bad thing for Butler? Does needing more time mean the judge is struggling with the decision? As pure speculation from a layman, I think it does mean that the judge doesn't think it's a clear-cut decision which I think means he's at least considering tossing the case. Whether that is good or bad for Butler would probably require a real legal opinion on whether they believe it should or should not be dismissed. As a layman, I've wondered how the plaintiff had much of a case and wouldn't be surprised if it was dismissed. Now that is no opinion on Butler and his past actions with former players, but just with this case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2019 9:15:22 GMT -5
For what it is worth, looks like GLPL is being revamped again (after revamping last year) this year. According to AES it looks like instead of a power league (which they were offering just last week), they are going to be offering 2 day tournaments on 5 weekends and a 'finale' in June (which looks like it is replacing their usual National Junior Classic tourney for 15-18s). Presidents day should be interesting too! riple Crown in KC already waitlisting 96 teams and 20 President's Day Classic in St. Louis has 736 teams already registered. Not sure how many colleges are going to commit coaches/scouts to SPVB scrimmage with those other talent concentrations. www.advancedeventsystems.com/events
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2019 9:23:45 GMT -5
I am trying to read the tea leaves here. Is this a good or bad thing for Butler? Does needing more time mean the judge is struggling with the decision? As pure speculation from a layman, I think it does mean that the judge doesn't think it's a clear-cut decision which I think means he's at least considering tossing the case. Whether that is good or bad for Butler would probably require a real legal opinion on whether they believe it should or should not be dismissed. As a layman, I've wondered how the plaintiff had much of a case and wouldn't be surprised if it was dismissed. Now that is no opinion on Butler and his past actions with former players, but just with this case. I won't speculate on why the judge postponed the decision, but here is excerpt from transcripts from 7.9.19 - NAL, but my understanding of this is since the case has been certified as a case action, even if Mullen can't represent the class, plaintiff is now "the class" and counsel may be able to offer new representative. Short story, appears not going away anytime soon. so good thing $47,950 is chump change (Deoghe) THE COURT: The second thing is the point was made in the 56(d) submission that, you know, a class has been certified here, and to some extent, I am not saying on every issue that you've raised, to some extent, the arguments, some of the arguments you're making just address the claims of the named plaintiff. So that doesn't mean that it's an inappropriate motion. It just means that it might have a limited effect. It may mean that I end up saying, okay, based on this, you know, Ms. Mullen doesn't have a claim anymore, she doesn't have certain claims, and you have to come up with a new representative or something like that, and I will give you time to do that, but that's an issue for another day.
|
|
|
Post by deohge on Oct 22, 2019 10:19:17 GMT -5
As pure speculation from a layman, I think it does mean that the judge doesn't think it's a clear-cut decision which I think means he's at least considering tossing the case. Whether that is good or bad for Butler would probably require a real legal opinion on whether they believe it should or should not be dismissed. As a layman, I've wondered how the plaintiff had much of a case and wouldn't be surprised if it was dismissed.  Now that is no opinion on Butler and his past actions with former players, but just with this case. I won't speculate on why the judge postponed the decision, but here is excerpt from transcripts from 7.9.19 - NAL, but my understanding of this is since the case has been certified as a case action, even if Mullen can't represent the class, plaintiff is now "the class" and counsel may be able to offer new representative. Short story, appears not going away anytime soon. so good thing $47,950 is chump change (Deoghe) THE COURT: The second thing is the point was made in the 56(d) submission that, you know, a class has been certified here, and to some extent, I am not saying on every issue that you've raised, to some extent, the arguments, some of the arguments you're making just address the claims of the named plaintiff. So that doesn't mean that it's an inappropriate motion. It just means that it might have a limited effect. It may mean that I end up saying, okay, based on this, you know, Ms. Mullen doesn't have a claim anymore, she doesn't have certain claims, and you have to come up with a new representative or something like that, and I will give you time to do that, but that's an issue for another day. Thanks for all your armchair lawyering it makes this so enjoyable knowing how much this annoys you.
|
|
|
Post by deohge on Oct 22, 2019 11:16:53 GMT -5
I won't speculate on why the judge postponed the decision, but here is excerpt from transcripts from 7.9.19 - NAL, but my understanding of this is since the case has been certified as a case action, even if Mullen can't represent the class, plaintiff is now "the class" and counsel may be able to offer new representative. Short story, appears not going away anytime soon. so good thing $47,950 is chump change (Deoghe) THE COURT: The second thing is the point was made in the 56(d) submission that, you know, a class has been certified here, and to some extent, I am not saying on every issue that you've raised, to some extent, the arguments, some of the arguments you're making just address the claims of the named plaintiff. So that doesn't mean that it's an inappropriate motion. It just means that it might have a limited effect. It may mean that I end up saying, okay, based on this, you know, Ms. Mullen doesn't have a claim anymore, she doesn't have certain claims, and you have to come up with a new representative or something like that, and I will give you time to do that, but that's an issue for another day. Thanks for the update. .
|
|
|
Post by azvb on Oct 22, 2019 11:20:57 GMT -5
What a contrast this thread is to the Mike Hebert thread.
|
|