|
Post by ineedajob on May 30, 2019 14:53:30 GMT -5
I'm a little confused and just trying to make sense of what you're trying to say. It feels like you're stretching the math irresponsibly (or maybe I'm just not understanding what you're saying). I believe 5 accusers have come forward, alleging abuses that took place over a number of years. I might be fudging the numbers a little bit because some of the links to articles aren't working for me and I don't remember details perfectly. I believe the first woman said her abuse started in 1980 while another woman said hers began in 1987. It sounds to me like you're trying to connect the dots that the later victims were 9-13 years old in 1980, which doesn't really matter because they weren't victims then. I'm not sure if that's what you were trying to allege, but I read it as if you're trying to say that Butler raped girls as young as 9-13 years old, which none of the women have alleged. I was simply pointing out that the written document implying that the acts took place approximately 40 years ago was misleading. Maybe it started 40 years ago but by no means were all the acts 40 years ago. Ok, I agree. Thanks for clarifying my misinterpretation.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on May 30, 2019 16:42:48 GMT -5
So how did they find out who Mullen was on volleytalk? They probably requested or subpoenaed IP addresses and just did the work backwards themselves, or they read this board often and requested for them to see if any of their IP addresses used to log into their website or payment system matched those of people who were trashing them on this website.
|
|
|
Post by pepperbrooks on May 30, 2019 22:44:16 GMT -5
So how did they find out who Mullen was on volleytalk? They probably requested or subpoenaed IP addresses and just did the work backwards themselves, or they read this board often and requested for them to see if any of their IP addresses used to log into their website or payment system matched those of people who were trashing them on this website. And the site just coughed up the info?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 30, 2019 22:52:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on May 31, 2019 7:56:59 GMT -5
Yea, was not speaking of being informed how they did it, I just know from a friend that subpoenaed an IP address after his daughter was being harassed by a fake Facebook account that turned out to be some kid at her school. Is it possible someone ratted Mullen out if she had spoken about VT before, or is it likeley they obtained the IP address if they was suspicious of one specific account?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 8:14:40 GMT -5
Not sure if the process, but in plaintiffs status report they talk about subpoenaed discovery from VT. They have previously discovered and reported about the Facebook page, Parents against sports performance lawsuit and identified the club parent who started the page. I believe they obtained that through subpoena from Facebook as well. If I recall the court papers correctly.
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on May 31, 2019 9:13:04 GMT -5
IANAL. But. I'd think that any halfway-decent plaintiff's attorney would have asked whether Mullen had a VT account, and when she posted, and when she learned of what info about Rick, and how that corresponded to the timing of her enrolling her daughter at SPRI.
By which I mean that IANAL and I thought to ask it.
|
|
|
Post by easwanson on May 31, 2019 11:56:26 GMT -5
So since I never frequent this site, someone sent me this link and when reading it, I noticed people were asking for a breakdown, in layman's terms, about the status of the case: essentially, what in the world is going on and what has happened?
So, as someone who obviously keeps up with the case, I figured I'd try and help out, although it appears there's a lawyer already on this thread (never identified as such, but from this person's responses and knowledge of the way things work...I can tell).
So here's what happened:
--Feb. 2018, Laura Mullen filed her Complaint alleging everything. --After that, a few months of a delay dealing with technical issues. --May 2018, Butlers file a Motion to Dismiss--essentially saying that what Mullen says is not "a thing" and this lawsuit should be dismissed without any additional work. Mullen files response in June. --during this time, a lot more technical stuff is going on that isn't worth noting, including the parties engaging in discovery (a process where information is obtained by the parties from each other to further or defend the claims). --July 2018, Court DENIES Butler's Motion to Dismiss and rules that Mullen's claims can go forward. This means Butlers now have to file an Answer to the original Complaint. --Answer is filed in July 2018 by Butlers, Mullen asks the Court to strike many of the "Affirmative Defenses" asserted by the Butlers. Court agrees on some of them and dismisses of a few defenses (however, this is not of any legal significance). Court rules Class Certification discovery must be completed by early Sept. and Motion for Class Certification (asking the court to find a certifiable class) must be filed by end of Sept. Response due end of Oct. --Mullen files request to certify class. Butlers oppose. Court allows class certification. --Butlers ask court to "redefine the class", essentially, narrow it more than the Court allowed. Court denies this request. --Feb. 2019, court notes discovery must be completed by 8/26/19. This means all depositions, all information, etc. Deadline to file requests that the Court dismiss of the case, etc. are due by 12/16/19 (expect this to come from Butlers). --Court orders Butlers to produce a bunch of stuff they don't want to, so they file a request that the Court "reconsider" its ruling. --May 2019, Mullen believes Butlers engaged in behavior that they weren't allowed to and screwed with the class participants in an unethical/illegal manner so they ask the court to sanction them. Court has not rules on this yet. --May, 2019 (two days ago), Butlers file a Motion for Summary Judgment. This means they are saying that even if the Court accepts EVERYTHING MULLEN SAYS AS TRUE, she has no claim under the law and the case must be dismissed. Mullen will get to respond, the Butlers will get to Reply and then the Court will rule. Usually about a 6 month process. Butlers have asked that all discovery be halted until the court rules (ie, they don't want their depositions taken, don't want those polygraphs produced, etc.). Court hasn't ruled on the request to halt discovery.
Hope that helps!
|
|
|
Post by easwanson on May 31, 2019 12:00:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on May 31, 2019 12:23:46 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 13:16:01 GMT -5
So since I never frequent this site, someone sent me this link and when reading it, I noticed people were asking for a breakdown, in layman's terms, about the status of the case: essentially, what in the world is going on and what has happened? So, as someone who obviously keeps up with the case, I figured I'd try and help out, although it appears there's a lawyer already on this thread (never identified as such, but from this person's responses and knowledge of the way things work...I can tell). So here's what happened: --Feb. 2018, Laura Mullen filed her Complaint alleging everything. --After that, a few months of a delay dealing with technical issues. --May 2018, Butlers file a Motion to Dismiss--essentially saying that what Mullen says is not "a thing" and this lawsuit should be dismissed without any additional work. Mullen files response in June. --during this time, a lot more technical stuff is going on that isn't worth noting, including the parties engaging in discovery (a process where information is obtained by the parties from each other to further or defend the claims). --July 2018, Court DENIES Butler's Motion to Dismiss and rules that Mullen's claims can go forward. This means Butlers now have to file an Answer to the original Complaint. --Answer is filed in July 2018 by Butlers, Mullen asks the Court to strike many of the "Affirmative Defenses" asserted by the Butlers. Court agrees on some of them and dismisses of a few defenses (however, this is not of any legal significance). Court rules Class Certification discovery must be completed by early Sept. and Motion for Class Certification (asking the court to find a certifiable class) must be filed by end of Sept. Response due end of Oct. --Mullen files request to certify class. Butlers oppose. Court allows class certification. --Butlers ask court to "redefine the class", essentially, narrow it more than the Court allowed. Court denies this request. --Feb. 2019, court notes discovery must be completed by 8/26/19. This means all depositions, all information, etc. Deadline to file requests that the Court dismiss of the case, etc. are due by 12/16/19 (expect this to come from Butlers). --Court orders Butlers to produce a bunch of stuff they don't want to, so they file a request that the Court "reconsider" its ruling. --May 2019, Mullen believes Butlers engaged in behavior that they weren't allowed to and screwed with the class participants in an unethical/illegal manner so they ask the court to sanction them. Court has not rules on this yet. --May, 2019 (two days ago), Butlers file a Motion for Summary Judgment. This means they are saying that even if the Court accepts EVERYTHING MULLEN SAYS AS TRUE, she has no claim under the law and the case must be dismissed. Mullen will get to respond, the Butlers will get to Reply and then the Court will rule. Usually about a 6 month process. Butlers have asked that all discovery be halted until the court rules (ie, they don't want their depositions taken, don't want those polygraphs produced, etc.). Court hasn't ruled on the request to halt discovery. Hope that helps! Sweet that someone who IAL ( is an attorney) is on the side of decency, common sense & justice: nice! Seems like the Butlers (and lawyer) are "pulling a Trump".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 15:07:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by updawg on May 31, 2019 17:54:06 GMT -5
So since I never frequent this site, someone sent me this link and when reading it, I noticed people were asking for a breakdown, in layman's terms, about the status of the case: essentially, what in the world is going on and what has happened? So, as someone who obviously keeps up with the case, I figured I'd try and help out, although it appears there's a lawyer already on this thread (never identified as such, but from this person's responses and knowledge of the way things work...I can tell). So here's what happened: --Feb. 2018, Laura Mullen filed her Complaint alleging everything. --After that, a few months of a delay dealing with technical issues. --May 2018, Butlers file a Motion to Dismiss--essentially saying that what Mullen says is not "a thing" and this lawsuit should be dismissed without any additional work. Mullen files response in June. --during this time, a lot more technical stuff is going on that isn't worth noting, including the parties engaging in discovery (a process where information is obtained by the parties from each other to further or defend the claims). --July 2018, Court DENIES Butler's Motion to Dismiss and rules that Mullen's claims can go forward. This means Butlers now have to file an Answer to the original Complaint. --Answer is filed in July 2018 by Butlers, Mullen asks the Court to strike many of the "Affirmative Defenses" asserted by the Butlers. Court agrees on some of them and dismisses of a few defenses (however, this is not of any legal significance). Court rules Class Certification discovery must be completed by early Sept. and Motion for Class Certification (asking the court to find a certifiable class) must be filed by end of Sept. Response due end of Oct. --Mullen files request to certify class. Butlers oppose. Court allows class certification. --Butlers ask court to "redefine the class", essentially, narrow it more than the Court allowed. Court denies this request. --Feb. 2019, court notes discovery must be completed by 8/26/19. This means all depositions, all information, etc. Deadline to file requests that the Court dismiss of the case, etc. are due by 12/16/19 (expect this to come from Butlers). --Court orders Butlers to produce a bunch of stuff they don't want to, so they file a request that the Court "reconsider" its ruling. --May 2019, Mullen believes Butlers engaged in behavior that they weren't allowed to and screwed with the class participants in an unethical/illegal manner so they ask the court to sanction them. Court has not rules on this yet. --May, 2019 (two days ago), Butlers file a Motion for Summary Judgment. This means they are saying that even if the Court accepts EVERYTHING MULLEN SAYS AS TRUE, she has no claim under the law and the case must be dismissed. Mullen will get to respond, the Butlers will get to Reply and then the Court will rule. Usually about a 6 month process. Butlers have asked that all discovery be halted until the court rules (ie, they don't want their depositions taken, don't want those polygraphs produced, etc.). Court hasn't ruled on the request to halt discovery. Hope that helps! Sweet that someone who IAL ( is an attorney) is on the side of decency, common sense & justice: nice! Seems like the Butlers (and lawyer) are "pulling a Trump". dirt - You hit the nail on the head with that one. I usually don't agree or understand your opinions, but the Butlers and their lawyers are definitely "pulling a Trump" by showing the claims made in this case are ridiculous and without merit, having to go through a couple years of a nonsensical case like this.
|
|
|
Post by Reach on May 31, 2019 20:24:25 GMT -5
😑
|
|
|
Post by why on Jun 3, 2019 16:35:28 GMT -5
Yea, was not speaking of being informed how they did it, I just know from a friend that subpoenaed an IP address after his daughter was being harassed by a fake Facebook account that turned out to be some kid at her school. Is it possible someone ratted Mullen out if she had spoken about VT before, or is it likeley they obtained the IP address if they was suspicious of one specific account? Honestly, a likely and much simpler explanation is that in their initial discovery the defendants simply asked Mullen whether she had a VT account and, if so, what her username is. Do you know if Cheryl or Rick were asked if they have VT accounts?
|
|