mannc Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 in the other article, it said she got 300k in the settlement.That was the settlement of the first lawsuit. I did not see any speculation regarding payment amount for the second one, but I'm guessing it was more.
machine gun kelly Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 Thanks for sharing of the OP. everything has already been said. I doubt this goes anywhere. If it were to grab attention, it would have already had traction.
mannc Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 how did they do that? everything is alleged. the court rulings, like them or not, are final. she sued and she lost. we don't know the facts, this guy doesn't either. :sad face: Now I think perhaps you didn't even read the article. The only "court ruling" described was the court's decision that her case should NOT be dismissed and should be allowed to go to trial. Both cases were resolved by settlement agreements that resulted in her being paid $$$$, so your statement that "she sued and lost" is simply untrue. What is your agenda?
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 he is a weird guy. I've heard some stories from Indy, not sure if true and his wife is interesting too. Are you able to say any more here what you mean? PM if you don't like to insert into a contentious thread based on King's article everything is alleged. the court rulings, like them or not, are final. she sued and she lost. we don't know the facts, this guy doesn't either. :sad face: We do know the facts on one point. She did not sue and lost. She sued, the Mannings filed to dismiss, the judge ruled against them, after which they reached another confidential settlement. So she sued, and the suit was dropped after a settlement - n.equal.to "lost"
boater Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 It isn't pretty. Young guys act like tools and sometimes they grow up and act classy and I'm ok with moving on. ...... Yep. Let's not throw rocks from our glass house. Jim Kelly is exhibit A as someone who improved his person with age. The media rage machine continues it's grind.
l< j Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 I was an idiot when I was that age. All sorts of stupid stuff that I am ashamed of. But I never would have dreamed of dragging my junk across someone's face without permission. That's not youthful indiscretion people. That's assault.
nucci Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 Yep. Let's not throw rocks from our glass house. Jim Kelly is exhibit A as someone who improved his person with age. The media rage machine continues it's grind. except when he was caught cheating on his wife
boater Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 except when he was caught cheating on his wife I estimate the cheating to which he admitted was 2005-ish. Jim and Jill Kelly have made it clear that behavior is behind them and their marriage is stronger. Like I said, he improved with age.
papazoid Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 so sick of these stories.... prefer seperation of church (home life) and state (play on field).
boyst Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) Thank you. You've now proven that you are unable to identify a single falsehood in the article. The closest you've come is 1), but calling the episode a "secret" is at most just a bit of hyperbole. I think I've been paying attention the past 20 years, but I'd never heard of these incidents until now. And of course there HAS been secrecy--Manning paid handsomely for her silence when he settled the two lawsuits. The question isn't whether Manning should go to jail for what he did; the reason this is still relevant is that Manning makes tens of millions of dollars a year in endorsements, and probably will for years to come, trading on a squeaky clean image that, based on the FACTS cited by the author, appears to be utterly fraudulent. I agree that it's poorly written, but the facts are pretty damning, and their impact is not much diminished by the likelihood that the writer has an agenda. what do you want manning to do? crawl in a hole for a mistake he made 20 years ago over an article discussing only a small morsel of the events... there is no likelihood the writer had an agenda. there is surety in the fact he had an agenda - look over his work, his resume, his lies. he is journalism's version of Rachel Dolezal in many regards. Wow. This thread is interesting. I'm scared to wade into it. Here are some thoughts: I did some sh- in college that I'm not proud of. Maybe none of it involved my rectum but still. Have any of you people ever made youthful mistakes, ever? Manning is a brand. Brands get protected. It's not always pretty or commendable. I too question the author's agenda but I also question people who get spoon-fed their view of the world, including the images of athletes and other celebs. Gosh, Peyton Manning might be an a-hole? Who is shocked by this? I don't know the guy, I only know the folksy image that he and his handlers have created to spoon-feed the masses. I don't take that image as true. I take it as marketing and I mostly ignore it. We don't know these people, even though they want us to think we do. I agree that black athletes are viewed through a different lens, sometimes. But so are white athletes, sometimes. It's very complicated. If Ritchie was black and Martin was white, would the story have been about "bullying"? I'm not sure. But I'm not entirely sure which way that cuts. Jboyst, I too am sick of the Politics of Grievance. And wary of the Subtle Racism of Lower Expectations. Some posters in this thread don't understand what "allegations" are or how the legal process works. You can tell which ones. This story may come up again, big time, when Manning runs for Senate... the thought seems to be that manning is scum and should be held to something he did 20 years ago because someone just now heard about it. it's a vacuum in which people want to view these stories. its sickening. Now I think perhaps you didn't even read the article. The only "court ruling" described was the court's decision that her case should NOT be dismissed and should be allowed to go to trial. Both cases were resolved by settlement agreements that resulted in her being paid $$$$, so your statement that "she sued and lost" is simply untrue. What is your agenda? i did read the article. she did not win a judgement against Manning. settlements are often doled out without true merited guilt. manning had, figuratively speaking, no other option but to settle. when you have money you settle unless there is an egregious fallacy in the plaintiffs suit. we have continuously read one side of the story in the media. it does not help that mannings side released in the book is seemingly embellished. my agenda has been stated. Are you able to say any more here what you mean? PM if you don't like to insert into a contentious thread based on King's article We do know the facts on one point. She did not sue and lost. She sued, the Mannings filed to dismiss, the judge ruled against them, after which they reached another confidential settlement. So she sued, and the suit was dropped after a settlement - n.equal.to "lost" by not winning the lawsuit, she effectively lost in any judgement allowed. that she is now too slandered to continue on with her career, etc. her loss was her personal life lost if you were to listen to the author of the article. sadly, in life, she did not lose. i have no doubt she now has a million dollar hush fund. Edited February 14, 2016 by Boyst62
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 by not winning the lawsuit, she effectively lost in any judgement allowed. It's a very strange and non-standard usage to refer to a settlement as "lost the lawsuit", which is what you previously said. Now it's "not winning", which is true, but again, non standard usage
Mr. WEO Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 Attacking the author of this piece is pure obfuscation. No matter what his perceived bias, he is the first as far as I can tell, to have written on the 74 page court document. This is why this story is relevant now. The same response was seen by some when the HGH story broke--also this season. All coinciding with the "storybook ending" of Manning's career (which he chose to interject with a really lame Budweiser pitch). The media builds up then tears down sports heros--it has always been this way. But this article has published details of this "old story" which have not been known by the public before---and these details are damaging...not because of the weird tea-bagging itself (we knew about that long ago), but because of the extreme lengths both Manning and his father went to bury this from the beginning. Boyst goes on and on about this being just "one side" of the story. It's really not. We now know that Manning tried to get a teammate to lie about "mooning" (that guy refused and begged Manning to come clean). We now know that Manning lied under oath more than once, as multiple individuals have confirmed in deposition. We know that both Mannings violated a non-disclosure clause when they published their book---which propagated those same lies. Given how other NFL stars are scrutinized, why can't a "squeaky clean" Manning, at the height of his career be under the same scrutiny when this information becomes public? The point isn't "hey, we all did bad things in our youth, let it go"---this is what these people did to cover up and abuse the system to maintain an image of Manning as what we have always seen him as since college.
Rob's House Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 This is clearly a product of racism. I mean, color aside, Peyton Manning and Can Newton are practically the same guy. It's hard to be a black QB in the US of KKKA.
boyst Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) It's a very strange and non-standard usage to refer to a settlement as "lost the lawsuit", which is what you previously said. Now it's "not winning", which is true, but again, non standard usage she did not win the lawsuit, therefore she lost. with the nda and all things of that matter it is as much a lost that it was settled as it was a win. i am stretching this statement for a purpose. because if someone can say manning lost the settlement than one could easily say she did, as well. it does not matter at all that the judge said the case can move forward. it was not a verdict, nor a ruling of resolution to the case. it was simply that the case had legal merit in the civil case - which is actually quite easy to obtain. Attacking the author of this piece is pure obfuscation. No matter what his perceived bias, he is the first as far as I can tell, to have written on the 74 page court document. This is why this story is relevant now. The same response was seen by some when the HGH story broke--also this season. All coinciding with the "storybook ending" of Manning's career (which he chose to interject with a really lame Budweiser pitch). The media builds up then tears down sports heros--it has always been this way. But this article has published details of this "old story" which have not been known by the public before---and these details are damaging...not because of the weird tea-bagging itself (we knew about that long ago), but because of the extreme lengths both Manning and his father went to bury this from the beginning. Boyst goes on and on about this being just "one side" of the story. It's really not. We now know that Manning tried to get a teammate to lie about "mooning" (that guy refused and begged Manning to come clean). We now know that Manning lied under oath more than once, as multiple individuals have confirmed in deposition. We know that both Mannings violated a non-disclosure clause when they published their book---which propagated those same lies. Given how other NFL stars are scrutinized, why can't a "squeaky clean" Manning, at the height of his career be under the same scrutiny when this information becomes public? The point isn't "hey, we all did bad things in our youth, let it go"---this is what these people did to cover up and abuse the system to maintain an image of Manning as what we have always seen him as since college. i stopped reading after you said he is the first to write about the issue. he's not. the author of the article wrote this as an attack piece and somethign to fuel his agenda. edit: as i posted i saw the last statement about how they covered it up. ... so, after 20 years you and your company want to hold Manning accountable for his actions? do you also want to bring up Ray Lewis, Cam Newton, Ryan Leaf, others as it has also been within the last 20 years? ...is forgiving and moving on too much? does it personally affect you that Manning has been successful? i don't see why this bothers you so much. 2nd edit, i keep reading more and more about your info your statement asking why can't manning be held accountable for his actions when this becomes available? you mean, when it was available in 2002ish when it was widely reported? i don't know why it wasn't a front page nydn story than but i do know that times have changed to this day. times and culture have changed. hashtags and social movements can be contrived by all groups and carry as much weight with 1 as 1 million. again, you show no regard for legal actuality and even less regard for tolerance. Edited February 14, 2016 by Boyst62
Beerball Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 Manning made a stupid mistake that amounted to assault. The subject was buried and both sides were gagged. Manning brought the subject to the forefront again by writing about it in his book and slandering another person. That someone feels that a settlement somehow justifies this assault is galling to me. That someone continues to obfuscate facts and hide behind political correctness gone amok and an author with an agenda is galling to me. That someone continues to demean others in this thread galls me. That someone who has continuously demeaned others in this thread continues to preach tolerance galls me. That someone feels that time heals all wounds tells me that someone has never been wounded himself. That someone should do the wise thing and leave this thread. That someone can carry on this conversation via PM with anyone who is interested in continuing it because I doubt he has anything of substance to offer here.
Billsmovinup Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 I'm an attorney Boyst62. Nobody in the profession says they lost a lawsuit when they settle. If that's the case then Manning lost also. Stop talking out of your a$$. Manning made a stupid mistake that amounted to assault. The subject was buried and both sides were gagged. Manning brought the subject to the forefront again by writing about it in his book and slandering another person. That someone feels that a settlement somehow justifies this assault is galling to me. That someone continues to obfuscate facts and hide behind political correctness gone amok and an author with an agenda is galling to me. That someone continues to demean others in this thread galls me. That someone who has continuously demeaned others in this thread continues to preach tolerance galls me. That someone feels that time heals all wounds tells me that someone has never been wounded himself. That someone should do the wise thing and leave this thread. That someone can carry on this conversation via PM with anyone who is interested in continuing it because I doubt he has anything of substance to offer here. Well said.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 she did not win the lawsuit, therefore she lost. with the nda and all things of that matter it is as much a lost that it was settled as it was a win. i am stretching this statement for a purpose. because if someone can say manning lost the settlement than one could easily say she did, as well. So one mis-statement justifies another? Baloney. Manning didn't "lose" the settlement either. The settlement is confidential. Therefore no one can say who "won" or "lost". Presumably both sides got something they wanted, or they wouldn't have agreed to the settlement. But correcting one mis-statement neither requires making another mistatement, nor justifies it. I don't see what purpose is served by using non-standard and confusing terminology. Most people understand when the parties in a lawsuit settle and the suit is dropped, it is neither won nor lost. It would seem you are being obstreperous for your own amusement here, rather than trying to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion. G'day
dubs Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 "Race" the biggest modern day Red Herring. The tool of the disingenuous to mislead the ignorant.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 Manning made a stupid mistake that amounted to assault. The subject was buried and both sides were gagged. Manning brought the subject to the forefront again by writing about it in his book and slandering another person. That someone feels that a settlement somehow justifies this assault is galling to me. That someone continues to obfuscate facts and hide behind political correctness gone amok and an author with an agenda is galling to me. That someone continues to demean others in this thread galls me. That someone who has continuously demeaned others in this thread continues to preach tolerance galls me. That someone feels that time heals all wounds tells me that someone has never been wounded himself. That someone should do the wise thing and leave this thread. That someone can carry on this conversation via PM with anyone who is interested in continuing it because I doubt he has anything of substance to offer here. Just to be clear, Beerball, and not intending to weigh in on other comments, there were two settlements with confidentiality agreements: 1) when Naughright left Tennessee in 1997, settlement by university for $300,000 to which Manning was a party (signed confidentiality agreement 2) settlement to lawsuit Naughright filed 2 years after Manning published his book, after Florida University dismissed her and she apparently cound not find other employment, amount not to my knowledge disclosed (2003) Now apparently there is a new lawsuit against UT alleging a hostile environment that violates Title IX.
Beerball Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 Just to be clear, Beerball, and not intending to weigh in on other comments, there were two settlements with confidentiality agreements: 1) when Naughright left Tennessee in 1997, settlement by university for $300,000 to which Manning was a party (signed confidentiality agreement 2) settlement to lawsuit Naughright filed 2 years after Manning published his book, after Florida University dismissed her and she apparently cound not find other employment, amount not to my knowledge disclosed (2003) Now apparently there is a new lawsuit against UT alleging a hostile environment that violates Title IX. I'm not unaware.
Recommended Posts