Tressels Resignation - Good for Nebraska?

[carlfense]

That would be slander through hearsay, doesn't hold any weight in court.

Slander or libel evidence is predominately hearsay (unless of course actually made in court), the definition of hearsay is an out of court statement used to prove the assertion made (here it would be X said this statement out of court and I am asserting it to prove X slandered me). There are around 40 admissible exceptions to hearsay (just a couple that could get the hearsay admissible are statements made by a party opponent Federal Rules of Evidence 801(d)(2) (very much in play here) and possibly reputation of character Rule 803(21); I am sure I could come up with some more arguments for admitting it, but those are off the top of the ole' noggin), to say it would not hold any weight in court leads me to believe you are not an attorney. Hearsay is admissible in court all the time. Stop watching Law & Order for legal arguments. Just jabbing at you, but you do actually need to look into that. Most suits involving slander or libel come about b/c the plaintiff becomes aware of the statement from a third party, that does not negate the cause of action nor does it remove the possibility of bringing the evidence in trial.

On an edit: the only reason why he would be suing SI instead of the people that made the statement is b/c the individual(s) who did make the statement are judgment proof where as SI has deep pockets. He will lose the lawsuit if it went to trial b/c the journalist is not liable for printing the story (assuming he actually had a legitimate source that gave him the information and did not fabricate the story), however SI may settle just to get rid of the mess (most likely the suit would be dismissed). If the individual that made the statement actually had any money, he would be getting sued. And if SI did lose the suit for some insane reason they would sue the individual that gave them the story on some other cause of action; however, as I said the only reason that person is not brought up is b/c they can't make rent let alone be expected to pay anyone for a judgment.

Sorry, you're both incorrect. It's NOT hearsay because hearsay is an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted (not to "prove the assertion made.") This isn't offered for the truth of the matter asserted. You're close BOJ, but you reach the wrong conclusion.

The exceptions (which wouldn't apply here anyways) don't matter because the article is not hearsay.

 

[Enhance]

And those same people are saying the article is wrong. From the QB at Youngstown State, to the owner of the tattoo parlor mentioned in the article (not the one that brought the investigation, but the other one mentioned) The story isn't sticking.

Yeah . . . would that be like the OSU receiver who tried to claim that he never said those things to the Lantern . . . only to have the Lantern release the recorded interview?

The desire to avoid the ire of OSU fans is powerful motivation. They immediately turned on Smalls for DARING to tell the truth to the newspaper. OSU fans are always ready to attack anyone who speaks ill of the OSU program. "Oh . . . he's just upset that he didn't get to play." "He's a criminal!" Etc.

That cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.

To be fair, though, I can't think of many fan bases that like people speaking ill of them. Furthermore, I can't think of many fan bases that won't defend their program no matter what.

 

[carlfense]

And those same people are saying the article is wrong. From the QB at Youngstown State, to the owner of the tattoo parlor mentioned in the article (not the one that brought the investigation, but the other one mentioned) The story isn't sticking.

Yeah . . . would that be like the OSU receiver who tried to claim that he never said those things to the Lantern . . . only to have the Lantern release the recorded interview?

The desire to avoid the ire of OSU fans is powerful motivation. They immediately turned on Smalls for DARING to tell the truth to the newspaper. OSU fans are always ready to attack anyone who speaks ill of the OSU program. "Oh . . . he's just upset that he didn't get to play." "He's a criminal!" Etc.

That cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.

To be fair, though, I can't think of many fan bases that like people speaking ill of them. Furthermore, I can't think of many fan bases that won't defend their program no matter what.

No doubt. NU fans would react similarly.

 

[BOJ]

That would be slander through hearsay, doesn't hold any weight in court.

Slander or libel evidence is predominately hearsay (unless of course actually made in court), the definition of hearsay is an out of court statement used to prove the assertion made (here it would be X said this statement out of court and I am asserting it to prove X slandered me). There are around 40 admissible exceptions to hearsay (just a couple that could get the hearsay admissible are statements made by a party opponent Federal Rules of Evidence 801(d)(2) (very much in play here) and possibly reputation of character Rule 803(21); I am sure I could come up with some more arguments for admitting it, but those are off the top of the ole' noggin), to say it would not hold any weight in court leads me to believe you are not an attorney. Hearsay is admissible in court all the time. Stop watching Law & Order for legal arguments. Just jabbing at you, but you do actually need to look into that. Most suits involving slander or libel come about b/c the plaintiff becomes aware of the statement from a third party, that does not negate the cause of action nor does it remove the possibility of bringing the evidence in trial.

On an edit: the only reason why he would be suing SI instead of the people that made the statement is b/c the individual(s) who did make the statement are judgment proof where as SI has deep pockets. He will lose the lawsuit if it went to trial b/c the journalist is not liable for printing the story (assuming he actually had a legitimate source that gave him the information and did not fabricate the story), however SI may settle just to get rid of the mess (most likely the suit would be dismissed). If the individual that made the statement actually had any money, he would be getting sued. And if SI did lose the suit for some insane reason they would sue the individual that gave them the story on some other cause of action; however, as I said the only reason that person is not brought up is b/c they can't make rent let alone be expected to pay anyone for a judgment.

Sorry, you're both incorrect. It's NOT hearsay because hearsay is an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted (not to "prove the assertion made.") This isn't offered for the truth of the matter asserted. You're close BOJ, but you reach the wrong conclusion.

The exceptions (which wouldn't apply here anyways) don't matter because the article is not hearsay.

i see your point but i was talking about the original statement made by the person interviewed by SI not the article, hence my long drawn out two paragraph hoopdiedoo. Your definition of hearsay is the same as mine: "prove the assertion made" and "truth of the matter asserted" are the same thing.

But since we got to this point you are correct it is not hearsay b/c there doesn't even need to be an exception for party opponent admission which could apply here (from the actual guy, not the reporter).

And on a double take it wouldn't even be necessary if suing the actual guy that made the statement b/c you ask him "did you say X got tattoos at your place for Y memorabilia?" You are right that we are not in fact trying to prove that that incident took place; rather, as a plaintiff you are only trying to prove that he said it which is not hearsay. Good work! But again, I was not talking about the journalist in the previous thread, only the guy that said it (in fact said the case would most likely be dismissed if brought against SI).

Although you did catch me in a definition malfunction in order or words, the meaning is still the same (at least from this lawyer's standpoint and I'll argue till the end chuckleshuffle )

 

[carlfense]

That would be slander through hearsay, doesn't hold any weight in court.

Slander or libel evidence is predominately hearsay (unless of course actually made in court), the definition of hearsay is an out of court statement used to prove the assertion made (here it would be X said this statement out of court and I am asserting it to prove X slandered me). There are around 40 admissible exceptions to hearsay (just a couple that could get the hearsay admissible are statements made by a party opponent Federal Rules of Evidence 801(d)(2) (very much in play here) and possibly reputation of character Rule 803(21); I am sure I could come up with some more arguments for admitting it, but those are off the top of the ole' noggin), to say it would not hold any weight in court leads me to believe you are not an attorney. Hearsay is admissible in court all the time. Stop watching Law & Order for legal arguments. Just jabbing at you, but you do actually need to look into that. Most suits involving slander or libel come about b/c the plaintiff becomes aware of the statement from a third party, that does not negate the cause of action nor does it remove the possibility of bringing the evidence in trial.

On an edit: the only reason why he would be suing SI instead of the people that made the statement is b/c the individual(s) who did make the statement are judgment proof where as SI has deep pockets. He will lose the lawsuit if it went to trial b/c the journalist is not liable for printing the story (assuming he actually had a legitimate source that gave him the information and did not fabricate the story), however SI may settle just to get rid of the mess (most likely the suit would be dismissed). If the individual that made the statement actually had any money, he would be getting sued. And if SI did lose the suit for some insane reason they would sue the individual that gave them the story on some other cause of action; however, as I said the only reason that person is not brought up is b/c they can't make rent let alone be expected to pay anyone for a judgment.

Sorry, you're both incorrect. It's NOT hearsay because hearsay is an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted (not to "prove the assertion made.") This isn't offered for the truth of the matter asserted. You're close BOJ, but you reach the wrong conclusion.

The exceptions (which wouldn't apply here anyways) don't matter because the article is not hearsay.

i see your point but i was talking about the original statement made by the person interviewed by SI not the article, hence my long drawn out two paragraph hoopdiedoo. Your definition of hearsay is the same as mine: "prove the assertion made" and "truth of the matter asserted" are the same thing.

But since we got to this point you are correct it is not hearsay b/c there doesn't even need to be an exception for party opponent admission which could apply here (from the actual guy, not the reporter).

Although you did catch me in a definition malfunction in order or words, the meaning is still the same (at least from this lawyer's standpoint and I'll argue till the end chuckleshuffle )

In the parenthesis after your definition it appeared that you were saying that "prove the assertion made" meant that the statement itself was made. If I read that wrong, I apologize.

 

[BOJ]

That would be slander through hearsay, doesn't hold any weight in court.

Slander or libel evidence is predominately hearsay (unless of course actually made in court), the definition of hearsay is an out of court statement used to prove the assertion made (here it would be X said this statement out of court and I am asserting it to prove X slandered me). There are around 40 admissible exceptions to hearsay (just a couple that could get the hearsay admissible are statements made by a party opponent Federal Rules of Evidence 801(d)(2) (very much in play here) and possibly reputation of character Rule 803(21); I am sure I could come up with some more arguments for admitting it, but those are off the top of the ole' noggin), to say it would not hold any weight in court leads me to believe you are not an attorney. Hearsay is admissible in court all the time. Stop watching Law & Order for legal arguments. Just jabbing at you, but you do actually need to look into that. Most suits involving slander or libel come about b/c the plaintiff becomes aware of the statement from a third party, that does not negate the cause of action nor does it remove the possibility of bringing the evidence in trial.

On an edit: the only reason why he would be suing SI instead of the people that made the statement is b/c the individual(s) who did make the statement are judgment proof where as SI has deep pockets. He will lose the lawsuit if it went to trial b/c the journalist is not liable for printing the story (assuming he actually had a legitimate source that gave him the information and did not fabricate the story), however SI may settle just to get rid of the mess (most likely the suit would be dismissed). If the individual that made the statement actually had any money, he would be getting sued. And if SI did lose the suit for some insane reason they would sue the individual that gave them the story on some other cause of action; however, as I said the only reason that person is not brought up is b/c they can't make rent let alone be expected to pay anyone for a judgment.

Sorry, you're both incorrect. It's NOT hearsay because hearsay is an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted (not to "prove the assertion made.") This isn't offered for the truth of the matter asserted. You're close BOJ, but you reach the wrong conclusion.

The exceptions (which wouldn't apply here anyways) don't matter because the article is not hearsay.

i see your point but i was talking about the original statement made by the person interviewed by SI not the article, hence my long drawn out two paragraph hoopdiedoo. Your definition of hearsay is the same as mine: "prove the assertion made" and "truth of the matter asserted" are the same thing.

But since we got to this point you are correct it is not hearsay b/c there doesn't even need to be an exception for party opponent admission which could apply here (from the actual guy, not the reporter).

Although you did catch me in a definition malfunction in order or words, the meaning is still the same (at least from this lawyer's standpoint and I'll argue till the end chuckleshuffle )

In the parenthetical after your definition it appeared that you were saying that "prove the assertion made" meant that the statement itself was made. If I read that wrong, I apologize.

Lol, no worries I edited apparently while you were typing too, I added more stuff to my own post that might have screwed stuff up. Sorry.

Edit* I think I got cross wired there apologies.

 

[walksalone]

At the end of the day, Tressel's jackassery is going to hurt us more than help us. Not only is he not going to be on the sidelines, but neither will some of his best players. We're going to get the leftovers, which are probably pretty good, but not as good as the real deal.

So Mr. Tressel, nice job douchebag...

 

[jsneb83]

At the end of the day, Tressel's jackassery is going to hurt us more than help us. Not only is he not going to be on the sidelines, but neither will some of his best players. We're going to get the leftovers, which are probably pretty good, but not as good as the real deal.

So Mr. Tressel, nice job douchebag...

So, do you think an invite to the DBHOF is in order.

 

[walksalone]

At the end of the day, Tressel's jackassery is going to hurt us more than help us. Not only is he not going to be on the sidelines, but neither will some of his best players. We're going to get the leftovers, which are probably pretty good, but not as good as the real deal.

So Mr. Tressel, nice job douchebag...

So, do you think an invite to the DBHOF is in order.

Without question...

 

[BOJ]

At the end of the day, Tressel's jackassery is going to hurt us more than help us. Not only is he not going to be on the sidelines, but neither will some of his best players. We're going to get the leftovers, which are probably pretty good, but not as good as the real deal.

So Mr. Tressel, nice job douchebag...

So, do you think an invite to the DBHOF is in order.

Easy with your inductees...

 

[walksalone]

At the end of the day, Tressel's jackassery is going to hurt us more than help us. Not only is he not going to be on the sidelines, but neither will some of his best players. We're going to get the leftovers, which are probably pretty good, but not as good as the real deal.

So Mr. Tressel, nice job douchebag...

So, do you think an invite to the DBHOF is in order.

Easy with your inductees...

He shoulda walked down the goddamned hall and told somebody then....

 

[BOJ]

At the end of the day, Tressel's jackassery is going to hurt us more than help us. Not only is he not going to be on the sidelines, but neither will some of his best players. We're going to get the leftovers, which are probably pretty good, but not as good as the real deal.

So Mr. Tressel, nice job douchebag...

So, do you think an invite to the DBHOF is in order.

Easy with your inductees...

He shoulda walked down the goddamned hall and told somebody then....

He's not a rat

I am having fun with you, but you obviously realize we are certainly going to have diffident views on this one

 

[Jeremy]

I've never been the biggest Tressel fan, and especially not now (though I did enjoy their win over Miami for the Title, and the win over ut in '06), I have to concede a little bit. Remember the whole Riley Washington gun incident? Osborne kept evidence in his office, and didn't bother to tell the police. To be clear, I back Osborne on his actions, because not all the facts were known, but today, he would've faced a lot more scrutiny than he did at the time. The good news is that Washington was found innocent, which many Buckeyes can't say...

 

[The Dude]

At the end of the day, Tressel's jackassery is going to hurt us more than help us. Not only is he not going to be on the sidelines, but neither will some of his best players. We're going to get the leftovers, which are probably pretty good, but not as good as the real deal.

So Mr. Tressel, nice job douchebag...

So, do you think an invite to the DBHOF is in order.

Easy with your inductees...

He shoulda walked down the goddamned hall and told somebody then....

He's not a rat

lol how noble of him.

 

[walksalone]

At the end of the day, Tressel's jackassery is going to hurt us more than help us. Not only is he not going to be on the sidelines, but neither will some of his best players. We're going to get the leftovers, which are probably pretty good, but not as good as the real deal.

So Mr. Tressel, nice job douchebag...

So, do you think an invite to the DBHOF is in order.

Easy with your inductees...

He shoulda walked down the goddamned hall and told somebody then....

He's not a rat

I am having fun with you, but you obviously realize we are certainly going to have diffident views on this one

Obviously, but there are times when you should not be afraid to sit down and rationally think things out. That was a "what in the hell are you thinkin' about" moment...

I hope he's got Solich's number, maybe he can get on there as a RB coach or something....