Oof.My name is Kaylee Lorincz and I am first and foremost a survivor. In December, I described to you bits and pieces of my assault by Larry Nassar. While on two separate occasions I heard apologies, I have yet to see any action by this board to back your statements. In fact, I am continually shocked by your lack of action and Interim President Engler’s callous and disrespectful words.
When my Mom and I stopped in to sign up to speak at this morning’s meeting a few weeks ago, we happened to see President Engler. I asked if we could speak to him, just so that I could introduce myself, as a Survivor of Larry Nassar. My hope was that maybe if he actually met a survivor he might become more empathetic to what we’re experiencing. He has said some hurtful things and I wanted him to know that when he does that he causes me to feel victimized all over again. He told us he would see us if we could wait a few minutes.
While we waited, we were met by Emily Gerkin Guerrant, Vice President and University spokesperson. She talked to us for about a half an hour then brought us into the meeting. President Engler introduced us to Vice President Carol Viventi He did not tell us that Ms. Viventi was his lawyer.
We sat in a conference room where I briefly told President Engler my story. I told him how much I love MSU and wanted to help them heal, to make real change. He explained all of the new things they’ve implemented, which sounded promising, but said working together couldn’t occur until the civil suits are settled.
Mr. Engler then looked directly at me and asked, “right now if I wrote you a check for $250,000 would you take it?” When I explained that it’s not about the money for me and that I just want to help, he said “well give me a number.” He also said that he had met with Rachael Denhollander and that she gave him a number.
I felt like I was being bullied into saying something and that if Rachael gave him a settlement amount, it was okay for me to do it too. I said again, it’s not about money. Carol Viventi said “Well you’re in civil litigation, aren’t you? That’s what a civil case is about, money.”
Since then, I have spoken to Rachael and asked her about that meeting, but it turns out that Rachael has never met with Mr. Engler and more specifically, never gave him a dollar amount.
He then proceeded to attack my attorneys who had no idea that this meeting was taking place
At this point I was feeling pretty bad. President Engler and his lawyer had just tried to coerce me into settling a lawsuit without my attorney present.
Then, President Engler started saying how sad it was that hundreds of good osteopathic doctors at MSU are being judged by one...one...bad doctor.
My Mom interrupted and said well what about former Dean Strampel? Wasn’t he just arrested? President Engler rolled his eyes and attempted to fluff it off and said “oh that was no big deal, it was only just a slap on the butt.”
My Mom and I were both so shocked. My jaw dropped, and I said “just a slap on the butt? Larry did that to me too and look how that turned out.” He implied that this was much different than Larry. President Engler then tried to back up his statement saying, “well there are different degrees of murder.” I then told him, murder is still murder no matter how you do it.
After that meeting it was clear to me that nothing would change and that President Engler viewed meeting me as an opportunity to gain information, continuing to deflect and defend.
President Engler YOU wanted to talk about money, I wanted to talk about helping and healing. You tried to make us feel like WE were the problem and MSU was the victim because of the civil suits. THIS is how it works. When you protect and promote a sexual predator, and foster a culture of lies and cover ups, YOU are responsible.
Thread of legal hubbub
Thread of legal hubbub
Thread of legal hubbub
Under Rule 4.2 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (which most states use as the basis for their own rules),"a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order." This rule, however, only applies to lawyers—not to the parties themselves. It would not have prevent the Michigan State president from talking to Ms. Lorincz, especially when she appears to have been the one who initiated the conversation in the first place. I'm not aware of any rule that would prevent a defendant from making a settlement offer directly to a plaintiff.
Edit:
Civil litigation is all about money. That's the only form of relief that is going to be available. If you want to see a lawyer roll his or her eyes, just tell them "It's not about the money."
Edit:
Civil litigation is all about money. That's the only form of relief that is going to be available. If you want to see a lawyer roll his or her eyes, just tell them "It's not about the money."
Thread of legal hubbub
This will come off as naive, but whatever, its how you learn.
I thought you could read complaints filed in federal court by going to the website and downloading them. Everything I do in school is with settled cases so I just pull them from Westlaw or Lexis. I've tried twice now in two different jurisdictions to pull a complaint and I keep running into unavailability or a paywall (in the form of ECF/PACER).
Am I don't it wrong or is the judicial system not as transparent as I thought?
**** it, just registered for a PACER account. Sad. Who charges by the page for digital items? Sounds like something the governm....oh, right.
Lame.
I thought you could read complaints filed in federal court by going to the website and downloading them. Everything I do in school is with settled cases so I just pull them from Westlaw or Lexis. I've tried twice now in two different jurisdictions to pull a complaint and I keep running into unavailability or a paywall (in the form of ECF/PACER).
Am I don't it wrong or is the judicial system not as transparent as I thought?
**** it, just registered for a PACER account. Sad. Who charges by the page for digital items? Sounds like something the governm....oh, right.
Lame.
Thread of legal hubbub
The fees on PACER have been a contentious issue for quite a while, and there's even a lawsuit that recently produced a ruling that some PACER fees are illegal because they have been used for other stuff than the maintenance of the system itself.
https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2018/04/0 ... ar-enough/
At least the feds have everything available electronically. The majority of Common Pleas courts in Pennsylvania do not have any form of electronic filing, and even when the courts do offer electronic systems they aren't standardized or connected. The filing system for Allegheny County is completely different than the filing system for Philly, for example. From my experience, most other states are the same way. If you want a document from most trial courts, you have to hump down to the courthouse and get it in person.
https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2018/04/0 ... ar-enough/
At least the feds have everything available electronically. The majority of Common Pleas courts in Pennsylvania do not have any form of electronic filing, and even when the courts do offer electronic systems they aren't standardized or connected. The filing system for Allegheny County is completely different than the filing system for Philly, for example. From my experience, most other states are the same way. If you want a document from most trial courts, you have to hump down to the courthouse and get it in person.
Thread of legal hubbub
Any reason, for or against, why a husband and wife should both be on the title of real property?
I figure if she dies ahead of me it's coming to me either way. It's marital property so it's not like she can hide it in the event of divorce. I can't think of a practical reason for or against it; other than it's fewer signatures to deal with if we ever want to sell or get a HELOC or something.
Am I missing something obvious?
I figure if she dies ahead of me it's coming to me either way. It's marital property so it's not like she can hide it in the event of divorce. I can't think of a practical reason for or against it; other than it's fewer signatures to deal with if we ever want to sell or get a HELOC or something.
Am I missing something obvious?
Thread of legal hubbub
It does seem odd to me. In a world where Voter ID laws and free IDs are considered too expensive for some people, PACER fees look like a barrier to the judicial system.The fees on PACER have been a contentious issue for quite a while...
Full disclosure, you have to rack up $15 in fees in a quarter to get charged anything. So I pulled my complaint, was 'billed' $1.80, but it will be unlikely that I have to actually pay it.
Thread of legal hubbub
Not sure how it works in PA, but there are only around a dozen states where marital property is deemed 50-50 split. If PA is not one of them, she could potentially bequeath the property to someone else in the event of her death. Just being her spouse wouldn't preempt that. And if that's the case, she could also sell or transfer the title without your prior knowledge or consent.Any reason, for or against, why a husband and wife should both be on the title of real property?
I figure if she dies ahead of me it's coming to me either way. It's marital property so it's not like she can hide it in the event of divorce. I can't think of a practical reason for or against it; other than it's fewer signatures to deal with if we ever want to sell or get a HELOC or something.
Am I missing something obvious?
Thread of legal hubbub
Thanks. From a cursory look, the house would be marital property in a divorce but the judge can split marital property however they see fit.
As for death; I can't see holding onto it at that point so I wouldn't care if she had plans for it after that. Same for if she wanted to sell it while she is alive.
BUT; my mind may change after a few years of dumping money and time into it. Worth considering, thanks.
As for death; I can't see holding onto it at that point so I wouldn't care if she had plans for it after that. Same for if she wanted to sell it while she is alive.
BUT; my mind may change after a few years of dumping money and time into it. Worth considering, thanks.
Thread of legal hubbub
When we bought our house in FL, only I am on the mortgage for the home but the law required both of us to be on the title. didn't matter either way. We got a better rate on our approval with just me on the mortgage.
Thread of legal hubbub
That's the way our primary residence is here in PA; we had to do it that way because she hadn't found employment in PA prior to moving and I had.
Thread of legal hubbub
Mrs Tif is the only name on our note, because her employer is giving her a mortgage subsidy and that apparently requires she be solo on the loan. But we're both on the title.
Thread of legal hubbub
Winner winner chicken dinner. Just got the (surprisingly early) opinion and order for the Commonwealth Court appeal I argued early last month. The trial court ruled against my client and entered summary judgment for the other side. The Commonwealth Court reverses and remands for the entry of summary judgment for my client.
Thread of legal hubbub
*high five*
Thread of legal hubbub
Circling back, as I was thinking about this a bit later, how rare/notable is it for an argument to result in SJ for one party swinging all the way for SJ for the other party? Seems like you'd have to make a really fantastic argument to not only overcome SJ but also show that there is no genuine dispute of facts and as a matter of law the other side isn't entitled to a trial. I would expect you to be able to overcome SJ fairly 'easily' but flipping it completely is fantastic.
Just seems like a huge hurdle to overcome when a trial court already determined the case on the law. Did the trial court really bone it up or were you just that persuasive?
Just seems like a huge hurdle to overcome when a trial court already determined the case on the law. Did the trial court really bone it up or were you just that persuasive?
Thread of legal hubbub
Source letter
Thread of legal hubbub
Circling back, as I was thinking about this a bit later, how rare/notable is it for an argument to result in SJ for one party swinging all the way for SJ for the other party? Seems like you'd have to make a really fantastic argument to not only overcome SJ but also show that there is no genuine dispute of facts and as a matter of law the other side isn't entitled to a trial. I would expect you to be able to overcome SJ fairly 'easily' but flipping it completely is fantastic.
Just seems like a huge hurdle to overcome when a trial court already determined the case on the law. Did the trial court really bone it up or were you just that persuasive?
I'm just that good.
The flip of summary judgment in this case is less surprising given that the main questions involved were questions of statutory interpretation, which are questions of law for which an appellate court gives no weight to the trial court's decision. The expectation from the outset was that the case would go one way or the other on cross-motions for summary judgment, and that's what happened. The Commonwealth Court obviously disagreed with the trial court's interpretation of the statute in question.
-
- Posts: 30825
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:53 am
- Location: I have four degrees and am a moron. Don’t let that fool you
Thread of legal hubbub
Alright you blood sucking lawyers. Friends of mine have a potential issue. Apparently their fence is about 5 feet over the property line into their neighbor’s land. The fence is original to the house - which is 16 years old. The neighbors in question have no issue, but they are now selling the house. What’s the deal here? Adverse possession? Are the hosed? Try to buddy buddy the new neighbors? The property is in NC
Thread of legal hubbub
The required term for adverse possession varies by state, but that's the line I'd pursue.
Thread of legal hubbub
The time period in NC is 20 years, so they could not establish adverse possession under that theory. There is a shorter time, however, when a claim for adverse possession is made under "color of title." Let's say the deed your friends received for their property included an incorrect metes-and-bounds description, which said the property line is five feet farther than it should have been, and the fence was built on that incorrect description. In that case the period for adverse possession is only seven years.
Your friends thus need to look at the property description in their own deed. If their own deed (incorrectly) says that the property line is where the fence is, then they could have a viable claim for adverse possession of that five-foot area. But if their deed is accurate and the fence was just put in the wrong place, then not enough time has passed for adverse possession.
Your friends thus need to look at the property description in their own deed. If their own deed (incorrectly) says that the property line is where the fence is, then they could have a viable claim for adverse possession of that five-foot area. But if their deed is accurate and the fence was just put in the wrong place, then not enough time has passed for adverse possession.
Thread of legal hubbub
A stylistic question that I've been pondering. In the sentence, "A copy of this document is attached __ Exhibit A," would you say the document is attached at Exhibit A, or attached as Exhibit A?
I've generally been using "A copy of this document is attached as Exhibit A," since it seem to me that it is the document that forms the exhibit. Or would this perhaps depend upon where the exhibits are tabbed or not? If documents are tabbed, it seems to me to be appropriate to say a document is at Tab A, but if not tabbed, then that phrasing seems awkward. Thoughts?
Yeah, I dwell on stuff like this.
I've generally been using "A copy of this document is attached as Exhibit A," since it seem to me that it is the document that forms the exhibit. Or would this perhaps depend upon where the exhibits are tabbed or not? If documents are tabbed, it seems to me to be appropriate to say a document is at Tab A, but if not tabbed, then that phrasing seems awkward. Thoughts?
Yeah, I dwell on stuff like this.
-
- Posts: 16580
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:19 pm
- Location: Lifelong Alabama Football Fan
Thread of legal hubbub
See exhibit A for a copy of this document. Problem solved
Thread of legal hubbub
Hmmm. I think I like that. It removes the passive voice, too.
-
- Posts: 35325
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
- Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry
Thread of legal hubbub
That's one thing I remember from Stephen King's book "On Writing", never use the passive voice.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: faftorial, RonnieFranchise and 116 guests