aggiehawg said:

---

Found the complaint. You can access it from Here.

---

Thanks. What a self-righteous load of garbage. I hope the defendants don't settle and fight this out. I can't stand self-righteous jerks.

Just finished reading the complaint. Briles is close to certifiable and he has the right lawyer to draft dramatic pleadings, including Bible verses and invoking the tragic death of Briles' parents. Apparently using the term "hit by a truck," around Briles induces PTSD.

He does reserve the right to amend his pleadings and add the PR firm and Baylor University after further discovery.

That complaint. Wow

twk said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Found the complaint. You can access it from Here.

---

Thanks. What a self-righteous load of garbage. I hope the defendants don't settle and fight this out. I can't stand self-righteous jerks.

---

It really is a load of horses***, isn't it? Briles has pretty thin skin to get that outraged. Even accuses the BOR defendants of near-theft of university monies.

you can't get a release for future matters arising out of the incident?

how then could Baylor officials discuss the matter publicly...and they have to, they can't ignore it.

I think the language could be broad enough to include anything foreseen or unforeseen, known or unknown that arises OUT OF the particular matter at hand. Baylor officials are going to talk, they have to and you can't stop that.

That said, and even if the release wasn't sound, I haven't read anything or heard anything that would give Briles any hope at all of winning a case like this. Nobody has said "Old coach Briles, that boy, he just wanted to win, he knew these rapes were going on and he didn't care, he even threatened the victims to hush up and do their part to help Baylor win football games and he just kept recruiting rapists". The rather generic comments that have been made are a nothing. And remember, the truth is an absolute defense. Any person related to Baylor could make any comment they want if it is true.

aggiehawg said:

---

Just finished reading the complaint. Briles is close to certifiable and he has the right lawyer to draft dramatic pleadings, including Bible verses and invoking the tragic death of Briles' parents. Apparently using the term "hit by a truck," around Briles induces PTSD.

He does reserve the right to amend his pleadings and add the PR firm and Baylor University after further discovery.

---

Maybe I missed it in my cursory review, but I didn't see a single identifiable statement alleged in the petition. There were a couple of things in the attached articles that might be actionable, if he can meet the other elements, but the petition doesn't allege them. That retraction requirement was new to me--wanna bet that the retraction demand doesn't identify any statement with particularity, either?

Also, it's interesting to note that in all the crap they throw out there, there is no claim for violation of the non-disparagement clause of the settlement agreement, which we know is out there because Cannon refers to it in the WSJ article. Is that because they are only suing individuals, and not Baylor, at this point in time? Or, is it because they can't make out a claim under it?

Quote:

---

you can't get a release for future matters arising out of the incident?

how then could Baylor officials discuss the matter publicly...and they have to, they can't ignore it.

I think the language could be broad enough to include anything foreseen or unforeseen, known or unknown that arises OUT OF the particular matter at hand. Baylor officials are going to talk, they have to and you can't stop that.

---

Most confidentiality clauses have exceptions for legal advisors, governmental authorities and subpoena power from a court of competent jurisdiction. Arguably that exception might apply to their PR firm as well. But it certainly wouldn't to media like the WSJ.

Quote:

---

I find it very interesting that the lawyer is not claiming a breach of contract for violation of their settlement agreement. It seems almost certain that it would contain a non disparagement clause. That would give rise to his claims and would be dramatically easier to pursue than this defamation case.

With that said, his lawyer is a true believer. There are serious issues with that pleading.

---

Agree. Found that odd as well. But if they had sued on the basis of the settlement agreement, the terms would have to be discussed at some point. Wouldn't have to be attached as an Exhibit to the complaint, for instance, but it would have to be introduced in some manner at some point.

No, this is a personal vendetta Briles has against these guys. I can only assume they were not on board with hiring him back, whereas other BOR members might have been. Delusional if he truly thought Baylor would rehire him, but with all of the posturing and stupidity of his son and the other coaching staff, plus the pro-Briles T-shirt stunt, maybe Briles is that crazy?

I hope the whole thing ends up as a Chernobyl/***ushima/Three Mile Island meltdown of Briles, the school administration, and the football program.

Quote:

---

Also, it's interesting to note that in all the crap they throw out there, there is no claim for violation of the non-disparagement clause of the settlement agreement, which we know is out there because Cannon refers to it in the WSJ article. Is that because they are only suing individuals, and not Baylor, at this point in time? Or, is it because they can't make out a claim under it?

---

This is a personal vendetta as I've said before. Briles is mad at those individual BOR members and Ramsower.

I don't think he sued Baylor under the settlement agreement because he doesn't have any evidence that those people talking to the press did so with permission. He calls them "renegades" indicating they were talking out of school, so to speak.

He does reserve the right to add parties as additional discovery dictates. But I doubt there's a smoking gun where these guys conferred with the full BOR and were given the go-ahead to be the point people on the PR campaign inclusive of talking to the press.

Reason Briles filed this now is because he didn't get the Houston job. Now why he didn't get the Houston job is another question altogether. But he does allege tortious interference with prospective contractual arrangements, which is very hard to prove without someone from Houston's chain of command going on the record. Speaking of which, who is James Barnes?? Briles has already noticed him for a deposition. Is he a Coog official?

Quote:

---

That just seems like the much easier route as it doesn't matter about the truth of the matter. However as I said earlier this guy seems to be a true believer. And this pleading certainly looks like it

---

A true believer? Do you mean the kind of lawyer that empathizes so much with his client that he/she feels personally violated and bent on "justice"??

Those are dangerous (although generally manage to screw up in my experience) like a pro se party with a law degree.

This suit is filed in Llano County. They could have filed elsewhere.
There's about 20,000 people in all of Llano County.
That lawyer doesn't give a hoot what we think, he's from Stephenville.
He is playing to that Llano jury panel.

Something else to remember. In small counties, politics/friends can be more important than the law.

Mr.NiceGuy said:

---

OldArmy91 will be by shortly to defend AB's honor.

---

You guys are something else. Hell, yall ought to be jumping up and down with delight. For the infantile non-legal minds out there, Art Briles just opened the door to full blown discovery of what he actually knew, knows, or what the people he sued know and surely can prove since they're yapping about it. On the other hand, if the defendants don't have any proof nor does discovery flesh out anything on Briles' side, I guess you and Bayside ought to watch your mouths or you'll be added to the suit.

Briles doesn't file this kind of suit unless there's a VERY strong chance nothing can be proved that he actually knew what was going on. Hearsay ain't proof.

Or he's got the dumbest lawyer in Texas....and there's a lot of dumb ones so that would be quite the feat.

Then, of course, no one knows what the terms of the separation agreement were.

My bet is Baylor writes yet another check to Briles.

Quote:

---

who is James Barnes?? Briles has already noticed him for a deposition.

---

Former Baylor volleyball coach who allegedly told Briles about a gangrape that went unreported, or something along those lines.

DM44 said:

---

This suit is filed in Llano County. They could have filed elsewhere.
There's about 20,000 people in all of Llano County.
That lawyer doesn't give a hoot what we think, he's from Stephenville.
He is playing to that Llano jury panel.

Something else to remember. In small counties, politics/friends can be more important than the law.

---

The county of residence of the plaintiff at the time of the defamatory statement is the mandatory venue for a defamation claim, and this mandatory venue provision controls over any permissive venue provision which would govern other causes of action.

BTW: I was in law school and got to sit in on the voir dire that picked the jury that awarded the largest defamation verdict in Texas history up to that time (may still be the largest). It was in Waco. If Briles was serious about getting a judgment against Baylor, that would have been the best place to file, but I guess he's already sold his home there and didn't think he could make his venue choice stick.

Not quite.


A suit for damages for libel, slander, or invasion of privacy shall be brought and can only be maintained in the county in which the plaintiff resided at the time of the accrual of the cause of action, or in the county in which the defendant resided at the time of filing suit, or in the county of the residence of defendants, or any of them, or the domicile of any corporate defendant, at the election of the plaintiff.

Could have also filed in residence of defendants

DM44 said:

---

Something else to remember. In small counties, politics/friends can be more important than the law.

---

That's true in big counties too. fyi

I think the logic is this: Briles wants to clear his name, although he knows he's guilty. Baylor is in a no-win situation because any lawsuit of this nature, win or lose, will bring out information they do not want revealed. Therefore, they will settle and clear his name publicly (though they know it's a lie) to protect themselves. Briles gets his name cleared for future work, Baylor gets to keep their skeletons in the closet. That's how it will play out.