Good grief, it just won't stop...

[VOLveeta]

This is the second or third rehash of this I've seen on Facebook this week... In addition to the lawsuit, I swear it seems like there is a big fat bullseye on anything and everything "Tennessee".

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-peyton-manning-squeaky-clean-image-built-lies-article-1.2530395

[PirateVOL]

This is the second or third rehash of this I've seen on Facebook this week... In addition to the lawsuit, I swear it seems like there is a big fat bullseye on anything and everything "Tennessee".

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-peyton-manning-squeaky-clean-image-built-lies-article-1.2530395

Checkout the racist "writer"

[Creek Walker]

King is a racist pig who hates Manning because of the color of his skin. He isn't the first to drag this old skeleton out of the closet the last couple of weeks, though...and he probably won't be the last. Our culture loves to place folks on a pedestal and then tear them down. We derive the same sort of pleasure from that as the Romans must have felt when they flocked to the Colosseum to see lives lost. Was there anything more to that 1996 incident than a simple mooning? I don't know...and to be completely honest, I don't care. Manning's reputation speaks for itself. Not just regarding Manning but anyone in a similar circumstance, I've always considered a media expose built on a civil lawsuit to be a non-starter...folks tend to forget that anyone can say anything (especially when they're chasing fame or fortune) in a lawsuit with very little burden of proof.

[VOLveeta]

Whatever the case is with King's motive, what bothers me is... according to the court documents, regarding this woman's "character", the ONLY persons who had anything to offer other than incredibly glowing character references were the Mannings.  The comments by Lane disturb me as well.  Not one person had ever heard the woman utter a single expletive, but Peyton, whom I've seen sling f bombs freely, was so "disturbed" by this woman's ill character?  They couldn't find one other person who honestly could have witnessed ONE incident?  The letter from Malcolm Saxon???

Something stinks.  I don't want any of this to be true but I'm starting to have my doubts and if it was this much of a priority to do anything necessary to sweep it under the rug, and I look at Peyton's "furious denial" about the HGH... sorry.  I love him.  But my doubts are growing.  Call me a traitor, I suppose.

[TheRealOrange]

Whatever the case is with King's motive, what bothers me is... according to the court documents, regarding this woman's "character", the ONLY persons who had anything to offer other than incredibly glowing character references were the Mannings.  The comments by Lane disturb me as well.  Not one person had ever heard the woman utter a single expletive, but Peyton, whom I've seen sling f bombs freely, was so "disturbed" by this woman's ill character?  They couldn't find one other person who honestly could have witnessed ONE incident?  The letter from Malcolm Saxon???

Something stinks.  I don't want any of this to be true but I'm starting to have my doubts and if it was this much of a priority to do anything necessary to sweep it under the rug, and I look at Peyton's "furious denial" about the HGH... sorry.  I love him.  But my doubts are growing.  Call me a traitor, I suppose.

Read this: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/13/release-of-13-year-old-court-document-dusts-off-peyton-manning-incident-at-tennessee/

The reason there is no other evidence is because this is the plaintiff's document; it would present only one side.

The ensuing #longread from Shaun King of the Daily News is at times hard to follow, as it attempts to summarize most of the 74 pages in chronological order. Also, King’s article displays a clear anti-Peyton bias, and more than a little melodrama. This #notaslongread item comes from the 74-page document itself, which has been published in full by the Daily News.

Before going any farther, it’s important to understand what the 74-page document is, and what it isn’t. The 74-page document is a piece of advocacy. The 74-page document is something that was written by the lawyers representing Jamie Ann Naughright in her defamation case against the Mannings. The 74-page document is, necessarily, one-sided.

The 74-page document is not objective. The 74-page document is not supposed to be objective. The 74-page document is not a court order or any other decision made by a neutral party. And, ultimately, the 74-page document is incomplete without comparing it to the corresponding “Facts of the Case” document submitted by the defendants in the case.

[VOLveeta]

Read this: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/13/release-of-13-year-old-court-document-dusts-off-peyton-manning-incident-at-tennessee/

Thank you for this.  I felt King's piece was melodramatic, no doubt.  But the "court document" being written by Naughright's lawyers changes a lot.  Thank you greatly.

[TheRealOrange]

Thank you for this.  I felt King's piece was melodramatic, no doubt.  But the "court document" being written by Naughright's lawyers changes a lot.  Thank you greatly.

The defendants had filed a motion for summary judgment, which seeks to have the court rule in their favor based solely on the law.  That can be done only if there is no dispute of any material facts, and the document was the plaintiff's response.  In a "he said, she said" type of case, there is almost always a dispute sufficient to proceed, and judges usually will let such suits proceed so a jury will hear and rule on the evidence, and that's what happened in this case.  The judge ultimately ruled there was sufficient evidence for a jury to hear Naughright's case.  The ruling didn't address the validity of the evidence, just that it created a dispute of the facts.  Fairly standard.  I believe the case eventually settled.

[VOLveeta]

The defendants had filed a motion for summary judgment, which seeks to have the court rule in their favor based solely on the law.  That can be done only if there is no dispute of any material facts, and the document was the plaintiff's response.  In a "he said, she said" type of case, there is almost always a dispute sufficient to proceed, and judges usually will let such suits proceed so a jury will hear and rule on the evidence, and that's what happened in this case.  The judge ultimately ruled there was sufficient evidence for a jury to hear Naughright's case.  The ruling didn't address the validity of the evidence, just that it created a dispute of the facts.  Fairly standard.  I believe the case eventually settled.

Could you translate this for an actor, please?   

[TheRealOrange]

Could you translate this for an actor, please?   

I sue you saying you hit me; you say you didn't.  You file a motion asking the court to rule in your favor based on the law  I say there is a dispute as to the facts.  Court says let a jury decide. 

[VOLveeta]

I sue you saying you hit me; you say you didn't.  You file a motion asking the court to rule in your favor based on the law  I say there is a dispute as to the facts.  Court says let a jury decide. 

So why do you think there was a settlement?

[TheRealOrange]

So why do you think there was a settlement?

Could be any number of reasons.  My guess is a weak case by the plaintiff coupled with a desire by the defendants to avoid protracted litigation and associated publicity and costs.  Usually defendants will settle for nuisance value.  Even untrue information can stick in the court of public opinion. 

[VOLveeta]

Thanks buddy.

[PirateVOL]

So why do you think there was a settlement?

http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1694048

[HerbTarlekVol]

King is a male version of Rachel Dolezal. 

[VOLveeta]

King is a male version of Rachel Dolezal.  

And all the others who've condemned Peyton of late?  Are they just fraudulent a-holes as well?  Or do we simply have a different slanted perspective of Peyton ourselves?  Sorry, this kind of instant dismissal when the article has some meat to it... does little to help.

[Black Diamond Vol]

Let's also note that the plaintiff in the case has made herself a nice little career of this, having sued two subsequent employers after she left UT.  So, draw your own conclusions.

[VOLveeta]

Let's also note that the plaintiff in the case has made herself a nice little career of this, having sued two subsequent employers after she left UT.  So, draw your own conclusions.

Got a link?  That would be good info to see.

[Black Diamond Vol]

Got a link?  That would be good info to see.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020130507B51/NAUGHRIGHT%20v.%20WEISS

The Karan Defendants have asserted that Naughright has an extensive history of filing repetitive lawsuits against or involving public figures, apparently having "spent the majority of eight years [1998 through 2005] filing legal complaints against or about [Peyton] Manning... [some of which] had no basis in law or in fact and were fueled only by [plaintiff's] relentless search for revenge." Naughright v. Peyton Manning, No.: 05 Civ. 637 (2005), Document #16 at p. 1, 7 (M.D. Fla. 2005); see also Naughright v. Univ. of Tenn., et al., EEOC Complaint #25A963209 (1996); Naughright v. Peyton Manning, et al., No.: 02 Civ. 1026 (2002) (M.D. Fla. 2002). Also noted by the Karan Defendants is another personal injury action currently pending in Circuit Court, Polk County, Florida filed five months prior to the commencement of this lawsuit and in which Naughright seeks compensation for physical injuries of the kind she has alleged herein. See Naughright v. Deli Delicacies, Inc., et al., No.: 2010CA-005205-0000 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2002).

[VOLveeta]

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020130507B51/NAUGHRIGHT%20v.%20WEISS

The Karan Defendants have asserted that Naughright has an extensive history of filing repetitive lawsuits against or involving public figures, apparently having "spent the majority of eight years [1998 through 2005] filing legal complaints against or about [Peyton] Manning... [some of which] had no basis in law or in fact and were fueled only by [plaintiff's] relentless search for revenge." Naughright v. Peyton Manning, No.: 05 Civ. 637 (2005), Document #16 at p. 1, 7 (M.D. Fla. 2005); see also Naughright v. Univ. of Tenn., et al., EEOC Complaint #25A963209 (1996); Naughright v. Peyton Manning, et al., No.: 02 Civ. 1026 (2002) (M.D. Fla. 2002). Also noted by the Karan Defendants is another personal injury action currently pending in Circuit Court, Polk County, Florida filed five months prior to the commencement of this lawsuit and in which Naughright seeks compensation for physical injuries of the kind she has alleged herein. See Naughright v. Deli Delicacies, Inc., et al., No.: 2010CA-005205-0000 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2002).

Excellent, thanks buddy.

[VOLveeta]

I will say this much, it was beyond idiocy for Peyton to bring this back up in the book.  By breaking the confidentiality agreement, he guaranteed this was unearthed again.  Utter stupidity.

[PirateVOL]

I will say this much, it was beyond idiocy for Peyton to bring this back up in the book.  By breaking the confidentiality agreement, he guaranteed this was unearthed again.  Utter stupidity.

Actually, it was Archie

[VOLveeta]

Actually, it was Archie

It was stupid.

[Black Diamond Vol]

Which begs another question:  How is it that this episode gets mentioned in Peyton's book, WITHOUT mentioning her by name, and he gets dinged for breeching the confidentiality agreement, but she (or her legal team- potato, potahto) can leak this entire 74 page document to the media, and that's NOT a breech?

[Creek Walker]

Naughright's extensive history filing lawsuits is the most damning part of this. King (and those who are latching onto this story) are portraying her as a professional who was defamed by the Mannings and twice lost her job as a result. In reality, she certainly appears to be a money grubber.

[HerbTarlekVol]

And all the others who've condemned Peyton of late?  Are they just fraudulent a-holes as well?  Or do we simply have a different slanted perspective of Peyton ourselves?  Sorry, this kind of instant dismissal when the article has some meat to it... does little to help.

Take a chill pill, Double V.  The guy really IS a male version of Rachel Dolezal.  He was born to white parents, has white siblings, yet he claims to be a black man. 

Google is a wonderful thing.  It's not hard to find his story. 

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/family-member-confirms-to-cnn-that-blacklivesmatter-activist-shaun-king-is-white/ 

He has also lied about being "racially" attacked, and he has been implicated in missing funds involving a "Black Lives Matter" group.