Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Peyton Manning case update


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Blue Swagger said:

I agree.  But I don't think it matters that she works on the human body.  You can't expose yourself to a female like that.  It's demeaning.

So as a young man I streaked a few times. It was not demeaning IMO, it was a prank. The people who were streaked didn't seem to think it was demeaning. That were laughing and some were even taking pictures. You are making way too much of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 204
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

14 hours ago, Blue Swagger said:

Ask fathers of daughters.  It doesn't matter if they're 25 yrs old either.

 

But personally, since I believe that witness that Peyton was not mooning him, I find it also disturbing that he'd lie about it.

 

I am a father of a daughter and I would be livid if that happened to my daughter.

 

Having said that, if I continue to expect high profile athletes who have wronged others to come out and say they are sorry for things we don't know happened one way or the other while their court proceedings did not suggest it was necessary, I will lose sleep over it because that mountain of athletes' list is pretty high. Ultimately, it boils down to what you want to believe about Peyton. If Bill Clinton came out and said he has been faithful to his wife ever since that Monica Lewinsky incident, are you likely to believe him even if it is true? If I expect Ray Lewis or any other high profile athlete that is accused of a crime to publicly come out and apologize for everything they have been accused of, even if the courts cleared them, I would be waiting an eternity. 

 

Skepticism and distrust runs in every human being. Some of us are forgiving and are willing to give someone the benefit of doubt and some of us insist on holding on to their past and holding it against them in any transactions in the future. Everyone wants closure to everything and everyone has pride for things to be resolved to their own satisfaction, that is undeniable. Heck, I used to want closure to why some girlfriend broke up with me about 15 years ago but eventually gave up and moved on since I did not get it. I do not expect Peyton to be that perfect guy that does not have flaws. Once I realize that, I will realize he is not going to give any apologies. People will talk about him, regardless. It is in his best interest to lay low and let things die which they eventually will, like they did with Ray Lewis etc. The social media world we live in dramatizes and over analyzes everything ad nauseum and sometimes, it is just best to turn our phones, computers and TV off :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BloodyChamp said:

 

That's such a copout argument. We could ignore everything now couldn't we...like that little matter in the summer of 2008 that people here still get bent out of shape over. You never hear me spin the "could have just ignored it" argument.

There are lots of topics I ignore.  If it's not a topic I want to be a part of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/20/highlights-of-mannings-motion-for-summary-judgment-in-defamation-case/

 

hmm so based on Mannings summary judgement he filed that she contested w the new allegations he said exactly what we assumed that she was a serial litigator who threw a legal Hail Mary to make more money off of famous figure and that it should be thrown out

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, coltsva said:

Are you kidding me with this far fetched conspiracy? Jamie & her legal team are claiming that Peyton Manning committed academic fraud during his time as a student athlete in the classroom now. This overzealous female waco has lost all her credibility now. 

 

In other words, nobody is buying her nonsense, nothing is sticking to Peyton scandal wise, Jamie's desperate, grasping at straws, & spiraling out of control with flights of fancy, speculation, & pure rage now. 

 

Lady, seriously, spend some of your settlement money & get some much needed professional help. My God, this whole witch hunt against Manning is so abundantly clear to anybody with common sense. Enough is enough. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bababooey said:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/20/highlights-of-mannings-motion-for-summary-judgment-in-defamation-case/

 

hmm so based on Mannings summary judgement he filed that she contested w the new allegations he said exactly what we assumed that she was a serial litigator who threw a legal Hail Mary to make more money off of famous figure and that it should be thrown out

Great article bababooey! I love this section masterfully argued by Peyton Manning's attorney: 

 

"...She now has filed this baseless libel suit seeking another substantial settlement from the celebrity athlete, his equally well-known father, a noted sportswriter, and a major book publisher based on a few paragraphs in a book that never even identified her by name... hoping to have yet another financial windfall at the end of the day. This misuse of the legal system must end.”

 

Exactly, this delusional woman is a malicious & unstable gold digger & nothing more. Lastly, no breach of contract was committed her either. Jamie has no legal leg to stand on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

Are you kidding me with this far fetched conspiracy? Jamie & her legal team are claiming that Peyton Manning committed academic fraud during his time as a student athlete in the classroom now. This overzealous female waco has lost all her credibility now. 

 

In other words, nobody is buying her nonsense, nothing is sticking to Peyton scandal wise, Jamie's desperate, grasping at straws, & spiraling out of control with flights of fancy, speculation, & pure rage now. 

 

Lady, seriously, spend some of your settlement money & get some much needed professional help. My God, this whole witch hunt against Manning is so abundantly clear to anybody with common sense. Enough is enough. 

The funniest thing about this 94 incident over a pass fail class and her trying to get the athletic department is that she was 25. Tape some ankles and shut your mouth you aren't going to overhaul the education at a major university in an orientation fluff class

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2016 at 3:48 PM, southwest1 said:

 

 

 

7 minute GOOD Video on the subject by mainly Lawyer &    Sports journalist and college football analyst Clay Travis joins Doug Gottlieb to discuss the 1996 Tennessee incident involving Peyton Manning that is currently resurfacing. 

He covered or was in Tennessee at the time

 

Travis does far more of the talking than

  the interviewer Doug Gottlibeb  

 

 but basically both say this should of just ended 20 years ago, its crazy to be brought up now and would hope it dies shortly  

 

Basically they say  this was a widespread story  , everyone new about it, names many papers/ stations etc  that spread it all over the place, anyone now saying its news worthy were ignorant of the issue when it happened - in Fact it supposedly was the 2nd most known & talked about topic Regarding Peyton , , # 1 was his chase for the Heisman that Charles Woodson got, not beating Florida was actually third in college sports world behind this

 

also in 1996 The trainer said he only pulled his shorts down , she shoved him away and called him an butt and that was it as far as the locker room  (( 

 

she also actually  called  didnt call him a butt but another name that gets switched by the filter censor , its the last 3 letters that come after what one may call a donkey that is a Jack _ _ _  , she didnt use the Jack part, just the last 3 letters ))

 

Its worth the 7 minutes to listen

 

 

NOTE WHEN u click on it u get an Eric Weddle story, this interview is along the right side  , its the 4th video   down the side but near the top 3rd of the page 

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25489123/chargers-wont-tag-eric-weddle-who-wouldnt-have-signed-it-anyway

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, California said:

Shaun King is a hack when Mike Florio and Jason Whitlock are writing pro Manning articles. They are not known to be fans of PM.

 

u gave me a like before i had a chance to edit in   NOTE WHEN u click on it u get an Eric Weddle story, this interview is along the right side  , its the 4th video   down the side but near the top 3rd of the page 

 

so I wanted to make sure u got to see the video, not just read about Eric Wedle

 

& I may have added a bit more description too

 

Have a good night all

 

she also actually  called  didnt call him a butt but another name that gets switched by the filter censor , its the last 3 letters that come after what one may call a donkey that is a Jack _ _ _  , she didnt use the Jack part, just the last 3 letters

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bababooey said:

The funniest thing about this 94 incident over a pass fail class and her trying to get the athletic department is that she was 25. Tape some ankles and shut your mouth you aren't going to overhaul the education at a major university in an orientation fluff class

The more this woman opens her mouth the more credibility she loses by the second. Could you imagine trying to date this woman when she was single? Jesus. If you broke things off with her & she felt slighted in any way, she'd cut your car tires, tamper with your brakes, claim consensual sex was against her will, & destroy the man's life just because the little voice of reason in your head told you to break up before you end up dismembered in a large box. 

 

Wow, Jamie is psycho. Somewhere along the line either her daddy or a boyfriend didn't reciprocate or return affection back to her satisfaction. Scary man. Scary. Yikes! 

 

Disclaimer: No, I don't know Jamie personally. This is all just conjecture on my part with no concrete proof on any kind. But, darn it rings true to me & I'm usually pretty good at reading situations like this one even from a considerable distance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.knoxnews.com/sports/vols/columnists/john-adams/john-adams-shedding-light-on-jamie-naughright-2c37f52f-a85a-25cd-e053-0100007f53bd-369543051.html?d=mobile

 

naughright routinely made profane calls to Knoxville newspaper in addition to the other source that confirmed she made routine profane calls to UT until they got the FBI involved (see my post from yesterday). She calls Peyton golden boy which makes me now think the second half of the Facebook posts I posted in my original post are legit since she called him golden boy there too. Does the NDA only apply to him? This girl has serious problems. Now I ain't saying she's a gold digger....

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

But what else happened......you don't sue over that

Something else must have happened, imo. There's no way Peyton and UT would be reduced to settling for a large amount of money just because of a mooning. Back then especially before America became a sue happy country I doubt that any jury/judge would reward any women such a huge amount of money for just mooning. I'm just gonna throw out my theory. Peyton probably did sit on this girl's face, they made an out of court agreement to portray it solely as mooning, and then the girl got her out of court settlement money. Then for whatever reason she got butt-hurt/greedy and broke their agreement hence the situation we have now. To explain the affidavit, I simply think she lied and said it was only mooning because they probably discussed a settlement before any statements were taken. Obviously this woman has a history of scumbagiggness and being sue happy but I think in this case she is telling the truth. It's not the first time an athlete or young adult (for that matter) made a boneheaded decision. I don't think any less of Peyton for it, I love the man as an athlete and humanitarian in fact. So don't misinterpret this post, it's just my opinion. 

 

That's what I think happened. Anyone feel free to agree or throw in their thoughts, comments, and disagree like i'm sure most will. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 1:56 PM, Nadine said:

For what it's worth.  I can easily see why that book passage was a problem.  I think it's intended to paint her in a poor light....not to mention makes him appear sexist

Most all of you will likely not see it that way.  I sure do

I agree...He was hurt and still angry...He was clearly wrong in 2003 with what he said.

 

 There's a part of his 2003  testimony.....that says he tried to call her to apologize Dr. JN the night of the incident and her husband hung up on him. He called her the next day and she was not in her office.

He wrote her a card apologizing.  Why hanst that been proven or disproven?

 

That, to me, proves Peyton felt he did wrong and knew Dr. JN was angry.

It also proves to me that he did try to make it right.....

......The original lawsuit was against UT and Peyton, right..for how 'they' handled it?

The second lawsuit was solely against Peyton.

This UT lawsuit is not against Peyton and Dr,. JN is NOT a part of it. (the plaintiffs are described as 'recent' UT coeds)

 

   I don't want to think DR. JN  sued Peyton because of his last name.

  . I prefer to think she was truly offended and took it on as a feminist cause.

We'll never know..but if Peyton did indeed

   make several attempts to apologze, that's the guy I have followed for 2 decades.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  I think t is VERY important to remember and remind that Dr. JN does not claim Peyton

touched he in the original lawsuit.

She does not say that. Not at all.

 

That is being missed in the press ....missed badly. It affects how you, excuse the expression,  look at Peyton.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Gabriel Alexander Morillo said:

Something else must have happened, imo. There's no way Peyton and UT would be reduced to settling for a large amount of money just because of a mooning. Back then especially before America became a sue happy country I doubt that any jury/judge would reward any women such a huge amount of money for just mooning. I'm just gonna throw out my theory. Peyton probably did sit on this girl's face, they made an out of court agreement to portray it solely as mooning, and then the girl got her out of court settlement money. Then for whatever reason she got butt-hurt/greedy and broke their agreement hence the situation we have now. To explain the affidavit, I simply think she lied and said it was only mooning because they probably discussed a settlement before any statements were taken. Obviously this woman has a history of scumbagiggness and being sue happy but I think in this case she is telling the truth. It's not the first time an athlete or young adult (for that matter) made a boneheaded decision. I don't think any less of Peyton for it, I love the man as an athlete and humanitarian in fact. So don't misinterpret this post, it's just my opinion. 

 

That's what I think happened. Anyone feel free to agree or throw in their thoughts, comments, and disagree like i'm sure most will. 

When you say you think she's telling the truth...was that the first time in 96 or the other story in 03?

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, bababooey said:

http://www.knoxnews.com/sports/vols/columnists/john-adams/john-adams-shedding-light-on-jamie-naughright-2c37f52f-a85a-25cd-e053-0100007f53bd-369543051.html?d=mobile

 

naughright routinely made profane calls to Knoxville newspaper in addition to the other source that confirmed she made routine profane calls to UT until they got the FBI involved (see my post from yesterday). She calls Peyton golden boy which makes me now think the second half of the Facebook posts I posted in my original post are legit since she called him golden boy there too. Does the NDA only apply to him? This girl has serious problems. Now I ain't saying she's a gold digger....

Understatement of the year right there. I'm laughing with you not at you bababooey my friend. Ha! Ha! 

 

That definitely means Mrs. Naughright can't let go of personal animosity against Peyton if a major newspaper in Tennessee has to get the FBI involved. So, in her skewed eyes of extreme distortion, she called Manning "Golden Boy" because she believed Peyton was a pampered person who didn't follow the rules? Has Jamie never met Archie & Olivia Manning? 2 parents who raised all their children to be respectful of authority figures, earn respect thru no preferential treatment, give back to the less fortunate, & always carry your family name with dignity & honor at all times. 

 

This woman has no credibility & how many times does Jamie have to be proven wrong before society collectively says why are we paying attention to this delusional female, let alone, threatening sponsors to dump their association with Peyton over a trumped up allegation about a mooning prank that didn't really set the liberation of women's autonomy back a half century or more? When's the world gonna wake up & treat this lady like the boy who cried wolf just too many times to be taken seriously anymore? 

 

It's almost laughable if it weren't for a good man's reputation being slandered on the other side for no good reason. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bababooey said:

When you say you think she's telling the truth...was that the first time in 96 or the other story in 03?

I apologize for not making it clear. I think her story in 03 is the closest to the truth. I think 96 was only a "mooning" because she/her legal team and peyton/his legal team made an agreement out of court before any of it was really made "public". Like I said, for whatever reason, she in 03 decides to tell the full story. Probably because she already wasted all the money and wants to milk the cow more? Both she and Peyton are both lucky that he has money. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gabriel Alexander Morillo said:

I apologize for not making it clear. I think her story in 03 is the closest to the truth. I think 96 was only a "mooning" because she/her legal team and peyton/his legal team made an agreement out of court before any of it was really made "public". Like I said, for whatever reason, she in 03 decides to tell the full story. Probably because she already wasted all the money and wants to milk the cow more? Both she and Peyton are both lucky that he has money. 

 

 

So in '96, before Peyton was Peyton Manning, she had a specific version of events and out of the kindness of her heart decided not to make the facts known that he sexually assaulted her. Then in '03, when he was a millionaire, she decided that the true story needed to come out so she could get an undisclosed amount of money? Something seems shady there man.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Peytonator said:

 

 

So in '96, before Peyton was Peyton Manning, she had a specific version of events and out of the kindness of her heart decided not to make the facts known that he sexually assaulted her. Then in '03, when he was a millionaire, she decided that the true story needed to come out so she could get an undisclosed amount of money? Something seems shady there man.

No. In '96 her and Peyton had the incident and rather than her go full monty and say he "sat on her" she agreed to a sum of money on the condition that she'd tell it as if it were only a mooning. Then in '03 idk what her issue was (im sure she just wanted even more money) she went full disclosure and told the full story in order to extort more money from Peyton. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gabriel Alexander Morillo said:

No. In '96 her and Peyton had the incident and rather than her go full monty and say he "sat on her"

 

 

You think that the chick that was suing the university withheld the true story of what happened from the judge? If it happened the way she now says it happened, it would have made more sense to tell the whole story in '96. She could have gotten more money from the university if he actually sat on her face. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Peytonator said:

 

 

You think that the chick that was suing the university withheld the true story of what happened from the judge? If it happened the way she now says it happened, it would have made more sense to tell the whole story in '96. She could have gotten more money from the university if he actually sat on her face. 

Yes I do. Wouldn't be the first time anyone has lied in court or under any form of oath. Especially when it involves out of court settlements or people with a lot of money. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I need to say this: Even if I acknowledge that Peyton admitted that it was a prank that went a little overboard, why are some people in the media & on this very forum blowing up a minor incident to epic proportions that the tiny infraction really doesn't deserve. 

 

Mr. Manning has been an exemplary QB & community citizen in Indiana & Denver & I judge a man by their whole football career & good deeds, not some trivial goofing around as a young college kid. 

 

For crying out loud, anybody can blow up a transgression from their past. Let's remember to keep it in perspective here. Thank you. Nobody died, nobody was molested, & nobody was running an illegal drug ring in college here. 

 

Man, I wish I was being paid to kick over every stone in Mrs. Naughright's life. I'd have a field day. The best part is that she's her own worst enemy. Her venom & rage against Manning would & will be her bitter downfall from grace. 

 

I keep thinking to myself that her husband is yelling at her in bed at night. "Darn it honey, why are so obsessed with Manning?! Do you secretly wish he walked you down the aisle instead of me? It sure feels like it babe. Drop this farce already darling before it destroys you & our marriage." 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's times like this that I wish David Letterman was still on CBS late night so he could do a Top 10 list on why Jamie Naughright is coo coo for coco puffs unbalanced in her grudge against Peyton Manning. 

 

10. He [Peyton Manning] has more money than I will ever see in my lifetime.

 

9. Just 1 of his SB rings, costs more than my wedding ring. 

 

8. He's liked by everybody in football & beloved around the world & when my co-workers see me at work they run away from me like a London blitzkrieg bombing raid during WWII.

 

7. He gets to smile & crack jokes with Dave & Paul.

 

6. Roger Goodall, the Commission of the NFL, reveres 18 so no disciple would come down the pike if the 'Sheriff decides to play ball 1 more year. 

 

5. 18 just returned from Disneyland & Jamie has never entered the magic kingdom in her life either in CA or on the homefront. Wink; wink. 

 

4. Peyton was voted Prom King in high school while I was voted "most clingy" & unable to "bury the hacket" in my yearbook.

 

3. Nothing says "I have attachment issues" like being on a 1st name basis with FBI agents eh there Jamie.

 

2. The classic case of a bully [Jamie] who secretly has a crush on the object of her torment [Peyton]. 

 

1. The world just loves Peyton & you [Jamie] are an acquired taste that isn't exactly warm, lovable, & fuzzy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Peyton thought a year's supply of free Papa John's Pizzas would cool this tension Jamie, he would pay for the pies himself, but no super slice is gonna satisfy her thirst for Manning's lifestyle in ruins. Never gonna happen sweetheart. Time to let the Sheriff ride off into the sunset. 

 

Oh yeah, that's right. God forbid anybody else upstage your crybaby feast lady. Can't have that can we? SMH. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bayone said:

 

 

7 minute GOOD Video on the subject by mainly Lawyer &    Sports journalist and college football analyst Clay Travis joins Doug Gottlieb to discuss the 1996 Tennessee incident involving Peyton Manning that is currently resurfacing. 

He covered or was in Tennessee at the time

 

Travis does far more of the talking than

  the interviewer Doug Gottlibeb  

 

 but basically both say this should of just ended 20 years ago, its crazy to be brought up now and would hope it dies shortly  

 

Basically they say  this was a widespread story  , everyone new about it, names many papers/ stations etc  that spread it all over the place, anyone now saying its news worthy were ignorant of the issue when it happened - in Fact it supposedly was the 2nd most known & talked about topic Regarding Peyton , , # 1 was his chase for the Heisman that Charles Woodson got, not beating Florida was actually third in college sports world behind this

 

also in 1996 The trainer said he only pulled his shorts down , she shoved him away and called him an butt and that was it as far as the locker room  (( 

 

she also actually  called  didnt call him a butt but another name that gets switched by the filter censor , its the last 3 letters that come after what one may call a donkey that is a Jack _ _ _  , she didnt use the Jack part, just the last 3 letters ))

 

Its worth the 7 minutes to listen

 

 

NOTE WHEN u click on it u get an Eric Weddle story, this interview is along the right side  , its the 4th video   down the side but near the top 3rd of the page 

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25489123/chargers-wont-tag-eric-weddle-who-wouldnt-have-signed-it-anyway

 

 

Thanks for the link Barry. Reporter/lawyer Clay Travis does a fantastic job of boiling down this story to those pesky little things called facts. It turns out that Peyton recollection of the 96 incident never changes & Jamie, on the other hand, can't keep her story consistent & she altered it when she wanted money. Surprise; surprise. I'm shocked. :sarcasm:

 

I appreciate this guys breakdown since I don't live in INDY & didn't follow Manning closely until Polian drafted him. I also appreciate Gramz's perspective on this whole situation too because she knows Peyton's career very, very well & I don't have the time to skim thru old Tennessee articles about this human sacrifice case. Just Kidding! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Peytonator said:

 

 

So in '96, before Peyton was Peyton Manning, she had a specific version of events and out of the kindness of her heart decided not to make the facts known that he sexually assaulted her. Then in '03, when he was a millionaire, she decided that the true story needed to come out so she could get an undisclosed amount of money? Something seems shady there man.

She knew he would be an NFL star and foresaw he'd write a book and mention the incident which would allow herself another shot at him then she'd hit him w the big guns. I think the real issue here is why wasn't she our GM if she so easily saw all this coming??

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gabriel Alexander Morillo said:

I apologize for not making it clear. I think her story in 03 is the closest to the truth. I think 96 was only a "mooning" because she/her legal team and peyton/his legal team made an agreement out of court before any of it was really made "public". Like I said, for whatever reason, she in 03 decides to tell the full story. Probably because she already wasted all the money and wants to milk the cow more? Both she and Peyton are both lucky that he has money. 

You have the facts incorrect please go back to the first page. The school paid her in 1996, and it was public, just not Twitter public since it was, you know, 1996. This would be under the assumption that it would never be mentioned again so you're saying she lied on her affidavit under penalty of perjury in her first and presumably only shot at getting a nice payday (even nicer payday if she mentions the contact) and hopes she could bide her time and hope he becomes successful in the NFL and eventually slips up and brings it up again then she can sue for the most trivial thing (defamation since he called her vulgar which she is) then throw the new allegations on top of it that have nothing to do w the lawsuit designed to embarrass him publicly which would lead to a larger settlement than the one she might have not gotten at UT if her harassment suit was unsuccessful.

 

If that's the case I'm not even mad, im impressed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's alright for for a person who signed an affidavit in the original documents, can go back and make changes? Somehow that person is more believable?

 

She got her settlement for $300K and continued to work there for another year and 9 months.

 

Just because an institution settle, doesn't make them guilty.

 

She has a vulgar and filthy mouth.

 

 

 

jamie.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gabriel Alexander Morillo said:

No. In '96 her and Peyton had the incident and rather than her go full monty and say he "sat on her" she agreed to a sum of money on the condition that she'd tell it as if it were only a mooning. Then in '03 idk what her issue was (im sure she just wanted even more money) she went full disclosure and told the full story in order to extort more money from Peyton. 

 

If you're going to give your two cents, maybe read up on it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Highlights of Manning’s motion for summary judgment in defamation case

 

Posted by Mike Florio on February 20, 2016, 11:13 AM EST

The 74-page document published six days ago by the New York Daily News told only one side of the lawsuit filed by Jamie Naughright against Peyton Manning and others for defamation of character. Naughright’s lawyers crafted the 74-page document to stave off Manning’s “motion for summary judgment,” a common tool in civil litigation aimed at persuading a judge to find that a case can be resolved without putting any factual disputes in front of a jury.

 

Basically, the defendant who files a motion for summary judgment says to the judge, “Assume everything that the plaintiff contends is true. Even then, the plaintiff can’t win this case.”

PFT has now obtained and reviewed the briefs submitted in support of Manning’s effort to obtain summary judgment. Key excerpts of the documents, with explanation when necessary, appear below.

 

In the opening, 52-page brief, the most biting paragraph against Naughright’s case was the first. The full text of it appears below.

 

“This is the story,” Manning’s lawyers wrote, “of a collegiate athletic trainer who parlayed a minor incident with one of the most well-known athletes in the country into a $300,000 settlement with the University of Tennessee and then went on to a small Florida college for collect another settlement check of $65,000 after being properly transferred to another position at the college. She now has filed this baseless libel suit seeking another substantial settlement from the celebrity athlete, his equally well-known father, a noted sportswriter, and a major book publisher based on a few paragraphs in a book that never even identified her by name. By this suit, the libel plaintiff seeks to settle old scores with the famous college athlete and with former colleagues at the University of Tennessee and at Florida Southern College by dragging them through extended discovery while hoping to have yet another financial windfall at the end of the day. This misuse of the legal system must end.”

 

The 52-page brief then went on to summarize the facts of the case from the defendants’ perspective. Less than a full page was devoted to the much-disputed “mooning” incident of 1996. The full text of the defendants’ characterization of that incident is as follows, with citations to the record of the case omitted.

“On February 29, 1996, Plaintiff and Peyton Manning were both in a training room in the athletic facility at UT,” Manning’s lawyers explained. “While the exact details of what occurred in the training room are disputed, the parties are in universal agreement that Peyton Manning dropped his shorts and exposed his rear end and that Plaintiff saw the exposed rear end (the ‘Mooning Incident’). . . . Peyton Manning’s description of the Mooning Incident is set forth in his Affidavit. . . . Significantly, what exactly occurred in the training room is not at issue in this motion. Upon learning, as discussed below, that Plaintiff was upset by the Mooning Incident, Peyton Manning attempted to visit Plaintiff at her office on March 1, placed several calls to Plaintiff’s home, and sent her a card apologizing for his behavior. . . . In addition, Peyton Manning was disciplined by his coach Phillip Fulmer for his behavior by being required to run every morning at 6 a.m. for two weeks. . . . As part of his punishment, Peyton Manning was also banned for a period of time from eating at his usual location, the training table in Gibbs Hall, which caused a severe disruption in his training regimen.”

 

The description of the incident mentioned an affidavit of Peyton Manning, which has been widely circulated on the Internet in recent days. The “Mooning Incident” is described at paragraphs 6 through 19. Manning contended that, while wearing “a pair of shorts and a jock strap,” his foot was being examined by Naughright, and he was talking to Malcolm Saxon, who was sitting a few tables away from Manning.

 

“Once off the table, [Naughright] moved behind me so that she could examine my foot,” Manning said at paragraph 8 of the affidavit. “At that point, Mr. Saxon made a comment to me intended as a joke regarding my then-girlfriend (now my wife), the substance of which I cannot recall. After hearing his comment, I pulled down my shorts for about one second to expose my buttocks to him, or as is colloquially known, to ‘moon’ him.”

 

At paragraphs 9 and 10, Manning said, “I immediately pulled my shorts back up while [Naughright] continued to examine my foot. My shorts were never down farther than exposing my buttocks. I did not pull them down to my ankles. [Naughright] then finished examining my foot, told me to get back up on the table, and said that I should get some ice on my foot. I then iced my foot, during which time [Naughright] stayed in the training room. I iced my foot for fifteen or twenty minutes, the standard time for such a treatment. During this time [Naughright], who remained in the training room, did not seem uncomfortable or upset.”

 

(Saxon would later dispute Manning’s version of the events directly in an affidavit, and indirectly in a December 2002 letter to Peyton Manning. Surprisingly, Saxon never was questioned under oath in the lawsuit.)

 

At paragraph 13 of Manning’s affidavit, he explained that Tennessee head trainer Mike Rollo “came to my apartment around 11 p.m.” and “asked me whether or not anything had happened with [Naughright] earlier in the day, and because I did not believe that she saw my mooning of Mr. Saxon and she never raised any issues with me, I said no. He asked again and I asked him if it had anything to do with my mooning Mr. Saxon, to which he said yes. I was surprised to hear from Mr. Rollo that night she was upset.”

 

At paragraphs 14 through 17, Manning described various efforts to contact Naughright and to apologize to her for whatever it was that happened, culminating in the sending of a card to her on March 14.

 

To summarize, Manning admitted to dropping his pants, claimed that it was a “mooning” meant for Malcolm Saxon (who would later dispute portions of Manning’s story), and believed Naughright didn’t see what had happened. Manning also essentially admitted that, later that night, enough of a stir had been created to result in a late-night visit from the school’s head trainer, followed by repeated efforts by Manning to personally apologize.

 

Next in the 52-page brief, Manning’s lawyer devoted ample space to outlining the specific legal arguments that justified judgment in the defendants’ favor. The first argument arose from a statutory technicality, requiring five days notice to be provided before the filing of certain types of defamation cases in Florida. The second argument centered on the disputed passages from the book on which the lawsuit was based, claiming that the excerpts are “substantially true.” As part of the second argument, the defendants claimed that the statements at issue were expressions of opinion not fact. (An expression of opinion cannot give rise to a claim for defamation.)

 

The third argument contended that Naughright had become a “public figure,” which makes a defamation case harder to prove by requiring clear and convincing proof of actual malice in the publication of false information. The fourth argument focused on the absence of clear and convincing proof of actual malice. The fifth argument claimed that none of the defendants acted with negligence in the publication of the disputed passages in the book.

 

After filing the effort to secure “summary judgment,” Naughright’s lawyers wrote and submitted the much-discussed 74-page document, published a week ago by the Daily News. Manning’s lawyers then had the last word (which is normal protocol), submitting a seven-page “reply memorandum” in support of the motion.

“This case is about whether a reasonable reader of the book Manning could conclude that two discrete passages that refer to, without naming, Plaintiff Jamie Naughright defame Plaintiff,” Manning’s lawyers wrote in the first paragraph of the reply brief. “In her Opposition Papers, Plaintiff goes to great lengths to create the illusion that there is something more at issue here. But Plaintiff’s seventy-four pages of self-serving ‘facts’ and extraordinary one-sided rhetoric are simply a diversion. This Court should concentrate on the contents of the Book itself.”

 

The remainder of the seven-page reply brief contained mostly legal analysis, with a couple of key exceptions. At page 4, Manning’s lawyers wrote that, in her 74-page document, “Plaintiff claims for the first time to have been ‘assaulted’ by Peyton Manning.” At page 5, Manning’s lawyers addressed Naughright’s claim that the Manning book characterized her as litigious: “First, the Passages do not state that Plaintiff is litigious. And, even if they did, by Plaintiff’s own admission, she is litigious! Plaintiff has started administrative proceedings against and/or threatened to sue the only two employers she has ever had in her academic career. And she has sued five separate Defendants in this action, which arises out of precisely the same facts that gave rise to her legal proceedings and threats against UT and Florida Southern College.” (She would later sue fashion designed Donna Karan and others for injuries allegedly inflicted by a physical therapist in Karan’s Manhattan apartment.)

 

The presiding judge denied the motion for summary judgment, putting the case on track for trial. In a separate post, we’ll explain the judge’s decision.

Meanwhile, later today I’ll be recording for the first time a special PFT Live podcast (which makes it, you know, not “live”) aimed at explaining the case to those who have never practiced law, have never gone to law school, and/or have never watched My Cousin Vinny.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/20/highlights-of-mannings-motion-for-summary-judgment-in-defamation-case/

 

Good job by Florio. This should help the uninformed people.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, bababooey said:

You have the facts incorrect please go back to the first page. The school paid her in 1996, and it was public, just not Twitter public since it was, you know, 1996. This would be under the assumption that it would never be mentioned again so you're saying she lied on her affidavit under penalty of perjury in her first and presumably only shot at getting a nice payday (even nicer payday if she mentions the contact) and hopes she could bide her time and hope he becomes successful in the NFL and eventually slips up and brings it up again then she can sue for the most trivial thing (defamation since he called her vulgar which she is) then throw the new allegations on top of it that have nothing to do w the lawsuit designed to embarrass him publicly which would lead to a larger settlement than the one she might have not gotten at UT if her harassment suit was unsuccessful.

 

If that's the case I'm not even mad, im impressed.

I don't have any facts incorrect, actually. If you'd read my posts and not make assumptions then you'd see that. Once again I must explain though... 

What is said between Peyton's lawyers and her lawyers is not public obviously. All's i'm saying is they brokered a deal for money in which she wouldn't say anything about "physical contact' aka sexual harassment (which would probably have ruined young Manning's career, if found guilty) but instead she'd just go with Mooning which is nothing close to harassment of the sexual variety. It's pretty freaking simple bababooey. I don't think it needs to be explained further. Please continue moderating this topic though; it's a fantastic read. 

12 minutes ago, California said:

 

If you're going to give your two cents, maybe read up on it.

 

 

I have read up on it. Both way back when and now, once again, that it is brought back to light. I'm just trying to refer to her and what she's doing without using bad words or calling her bad names. Obviously she wanted even more money. I don't need your passive aggressive comments. Very childish. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, California said:

So it's alright for for a person who signed an affidavit in the original documents, can go back and make changes? Somehow that person is more believable?

 

She got her settlement for $300K and continued to work there for another year and 9 months.

 

Just because an institution settle, doesn't make them guilty.

 

She has a vulgar and filthy mouth.

 

 

 

jamie.jpg

Bingo CA! When you have a bat bleep, crazy lady like this, you only have 2 options: 1. A straight jacket & a padded mental institution cell or 2. Throw money at the problem to stop the bleeding. 2 is a lot cheaper in the long run. 

 

"Time to do some real volunteer work." Excuse me Jamie, you honestly don't think your Mother Theresa from Calcutta do you? You're the gift that keeps on giving Mrs. Naughright & you're too naive to even realize it. I think she gets up everyday, eats breakfast, runs a few blocks, walks back inside the house, & jots down a mean spirited slogan about Manning on an inspirational, erasable blackboard.

 

Man, I feel so sorry for Jamie's husband. I wouldn't wish that hades on anybody. LOL! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that most of you find no basis whatsoever in Naughrights two lawsuits but honestly, when I read some of what is posted here, I wonder if similar sorts of things were said about her and other woman at UT.

 

Those are the sorts of things that people say about women when they get 'uppity', when they call men out for actions that are demeaning and hostile to women. When they challenge institutions and the legal system to set things right.

 

Sure some women abuse this but that does not mean that the issues don't exist.

 

Her cases were resolved, she has filed no new charges.  I understand people feel that she wronged Peyton Manning, but you really don't know what her experience was there. Her case is mentioned in this lawsuit as evidence of longstanding issues at the university.  Time will tell what happens with that case.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Nadine said:

I understand that most of you find no basis whatsoever in Naughrights two lawsuits but honestly, when I read some of what is posted here, I wonder if similar sorts of things were said about her and other woman at UT.

 

Those are the sorts of things that people say about women when they get 'uppity', when they call men out for actions that are demeaning and hostile to women. When they challenge institutions and the legal system to set things right.

 

 

 

I can say, yes to the first question.   My son was at UT at the time, and word around campus was,  she was on her way out because of issues between herself and the University when she filed her final claim.  University settled with her to cut ties.   I am just repeating what I heard and read back then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Nadine locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • That sounds good.    I would be fine with 6-8 pm and 9-11 pm ET with a 5 minute window for picks, so 16 picks should be done in 120 minutes. It would be like the real draft starting Day 3, where they get only 5 minutes between picks.     Would you have time around the beginning of April to help moderate this along with me? If it is a small window of time, it is a smaller time commitment on my front and yours, so I like this idea.   I can ask @NFLfan @csmopar and @danlhart87 again if they would be willing to make themselves available for those small windows of time thus giving us plenty of options. Let us bring this thread back up then.
    • First of all, I'd say bad fit for us. He's a 3-4 DE. In our system he'd be a tweener, or maybe even a 3T.  Great against the run, average vs the pass. Very solid 3 down guy overall in a 3-4.   IMO, even if he was a fit, we don't need run D help, and he'd be too expensive. Overall just not the benefit and value we need.    
    • Here's what we did on another board a few years ago. Worked out pretty good. 1 Round per evening 2 windows each night... picks 1-16, and then 17-32 (I think it was 7p-8p and 9-10, but could have been 8-9 and 10-11). That way, guys new pretty much when they needed to be there, and only needed to pay attention for roughly an hour per day. Really not even that long. Also gave the mods some time between windows to tidy up. 3 minute clock hence the "flash" term. If you miss a pick, you drop 5 spots (basically giving them an extra 15 minutes). If they missed it a second time, they get bumped to the end of the round and have up to an hour before the next days round starts. If they miss that, they get best player based on their primary needs.  We had 3 threads going at once, and 3 moderators. One thread for the pick announcements and general comments, one with a constantly updated order and big board, and one to manage trades. The big board management was great in terms of keeping it going and checking off who is gone. We also published team needs, but I can't remember if we tracked it except for using it when folks missed their window. Only trades allowed are pick for pick(s) so very little approval needed. No picks for existing players (We did the mock post FA fury, I think we started about 2 weeks prior to the draft).
    • I didn't say he could be as good as Leonard. I said pretty clearly that if Leonard was 95/100 That I think Oke's ceiling is about 86-90.    By in which I also added that any team would be alright that that level of play. I think you are misunderstanding. Because we both seem to agree that Oke will more than likely be a pretty darn good player. 
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...