Complaint Against Geno Amended

[easttexastrash]

I was wondering the very same thing. I just don't understand, given the circumstances, how that could have been allowed

I agree. Why put either of them in that position?

 

[doggydaddy]

Bingo. It either can or cannot be verified. If she is lying, she sinks. If its true, it's a dumb move on Geno's part, considering the previous allegations, whether true or not.

She could have instigated the situation as it could help her suit if Geno flew off the handle.

 

[TRest]

I was wondering the very same thing. I just don't understand, given the circumstances, how that could have been allowed

If Geno is an actual party to the lawsuit, a defendant, then the two of them should never speak to each other outside the presence of their attorneys.

Didn't she claim to have physically threatened him when he allegedly flirted with her? Now she claims he was intimidating her with potential battery?

 

[speedoo]

The complaint says she was assigned security for the shoot around.

It's hard to believe that with the lawsuit pending, she was assigned to be there at the same time Geno was there.

OK, the next question is, what idiot made that decision, and why?

 

[Icebear]

I was wondering the very same thing. I just don't understand, given the circumstances, how that could have been allowed

I was, also, wondering the same thing and whether they had notified Geno so that he might object or suggest it inappropriate given the pending suit. Even if it was necessary fore warning Geno should have been done.

 

[HuskyNan]

Bingo. It either can or cannot be verified. If she is lying, she sinks. If its true, it's a dumb move on Geno's part, considering the previous allegations, whether true or not.

You should have learned from jpenn's gracious post that criticism and negative assessments of Geno by fans of other programs aren't necessarily wise to post here.

 

[diggerfoot]

I never read the old complaint because I don't relish reading legal discourse (sorry JS et al). I read the new complaint because, well, now I don't know. In any case I would categorize everything damaging into three categories.

Damaging details without witnesses - such as the original incident of grabbing her arm

Damaging isolated opinion - such as the Plaintiff's opinion that she felt threatened (really?)

Damaging personal conjecture - such as the Plaintiff's construction of how Auriemma influenced decisions (really?)

Can anybody point out anything that doesn't fit into one of those categories? This is an honest question; I want to know what I'm missing. Is this how most complaints are written? I would hope that most cases are tried on way more substantiated evidence than what I've seen here. Ah, now that I think about it a second time there may be one substantiated detail if witnesses confirm that Auriemma called her "ghetto." Other than that, everything seems incredibly flimsy to me.

 

[ThisJustIn]

Boy, I'm sure glad Geno didn't throw a clipboard or stare or something....

 

[diggerfoot]

Sorry.

Jocelyn....such a lovely name for someone so misguided.

That's doggydaddy for you, our board's gracious diplomat for opposing fans.

 

[Ozzie Nelson]

So if I'm pissed off it is ok for me to go into the office where I work and scream at a co-worker in front the rest of our co-workers while we should be working? I don't think my employer would be too happy no matter what the reason was.

You obviously have never competed in serious athletics . Frankly, that is a ridiculous comment.

Have you ever been to a college practice for any sport?

 

[Bestiarius]

Hardwick states that when the alleged incident with Geno occurred, she told her friends and others what happened. This appears to be her "evidence" against Geno. The implication is, "why would I tell people it happened if it didn't?" I don't understand how a complaint such as this can be accepted by the court and made public. It would be too easy for a vindictive person to concoct such a story for later use. A technique commonly known as a "set-up". I realize Geno can counter sue, but what is the likelihood of a prominent individual doing so? And all this stuff about Geno and interstate commerce, give me a break. Too many well intentioned laws being misused in this case. The lawyers would seem to be the only eventual winners here.

 

[JS]

And all this stuff about Geno and interstate commerce, give me a break.

She's trying to bolster her claim that the New York court has jurisdiction over Geno under the New York "long-arm" statute.

One prong of that statute applies to an out-of-state defendant who wrongfully damages the plaintiff while expecting his action to have consequences in New York, provided the defendant derives substantial revenue from interstate commerce.

Even putting aside her very stretchy allegations about Geno's status in interstate commerce, there's also a requirement of due process (reasonable notions of nexus and equity) in hailing him into NY court.

Don't think plaintiff gets over that bar by citing, e.g., a restaurant he owns in another state, or a board of directors he sits on, or who he hires to book speeches, none of which have anything to do with an alleged tort with expected effects in New York State.

I believe Geno's motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds is still pending with the New York court and will be surprised if it isn't granted.

 

[Icebear]

JS wrote:
Even putting aside her very stretchy allegations about Geno's status in interstate commerce, there's also a requirement of due process (reasonable notions of nexus and equity) in hailing him into NY court.


I thought "hailing" only applied to court cases involving cabs and/or thunderstorms?

 

[uconnfan68]

OK, the next question is, what idiot made that decision, and why?

buhzinga!

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

Cam's a really really good waiter. He's much better at it than I am...!

That is because I am able to work in a much higher-end restaurant due to my Duke degree.

 

[pinotbear]

That is because I am able to work in a much higher-end restaurant due to my Duke degree.
CamrnCrz1974, 20 minutes agoReport

well, ya hang around basketball players, ya gonna see some pretty high ends

 

[CL82]

Did you read the complaint, Eric? It states that she was assigned security for the shoot around. She had to be there and was working. If she is lying about that then it will be easily verified. Also there was more in the complaint than the yelling. I get that fans of Geno are going to believe him. I would do the same if this happened with Pat. I also admit that I am more likely to consider Hardwick's story because I am not a fan of Geno. But I have followed the case and read through the complaint.

I read the complaint. It is incredibly weak. Having made some serious errors on the original filing, Hardwick's attorney is trying to keep the ball in play. I'm sure Geno's attorney is relatively confident.

 

[CL82]

I never read the old complaint because I don't relish reading legal discourse (sorry JS et al). I read the new complaint because, well, now I don't know. In any case I would categorize everything damaging into three categories.

Damaging details without witnesses - such as the original incident of grabbing her arm

Damaging isolated opinion - such as the Plaintiff's opinion that she felt threatened (really?)

Damaging personal conjecture - such as the Plaintiff's construction of how Auriemma influenced decisions (really?)

Can anybody point out anything that doesn't fit into one of those categories? This is an honest question; I want to know what I'm missing. Is this how most complaints are written? I would hope that most cases are tried on way more substantiated evidence than what I've seen here. Ah, now that I think about it a second time there may be one substantiated detail if witnesses confirm that Auriemma called her "ghetto." Other than that, everything seems incredibly flimsy to me.

Undisputed statements of fact that are relevant but not determinative to the outcome of the suit.

Undisputed statements of fact that are not relevant to the outcome of the suit.

 

[FairView]

JS wrote:
Even putting aside her very stretchy allegations about Geno's status in interstate commerce, there's also a requirement of due process (reasonable notions of nexus and equity) in hailing him into NY court.


I thought "hailing" only applied to court cases involving cabs and/or thunderstorms?

Or she could be Hailing Mary because her attorney realizes she doesn't have a prayer of winning.

 

[UConnChapette]

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Doesn't make the allegations true.

And people can do the darndest things to prove their point, or case (as the case may be). About 15 years ago, I worked with a large group, not terribly diverse but there were several minorities represented on staff - Indian, black, latino. One woman felt that she was being discriminated against because she was black. HR investigated and found no basis to her complaint. Then one day some nasty, vile, offensive writing was found on the women's bathroom mirror. It stated "Death to all ____, _____, ____ and _____. " (You can fill in the blanks with your choice of racial and ethnic slurs and you would probably be right). I know this to be true because I was the one who walked into the bathroom and found it. Security investigated, and called in the police. While the investigation was ongoing, it happened again, this time on a women's bathroom stall wall. I gave handwriting samples (because, you know, the person who discovers the crime is automatically the first suspect). Well, the long and the short of it was that during the investigation it was uncovered that the woman who raised the discrimination issue had a history in college of participating in some pretty radical racial rights groups. She was the only other woman on the floor at the time it happened. I had been in the bathroom minutes before and there was nothing on the mirror. A few minutes later the writing was there, and I saw her walking away from the bathroom to the otherside of the floor where her desk was. A few days later, it was announced that she had quit. I was informed by security that the "suspect" (they never mentioned her name to me) ultimately admitted to doing it to try to prove an HR complaint and was terminated. They only told me because they knew how upset I was about the incident because of the offensive nature of the writing, and because I had to go through the questioning.

So, I have a natural skepticism about these things. And it has NOTHING to do with Ms. Hardwick's race - that is simply a coincidence with my previous experience. My point is, people will sometimes go to great lengths to prove something, even if it means instigating behavior, or making blatantly false statements, or taking an action to blame on others. Nothing surprises me any more. Geno is innocent until proven guilty. Period.

 

[UConnChapette]

I amended UConnChapette's post without her knowledge or permission. I hope it's ok with her in the interest of brevity and clarification.

Fine by me.

 

[doggydaddy]

Lol. Thanks for giving me a laugh.

Well, Jocelyn, I take back my lighthearted joke. You really are misguided.

Posting this on The Summit was low -
Geno to Hardwick "We're gonna see who is gonna win".


I can only imagine what was in that thread. I'm sure you probably bashed The boneyard in that thread as well.

 

[Jmpenn]

Well, Jocelyn, I take back my lighthearted joke. You really are misguided.

Posting this on The Summit was low -
Geno to Hardwick "We're gonna see who is gonna win".


I can only imagine what was in that thread. I'm sure you probably bashed The boneyard in that thread as well.

You have no reason to believe me but that is actually the tamest Geno thread probably ever on the Summitt. I actually wish you could read it to see for yourself. There are 17 posts in the thread. 7 of the posts are asking Cam his legal expertise. 5 posts are Cam's legal opnion and of course he has nothing against Geno and UCONN and has stated similar opinions here. I did post about the boneyard but all I said was that was wrong to post here about the subject and that no good would come from it. I don't even think any posts in that thread say if the posters believe Geno or Hardwick. If Cam reads this hopefully he backs me up. Believe me there have been Anti-Geno and UCONN posts and threads but for once this wasn't the case.

 

[semper]

People are actually paying for that stuff. Amazing.

 

[Jmpenn]

Also I never thought I was wrong to have an opnion on the case. I was wrong to come to your board and try to correct your posts or offer my opnion on a sensitive subject. I could see how it would look like I was rubbing your nose in it like Eric stated. I don't see a problem with posting about it on the Summitt since I didn't bash Geno and just talked about what was in the complaint. I already said I am more likely to believe Hardwick based on my own bias. Even saying that she could be mentally unstable and see things that don't really happen. Or she could just be after the money. I admit I have no clue really.