Ollie threatening to sue UConn

[intlzncster]

>>“There was no need to release the confidential transcripts to Coach Ollie in a FOI response since the AAUP already had been provided with them months earlier,” Parenteau wrote. “When the news organizations made the FOI request, the FOI statute required UConn to notify Coach Ollie that his right to privacy was implicated. The FOI statue states if Coach Ollie objects then UConn cannot release the information. All of the FOI releases occurred simultaneously, long after the requests were made. Had we been informed of the intention to release these false and defamatory claims, Coach Ollie would have objected to this invasion of his privacy. There is no excuse for UConn’s failure to notify Coach Ollie of their intention to violated his privacy interest.”<<

Board lawyers, what say you?

 

[UofCT]

Somebody makes this end

 

[gwhuskyfan]

 

[Yardigan]

C
L
U
S
T
E
R

 

[BugsyCT]

With $10 mill on the table you knew this would be a messy divorce.

 

[Edward Sargent]

Front page ESPN.com article about Ollie and his lawyers threatening to sue UConn. Guess they are going the scorched-earth tactic now.

Ollie demands retraction from UConn, may sue

Why is he suing UConn. He fired Miller and he was no longer a UConn employee. If the $30K is the basis of defamation then he should be looking at Miller for defamation. Of course Miller doesn't have UConn money

 

[huskymedic]

With $10 mill on the table you knew this would be a messy divorce.

3-2-1...

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

Hearst/New Haven Register: Ollie wants retraction from UConn, threatening to sue



>>“There was no need to release the confidential transcripts to Coach Ollie in a FOI response since the AAUP already had been provided with them months earlier,” Parenteau wrote. “When the news organizations made the FOI request, the FOI statute required UConn to notify Coach Ollie that his right to privacy was implicated. The FOI statue states if Coach Ollie objects then UConn cannot release the information. All of the FOI releases occurred simultaneously, long after the requests were made. Had we been informed of the intention to release these false and defamatory claims, Coach Ollie would have objected to this invasion of his privacy. There is no excuse for UConn’s failure to notify Coach Ollie of their intention to violated his privacy interest.”<<

I will readily admit that I give greater attention than most posters to the clarity of communication on this board, but here I have some serious questions about whether the above-quoted portion of the NH Register article is the product of proofreading lapses by The Register in quoting from Paranteau's letter, or Paranteau's office's sloppiness in what was provided to The Register.

In the first line, it remains ambiguous as to whether Paranteau's office ever made a FOI request as was claimed by UConn spokesperson Reitz. It is not directly disputed, but that is the most charitable interpretation of what is being claimed, unless Paranteau intended to write, ". . . release the confidential transcripts to news outlets that had also made such requests" rather than, " . . . release the confidential transcripts to Coach Ollie." I truly can't tell what Paranteau wanted to convey. In any case, his statement was conclusive without support in saying that what was released was "false and defamatory." Without further determination as to whether it was indeed false and defamatory, "objectionable, and potentially defamatory" would more accurately capture the point being made.

Next, there are two outright errors. Again, are they Paranteau's or The Register's?

"The FOI statue states if Coach Ollie objects then UConn cannot release the information."
"Statue?"
And ". . . states that if . . ." would be correct if a direct quotation is not being offered.

"There is no excuse for UConn’s failure to notify Coach Ollie of their intention to violated his privacy interest."
"Violated?"
And again, it is disputable as to whether a privacy interest was violated, so that stating it as such would again be a conclusion without support.

Note to Paranteau: When sabres are being rattled, don't be so rattled that it's done sloppily.

Again, I allow that it could have been the sad state of print media proofreading that accounts for the errors, though the UConn statement show no similar defects.

C'mon folks, get to the table and settle this thing.

 

[StepbackCity]

If he’s suing for the cause firing, he’ll lose since it was in his contract. But I but he will get some money from the possible slander by Glenn Miller. We don’t know if Millers claims are true and if they aren’t, we are in for a mess since the media got a hold of it.

 

[superjohn]

I will readily admit that I give greater attention than most posters to the clarity of communication on this board, but here I have some serious questions about whether the above-quoted portion of the NH Register article is the product of proofreading lapses by The Register in quoting from Paranteau's letter, or Paranteau's office's sloppiness in what was provided to The Register.

In the first line, it remains ambiguous as to whether Paranteau's office ever made a FOI request as was claimed by UConn spokesperson Reitz. It is not directly disputed, but that is the most charitable interpretation of what is being claimed, unless Paranteau intended to write, ". . . release the confidential transcripts to news outlets that had also made such requests" rather than, " . . . release the confidential transcripts to Coach Ollie." I truly can't tell what Paranteau wanted to convey. In any case, his statement was conclusive without support in saying that what was released was "false and defamatory." Without further determination as to whether it was indeed false and defamatory, "objectionable, and potentially defamatory" would more accurately capture the point being made.

Next, there are two outright errors. Again, are they Paranteau's or The Register's?

"The FOI statue states if Coach Ollie objects then UConn cannot release the information."
"Statue?"
And ". . . states that if . . ." would be correct if a direct quotation is not being offered.

"There is no excuse for UConn’s failure to notify Coach Ollie of their intention to violated his privacy interest."
"Violated?"
And again, it is disputable as to whether a privacy interest was violated, so that stating it as such would again be a conclusion without support.

Note to Paranteau: When sabres are being rattled, don't be so rattled that it's done sloppily.

Again, I allow that it could have been the sad state of print media proofreading that accounts for the errors, though the UConn statement show no similar defects.

C'mon folks, get to the table and settle this thing.

We will no be erecting any KO or FOI statues in Storrs.

 

[superjohn]

You, actually think you're winning?!?? Nice try, Kevin.

 

[gampelcrazies]

He’s not getting a dime. NOT A DIME!!!!

 

[Stainmaster]

If it were up to you, would Kevin Ollie still be the head coach here?

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

You know too little to write the way you have.

 

[jimva]

Who would have thought so many inept people could make such a mess.

I think Ollie should get his money. But I also hope he gives up the way he gave up on coaching.

It's not his money. He did not earn it

 

[tentoes4rings]

Anybody still think KO wrote it??

Did you read how good the grammar was? He absolutely didn’t write that.

 

[Yardigan]

Did you read how good the grammar was? He absolutely didn’t write that.

maybe he used...
Write your best with Grammarly.