Moody was 10 times the player that Kidd ever was.
Whoooooaaaaaa this settles it... Moody wins.. We are all wasting out times. Good job Tornado man.
Moody was 10 times the player that Kidd ever was.
I may not have to advise top girls basketball players in SD that they do not want to play for that POS anymore. I contacted the coach of one player, and soon found out that she already knew enough to not consider it.
I got a kick out of the claim of "emotional distress" caused by Moody. Really? I got "emotional distress" watching the team play this year without her. Seems like the team kinda missed Moody. You know, our all-time assist leader? Yet tons of posters call her "selfish." OK...
Moody was 10 times the player that Kidd ever was.
And that's the problem with this. Now, it's spreading across the internet labeling him as racist, without any of the accounts of other former players who are blowing holes in Nikki's story. Just another trial by media.
I got a kick out of the claim of "emotional distress" caused by Moody. Really? I got "emotional distress" watching the team play this year without her. Seems like the team kinda missed Moody. You know, our all-time assist leader? Yet tons of posters call her "selfish." OK...
Folks, this guy is a pretty big deal who needs to be taken seriously. You just don't become the gatekeeper of South Dakota Women's Basketball by accident.
We should be honored to be in his presence.
After hearing what Cole and Kidd said, I am 100% certain moody doesn't want this going to trial. She doesn't want her dirty laundry aired. I said when she was suspended, after hearing what she did, she needed to be booted. This came back to bite BF in the butt. IMO, Nikki is looking for some cash and to bring down a coach she didn't like, problem is her past also.
And you know how Moody "acts in real life" how?Its almost like playing a game and how you act in real life are two different things.
Some quick, general takes from the legal perspective -
- Fielder and Timmer is an excellent law firm. Quite possibly the best in the state at what they do. That doesn't mean that this case is good or bad, but Nikki will have as good of representation as possible. Also, they are likely getting paid on a contingency or % basis which means they think there is a good enough chance to get paid here that they are willing to risk not getting paid at all.
- The right to sue or ability to sue letter from the Civil Right Commission is standard fare and should not be interpreted as a validation of any claims.
- While it's of course about money, I doubt that either Nikki or her attorneys thought there was any realistic possibility that a settlement would occur without a lawsuit being filed, depositions being taken and, potentially a full trial. This isn't about getting a bluff called or thinking they could just write a couple of letters and get paid. Again, doesn't mean their right, but don't think that they expected to get any sort of offer at this point. When the attorney signed on, they did it for the long haul.
- These types of cases are tough in general. To show that you were treated differently, because of race, and that that treatment lead to _______ in damages rather than something else is a tough mountain to climb. But again, this isn't a bad law firm and they've obviously thought of that and they're going to have more evidence than just Nikki going up there and saying what is written in the lawsuit.
Yeah I don't know the rankings of lawyers in the state or anything, but I have a really hard time believing this is top level stuff. They may be an excellent law firm, but I think they have made a big mistake here.Just based on the fact they couldn't get names or spelling right in the lawsuit, if this is the case, I think there probably isn't a lot of stiff competition.
And you know how Moody "acts in real life" how?
Tornadoman never failing to surprise us. Glad to see you took a break from your tube socks after maccarney came back to town.
Megan Taylor was 100 times the player Moody was
Similar pattern. Permission to sue means that they think it's possible. Doesn't mean they think it is probable. You're reading too much into the Permission to Sue; it appears to be pretty standard if mediation is not successful.
They elected mediation and not an investigation. If it was an investigation and not mediation there would have been a possibility of a finding of no probable cause (NPC) and no lawsuit. If I understand it correctly, in mediation there is no such determination and the lawsuit "approval" would be routine as long as it met the time standards etc.
From what I can see since she was given the "right to sue" her case was "screened out". Per the language on the site being "screened out" isn't the best case scenario in cases brought before the icrc. If there was a good case here it would have been "screened in" where the commision immediately recommends mediation.
4. The screening process internally begins when both parties respond to the questionnaire and the goal is to have the case screened within 120 days. On average, 60% of the cases are “screened out.” Complainants whose cases are screened out may request a right-to-sue letter. Complainants whose cases are screened out may request reconsideration/reopening. An internal committee reviews reconsideration requests.
5. Those cases where further investigation is needed are “screened in.” All parties are sent a letter offering mediation. It is the Agencies’ goal to have the case mediated within 60 days of the screening decision.
In January, there was a mediation between all the parties involved, according to Timmer, but there wasn’t any headway made toward a “meaningful resolution.”
I guess I was reading the exact opposite. Since a mediation was offered, I assumed that the case was "screened in" per (5).