Official 2016 Coaching Carousel Thread - How safe is Kevin Sumlin´s job?

[BehindEnemyLines]

He could try the Bill Clinton approach. We could be talking about this for years.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

He could try the Bill Clinton approach. We could be talking about this for years.

"I did not have sex with that booster."

 

[Gary Indiana]

A few more thoughts: If HCCS has/had info relative to Mrs. Blue, the subpoena puts him in an untenable position. If he says "I don't have anything" and Mr. Blue's attorneys have the goods from Mrs. Blue's phone, HCCS is in deep water with the Court. If HCCS gives up everything to keep clear with the Court, then he could be giving Mr. Blue's attorneys info they do not have, or he could end up confirming what they only suspected. Mr. Blue's attorneys don't have to say what they have, or don't have. I guess it is sort of like legal poker. HCCS could be in deep water with the old moral turpitude clause in the contract.

Who wins here? Tom Herman.

Or Charlie could just hire his own lawyer and not sit up at night worrying about this scenario.

 

[leftybuff]

Or Charlie could just hire his own lawyer and not sit up at night worrying about this scenario.

I hope, for HCCS sake, this is all smoke and no fire, but I am not sure a lawyer magically makes the request go away. Maybe it gets trimmed down, but being involved in legalities cannot be fun.

 

[BlackNGold]

A few more thoughts: If HCCS has/had info relative to Mrs. Blue, the subpoena puts him in an untenable position. If he says "I don't have anything" and Mr. Blue's attorneys have the goods from Mrs. Blue's phone, HCCS is in deep water with the Court. If HCCS gives up everything to keep clear with the Court, then he could be giving Mr. Blue's attorneys info they do not have, or he could end up confirming what they only suspected. Mr. Blue's attorneys don't have to say what they have, or don't have. I guess it is sort of like legal poker. HCCS could be in deep water with the old moral turpitude clause in the contract.

Who wins here? Tom Herman.

I don't think much happens. This stuff is usually a negotiations ploy to up the pressure on the other party (the wife in this case). Right now it is a motion to the judge who may or may not issue a subpoena for the docs...they will probably be a bunch of back and forth before the judge even rules. The Husband wants sole custody of the children which is a hard sell in most states unless you can show someone is totally unfit as a parent. Having an affair while married is usually not grounds for showing one is unfit although it does give you leverage if you are the one wronged.

But regardless it will not reflect well on Strong.

 

[sackman]

None of this would matter if he had won.

 

[Jayne Cobb]

Will the lawyer's here help me out here? If Strong isn't a party in the divorce lawsuit, how can they demand his cell phone records, cell phone bills, etc. unless it's a FOIA request for his L-ville provided cell phone?

If somebody wanted my cell phone records my instinct would be to tell them to go screw, regardless of whether or not I had done something.

The court's subpoena power is not limited to parties to the case. You can subpoena records from third parties, although the fact that Strong is now in Texas would add an extra--but not really difficult--step. They will probably stick to subpoenaing the University, who I have to think owned his cell phones while he was in Louisville, but who knows, maybe he was smart enough to use a burner.

In the end, though, who gives a rat's butt? Coach had an affair, who cares. Maybe if the booster stopped giving to the University, Louisville might be irked, but that wouldn't bother Texas too much, I would think. Seems like much ado about stuff that really is nobody's business except the couple who are subject to the dissolution of marriage case.