The Blind Side scandal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We literally just watched this movie two weeks ago and they never said they adopted him at all..... I'm not saying they didn't tell him in the person that he was adopted but that was never part of their story in the movie at all.

She describes herself as "mother of three" on her Insta!

Every single article about the movie says “adopted”.

I’ve seen the movie several times. Sandra Bullock says specifically that due to his age, adoption makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without the family who took Michael Oher into their home, Mr. Oher may have never played pro football. His gpa was way too low for NCAA requirement and the family got him 20 hours of tutoring per week. Oher took correspondence courses from BYU to raise his gpa and allow him to play NCAA football at Ole Miss.

Not trying to praise or criticize anyone, but there is always at least two sides to every story.

Also, many ex football players experience depression as a result of having suffered multiple concussions. I wonder if this is a factor in this matter.

This is all set out in the Michael Lewis book that the movie is based on. The family let Michael stay at their house. It grew from that. I have no idea if they adopted him. He now says they did not but we will have to wait and see. Maybe it was just the conservatorship. That would be easier to do than an adoption. That may be why they did it. Also Michael was a bit crazy in his actions unlike in the movie. They may not have wanted the liability. Remember they were quite wealthy. What does not make sense is to me is that Michael was over 18 when the book came out and well over 18 when the movie was in production and made. I don't know why the conservatorship would still be on or if he really did get no money -- how that was possible. The movie would have had to pay someone to use Michael's name and story. No production company would rely on a conservatorship for a dude already in the NFL who was over 18. They would want Michael's signature as well. And did he not notice he had received nothing?

This story is not at all adding up at the moment and I am a bit suspect of Michael.

The ESPN article on this story is more clear than the Yahoo one linked on the first page. There's a legal distinction between adoption and conservatorship in terms of the financial piece:

"If Oher had been adopted by the Tuohys, he would have been a legal member of their family, and he would have retained power to handle his own financial affairs. Under the conservatorship, Oher surrendered that authority to the Tuohys, even though he was a legal adult with no known physical or psychological disabilities."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/38190720/blind-side-subject-michael-oher-alleges-adoption-was-lie-family-took-all-film-proceeds

This is worse than Britany Spear's conservatorship.

[Anonymous]

Michael Lewis says Oher started declining his royalty checks. This article also states Oher’s 2011 memoir acknowledges the conservatorship.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2023/08/16/michael-lewis-blind-side-lawsuit/" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2023/08/16/michael-lewis-blind-side-lawsuit/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We literally just watched this movie two weeks ago and they never said they adopted him at all..... I'm not saying they didn't tell him in the person that he was adopted but that was never part of their story in the movie at all.

She describes herself as "mother of three" on her Insta!

Every single article about the movie says “adopted”.

I’ve seen the movie several times. Sandra Bullock says specifically that due to his age, adoption makes no sense.

Not true. Many articles say “legal guardians”.

[Anonymous]

Can we all just accept the fact there was no money from the film. It is verifiable.

So what is this about. I don’t believe he just learned he wasn’t adopted. I thought he said he was smart and the movie making him look dumb is wrong.

He didn’t just learn it.

He clearly is pissed at the narrative the family spun about saving him. I don’t blame him. But it is not a lawsuit. You don’t shake them down for 15m

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we all just accept the fact there was no money from the film. It is verifiable.

So what is this about. I don’t believe he just learned he wasn’t adopted. I thought he said he was smart and the movie making him look dumb is wrong.

He didn’t just learn it.

He clearly is pissed at the narrative the family spun about saving him. I don’t blame him. But it is not a lawsuit. You don’t shake them down for 15m

It's lovely the way you attempt to state things as facts that aren't. Keep spinning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Clearly he has spent all his money.

What would make you think that? I think a desire to promote his new book plus lingering bad feelings are likely the cause. It seems like he has been estranged from them for a while.

No doubt he is flat out if cash. His nfl pension will pay a ton but not until age 55.

Flat? out of cash. You aren't from around here. How would you know his financial situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We literally just watched this movie two weeks ago and they never said they adopted him at all..... I'm not saying they didn't tell him in the person that he was adopted but that was never part of their story in the movie at all.

She describes herself as "mother of three" on her Insta!

Every single article about the movie says “adopted”.

I’ve seen the movie several times. Sandra Bullock says specifically that due to his age, adoption makes no sense.

Not true. Many articles say “legal guardians”.

Yes, true. Rewatch the movie.

[Anonymous]

Setting aside legalities for a moment. . . What are these talks she gives on the lecture circuit?

I think any mother speaking about her biological child like this would earn a lot a criticism from DCUM. Even though he's an adult, it's pretty damned icky. (I thought a certain consensus emerged after the early days of mommy blogging that you didn't parade your children around to the public for the benefit of fame, ego, or money.) From the various articles, it sounds like Michael had always thought they really considered him their son, but over time it became clear to him that this was not the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We literally just watched this movie two weeks ago and they never said they adopted him at all..... I'm not saying they didn't tell him in the person that he was adopted but that was never part of their story in the movie at all.

She describes herself as "mother of three" on her Insta!

Every single article about the movie says “adopted”.

I’ve seen the movie several times. Sandra Bullock says specifically that due to his age, adoption makes no sense.

Not true. Many articles say “legal guardians”.

Yes, true. Rewatch the movie.

Why are the two of you arguing? You are saying the same thing. People who adopt are parents, not legal guardians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Tuohy family statement lays out their position, and if it is at all true, this won’t be an especially good look for Oher.

No question that they’ve enhanced their $$ through the connection with him, which is gross. It seems like this has been building for at least several years, they weren’t invited to his wedding last year, etc.

It will be interesting to watch this unfold in court.

Their statement claims they received legal advice against adoption. This is a lie; there is nothing prohibiting adult adoption in their state. They also claim the profit from the book and film was small, and he received a share. Seems that will be easy to prove in court one way or the other. But given they're lying out of the gate, I'm not inclined to buy what they're selling.

Wait. They were advised not to adopt, or they were advised that it was not possible to adopt? You claim the first one, but then accuse them of lying. But it’s not a lie in your own telling so I’m confused.

Sean Tuohy: “Michael was obviously living with us for a long time, and the NCAA didn’t like that,” Tuohy told the Daily Memphian. “They said the only way Michael could go to Ole Miss was if he was actually part of the family. I sat Michael down and told him, ‘If you’re planning to go to Ole Miss — or even considering Ole Miss — we think you have to be part of the family. This would do that, legally.’ We contacted lawyers who had told us that we couldn’t adopt over the age of 18; the only thing we could do was to have a conservatorship. We were so concerned it was on the up-and-up that we made sure the biological mother came to court.”


This is NOT TRUE. He then stated he finds the allegation he would "profit off any of his children...insulting" and that they would continue to "love Michael" now like they did when he was a teenager (though they chose not to adopt him but merely to control his financial affairs to their benefit). Does ANY of this pass the sniff test?

The rich white people associated Ole Miss are disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that they picked a conservatorship over an adoption is so suspect. Why would they need to go that route, if not for money?

Because he was over 18

BS.

https://nypost.com/2023/06/06/plane-crash-victim-adina-azarian-was-adopted-by-trump-donors-at-age-40/

[Anonymous]

They already had $200 million dollars. I don’t think they had some scheme to set this kid up for the NFL to enrich themselves. That’s quite a long game and quite a gamble. This is what they get for trying to help someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm so confused about why a family that is so wealthy was taking money from the movie at all - why didn't they ensure it all went to him? I could see if they were average people who might have needed it to get by, but that wasn't the case.

Also, separate from the Tuohys, the more insane issue seems to me to be that a court appointed a conservatorship for a perfectly competent black man, and then allowed it to continue past the age that it was supposed to, with no accounting from the conservators.

Good old boy arrogance, entitlement, ... what else?

[Anonymous]

Yes it lasses the sniff test. They were boosters. Maybe they can be criticized for trying to make sure a good player went to Ole Miss. I actually thought years ago that was the criticism.

I don’t think for second it was about money. Do you have any idea what is is like to have $200m? They could care less about money from Oher.

He clearly hates being associated with this white savior story. As the thuoy son said yesterday; one can understand wanting to be the hero in your own life story.

But there is no lawsuit. It is frivolous. And the shakedown is disgusting