The Blind Side scandal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think oher was probably irresponsible with his nfl money and is now looking to get some of that $200 million fast food money. Give me a break. So ungrateful.

You're saying he should be grateful that they lied to him and cheated him out of money?

Again --- yet to be proven they lied. In his bio he described it as a conservatorship. They are saying he got his money.

[Anonymous]

He’s lying or greatly misguided I feel. Terrible state of mind he must be in at the moment. I believe the Tuoyehs probably have everything well documented. I hope someone is looking out for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

One article I read stated that because Michael was over 18 at the time, traditional adoption was not an option.

That is the Tuohy narrative, but it is inaccurate. It was perfectly legal to adopt an 18 year old. They didn't want to.

Why would they adopt an 18 year old who already has a mother? Not pursuing an adoption makes complete sense to me. What I don’t understand is why a conservatorship was required for Ole Miss.

And why they did not get rid of the conservatorship when he left Ole Miss to play for NFL.

There are posts above that are probably right. The conservatorship was signed by the judge and then likely never used again. Meaning no bank accounts, no money, no nothing. It was just used to get past the NCAA. They did not do or sign anything as part of it. They did not get rid of it because they probably never thought about it again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is all you need to know about this family:

"We divided it five ways," the Tuohys wrote in their 2010 book, "In a Heartbeat: Sharing the Power of Cheerful Giving."

Um, it should have been divided in HALF. 50 to Michael and 50 to the family. Why are they getting 4/5 of the cut?!!

It’s the entire family’s story and fair that each member was compensated, but I think they should’ve divided it three ways and given a share to each child.

But Oher was/is not part of the family. Are they sharing their $200 million with him?

Who knows. They ain't dead so unless you have their wills you will never know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because you do not sue the people that made you unless you are broke. He is not broke completely as his NFL pension will pay a lon but not for another 20 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because it was their story too and he has about to be NFL rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is all you need to know about this family:

"We divided it five ways," the Tuohys wrote in their 2010 book, "In a Heartbeat: Sharing the Power of Cheerful Giving."

Um, it should have been divided in HALF. 50 to Michael and 50 to the family. Why are they getting 4/5 of the cut?!!

He says they didn't even do that.

Why 50% -- not sure I get that. It is all of their stories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As several have pointed out, there’s no significant royalties on a project like that. They spent more on him via housing clothing tutoring etc than they ever profited from him. And like it or not Leigh Ann’s character is half the movie so she does have the right to talk about that, just like he does. They are hundred millionaires and did not need to take on a high school kid with nfl potential to make money.

He burned through his NFL money and his wife is pressuring him to get paid somehow I bet. He should have a trust fund from the tuohys if they really feel like he is their son as they claim, but he cut them off years ago ironically right when he married his wife. This is a family and likely DIL issue that everyone wants to turn into a larger social issue.

Any factual evidence that the Tuohy's spent so much money on Oher, or that Oher burned through his funds? Or, are you just going to spout stereotypes in order to paint your false narrative that the Tuohy's are saviors?

NP. This story has been out there for a long, long time. If Oher is not mentally incompetent, which he claims he is not, he’s had plenty of time to figure out wrong doing.

This is a witch hunt against a white, southern family. An opportunity to perpetuate the “white savior” narrative. It’s disgusting. It’s alienating. It does nothing to further race relations.

Sh*t Slinger Singer is now accusing Oher of damaging "race relations" by asking for a piece of money that should have been given him long ago. Bravo. One doesn't have to be mentally incompetent to be duped by people who pretend to love and care for you. He hired a lawyer to help him unearth what was going on since dear old dad and mom weren't forthcoming.

You really are creepy.

Marty Singer is the top entertainment litigator in LA. He is not saying false stuff to spin. They were ready for him because he has tried this before. The statement from Michael's lawyers was not a really rousing defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP.

The amount of money paid for the movie is a verifiable fact. We’ll have to see what discovery produces, but for now, Micheal Lewis has verified the Tuohy’s claims. Further, the fact that the contract called for a share of the “net profits” of the film support that — even very successful Hollywood movies almost never make a “net profit.” There’s been litigation on this over the years, and anyone in Hollywood who has clout takes a share of the gross profits for this reason.

Micheal Oher explicitly states that there was a conservatorship, not an adoption, in his 2011 autobiography.

These are facts.

[Anonymous]

Did not read this entire thread.

Why did he wait until now to tell this? Any insight?

[Anonymous]

I always was under the impression that an actual adoption took place.

Cannot remember if that is what was depicted in the film since I saw it a long time ago…

If this is true - I find it cruel to pretend you are adopting someone when in reality you are not.

Representing yourself as a potential parent is just mean.

[Anonymous]

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.

Really?

After everything we know about Britney Spears and how she was fully controlled and taken advantage of by her conservatorship, you truly believe Michael Oher would have been in a better place to defend himself?

Seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think oher was probably irresponsible with his nfl money and is now looking to get some of that $200 million fast food money. Give me a break. So ungrateful.

You're saying he should be grateful that they lied to him and cheated him out of money?

Again --- yet to be proven they lied. In his bio he described it as a conservatorship. They are saying he got his money.

So the book, the ghostwriter, describes it as a conservatorship….. think about it. It’s not a stretch to think that he hardly knew the really detailed contents of the book.

[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”.

That’s what people who have a conservator ship are- legal guardians.

No. A legal guardianship is different from a conservatorship. There two distinct things. Look it up.

[Anonymous]

*they’re