The Blind Side scandal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leigh Anne Tuohy built a massive amount of wealth on the back of Michael Oher - largely talking about his "adoption" She is not a nice person and you should read
some stories about the family here: https://www.reddit.com/r/memphis/comments/15r09sk/blind_side_subject_former_briarcrest_standout/

Where is your evidence. Just because she speaks about this doesn’t mean she is making money.

She makes 30-50K for each motivational speech. Guess who she talks about? She was an executive producer of a TV show. Guess why? She wrote a book - guess why it was published? There is a ton more grifting happening on the back of Michael Oher and his story.

She makes 30-50k to talk about adoption and charity. Where did you see that. Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this case is neither a cash grab by Oher nor a winner for Oher. I think Oher feels aggrieved and used--which he was. I think he is going to lose though and lose badly. The fact that others profit off you and your story -- esp. when it is actually a collective story--and/or exploit a complicated familial-like relationship that you feel was "fake" does not itself* create a legal claim.

*It may be that there is more to the story than is currently public. But it would be odd for Michael Lewis to wade in with a cut and dry story of the division of the proceeds if there was some sort of massive cache of $$$ that had been hidden from Oher...

I agree with you. It will be interesting to see what comes out in the court case, but, on the face of it, this seems like a way for Oher to completely distance himself from the Tuohy's and the Blindside story publicly. I am interested to learn why they chose a conservatorship as their legal way to make him part of the family in this circumstance. I'm guessing he is too.

I think it was as simple as ensuring that the Tuohys could help (and possibly direct) his financial activities without giving him any claim to their assets as a "child." I actually think the move was in good faith, at least in the sense they weren't "cheating" him out of money/success. But nevertheless, an act that sort of makes someone "half-family" is pretty brutal emotionally. Which is sort seem like the fuel for this lawsuit in the first place.

Remember in The Blind Side movie when they were being investigated by the NCAA because the arrangement seemed so shady? The conservatorship was a way to prove a "familial" relationship without actually adopting him, and get the NCAA off their back. It's pretty gross when you think about it. They didn't care about Michael. They cared about Ol' Miss.

Maybe this is why I don’t get it. I can’t comprehend caring about my college half that much. Whatever their reasons they invested a lot of time and money into this. I have zero desire to do that for my college.

Clearly you are not acquainted with avid football boosters at southern schools!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder folks:

Michael MUST bring this action to the court to end the conservatorship.

The Tuohy's can't simply voluntarily end it. Only a judge can end the conservatorship based on a request by the conservatoree.

As part of the request to end the conservatorship, he's asking the Tuohy's to provide a full accounting of monies earned, actions taken, etc. Those updates should have been provided to the court annually.

Thank you.

They didn’t provide those updates and now this is another scandal in tn over this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this case is neither a cash grab by Oher nor a winner for Oher. I think Oher feels aggrieved and used--which he was. I think he is going to lose though and lose badly. The fact that others profit off you and your story -- esp. when it is actually a collective story--and/or exploit a complicated familial-like relationship that you feel was "fake" does not itself* create a legal claim.

*It may be that there is more to the story than is currently public. But it would be odd for Michael Lewis to wade in with a cut and dry story of the division of the proceeds if there was some sort of massive cache of $$$ that had been hidden from Oher...

I agree with you. It will be interesting to see what comes out in the court case, but, on the face of it, this seems like a way for Oher to completely distance himself from the Tuohy's and the Blindside story publicly. I am interested to learn why they chose a conservatorship as their legal way to make him part of the family in this circumstance. I'm guessing he is too.

Adoption provides entanglements that could be used against them - maybe successfully, maybe not. Conservatorship gave them control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this case is neither a cash grab by Oher nor a winner for Oher. I think Oher feels aggrieved and used--which he was. I think he is going to lose though and lose badly. The fact that others profit off you and your story -- esp. when it is actually a collective story--and/or exploit a complicated familial-like relationship that you feel was "fake" does not itself* create a legal claim.

*It may be that there is more to the story than is currently public. But it would be odd for Michael Lewis to wade in with a cut and dry story of the division of the proceeds if there was some sort of massive cache of $$$ that had been hidden from Oher...

I agree with you. It will be interesting to see what comes out in the court case, but, on the face of it, this seems like a way for Oher to completely distance himself from the Tuohy's and the Blindside story publicly. I am interested to learn why they chose a conservatorship as their legal way to make him part of the family in this circumstance. I'm guessing he is too.

I think it was as simple as ensuring that the Tuohys could help (and possibly direct) his financial activities without giving him any claim to their assets as a "child." I actually think the move was in good faith, at least in the sense they weren't "cheating" him out of money/success. But nevertheless, an act that sort of makes someone "half-family" is pretty brutal emotionally. Which is sort seem like the fuel for this lawsuit in the first place.

Remember in The Blind Side movie when they were being investigated by the NCAA because the arrangement seemed so shady? The conservatorship was a way to prove a "familial" relationship without actually adopting him, and get the NCAA off their back. It's pretty gross when you think about it. They didn't care about Michael. They cared about Ol' Miss.

Maybe this is why I don’t get it. I can’t comprehend caring about my college half that much. Whatever their reasons they invested a lot of time and money into this. I have zero desire to do that for my college.

They were insane about ole miss. Becoming heroes for the school mattered to them. As an aside go read about the scandals at his private Christian school particularly related to the football coach. He got a coaching job at ole miss as a part of this and brought he scandals to them. This is all disgusting and unchristian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re voluntarily terminating the conservatorship. Let’s see where this is in five year. The Tuohy’s will remain successful, Oher will be broke.

How voluntary is something when you have to be sued to do it?

I thought he was suing them for $, not to have the conservatorship removed? It sounds like they haven’t really ever done anything with the conservatorship since he went to college. But I’m sure it will all come out now.

They didn’t really make much money on the actual movie (Hollywood Studio greed), but maybe he is entitled to a percentage of their earnings for things like motivational speaking gigs they got after the movie came out? It’s a big grey area.

He wants the conservatorship removed and a full forensic accounting of said conservatorship. He is clearly entitled to that and if they had nothing to hide, this would be cut and dried. Singer's involvement makes me think it is not, though his involvement might be due to the damage this does to their brand. The monetary figures express the suspicion that they swindled him out of his fair share of assets generated by his story and likeness, not part of the petition per se.

This. So why did the Tuohys rush to hire Singer if this is a matter of a technicality (ending the conservatorship) and super-straightforward accounting (showing they did not exploit him financially)?

Because they have a lot of money ? Having money makes one a target. So best to hire a great lawyer than to lower one's guard.

Nope. That doesn't fly. He's not suing them for money at this point, just asking for an accounting. Again, if they have nothing to hide and took "zero" he was entitled to (their claim), why is this hard or complicated?

You're wrong. He's suing for compensatory and punitive damages. Punitive damages. That's suing for money to punish the Tuohys. That's why they are hiring the best.

No. That is not what "punitive damages" does. It pays the defendant for damages done to them.

You don't know what punitive means.

Yes I do, you don't understand "punitive damages". If they are not found to have cause him harm, there are no damages paid.

if it is found they are the ones who were punitive to Michael, they pay damages. That is what the court refers to. It means they were punitive to Michael, not the other way around.

This is not right at all. If he could get damages and he cannot with this petition (I know he asked but they are not available unless there is an amended pleading or the case gets out of probate court), he would be entitled to a sum of money that was his plus interest. Then if certain standards are met he can seek punitive damages above his actual damages.

They are not likely in this case unless the family withheld money that was due to him and did so with intention.

It does not matter if it is likely or not, it also does not matter if this is step 1 of many steps to get to punitive damages. What does matter for the sake of this discussion is punitive damages are not set out to hurt anybody it's to payback past hurts.

Literally it’s the exact opposite. That’s why it’s a punishment. To spank the bad actor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's all the conservator documents and recent request to end...

Go here:
https://documents.shelbycountytn.gov/ProbateCourtDocuments/

Search for docket: C0010333

Interesting. I read the documents. Fairly standard. Oher had no power to sign contracts himself. But we know he did sign his nfl contract without any prior approval. Would seem to show that the conservatorship was never used.

They seek a jury trial and damages. They can't get either in Probate court. They can get an accounting and then any money owed to Michael plus interest.

How do we know he signed it without any prior approval? Proof?

Simple. If the contract needed prior approval, they (agent & NFL team) would tell him the reason it needed approval. Then he would know that he was in a conservatory and not adoption. He's not that dim.

He says in this legal petition himself that he always knew it wasn’t an adoption and was a conservatorship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's all the conservator documents and recent request to end...

Go here:
https://documents.shelbycountytn.gov/ProbateCourtDocuments/

Search for docket: C0010333

Interesting. I read the documents. Fairly standard. Oher had no power to sign contracts himself. But we know he did sign his nfl contract without any prior approval. Would seem to show that the conservatorship was never used.

They seek a jury trial and damages. They can't get either in Probate court. They can get an accounting and then any money owed to Michael plus interest.

How do we know he signed it without any prior approval? Proof?

Simple. If the contract needed prior approval, they (agent & NFL team) would tell him the reason it needed approval. Then he would know that he was in a conservatory and not adoption. He's not that dim.

He says in this legal petition himself that he always knew it wasn’t an adoption and was a conservatorship.

For the 50th time he thought it was the same thing. He was 18 and that’s how they explained it.

How do you think he felt when he realized that they had lied to him for years about him being their son? I wonder at what moment he saw them for the fakes they are. It had to be painful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's all the conservator documents and recent request to end...

Go here:
https://documents.shelbycountytn.gov/ProbateCourtDocuments/

Search for docket: C0010333

Interesting. I read the documents. Fairly standard. Oher had no power to sign contracts himself. But we know he did sign his nfl contract without any prior approval. Would seem to show that the conservatorship was never used.

They seek a jury trial and damages. They can't get either in Probate court. They can get an accounting and then any money owed to Michael plus interest.

How do we know he signed it without any prior approval? Proof?

Simple. If the contract needed prior approval, they (agent & NFL team) would tell him the reason it needed approval. Then he would know that he was in a conservatory and not adoption. He's not that dim.

He says in this legal petition himself that he always knew it wasn’t an adoption and was a conservatorship.

For the 50th time he thought it was the same thing. He was 18 and that’s how they explained it.

How do you think he felt when he realized that they had lied to him for years about him being their son? I wonder at what moment he saw them for the fakes they are. It had to be painful.

I don’t believe he “thought it was the same thing.” He knew it was a different thing and that it was a different means to a similar ends. Which was true.

[Anonymous]

I’m curious what people here would have done differently. Your kids classmate is struggling with grades and a place to live. You have a big house so you offer him a room and get him a tutor. You encourage and help him go to your alma Mater.

Most people would not bother to do any of that. Now many people think they only did that to get publicity, or maybe to recruit a great football player to their alma mater. But what would any of us have done? What would have had s different outcome for Oher that he would be entitled to compensation for? If he had played for Tennessee would he have had a better career in the nfl? A better education?

Let’s say they told the author and the studio no you can’t use our names. Then the author and the studio slightly change the names and plot and say ‘based on a true story.’ There are no royalties but the story is out there. Is that a better outcome for him?

Leigh Anne’s subsequent crusade/evangelism about fostering/adoption and generally how great it feels to be rich and Christian is pretty ridiculous. But it’s not gotten her a talk show, church, or even significant profits, and it’s her version of her lived life.

Let’s say they had formally adopted michael as an adult. He turns 40, retires from the NFL and asks them for $15 million. They say no. They haven’t given either of their other kids that kind of money. that money came from being fast food franchise owners. How would the outcome be different?

This is why there is no case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious what people here would have done differently. Your kids classmate is struggling with grades and a place to live. You have a big house so you offer him a room and get him a tutor. You encourage and help him go to your alma Mater.

Most people would not bother to do any of that. Now many people think they only did that to get publicity, or maybe to recruit a great football player to their alma mater. But what would any of us have done? What would have had s different outcome for Oher that he would be entitled to compensation for? If he had played for Tennessee would he have had a better career in the nfl? A better education?

Let’s say they told the author and the studio no you can’t use our names. Then the author and the studio slightly change the names and plot and say ‘based on a true story.’ There are no royalties but the story is out there. Is that a better outcome for him?

Leigh Anne’s subsequent crusade/evangelism about fostering/adoption and generally how great it feels to be rich and Christian is pretty ridiculous. But it’s not gotten her a talk show, church, or even significant profits, and it’s her version of her lived life.

Let’s say they had formally adopted michael as an adult. He turns 40, retires from the NFL and asks them for $15 million. They say no. They haven’t given either of their other kids that kind of money. that money came from being fast food franchise owners. How would the outcome be different?

This is why there is no case.

This is such an illogical post it's not worth taking the time to respond in the detail required.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious what people here would have done differently. Your kids classmate is struggling with grades and a place to live. You have a big house so you offer him a room and get him a tutor. You encourage and help him go to your alma Mater.

Most people would not bother to do any of that. Now many people think they only did that to get publicity, or maybe to recruit a great football player to their alma mater. But what would any of us have done? What would have had s different outcome for Oher that he would be entitled to compensation for? If he had played for Tennessee would he have had a better career in the nfl? A better education?

Let’s say they told the author and the studio no you can’t use our names. Then the author and the studio slightly change the names and plot and say ‘based on a true story.’ There are no royalties but the story is out there. Is that a better outcome for him?

Leigh Anne’s subsequent crusade/evangelism about fostering/adoption and generally how great it feels to be rich and Christian is pretty ridiculous. But it’s not gotten her a talk show, church, or even significant profits, and it’s her version of her lived life.

Let’s say they had formally adopted michael as an adult. He turns 40, retires from the NFL and asks them for $15 million. They say no. They haven’t given either of their other kids that kind of money. that money came from being fast food franchise owners. How would the outcome be different?

This is why there is no case.

This is such an illogical post it's not worth taking the time to respond in the detail required.

This it's so ridiculous it's impossible to respond to.

It is creepy to realize that on top of everything else that the conservatorship gave them, they had rights to all of his medical information. All this time they could access his medical info and even try to exert control. It is so f'd up that they didn't petition to end this but we know it would have caused exactly what is happening now. If they had done that, they would open a can of worms that would have made it most likely for Michael to know it wasn't an adoption. Petitioning to end the conservatorship would have brought to light that it never was an adoption.

These people are vile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious what people here would have done differently. Your kids classmate is struggling with grades and a place to live. You have a big house so you offer him a room and get him a tutor. You encourage and help him go to your alma Mater.

Most people would not bother to do any of that. Now many people think they only did that to get publicity, or maybe to recruit a great football player to their alma mater. But what would any of us have done? What would have had s different outcome for Oher that he would be entitled to compensation for? If he had played for Tennessee would he have had a better career in the nfl? A better education?

Let’s say they told the author and the studio no you can’t use our names. Then the author and the studio slightly change the names and plot and say ‘based on a true story.’ There are no royalties but the story is out there. Is that a better outcome for him?

Leigh Anne’s subsequent crusade/evangelism about fostering/adoption and generally how great it feels to be rich and Christian is pretty ridiculous. But it’s not gotten her a talk show, church, or even significant profits, and it’s her version of her lived life.

Let’s say they had formally adopted michael as an adult. He turns 40, retires from the NFL and asks them for $15 million. They say no. They haven’t given either of their other kids that kind of money. that money came from being fast food franchise owners. How would the outcome be different?

This is why there is no case.

This is such an illogical post it's not worth taking the time to respond in the detail required.

So then simply answer what exactly would YOU have done differently for oher?

[Anonymous]

Has anyone mentioned that the Touhys were on an episode of Below Deck in 2017? You can guess what subject came up again and again.

I think by this time they weren't talking to Oher but, my oh my, they were still using him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious what people here would have done differently. Your kids classmate is struggling with grades and a place to live. You have a big house so you offer him a room and get him a tutor. You encourage and help him go to your alma Mater.

Most people would not bother to do any of that. Now many people think they only did that to get publicity, or maybe to recruit a great football player to their alma mater. But what would any of us have done? What would have had s different outcome for Oher that he would be entitled to compensation for? If he had played for Tennessee would he have had a better career in the nfl? A better education?

Let’s say they told the author and the studio no you can’t use our names. Then the author and the studio slightly change the names and plot and say ‘based on a true story.’ There are no royalties but the story is out there. Is that a better outcome for him?

Leigh Anne’s subsequent crusade/evangelism about fostering/adoption and generally how great it feels to be rich and Christian is pretty ridiculous. But it’s not gotten her a talk show, church, or even significant profits, and it’s her version of her lived life.

Let’s say they had formally adopted michael as an adult. He turns 40, retires from the NFL and asks them for $15 million. They say no. They haven’t given either of their other kids that kind of money. that money came from being fast food franchise owners. How would the outcome be different?

This is why there is no case.

This is such an illogical post it's not worth taking the time to respond in the detail required.

So then simply answer what exactly would YOU have done differently for oher?

You answer this question. Would you have lied to people and told the world via social media, books, speeches, etc that you adopted someone you did not adopt while getting adulation, attention, and money based on the fact that you adopted them.