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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK but she can do that and not owe any money. NIL does not cover stuff like this.

I'm just saying that she is making this money BECAUSE of Michael Oher.

the document clearly shows that he wants an accounting of every time she referred to him as her adopted child, every time she used is NIL for the foundation, and an accounting of all money made by the foundation.

Actually it does not. He may try to make that argument but he is not entitled to it. NIL does not work like that. I could give 300 TED talks a year and use your life story and I do not owe you a dime.

You might want to brush up on misappropriation of the right to publicity before you do those TED talks.

Nope. I am right. You don’t need anyone’s ok to talk about the news.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK but she can do that and not owe any money. NIL does not cover stuff like this.

I'm just saying that she is making this money BECAUSE of Michael Oher.

the document clearly shows that he wants an accounting of every time she referred to him as her adopted child, every time she used is NIL for the foundation, and an accounting of all money made by the foundation.

Actually it does not. He may try to make that argument but he is not entitled to it. NIL does not work like that. I could give 300 TED talks a year and use your life story and I do not owe you a dime.

You might want to brush up on misappropriation of the right to publicity before you do those TED talks.

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.

If you went to law school, ask for a refund. Compensatory damages compensate the plaintiff for harm done to them (including economic, emotional, etc.). Punitive damages, also called exemplary damages, ounish the defendant for particularly bad behavior and are usually determined by the jury as an amount sufficient to make an example of them.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK but she can do that and not owe any money. NIL does not cover stuff like this.

I'm just saying that she is making this money BECAUSE of Michael Oher.

the document clearly shows that he wants an accounting of every time she referred to him as her adopted child, every time she used is NIL for the foundation, and an accounting of all money made by the foundation.

Actually it does not. He may try to make that argument but he is not entitled to it. NIL does not work like that. I could give 300 TED talks a year and use your life story and I do not owe you a dime.

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.

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?

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.