They're pretty simple questions. If you know that he was intimately involved in the organization, I'd think you'd be able to tell me how much time he spent working for them, who he was reporting to, and how the organization was structured.

Yet you haven't. You don't get to write history here without facts.

I haven't attempted to re-write anything. I've asked questions that I think are relevant. I haven't once stated he was "just an outside lawyer." I don't know what he did for USAG.

For all I know he was actively involved in a coverup. Or he only he gave sound legal advice and abuses still occurred. Or somewhere in between.

But you've already decide that he's a stain on the university without bothering to wait for facts.

They are easy to find. This isn't rocket science, but I'll restate what I said below.

Jack was their only lawyer and their general counsel.


Do you honestly think that an organization the size of USAG just has a side lawyer for the occasional question?

I'm sorry you are choosing not to read what's been posted or what's out there, not sure why. Again, this isn't that hard.

Here's just a snippet, from google

"Jack Swarbrick, the corporation's general counsel, continues to work with the organization on a daily basis and reports that the management committee concept is working well"


So he works with them on a daily basis, is involved with and can opine on the "management committee", but he's just an outside lawyer who delegates all the work to associates, because he's a partner at Baker Daniels.

Like I said, not too hard. And I don't blame you, but I do blame the dipshits who have actively sought to diminish his role with the organization because they are scared of what it means. It's pretty embarrassing for them. They are feeding ND alumni a bunch of lies and are just sycophantic spin machines, afraid to think that our AD had a large role in all of this.

Jack as the guy who dealt with the complaints. I can’t link it again. Look for “You give zero weight.”

I wouldn’t discount Jack just because he was outside-inside. Baker Daniels allowed USAG to call Jack its GC, and I can tell you from personal experience that law firms won’t do that unless both the work and the responsibility is substantial.

And we know that USAG had no in-house counsel.

The idea that he was just some outside lawyer, when he was their only lawyer, is preposterous