Obviously, I have not read the full report, which was released today. Nassar appears to be the context and focal point of the study -- who knew what and when regarding his abuse, and to what extent did USAG policies enable him to do what he did. If it more broadly discusses abuse throughout the sport, by coaches in programs around the country, that isn't previewed in the early pages of the report.
put forth that would indicate that he's not morally culpable in the USAG scandal? I don't particularly like him based on his public pronouncements and the arrogance he projects about various issues. I'm not a lawyer so I can't weigh in as to whether his actions would/could/should trigger any civil or criminal penalties. That said, I don't think that legal culpability should be the hurdle as to whether he keeps his job. It seems to me as though he is morally culpable, at a minimum, and ND should part ways with him post haste. Is it simply that Jenkins and/or the BOT lack balls?
These actions fit a larger longtime pattern: On multiple occasions, USA Gymnastics “ignored credible reports of abuse, and essentially operated to block or delay any action on those reports.” It “stifled” responses, repeatedly failed to follow up on complaints, demanded victims go through unreasonable procedures, and its “files contain inexplicable gaps in investigations.” Worst of all, USAG provided legal counsel to victims, only for its lawyers to turn around and become adversaries to them in legal proceedings, using the information it had acquired about the strength of their cases.
The investigators tried to ask Jack Swarbrick, the longtime former counsel for USA Gymnastics, about this pattern, which looks suspiciously like a calculated strategy to undermine and discourage victims. But he refused to be interviewed. He remains in hiding behind his athletic director’s desk at Notre Dame.
Oh it’s a real person?
Carry on.
if you please!!!1!!!!
So you have to question whether her motives are pure.
I was due for another donation to the SB Center for the Homeless, which I've been making ever since some blockhead suggested we were steering money away from that charity and towards the billboard and print ads from December 2016.
This story will break big when /if we beat Alabama.
I guess in their little world, Savvy convinced them it was no big deal.
she must really hate our offensive scheme.
I wonder if it'll be any different this time...
And we have a big semifinal national championship game to play on the 29th. 18 days of fun and music and nothing but fun and music. One dead, imaginary girlfriend ain't got nothing on 300 sexually-abused girls.
Time to pay the piper. Good job, ND, thinking this would all go away. It looks like Savvy's savviness will finally come home to roost. Too bad home is Notre Dame.
Wasn't there a meeting at Trump tower???
This is a total waste of time. Someone will sue, the sun will rise, bears will sleep in the woods.
What does this all mean? Is there a statute of limitations on this? What would be the likely scenario where in the future Swarbrick would be deposed? My primary question is whether there is a point where it all fades away with time?
The privilege protects communications, not identities. If the client states that a policy was developed with counsel, the lawyer cannot invoke the privilege to deny the fact of his involvement. If the client says a lawyer received/reviewed given reports, no privilege shields the lawyer from identifying himself as the person in question.
I don’t know about Baker Daniels’s or Swarbrick’s legal exposure, though I’d be surprised if the firm isn’t sued. I think the later attorney, Himsel, is in deep shit.
The client is the association, not the former officers. If the new officers of the association waive the privilege then Jack has to answer.
would spousal privilege than apply?
enterprises, certainly not when significant harm to a person will occur.
Jack probably thinks he did all he could when he unsuccessfully counseled USAG to remove accused trainers. USAG said no thank you, we shan’t report and we shan’t remove anyone unless and until they are convicted of a felony.
But at that point there was a good deal of evidence that an entrenched ring of bad actors was operating and would continue to operate. Lawyers not only are released from attorney-client privilege in that event, but are required to go to the authorities.
Give it up with the the Colonel Klink defense, Savvy.
in harmonica’s excellent summary.
I might have given Jack too much credit there.
I didn't come here to be called a liar.
A nice set of objections throughout.
That pompous ass and his attorney corrected the opposing counsel multiple times when they referred to him as an athletic director. "Director of Athletics"! They insisted.
Once, maybe. Several times for something so small and petty?
Appears to have worked. Can't believe what that guy allowed JS to get away with. I bet the discussions with JS's lawyer leading up to the deposition were a hoot. DO YOU KNOW WHO YOU'RE DEALING WITH?!?!
Why so edgy Jack?
not sure if any threatened motions were actually filed.
...oh, it’s the name of a person on the transcript.
Carry on.
Or do you think he needed to do a better job of handling bullshit objections?
I think he should have just terminated the deposition.
Savvy out of the room.
when a judge is to be called. Doesn't really matter. Make a record, call the judge, just don't take a useless deposition. The lawyer may well have been just making a record that the lawyer and the witness were not cooperating. He may have had other fish to fry, he may have had a strategy.
I have no idea what he was doing in response to the objections beyond floundering. Moreover, if the listing of counsel at the outset is accurate, it appears that two lawyers are representing the same co-defendant clients. If so, why are they being allowed to tag team on objections?
Still not really sure what it all means after reading that twice.
Was systematically ill-equipped to process and monitor sexual abuse allegations. This was never just a Nassar problem. The Indy Star report discussed a range of coaching allegations dating back decades and spanning the country.
The questions are pretty narrow at this point. We know the span of time runs back to the 1990s. We know allegations reported to USAG were treated as hearsay and not further reported. We know counsel for the USAG assisted in reviewing sexual abuse allegations and in writing and revising reporting policies. We know USAG’s law firm was Baker Daniels/Faegre Baker Daniels. We know Swarbrick was one of USAG’s lawyers and at one point was described as their chief counsel. We know that when this connection became news, Swarbrick’s ND bio was scrubbed of the USAG reference.
The questions the lawyers are refusing to answer are not ones they can duck forever. Here are the policies: who were the lawyers who wrote these? Here are the reports filed with the organization: which lawyers reviewed them?
He was not merely "one of USAG's lawyers." He was, until he took the ND job, USAG's outside general counsel. It is almost certain that USAG was his client, that he was the originator and the relationship lawyer and the responsible and supervising lawyer at the firm for the client. He was outside general counsel for USAG for many years and held that role, it appears, at a time when USAG adopted, with the advice out its outside counsel of its no report policy. USAG should waive privilege.
I said he was described as their chief counsel. My understanding is he served as an outside GC for an organization that had no in-house lawyer.
The Indy Star looked into this very question and reached out to Swarbrick. I am not sure why the outside general counsel would "move in and out" of working with his client.
In written responses to questions submitted by IndyStar, Swarbrick, who also was chairman of the Indiana Sports Corp from 1992 to 2001, declined to answer specific questions about his advice to the organization, citing attorney-client privilege. But he did discuss his role generally. He also declined an IndyStar request for an interview in 2016 on the subject.
The issue has sparked message-board discussion, including this comment from ndnation.com: "The core questions are, what did Swarbrick know and what did he do in response to that knowledge?"
Before becoming Notre Dame's athletic director in 2008, Swarbrick played important roles in bringing the NCAA headquarters to Indianapolis and in attracting the Super Bowl to Indianapolis in 2012. He also helped run the 1987 Pan American Games.
Swarbrick characterized his former firm, then called Baker & Daniels, as the entity representing USA Gymnastics and giving advice. He described himself as someone who moved in and out of working with the organization from 1984 to 2008.
"We know Swarbrick was one of USAG’s lawyers and at one point was described as their chief counsel."
To be clear, my view is the current facts demonstrate that:
* Swarbrick was the chief lawyer involved in the development of faulty abuse reporting policies;
* USAG, with Swarbrick's counsel, maintained those policies after early coach-abuse allegations were reported;
* Swarbrick, as the outside general counsel until taking the ND job, was specifically aware of reports of abuse by coaches in member organizations; and
* Swarbrick's CYA approach extended beyond his tenure and governed the organization's continued non-responses to further abuse allegations.
Absent a specific explanation to the contrary, naming someone else who provided the advice, this is the record established by two lengthy independent investigative reports, the Indy Star work, Steve Penny's characterization of the role of counsel, and the public description of Swarbrick's role, since scrubbed from his ND bio.
I don't believe that's understatement. I believe that's more than enough to require due diligence on ND's part, and I would be surprised if that diligence ended well for Swarbrick.
I will cop to straddling in one sense. I would be relieved to learn that Swarbrick did overstate his role, and that Scott Himsel had taken on the client relationship well before Swarbrick left. I want the truth to be that an ND alum and ND officer bears no blame for this scandal. But if that is not the truth, then what we want doesn't matter. Everyone bearing any responsibility should be held to corresponding account.
on ND's part would yield enough of the truth for them to take decisive action, but couldn't/wouldn't he just assert the same work product doctrine and client privilege objections he already has? I'm not an attorney and maybe the "probable cause" for termination of employment standards aren't as high as for a civil action in court.
By the the way, I agree with your last paragraph but most especially the last sentence on it.
She’s not the flustered attorney from the swimming dep. If he improperly invokes the privilege in response to basic questions about who provided the advice and did the work in the public record, that would speak for itself.
on legal advice? Was it Penny? A predecessor?
"Let's see what ND does about this. My guess? Nothing." The comment was 44 weeks ago.
Still hasn’t materialized.
And I really don’t know how Savvy kept his name out of Penny’s mouth when Penny got hauled in front of Congress last spring.
But the leak is going to be bigger than Savvy's finger.
were aware of Nasser's criminal behavior? One thing that is perhaps being overlooked is these were policies drafted for an organization that wasn't suspected of being prone to criminal behavior. Obviously that has now changed.
Page cite and everything.
“compiled confidential sexual misconduct complaint files on about 54 coaches over a 10-year period from 1996 to 2006, court records show. It’s unclear which, if any, of the complaints in those files were reported to authorities.”
This one of a kind collectible keepsake will be the jewel in your Notre Dame memorabilia collection.
Comes with CoA and picture of hand cuffs being placed on AD Swarbrick as he's being led away during halftime of Bowling Green game.
Shipping and handling $100
he's not called Swarby the Weasel for no reason.
Don’t see anything before that time.
And/or adopted were already in place. Enormous issue.
They were rebuffed.
ND athletic director refusing to cooperate in such an important investigation?
help the running game