Well, then you weren't looking, because in fact that is the position taken by the lawyers for the defendants. That's right: Freeh/NCAA/PSU BOT tried to keep the conclusions of Freeh's report out of this case on the basis that they were nothing but opinions.
So you'd better huddle with your legal team counselor. Because they've been arguing that this was nothing but a baseless diatribe all along.
Whatever the case, that's going to be determined by a trier-of-fact. Sue Paterno and the other plaintiffs have been arguing that Freeh's baseless diatribe was presented as if it were factual, and they have been fighting to force Freeh to back his dubious "conclusions" up.
Now, they are going to get the chance. And Freeh won't be able to claim that his baseless diatribe was just a baseless diatribe any longer.
Freeh/NCAA/PSU BOT tried to keep the conclusions of Freeh’s report out of this case on the basis that they were nothing but opinions.
So you’d better huddle with your legal team counselor. Because they’ve been arguing that this was nothing but a baseless diatribe all along.
...thanks for the valuable info, Fred...never knew that ‘opinions’ and ‘baseless diatribe’ were synonymous...
...but all levity aside, just curious, Fred...why the chip on your shoulder...? Why do you feel the need to refer to someone that might draw one or two different conclusions than you as a fool and a know-nothing...?