Update to allegations from last year

[wasab]

9 hours ago, zaprqn said:

 

Thats exactly what you are doing, you took what LMG said as "conclusive evidence" when its just you biases getting confirmation, and now because you have reached your desired conclusion(your truth), you are actively fighting everything else that might shatter your perceived reality of choice instead of wanting as much information possible to make an informed decision on the matter. 

That's because I have good reason for doing this. LMG has evidences, all the naysayers have none. What would you do if this is an actual court case? It is two party's words against one

 

lastly what am I fighting against? I have no opposing evidences to fight against. All I hear are just bunch of people telling me that lmgs report are not trustworthy because it comes from LMG. Well, I mean duh. Of course it is from lmg. I am fighting evidence deniers. I ain't against for more evidences. Anything release by LMG will only help LMG, even if negative. I mean have you ever seen defense in court ever offer any evidences that harm their case?

 

If you don't want that, I don't know what to tell you except go to the opposite side and ask madison to come up with her own report. It is better to hear the whole story too, I agree with you. I mean it is seriously easy to falsely accused and ruin another one's life when you can just tweet some simple words on twitters without all the legal consequences and ramifications isn't it? Until I see anything to the contrary, I am not changing my views. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

On 6/21/2024 at 7:00 PM, starsmine said:

I dont think they ever did.

They absolutely did.

On 6/21/2024 at 7:00 PM, starsmine said:

nicotine does have some health benifits, but they knew about the problems for decades before the public did, they just buried them. 

Including paying for "studies" that would state the opposite, and releasing them to the public.

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, wasab said:

That's because I have good reason for doing this. LMG has evidences, all the naysayers have none

What evidence does LMG have, and what does the evidence prove? 

 

 

4 hours ago, wasab said:

I am fighting evidence deniers.

What evidence is being denied specifically? 

[wasab]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

What evidence does LMG have, and what does the evidence prove? 

 

 

What evidence is being denied specifically? 

their report. yeah, in real life, you may want to check this rigorously but you don't have the liberty to do so as a third party. People who assume they will get to see the entire report without information being redacted are also very naive. no employers would post stories of workplace interpersonal conflicts, disgruntled employees, and all the etc drama for the public to see regardless of whos is right or wrong. it only attracts more drama mobs and not to mention many existing/former employees would probably take issue with that

[leadeater]

On 6/22/2024 at 6:25 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

The statement of LMG's opinion/interpretation of the findings (even excluding some findings that would look bad on them) wouldn't really get them into much legal liability, especially if you threaten a defamation suit against the person if they continue to rock the boat.

 

Again, I've seen a similar tactic used...actually a few people used it against a company I worked for.  They contacted the media, the media ran a story, they sued us, the media ran more with the story, a settlement was asked of us, media ran more with a story, and finally we won the lawsuit [total cost to us was astronomical...cheaper to settle but the owner was dead set against setting a precedent] and the media still went with a story attacking us on the same issue we won lawsuits over [just a different spin].

Actually no it would be a problem because LMG would be knowingly publishing a statement that is counter to and attributing that to the law firm which they would actually be able to take issue with if they wanted to. Unlike your example neither company in this instance is protected by media reporting because neither are acting in that capacity. Media/News have more protected rights when it comes to reporting from defamation, slander and libel etc while private non media/news companies do not.

 

So yes misrepresenting and mischaracterizing what a law firm report says and putting their name to it would very much have a high potential of getting them in to legal trouble. The premise of don't start a legal fight with a lawyer applies.

 

On 6/22/2024 at 6:25 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

To bring the CFL investigation back into it, they said in their case the sexual harassment claim rose to the level of the health and safety act.

This is the one and only time I will address the CFL case. That situation isn't nearly similar enough to be used here, at all. Firstly the issue and complaint was within the actual Team organization and a legal complaint to the police was made and a lawsuit filed. Then after that the CFL which is the governing body which enforces the rules of the game and professional standards including health and safety initiated an investigation in to the matter and contracted another specialist firm to actually do the investigation.

 

That investigation was carried out and a summary report provided to the Team organization, a summary which I have not been able to locate or view myself only the CFL media statement about it and new reports on it. So who's to trust that the CFL statements are truthful and accurate and in line with the summary and also the full report? Have you seen it? No? So why do you feel so ready to trust it? Because the end result matches your expectations on the result that there was sexual harassment?

 

As far as I have seen you only have CFL's word to go on and nothing else. The only difference is you trust CFL, you don't LMG. What if your trust is misplaced? What if your mistrusted is misplaced? Equal standards for every situation or you have no standards.

 

I say the above with the full acceptance of my potential inability to locate a copy of the 87 page report to read which would change what I have said. So if there is a public copy of it for all to read now is the time to direct me to it.

 

The issues with comparing to the CFL case is:

• Clear direct evidence existed
• A police complaint was laid
• A lawsuit was filed
• There is a governing body above all Teams
• There is a Player's Union
• You, I or anyone else not a stakeholder in the issue has not seen the actual summary report unless you can provide me a link to it

 

There are vast, vast differences between here the LMG issue and the CFL example you are trying to use. The one similarity is that both have made their own statements in their own words.

 

So above all and this is my never to be changed opinion on the matter and my final address of it to you, the statement made by LMG is not counter to that of the investigation report because putting anything in writing that is counter to that is actually a legal problem that the law firm could act on if they choose to. The most likely by an overwhelming margin is that the fundamental communication that the claims of sexual harassment could not be substantiated is indeed what the investigation did conclude.

 

I respect your right to dislike the way this has been communicated to you but I without any question disagree that the statement itself is not what the report findings actually are for what matters, I don't care and I'll never care about defamation suit statements as part of it because it's inconsequential to the actual report findings, the part that matters.

 

On 6/22/2024 at 6:25 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

Again, the CFL one.  The executive summary actually was released to the press.  Yes it was technically the first party, CFL, but the statement was prepared by the 3rd party law firm.  It is the most relevant one as it occurred recently; so still easily in my memory.

As I have stated above your account of the situation is not correct. The statement made by CFL to the public was crafted by and made by CFL. The only information you personally have access to is their statement along with the media reporting on the report. Is this better? Yes but it doesn't really negate that CFL made a statement that is being taken at face value along with the media reporting of an executive summary of an investigation done at the behest and guidance of the CFL who had input in to and control over the release of that executive summary. Therefore it is largely the public statements of the CFL about the report with the care taken of a law firm that still represents the findings of the actual investigation report. The summary has all the same opportunities to be characterized in ways to suit the CFL as you are complaining about LMG here.

 

Is this higher standards of information release. Yes. But as I originally said this doesn't ALWAYS happen. You can point to it and say it is "better" and I don't disagree but that still doesn't change the above issue, LMG's statement not being counter to the report.

 

The TL;DR is you didn't actually address my point about the issue being between LMG and the Law Firm about making statements that do not reflect the report. All you did was mention others not the Law Firm which has nothing to do with my point or what I was talking about in respect to the statement's accuracy. I cannot see a situation where LMG would in writing publish something in the public domain that misrepresents the findings of an investigation of a law firm in a harassment or sexual harassment investigation.

 

20 hours ago, LMGcommunity said:

Consider what the potential ramifications are for LTT if we misrepresented the report from Roper Greyell and publicly associated their name with that misrepresentation.

This is the point I have been making. To be saying there is zero potential for that to be a problem is not true.

[LAwLz]

8 hours ago, wasab said:

their report.

But that is not evidence of anything since we don't know what it says. I mean, if we are going to take things even further we as the viewers can't even be sure that it exists since we haven't seen it (hey leadeater, this is not me saying the report doesn't exist. It is just me highlighting that we shouldn't call it evidence one way or another when we can't verify anything about it, not even it's existance). 

Someone just saying something is not "evidence". So far we only have words that relies on beliefs and trust. I would not call that evidence. 

 

You cant call someone an "evidence denier" when we don't have any evidence and purely has to go on someone's word. Words that do not seem to indicate what you seem to believe they mean I might add. Because nowhere in that tweet does it say thing didn't happen. 

 

If I said "I have a report which says LMG is terrible", would you call someone who didn't believe me an "evidence denier"? 

Because that is essentially what we have so far to go on. Just words that may or may not be an accurate interpretation of what a report says.

 

 

Honestly, them seeming so reluctant to post a summary of the findings not written by themselves makes me even more suspicious.

"This is what the report says. We promise we are giving a fair interpretation of what it says". 

"Okay, so can I read it myself? Maybe just a summary? I want to interpret the text for myself". 

"No, you're not allowed to read it yourself. Just trust us when we say we're awesome, because that's totally what it says". 

 

I'd be more than fine with a summery with some things like names and other personal information redacted. I just don't want LMG to interpret the text for me. I want to see what the third-party said. 

 

8 hours ago, wasab said:

People who assume they will get to see the entire report without information being redacted are also very naive.

Who has said this? Neither me nor wanderingfool2 has said this.

I get the impression that you are trying to make a strawman argument here and I don't like it. Can we stick to what is being said between us and not talk about and counter arguments other people may or may not have said? 

 

 

I am not asking for the full report and I would prefer if you stopped bringing this up because it is not what I am asking for. It is not relevant to the conversation we're having. 

[wanderingfool2]

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

This is the one and only time I will address the CFL case. That situation isn't nearly similar enough to be used here, at all. Firstly the issue and complaint was within the actual Team organization and a legal complaint to the police was made and a lawsuit filed. Then after that the CFL which is the governing body which enforces the rules of the game and professional standards including health and safety initiated an investigation in to the matter and contracted another specialist firm to actually do the investigation.

As far as I know, there wasn't any police report filed.  The lawsuit was filed, but I think it has little to do with the whole concept of the investigations...especially when both parties [prior to settling] in the court denied some of the allegations the investigation concluded on.

 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

As far as I have seen you only have CFL's word to go on and nothing else. The only difference is you trust CFL, you don't LMG. What if your trust is misplaced? What if your mistrusted is misplaced? Equal standards for every situation or you have no standards.

 

I say the above with the full acceptance of my potential inability to locate a copy of the 87 page report to read which would change what I have said. So if there is a public copy of it for all to read now is the time to direct me to it.

It wasn't publicly released, rather some of the reports were able to read/quote from it.  It's lost in the article updates and twitter timelines now with all the updates to the story.  TSN's article though, specifies TSN having read the report

https://www.cfl.ca/2024/05/07/chad-kelly-suspended-minimum-of-9-games-for-violating-gender-based-violence-policy/

Quote

The independent investigation into claims of harassment against Toronto Argonauts quarterback Chad Kelly corroborates three of six allegations made against him in a recent lawsuit, according to the executive summary of an 87-page report that was obtained Thursday by TSN.

I never said the executive summary was publicly released, just that reports were given access to it...so it's not the whole "trust CFL", it's trusting that the CFL statement which is also backed up by at journalists not employed by the CFL.

 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

So yes misrepresenting and mischaracterizing what a law firm report says and putting their name to it would very much have a high potential of getting them in to legal trouble. The premise of don't start a legal fight with a lawyer applies.

Again, the way things were stated I don't think there would be much of a legal trouble.  As I've mentioned, the the wording implies that it's LMG's interpretation of the findings which would shield them essentially from that unless formed in a way that was intentional to deceive...and then even on that there would really have to be some form of damages associated with the statement.

 

Specifically as well, there is no way of knowing if LMG left out important details [and them leaving out important details wouldn't really put them in legal liability...except on the accusers side of things]

 

Also, not that it matters, but the CFL didn't go far enough in my mind in regards to the actions taken in this case.

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

This is the point I have been making. To be saying there is zero potential for that to be a problem is not true.

LMG as well has in the past always flirted with things as well that could get them in a whole lot of trouble, but even in this case the way things were worded I don't think they would have exposed themselves to much except on the Madison side of things.

 

The whole Langley house was in violation of the zoning laws [based on the business licensing website they were entitled to only have one non-resident employee]...which in this case is a valid comparison in that if any of the neighbours complained within a short time of them starting up there, LMG itself would have been in trouble [as they didn't have a backup location]

Or the multiple times they showed dev consoles, which are protected by NDA's, and their willful title's which implies they know the information is technically restricted [especially given that Nintendo is very litigious]

Or you know, Linus on the WAN show publicly stating that if an employee tries to hold him to labor laws he becomes entirely by the book and will treat that employee differently [treat them only by the book].

 

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

I cannot see a situation where LMG would in writing publish something in the public domain that misrepresents the findings of an investigation of a law firm in a harassment or sexual harassment investigation.

Again though, wording is highly important and LMG's statement could still be generally correct in a statement but missing out key information which wouldn't really open them up to things on the law firm side.

 

A statement from a law firm vs LMG differs in that the law firm would have a duty of care in regards to the wording and statements made.  LMG summarizing the finding wouldn't put them in any issue at all, as summarizing even if incorrect doesn't harm the law firm as if lets say it was disputed by one of the parties publicly they could simply state it was LMG's statement and the executive summary contained the details missed.  

 

e.g. A claim being unsubstantiated is technically correct; but the following two example of unsubstantiated differ wildly

1) The claims were unsubstantiated after reviewing witness accounts of the events

2) The claims were unsubstantiated as the accused party/witnesses refused to be involved in the investigation

 

Where if you state "a claim being unsubstantiated" doesn't harm the law-firm, as that is what their finding was...but clearly 1 vs 2 changes the opinion on the certainty of the accusation. 

[wasab]

17 hours ago, LAwLz said:

snip

Words from a third party lawfirm. words are and can be evidence, saying lmg lie about the report is very far fetch. wont you question the person writting the report as well by the same token? How do you know he represent the report accurately? In fact, how do you know the investigators represent their investigations properly? This same level of mistrust can keep going down and down. 

 

Also, what do you need a solid, 100%, I am sure this is the truth and the whole truth for? To exonerate LMG of a transgression that was never substantiated in the first place? Or perhaps to see the report does in fact confirm workplace violations/sexual harrassment and expect the company to publicly self-incriminate itself? Not that I believe the latter case btw.

 

the only thing I will say to you is that 

 I will not ask much for someone's innocence but i will ask much for someones guilt. 

[Anders155]

15 hours ago, wasab said:

Words from a third party lawfirm. words are and can be evidence, saying lmg lie about the report is very far fetch. wont you question the person writting the report as well by the same token? How do you know he represent the report accurately? In fact, how do you know the investigators represent their investigations properly? This same level of mistrust can keep going down and down. 

 

Also, what do you need a solid, 100%, I am sure this is the truth and the whole truth for? To exonerate LMG of a transgression that was never substantiated in the first place? Or perhaps to see the report does in fact confirm workplace violations/sexual harrassment and expect the company to publicly self-incriminate itself? Not that I believe the latter case btw.

 

the only thing I will say to you is that 

 I will not ask much for someone's innocence but i will ask much for someones guilt. 

I've noticed you've kept moving the goalposts because when people tell you all the evidence we have is just a piece of paper from a lawfirm, you start to make up excuses as to why that is valid and okay. The lawfirm wouldn't lie, it's reputable, they'd be in legal trouble if they lied, they have the evidence because they said so, you wouldnt wanna read the report because its too long, how do you X and Y and so on.

 

Yet you claim you trust the evidence. You trust LMG/lawfirms word more and that's fine but please do not pretend otherwise. You have a inherent bias and any claim otherwise is just silly.

 

I just find it odd you're spending so much time calling Madison and other ex-LMG people who supported her story a liar. You don't know that. I don't know that. All we have are words from both sides and that's all we're gonna have. Neither side is right or wrong because we have nothing but their words.

 

Before you make up another excuse, lawfirms aren't saints and even reputable ones have proven to be full of shit.

[wasab]

9 hours ago, Anders155 said:

 

Snip

 

Yeah, because I do trust evidences. You are the ones who don't. That ain't inherent bias because it is more unreasonable for me to doubt it than for me to not doubt it. Not sure why asking for evidences that says otherwise is moving the goal posts. 

 

I called her a liar because all talk, no proofs and lmg does have something that disproves what she said even if just a summary. If they wanted to sue her, they already said they have enough for a strong defamation case. Again, it is unreasonable for me to call lmg liars than for me to call madison a liar. One of them has to be. So you see, we don't just have simple words and if anyone is biasd, it is a biase despite a recent investigations that do support a side, despite the fact the accuser has nothing to stand on. I mean you already said you don't trust the lawfirms so I guess even if they straight up confirm lmg's summary, it won't satisfy you. 

 

I mean is it reasonable to say lawfirms lied? It is possible but unreasonable. Is it reasonable to say lmg lied about the report? Maybe not unreasonable but unlikely. However, why are you asking for such high standard of proofs for ones innocence when the guilt is not even substantiated by anything to begin with? Man, I really don't know who's biased here. 

 

You drama mobs should give this a rest already. If madison truly has overwhelming evidences and proof for her claims, she would've walk away with a large settlements already. 

 

Edit: give me testments of ex employees that say her stories of workplace violations and sexual harrassment are true. Note, actual violations, not all the her boss has been mean to her complaints I've already seen multiple times already. 

 

Edit2: why does this sound so much like a witch hunt btw? Feels like the witch trials of the 17th century in which the verdict is decided by a mob court of public opinions filled with superstitions and mistrust rather than due process of laws and reasons.