The Blind Side was a lie!

[ronjon1990]

2 hours ago, skywindO2 said:

I never got into semi literature but I’m a huge fan of semi games. Euro Truck Simulator and American Truck Simulator are my jam. Euro is definitely better though. 

 

I prefer my literature to be of the fictional sort, myself. 

[AlexGreen#20]

21 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

My other comment was rude, so I'll offer a meaningful response. This is a kid who had been in foster care and homeless for chunks of his life. He had been living with different families. A rich family takes him in, treats him as part of the family, and tells him that they want to officially make him part of the family. It is completely understandable why a kid who has had a life like Oher's would believe in those people.

Moreover, we're talking about an 18/19 year old. The idea that he would read legal documents and understand the difference between a conservatorship and an adult adoption is absurd. You have this group of people who took you in, treated you like family, and told you that they want to make you part of their family now telling you that their lawyers have drafted up this legal document that will allow them to adopt you and officially make you part of the family if you sign.

You don't understand why a person in Oher's shoes would trust them and sign the document? You think that 18/19 year old has to be illiterate to not understand the legality? You think that it is bizarre for that kid to not be skeptical of these people who are telling him that they want him to be part of the family and this document will do it? You think that kid should just know these people are misleading him and that conservatorship and adult adoption are two different things? C'mon.

I appreciate the attempt at politeness.

I do understand why someone in Oher's shoes would trust them. 

My issue here is 3 fold:

1. The assumption that a conservatorship vs an adult adoption ID is a damning indictment. 

As Daniel said, adult adoption doesn't matter a rip except for things like inheritance. 

The conservatorship basically allowed the family to treat Other like a 17 year old for the sake of wading through the incredible bull**** bureaucracy of college admissions and life. The sort of bull**** that is WAY harder to deal with if you're a homeless dude with no birth certificate, social security card, etc. 

2. The assumption of wrong doing on the part of the family.

We basically only have Oher's word here, and it's not like we don't have reason to doubt it. This is AT BEST a he-said/she-said. 

If this conservatorship was as abusive as claimed, I find it very suspicious that there's no evidence that his NFL earnings were touched

If there was such evidence, I strongly suspect it would have been released. 

3. That even if he was misled on the nature of the adoption vs conservatorship, that it was done intentionally. 

I could ABSOLUTELY see a well meaning family member pitching this as "basically an adoption that would let us act as your parents" and it never occuring to them that a decade later this simplification would matter. Especially if they weren't abusing it in any way and had just basically forgotten about it and were letting him live his life.

Saying "We adopted him" could very well be them using the phrase like "we adopted him into our hearts." It's not like they said "We adopted him" under oath in a court of law. 

Edited August 16, 2023 by AlexGreen#20

[Mox]

8 minutes ago, Daniel said:

I don't think so.  All of these things are filed.  It doesn't seem to be in dispute that they got a conservatorship.  The dispute seems to be solely whether they tricked him to get that conservatorship, and who got paid what from the movie.

This is a weird response.

I didn't say anything about disputing whether there was a conservatorship or not. Why would you even bother to bring that up?

There is a dispute as to whether adoption was ever claimed and whether the conservatorship was misleading, which you point out yourself, so you agree with me.

Edit: I see you retracted your statement because you misread. Makes more sense now.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Mox

[AlexGreen#20]

On 8/16/2023 at 12:42 PM, Daniel said:

Did you know that's just a way to say "below average intelligence?"

Because I don't think you did.

And that was not in fact the question.  It's never been the question til you decided to try to move the goalpost.  The lawsuit was alleging they tricked him into signing a conservatorship agreement saying it was an adoption so that they could exploit him.  Where there are you seeing anything about "was he better off?"

And I'm not playing the legal game, I'm just correcting you, which is a big job.  You post a lot of nonsense and falsehoods.

And careful, that's a violation of forum rules there, buddy.

Which is why I used the term from the better DSM from a time when accurate diagnosis mattered more than feelings. You then shrieked about it. 

As far as the forum rules, we have mods and other members correctly trolling me over an automobile. While I have no doubt that they have no intention of stopping this beating I am taking, I figure so long as ET80 is being his usual awesome and sexy self, he's going to give me a little bit of slack to respond in kind to the 6 or 7 back shots I’ve taken like a Kardashian in an NBA locker room.

So again, shove it up my ***. 

[Daniel]

Just now, AlexGreen#20 said:

I do understand why someone in Oher's shoes would trust them. 

My issue here is 3 fold:

1. The assumption that a conservatorship vs an adult adoption ID is a damning indictment. 

As Daniel said, adult adoption doesn't matter a rip except for things like inheritance. 

The conservatorship basically allowed the family to treat Other like a 17 year old for the sake of wading through the incredible bull**** bureaucracy of college admissions and life. The sort of bull**** that is WAY harder to deal with if you're a homeless dude with no birth certificate, social security card, etc. 

2. The assumption of wrong doing on the part of the family.

We basically only have Oher's word here, and it's not like we don't have reason to doubt it. This is AT BEST a he-said/she-said. 

If this conservatorship was as abusive as claimed, I find it very suspicious that there's no evidence that his NFL earnings were touched

If there was such evidence, I strongly suspect it would have been released. 

3. That even if he was misled on the nature of the adoption vs conservatorship, that it was done intentionally. 

I could ABSOLUTELY see a well meaning family member pitching this as "basically an adoption that would let us act as your parents" and it never occuring to them that a decade later this simplification would matter. Especially if they weren't abusing it in any way and had just basically forgotten about it and were letting him live his life.

Saying "We adopted him" could very well be them using the phrase like "we adopted him into our hearts." It's not like they said "We adopted him" under oath in a court of law. 

Ooh, am I a legitimate source now?  Great.

As a legitimate source: your analysis is wrong.  Let's break iem all down.  Again.

1. Conservatorship over adoption is extremely damning. And the following paragraph is just straight up not how it works.  At all.  I would love to hear, specifically, what you think this conservatorship allowed them to do for him other than "uh, erm, it helped him in school."

2. Evidence isn't "released" in civil cases where one side is currently asking for an accounting by the other side so they can obtain evidence.

3. I don't know of many instances where someone can unintentionally mislead someone.  Conservatorship is not "basically an adoption," it's "basically something that allows us to have access to your finances."  It's not simpler, it's actually more complicated.

[ronjon1990]

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

A lot of the people who knew Oher thought he WAS mentally handicapped. His IQ test of 80 put him 1 point above a level that would have him considered mentally retarded by some standards. 

Why the hell does it matter whether a judge would grant a conservatorship against his will. He signed the document. 

Because it leaves a lot of unanswered questions. 

For one, if he's so mentally handicapped as to need a conservatorship, he's not of sound enough mind to enter into any legally binding contract, rendering whatever he signed null and void. No way it would hold up if disputed. 

Which leaves a judge placing him into one. But unless Oher is....totally absent minded to the point of being unaware of his surroundings at all...there's no feasible way he was placed into one under a judge's orders and not know it for close to 20 years. 

Which bears asking- what did he sign and why? Sean Tuohy admits it was a conservatorship in his own statement about the matter. But was it done legally and correctly, or did they back-door under-the-table it in a way that would be fraudulent? Or is Oher hard up for cash or something and the family's attorney correct about him basically threatening nonsense on a number of occasions before? 

Like the other guy said, there's a lot about all of it that's pretty fishy and doesn't add up- on either side. 

[Daniel]

4 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Which is why I used the term from the better DSM from a time when accurate diagnosis mattered more than feelings.

Ooh, I see we're dealing with an expert in the field.  Knows more about diagnoses of mental conditions better than the APA. Such expert.  Very wow.

[vegas492]

@Daniel is there any reason that a family would seek conservatorship over adoption?

Is it access to finances/money?

Like , would the adopted person have easier access to monies that they earn, or could earn?  

In looking at the finances, which option is better/more easy to control as the family?

 

[ET80]

6 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Ooh, am I a legitimate source now?  Great.

As a legitimate source: your analysis is wrong.  Let's break iem all down.  Again.

1. Conservatorship over adoption is extremely damning. And the following paragraph is just straight up not how it works.  At all.  I would love to hear, specifically, what you think this conservatorship allowed them to do for him other than "uh, erm, it helped him in school."

2. Evidence isn't "released" in civil cases where one side is currently asking for an accounting by the other side so they can obtain evidence.

3. I don't know of many instances where someone can unintentionally mislead someone.  Conservatorship is not "basically an adoption," it's "basically something that allows us to have access to your finances."  It's not simpler, it's actually more complicated.

[ET80]

6 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Ooh, I see we're dealing with an expert in the field.  Knows more about diagnoses of mental conditions better than the APA. Such expert.  Very wow.

[AlexGreen#20]

On 8/16/2023 at 2:05 PM, Daniel said:

Ooh, am I a legitimate source now?  Great.

As a legitimate source: your analysis is wrong.  Let's break iem all down.  Again.

1. Conservatorship over adoption is extremely damning. And the following paragraph is just straight up not how it works.  At all.  I would love to hear, specifically, what you think this conservatorship allowed them to do for him other than "uh, erm, it helped him in school."

2. Evidence isn't "released" in civil cases where one side is currently asking for an accounting by the other side so they can obtain evidence.

3. I don't know of many instances where someone can unintentionally mislead someone.  Conservatorship is not "basically an adoption," it's "basically something that allows us to have access to your finances."  It's not simpler, it's actually more complicated.

1. How can it be damning if the existence of the conservatorship isn't in question? There is no way you believe that there is NO REASON for a conservatorship outside of shady nonsense. That's ridiculous. It could be something as basic as getting his taxes paid. 

2. By the ******* attorneys to the media to battle in the court of public opinion. 

3. You've never heard of a miscommunication? 

Managing money is one of the aspects of being his parent. 

 

[ramssuperbowl99]

7 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Ooh, am I a legitimate source now?  Great.

As a legitimate source: your analysis is wrong.  Let's break iem all down.  Again.

1. Conservatorship over adoption is extremely damning. And the following paragraph is just straight up not how it works.  At all.  I would love to hear, specifically, what you think this conservatorship allowed them to do for him other than "uh, erm, it helped him in school."

2. Evidence isn't "released" in civil cases where one side is currently asking for an accounting by the other side so they can obtain evidence.

3. I don't know of many instances where someone can unintentionally mislead someone.  Conservatorship is not "basically an adoption," it's "basically something that allows us to have access to your finances."  It's not simpler, it's actually more complicated.

How would something like this happen? I'm dumbfounded that it's just now being caught, and have no idea how something like this could happen in the first place.

You described the process for getting a conservator appointed, it's a massive pain from a documentation standpoint. Presumably, all this documentation exists, along with references?

[Forge]