This letter below is patently and blatantly false in it's legal statements, and any attorney who is making these claims, cannot be doing so unintentionally.
Attorneys were intentionally brought into every conversation about abuse and abuse reform. The same attorneys survivors have said for decades, were at the root of every coverup and mishandling.
This is widely known. That's not an accident.
If one truly desires the best counsel on abuse prevention and response, you bring in experts who specialize in the law and abuse policy. You do not bring in the very attorneys at the root of the issues, literally for decades - The very attorneys you were begged not to bring in.
Also note that involving attorneys in all these discussions is a common tactic to ensure that what is said and done can be kept hidden under claims of "privilege". This is standard operating procedure for obfuscation - I see it in nearly every case I've worked on.
In the Nassar case, the MSU Board chair instructed all members to cc attorneys on any communications related to Nassar, specifically to try to keep all their information "privileged" and out of the range of accountability.
This is standard operating procedure for obfuscation.
Given that members who engaged on abuse-related issues were assured of confidentiality and "privilege", it seems clear this reality was not lost on them as they "intentionally involved" the very attorneys who had been deeply involved in the creation of wrong policy and practice.
This letter is itself a clear apologetic for why waiver of privilege and access to all information related to abuse policy and disclosures, is necessary to ensure accurate diagnosis of any problems, and constructive changes moving forward. You can't fix what you won't diagnose.
Messengers and EC members should also be asking if it is really possible that all these dynamics and blatantly wrong legal counsel, could possibly be well-intentioned accidents.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The importance of waiving privilege is a question I get all the time from institutions in crisis - it's an issue in every case I work on.
Here's the bottom-line with waiver - risks and benefits:
The benefit of waiving is huge - because attorneys are usually involved in crafting the policies both for prevention and response, you simply cannot accurately diagnose problems without waiving privilege. You won't have access to all the information.
Not being able to accurately diagnose the problem increases your liability over the long-run because you will keep making mistakes, causing damage, and having responsibility for it. If you want to be a good fiduciary, stop thinking myopically.
And so are the 9 women and girls who allowed their cases to be charged and went through the hell of testifying. Remember them. Because of these women and girls and the only detective and prosecutor who fought for us, we got where we are today.
Remember the over 100 survivors who called the MSU PD to file reports, and the dozen or so who showed up over and over to MSU Board meetings and press interviews for two years.
Remember there are nine of us still acting as court appointed fiduciaries in the bankruptcy process.
July 2015 (FBI report) to Sept 2016 (my report): 15 months.
Over 100 girls and women abused.
Sept 2016 (my report) to Jan 2018 (Larry's sentencing): 16 months.
Put it side by side.
In the time it took the FBI to do nothing except wine and dine with Steve Penny and procure help with a job offer, MSU detectives Andrea Munford and Assistant AG @AngiePovilaitis managed to do the following:
Interview Larry within 24 hours of my coming forward and for the first time find the discrepancies in his story.
Start and follow up an incredibly in-depth Title IX process that immediately removed him from the exam room - something the FBI didn't manage in 15 months...
Let's start talking about the legislative change that the House and Senate are capable of, that would have a direct impact on abuse and abusive systems:
Dramatically rethink and reshape sovereign/qualified immunity.
There are almost no mechanisms to hold law enforcement accountable for corrupt or criminal behavior, much less bring restitution to the victims...
Because SI/QI functions as an almost complete bar to accessing the criminal and civil justice systems. Absent substantial revisions to this doctrine there is no external impetus to do the right thing. This has to change.
Five years gives a lot of clarity. But remember when you read the story that started it all, with today's 20/20 hindsight, what it was like back then...
From '97 to 2015 there were 17 reports about Larry's abuse to MSU. 4 law enforcement agencies/offices also received at least five reports and never investigated. A 5th agency tried to bury the story.
Countless coaches at USAG heard athletes describe the abuse. USAG and USOPC leaders knew at least 4 elites had described abuse.
No one cared, until 5 years ago today, when the @indystar told the truth.
No. It was not @USAGym that raised a stink about anything. It was USAG that sicced private investigators to try to dig up dirt on Jamie Danztscher when she came forward anonymously about Larry, knowing full well she was telling the truth. They even contacted old boyfriends.
It was USAG that never told the FBI about Simone's abuse, and never told Simone about the investigation.
It was USAG that stuffed files on sexually abusive coaches into a file cabinet instead of taking the elevator a few floors down to the CPS office IN THEIR BUILDING.
It was USAG's CEO who asked for help "body slamming the sources" of the IndyStar article.
It was USAG that illegally removed and concealed medical files from the Ranch after I and Jamie came forward.
It was USAG that described investigating abuse as a "witch hunt".