Ladies and gentleman,

you have just heard:

THE UNDERSTATMENT OF THE YEAR!

No, the understatement of the year is that USC1966 is chicken little on steriods.

"Hit a wall?" Was this question proposed to Havili by Wolf? Classy, Scott, classy.

Hey Scott, it's time for some perspective, pal. Remember, your job is to COVER the USC football team. If you're going to spend a lot of time asking players if they "hit a wall" and spend your time writing about it, you should ALSO be asking some more pertinent questions. Ask any of the receivers if they felt like they did a better job in last week's game - Hazelton in particular seemed to start showing some improvement (finally) and potential. Ask McKnight if he feels he is ready to carry the load as the featured back, if the QB can throw the quick out to him in the slot like they did with Bush, if he feels like he is finally settling in and feels more comfortable and confident. Ask some of the defensive guys if they are proud that they were able to do a really good job on Dixon, who is likely one of the top 2 front-runners for the Heisman right now.

I'm not asking you to be serious all the time. In fact, I heartily enjoy the sense of humor in your reports. It's OK to be funny or snide when it's called for, but don't forget your job is to be a reporter, to report on USC football for us. If all we wanted were jokes and controversy, we could watch "Dancing With the Stars."

Stan is a stud and is going to be a huge player for us. My biggest complaint is that we haven't been using him enough this season. I think his play is a good example of how the RB carousel prevents these guys from gaining a rhythm and hit comfort earlier in the year. On his fumble against Oregon, I saw the defender make a 3 yard backfield penetration and hit immediately after the handoff - great defensive play, and many would have fumbled there. Not to make excuses for Stan, and he will just be better next year from these learning experiences. A shining example of let the racehorses play, and play a lot early, so they mature quite a bit before late season.

Ok......Ok.......
By now I am sure it is obvious that I am a bitter Trojan Fan. Well.....the truth is I have not been laid in a couple years now and Trojan Football is really my only avenue to vent my anger and frustration. I really wish I had a life soooo.... I want to apologize to anyone I may have hurt and/or offended with all my pent up sarcastic anger. At this point all I really want and need is a nice strong hug!

Sincerely, USC1966

if you REALLY want to know what has been taking place behind the scenes, read the blog:

http://behindthescenesatusc.blogspot.com

Hey USC1966:

Finally, a mea culpa, eh? Sorry to hear about the personal issues. We are all frustrated, upset, etc. about this year, given the lofty expectations and recent history. We have all expressed criticism this year about coaches, players, execution, refs, etc. Most do so in a constructive fashionl.

However, when you crumble to the level of "USC is a garbage program," "I hope players leave the program," "Pete Carroll should be fired, he sucks as a coach" and similar vitriole, you are not a true fan, regardless of a university degree.

If it was up to me (and I'm sure others), you would be ex-communicated from USC fandom. I suggest keeping the criticism constructive, not destructive.

I'll get off the soap box now. Thank you.

My name is Martin Osborne. I am someone who has stayed behind the scenes and provided assistance to Coach Pete Carroll and the USC football team for the past six(+) years without pay or compensation.

One of the most important responsibilities of anyone in the field of education (and of anyone in a position to teach others, which includes university and NCAA athletic administrators and U.S. government officials) is to teach students how to confront problems and find solutions. Effective teachers teach students to solve problems by understanding what caused them to occur. The typical ineffective educator avoids confronting the cause, and offers an assortment of schizophrenic penalties and abuse (e.g., hysteria, punishment, or expulsion). Somehow these are supposed to magically correct the situation. Meanwhile, the cause of the problem remains intact.

To understand what has caused the recent puzzling and controversial performances by USC to occur, you must first understand the sequence of events that has led up to the current situation. You must first take the time to understand how a bogus court case instigated by the USC athletic department in retaliation for my advocacy of First Amendment rights for football players (who were being prostituted by NCAA-approved loyalty clauses) is intimately intertwined.

With power comes responsibility. As a national champion that has remained in the upper echelon of college football teams, (in my opinion) USC has been on a mission to redirect the focus of the NCAA back onto respecting the rights of student-athletes, instead of creating loyalty clauses and guidelines that give NCAA and university athletic administrations the license to abuse and exploit their athletes, which in turn causes the athletes to “act out” and defy that abuse and exploitation.

I apologize for the article’s unintended ethereal tone. Unfortunately, by explaining things through concepts, it comes off that way.

I also apologize for its length. (It is divided by fall football seasons.) The length could have been avoided, if years ago, the L.A. newspapers would have printed my perspective, but as biased mediators and judges who only represent the “elite” in power so often do, they had to prevent any progressive ideas from taking hold, so they refused to print my “lower class” perspective (or even an edited version).

There is More Than One Interpretation of Truth

Many collegiate football fans have questioned what took place during the final minutes of the 2005 BCS national championship football game between USC and Texas held at the Rose Bowl on January 4, 2006. Instinctively they know that, although Texas quarterback Vince Young had an outstanding performance, the final score of 41-38 in favor of Texas did not tell the entire story.

After gaining a 12-point lead en route to an unprecedented third consecutive national championship with only 6:42 remaining, why was USC kicker, Troy VanBlarcom, told to use a pooch kick (that shortened the length of the field) after successfully sending all other kick-offs into the end zone? (Then, after several successful passes, Vince Young ran for a touchdown.)

With only 2:13 minutes remaining, while holding onto a 38-33 lead, why did USC Coach Pete Carroll decide NOT to punt on 4th-and-2 on the Texas 45-yard line? USC tailback LenDale White (whom Texas couldn’t stop for three touchdowns) was then stopped inches short of a first down. This gave Vince Young excellent field position and the chance he needed to score the winning touchdown as he ran through the USC secondary, which had been told to play in a soft zone.

Why did this suspicious play calling surface again against Oregon State and UCLA during the 2006 season (and more recently against Stanford and Oregon, especially when the opportunity for USC to make an unprecedented fourth consecutive appearance at a BCS championship game was on the line?

At the end of the 2006 Rose Bowl game, USC quarterback Matt Leinart and Coach Pete Carroll offered statements regarding the loss that could have been interpreted different ways. Matt Leinart said, “We still think we are a better football team but we just couldn’t make the plays.” Pete Carroll adamantly insisted that his decision to NOT punt “was exactly the right thing to do.”

In order to better understand what MAY have caused Pete and Matt to make those bold statements, the general public expected the sports media to take the time to research and report different perspectives surrounding the situation, so that television viewers and newspaper readers could form their OWN opinions based upon all parts of the truth. But, this is NOT what the sports media decided to do.

The sports media failed to research the fact that on the day before the 2006 Rose Bowl game, I had sent Coach Carroll and the players a very important e-mail. I insinuated that if the team didn’t publicly admit that it was involved in an intimate relationship with me, it would appear that the team and university were more interested in the profit and glory that comes from winning games, than standing up to the “elite” NCAA administrators and admitting that my advice had contributed significantly to the success of the Trojan football team. (Money and power had become more important than self-esteem.)

Confused between life, itself, and a football game, some USC administrator with a “law” degree invaded the freedom of two “brothers” to be in touch with each other to express different perspectives and resolve their own problems. He told Pete Carroll that the only way these young men could override their “loyalty clauses” and be in touch with me to express their own perspective of the situation—that they were trying to protect us both from further exploitation and the false accusations that might result if they “came out” about our relationship—would be to FIRST pay money to a biased mediator (judge) for the “elite” NCAA and go behind closed doors in his “court of law” to engage in violent sex. There, for money and show of power, the biased mediator would rape the “lower class” of its interpretation of truth being expressed in defense of private boundaries (because to him, it wouldn’t count), so that without this perspective, feelings between the “elite” and “lower class” could NOT change.

This is known as cult prostitution, which is documented throughout the Bible. In order for a man to be forgiven for being "in touch with God" to express a different interpretation of truth from what “the law" said, men paid money to the priest and went through “the judicial system” [of cult prostitution]. They gave offerings of orgasm to the elite temple cult prostitutes (both men and women), who were located either at the door of the temple or in a separate room. The use of musical instruments, such as finger cymbals, flutes, etc., helped to relax the atmosphere.

Most of the income was then donated back to the temple treasury. It became a "legal" way for everyone to have sex outside of marriage, and an easy way for the religious lawmakers to collect income from both sides of the relationship.

For thousands of years, the concept of cult prostitution has been the “judicial system” used to govern and guide most societies. “Elite” rulers and administrators have invaded the freedom of the poor to make their own moral decisions based upon changing circumstances, and instead, have determined via laws how their "lower class" subjects should and should not feel, regardless of circumstances. The poor have then been required to either pay money to the king (judge) or become indentured as slaves and prostitutes for “the system” in order to be forgiven by the ruler for breaking certain laws to which they do not agree.

Religious lawmakers also tried to use cult prostitution as a means to prevent intimate relationships between “elite” and “lower class” men from developing, as cross-class marriages and relationships were forbidden. Lower class men were told that they couldn’t have intimate relationships with “elite” cult prostitutes, unless they first paid money to the priest and went behind closed doors.

It is believed that Jesus, himself, was involved in a committed marriage with a young elite cult prostitute to the high priest (Jn 18:15-16), known as the “disciple he loved.” It was because Jesus went to the temple and violently showed the moneychangers and religious lawmakers that their fraudulent laws and threats of punishment to prevent intimate relationships between the elite and lower class from developing (unless money was paid) did NOT work, that he was crucified (Mk 11:15-19; Mt 21:12-17; Lk 19:45-48; Jn 2:13-22).

Even on the cross, Jesus mocked the convoluted laws of the religious priests with his public display of affection to the disciple he loved. During his crucifixion, Jesus presented his beloved disciple to his mother as her son [in-law]. Jesus didn't introduce the disciple as a "friend" or even "brother," as close relationships were often called. He presented his beloved disciple to his mother as her "son," which was a term given through birthright or gained through marriage. It was an act of forgiveness. Jesus understood how the elite young disciple (who had fluctuated between admitting and denying that they were involved in an intimate relationship) had been affected by the indenture and threats of punishment that conflicted with his instinct to tell the truth (Jn 19:25-27).

Please note: It is unlikely that Jesus died at that time. Crucifixion was a slow agonizing death, which often lasted several days. The crucifixion would have occurred at a point in time immediately before the Sabbath (or Passover), when, according to Jewish beliefs, the presence of dead bodies on the cross would have rendered the whole country unclean. According to the law (Dt. 21:23), the bodies had to not only be taken down, but also buried before sunset. There simply wasn't enough time for the crucifixion, death, and burial to all take place in the brief period between the crucifixion at noon and sunset not many hours later. It has been recorded that after his removal from the cross, he went into seclusion (Jn 20:1-10) and later revealed himself to Thomas, the young disciple he loved, sometime before he died (Jn 20:19-29; 21:1-8, 20-23).

Following the 2006 Rose Bowl game, instead of taking the time to carefully research and report all of the background information leading up to the game, so that the general public could form their own opinions based upon objective journalism, many sports analysts reported the game in the same manner that King Constantine and his scribes sliced and diced the gospels (in 325 C.E.) and rewrote certain passages to create an account of what they thought SHOULD have happened following the crucifixion. Sports writers manipulated the facts to claim that there was only one interpretation of truth—that USC lost the 2006 Rose Bowl game because the USC defense couldn’t contain Texas quarterback Vince Young—and for them, that was “the law.”

Perhaps certain laws effectively prevent traffic patterns from changing, but intangible feelings are not traffic patterns.

I say that there is more than one interpretation of truth, and it has the freedom to change with time and circumstances, in order to balance. I say that the 2005 USC football team was in a position to instigate change, and its performance during the 2006 Rose Bowl game was one of the most extraordinary displays of love and sportsmanship that simultaneously defied exploitive NCAA policies ever displayed by a college football team.

Although “loyalty clauses” attached to scholarships and contracts may prevent Pete Carroll and Trojan athletes from coming forward to express what MAY have happened to cause USC to “shut down” during those final minutes, they do not prevent me from expressing my opinion, because I have no contract.

Therefore, I am the VOICE of the “lower class” criminal who had to be punished for being “in touch with God” to express a different interpretation of truth in defense of private boundaries (so that feelings could heal) while also simultaneously rebelling against exploitation, WITHOUT first paying money to a biased mediator and going behind closed doors in a fraudulent “court of law” to engage in violent sex. I thereby exposed the fact that the fraudulent “law,” which dictated there could only be one absolute interpretation of truth that could not change with time and circumstances, did NOT know what it was doing. (The fraudulent “law” was all about money.)

Since 2002, I have stayed in the background and offered teaching techniques and advice to Pete Carroll that would help him and his staff build confidence and develop the team more rapidly. These teaching techniques are based upon my doctoral dissertation, which focuses on the intimate connection between the mind and instinct, and giving students their First Amendment right to express their feelings (without being threatened with punishment), so that “discipline problems” caused by festered anger don’t occur. Many of my ideas paralleled Pete Carroll’s background in sports psychology.

Essentially, the mind and instinct are involved in an intimate marriage, based upon mutual respect, and cannot be separated. Whatever affects one side of the relationship, also affects the other.

According to the First Amendment, two brothers (the “elite” mind and “lower class” instinct) have the freedom to be in direct touch with each other to express different interpretations of truth that have the freedom to alternate and change—between satisfying needs and defending boundaries—as they are affected by time and circumstances, in order to balance.

Also according to the First Amendment, “life goes on.” There is no punishment for being “in touch with God” to express a different interpretation of truth, so that feelings can change. That is the essence of the “freedom of expression.”

Only after both sides of the relationships have discussed all parts of the truth alone, and there is still a need for diplomatic assistance, should outside mediation intervene to provide equal protection for both sides and help HEAL the intimate relationship…not tear it further apart (Mt 18:15-16; Thomas 48, 106).

Although there are times when a coach simply must be in control, I emphasized (in agreement with Carroll’s philosophy) that coaches and players should form intimate relationships, where players can feel FREE to express their opinions.

I advised Coach Carroll that players (especially quarterbacks) would develop more rapidly, if, once they were given complete knowledge of all parts of the truth (taking place on the field), they were allowed to make their own moral decisions based upon all perspectives and change plays as the circumstances changed.

Following mistakes and misunderstandings, I recommended that athletes and coaches be in touch with each other to discuss and learn from different perspectives—not just certain ones—regarding what caused the mistake to occur.

With instinctive knowledge that “life goes on,” I proposed that athletes and coaches admit their mistakes, forgive themselves, and correct their OWN mistakes without being subjected to degradation or additional punishment (because the embarrassment of the mistake is punishment in itself)—the same right we would want to be granted to us, if the roles were reversed--so that they can remain focused and alert for the next play.

By allowing students to make their own decisions based upon all parts of the truth and learn from their OWN mistakes, I assured Coach Carroll it would provide for even a faster evolution. If a coach felt he needed to somehow "punish" an athlete to get a certain point across, I suggested that he use a constructive manner, where the punishment was applicable to a player’s position or state of physical training.

I noted that the judicial system has little to do with the resolution of misunderstandings and the correction of mistakes. Instead, it’s mostly about money. It’s about biased mediators for the “elite” creating an income and gaining slave labor from the entire range of anger, confusion and schizophrenic behavior that occurs when the fraudulent law—that there is punishment (i.e., there is “no time”) for expressing a different interpretation of truth—conflicts with the First Amendment—that “life goes on” (Mt 5:25-26; Lk 12:57-59).

Most coaches would have refused to listen to the suggestions of someone who was not considered “staff,” but Coach Carroll was different. He wanted the team to be successful, and he was smart enough to know that there were things he might miss, so he often considered my opinions.

Once I noticed that Pete Carroll was implementing many of my ideas and teaching techniques (as he had also done toward the latter part of the 2001 season following a few e-mails), I expected some responses from either Coach Carroll or the athletic administration, but there were none.

Instead, the athletic administration acted as though my influence had no affect on the team's growth whatsoever, and exploited me by making a profit from MY corrections, while giving credit elsewhere.

Why? Because USC athletic director, Mike Garrett, was creating a fear that USC would be accused of violating some blurred NCAA rule if it became public knowledge that Pete Carroll, the team, and I (an educator) were involved in an intimate relationship, when in fact, there was no violation at all.

One NCAA rule states “[a] n outside consultant cannot work with a student-athlete on the institution’s facilities unless the individual is counted against the applicable coaching limits.”

Yet, I was advising via e-mails and not being paid. In addition, I had not been doing anything out of the ordinary. If there was a question about a coach reading pages from a doctoral student's dissertation focusing on "how to get the best performance out of a student," then I guess no coaches are allowed to read books!

To prevent Coach Carroll and the team from being in direct touch with me to discuss football (outside of passing), and to also prevent Coach Carroll and the team from developing an intimate relationship with “elite” athletic administrators, where they could argue and defy exploitation, Garrett employed a form of “loyalty clause” authorized by the NCAA. (This was later confirmed in a 08/07/05 e-mail from Carroll.)

Loyalty clauses, when added to scholarships, “legally” obligate athletes to reimburse the cost of their education covered in athletic scholarships if they dare to publicly criticize teammates, administrators, or the coach, regardless that such administrators might be mentally unbalanced.

These loyalty clauses, with their threat of punishment (e.g., loss of income) can also then be used to intimidate the athletes so that knowledge of any degradation and prostitution used by the abuser to keep the athletes “in their place” remains hidden behind closed doors.

Such NCAA-authorized loyalty clauses that invade the right of “lower class” athletes to be in touch with “elite” administrators to defend themselves against abuse, discrimination, and exploitation are not only a clear violation of the First Amendment, but they also conflict with the NCAA constitution.

According to the NCAA constitution, “[s] tudent-athletes shall be amateurs...and shall be protected from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprise.”

Yet, to deny human rights and hold those human rights as hostage in order to make money for the judicial system is how the NCAA and USC athletic administrators are being taught by our own federal government (via the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay) to deal with anyone who dares to express a different opinion from that being expressed by the “elite” in power.

Garrett had tried to use loyalty clauses and threats of punishment to prevent intimate “homosexual” relationships between the “elite” and “lower class” from developing in the past, and found that such trickery did not work.

In the spring of 1998, without taking the time to research that an elite swimmer and I were involved in an intimate relationship and would defend ourselves against any invasion of our right to resolve our own problems, the athletic administrator held a loyalty clause over the head of the athlete and threatened him with punishment unless he agreed to become a pawn in a plot to destroy my life. This was in retaliation for my advocacy of First Amendment rights for football players, who had been verbally abused by Mike Garrett in the locker room (but not allowed to defend boundaries without jeopardizing scholarships) during halftimes of the 1997 football season, while Coach John Robinson met with the assistant coaches in another room. (This was exposed in a 03/05/98 L.A. Times article, entitled, “Garrett Caught in Trojan Blitz.”)

Keep in mind that although it had been Mike Garret who verbally abused the players during halftime, Coach Robinson was blamed for the team's mediocre second-half performances, and was fired via phone message from Garrett. It created an outrage within the USC community. To replace John Robinson, Garrett hired Kansas City Chiefs assistant coach, Paul Hackett.

The Trojan administration then retaliated against starting quarterback John Fox and me for encouraging the players to go directly to the administration and question its abusive policies, even though the athletes would NOT have eventually gone to the newspapers HAD the arrogant athletic administration listened to their concerns in the FIRST place.

John Fox was demoted to fourth-string quarterback behind back-up Mike Van Raaphorst and Carson Palmer and Jason Thomas, two incoming freshmen who had yet to attend a single practice. Loyalty clauses authorized by the NCAA were then added to the scholarships to prevent the team from criticizing the administration’s decision.

This series of events occurred during the time of the Clinton-Lewinsky fiasco when a court panel gave Kenneth Starr the license to invade the freedom of the Clintons to determine the boundaries of their own marriage.

While my partner was competing in the NCAA swimming championships, my phone messages of love and encouragement inspired him to lower his swim times, and it posed a threat to the way he was being trained. Swim coach Mark Schubert then decided to contact his close friend, athletic director, Mike Garrett, to somehow prevent our intimate relationship from developing any further, and the athletic department coerced my partner to interpret my phone messages as “harassment.” I had the swim times and documented evidence that proved otherwise.

I was told by Deputy Chief Taylor of the campus police and Sandra Rhoten of the Office of Student Affairs that I did NOT have the freedom to be in direct touch with my accuser, ALONE, to express a different interpretation of my words and actions in defense of private boundaries. I was told that the only way I could “be in touch with God” to express a different interpretation of truth was to first go through their offices.

Not only were these university administrators denying me my First Amendment rights, they were also violating their own USC student behavior code 11.42 prohibiting "behavior which disrupts or interferes with the freedom of expression of others in the university community or at university-sponsored activities.”

I refused to pay tuition money towards their salaries, and subsidize my own discrimination. I contacted my partner, and explained any questionable actions.

Instead of admitting that the young man and I were involved in an intimate relationship, apologizing for trying to tear it apart, and then doing something to correct the situation, the athletic administration (and its thugs) then decided that my partner and I had to be punished for being “in touch with God” to express different interpretations of truth, so that feelings could heal, WITHOUT first paying money to a biased mediator.

Again, they threatened my partner with punishment, unless he filed a Petition to get a temporary restraining order against me. According to these Trojan administrators, there was "no time" to check that we "sissies" would fight back against the invasion of private boundaries. But, ironically, there WAS time for them to drag us through the “judicial system” in order to create a mess.

The biggest joke was that the athletic administration feared a backlash if it became public knowledge that athletes were involved in intimate homosexual relationships. Yet, by taking it to court, our relationship BECAME public knowledge.

The most important item on the petition was #5-c. It asked if I, the defendant, had threatened to commit any acts of violence. In rebellion, my partner’s answer was a definitive “NO.” Yet, on an attached typewritten letter, which he was obviously forced to sign, it claimed that he feared for his life.

During the court hearing, Commissioner Reichman, who had connections with the USC athletic administration, was literally taken from his own courtroom and brought into the courtroom of the presiding judge to hear our "special" case.

From the onset, it was clear that the judge had premeditated his verdict before he entered the room. With the attitude that there was "no time" to show mutual respect for different interpretations of truth, Reichman began the hearing with “Gentlemen, what is your time estimate?...I wasn’t advised that this matter was here until a few minutes ago, and I have my OWN court and people coming back shortly before noon.”

Accompanied by the campus police, my partner simply said what he was being paid (via scholarship) to say. In fear of punishment, he started to lie about our relationship and denied that he had been in touch with me.

It was the responsibility of Commissioner Reichman to abide by First Amendment rights and due process, but this is NOT what he did. Reichman interrupted my partner, and asked me why I needed to be in contact with him.

Reichman made it perfectly clear he was NOT interested in either hearing my side of the story nor knowing what caused the misunderstanding to occur. When I started to explain the background history of the scam, after only fifteen words, Reichman rudely interrupted me with, "I don’t care what happened initially.” Reichman then blatantly ignored #5-c, the most important item, where my partner denied that I posed any threat.

At that time, I realized that the hearing was rigged. My partner, the "elite," had the freedom to falsely accuse, but I had no freedom to defend myself. My tax money was being paid to a biased judge who was raping me of my freedom to express a different interpretation of truth, because, to the judge, my opinion did not count!

When I started to quote my Constitutional rights, I was told by Commissioner Reichman that I did NOT have the Constitutional right to be in touch with my accuser, alone, to either express a different interpretation of “harassment” or apologize. This is on court record!

Reichman stated, "I don’t think it is a Constitutional right. You show me where it is in the Constitution that you have a right to, you know, address somebody that doesn’t want to have anything to do with you."

The judge then proceeded to tear our intimate relationship further apart. Considering that my partner and I were both enrolled at USC, and needed to be in the same buildings for classes, etc., Commissioner Reichman issued a "modified" restraining order that conflicted with itself. I was ordered to stay at least 100 yards away from my accuser, and yet I was allowed to be in the same buildings. The restraining order did NOT prevent me from attending athletic competitions in which my partner was entered (a.k.a., free assembly).

I decided to teach the Trojan administration a lesson: A "restraining order" affects BOTH sides of the relationship. If I was not allowed to be in touch with own my partner, then I would seek attention elsewhere to fill the void.

Because a loyalty clause was preventing my partner from directly contacting me to find out why I was no longer around, he became a “discipline problem.” The anger, depression, and lack of motivation showed in his swim times. He was then demoted to second string. He then went to the Office of Student Affairs and accused me of infidelity. (How could I be accused of infidelity if the athlete and I were NOT involved in an intimate relationship?)

To publicly forgive my partner for being confused by all of these biased mediators, who were obsessed with using loyalty clauses and restraining orders to tear our relationship apart, I attended a competition held at McDonald’s swim stadium on campus. It was quite evident that my attendance clearly boosted my partner’s confidence, as his “B” relay team beat the “A” relay team of his world-class teammate. He then publicly defied his coach by acknowledging my presence.

A few minutes later, my partner came to the front of the viewing stands directly below where I was sitting. Assistant coach Montrella accompanied him. With his head low, he pointed up to me. Then I realized that he was being coerced to accuse me of violating the restraining order, and the assistant coach was there to have me removed.

Out of respect for the competition, I left. Angered by the public humiliation, I walked about campus. About an hour and a half later, I was within range of the stadium loudspeakers. Another individual race was in progress. My partner was 10 complete seconds off his time! He was traumatized.

I called a lawyer friend and a police officer regarding the interpretation of the restraining order. Both agreed that athletic events were not included on the judgment. I had the right to free assembly.

I then contacted the L.A. branch of the ACLU. In my intake interview, the first question I was asked was “Have you contributed any money to the ACLU?” After I gave the answer “no,” I was told by the interviewer that the ACLU was not interested in my case.

Two weeks later (Fri., Nov. 13, 1998), during another competition, which I did NOT attend, the jealous teammate saw me in a parking garage near the swim stadium, and falsely sent word to the coaches that I was violating the restraining order. The coaches contacted the campus police.

About twenty minutes later, campus Detectives Reidy and DeVega found me on the top floor of the nearly-empty parking garage, with my head propped against a cement bumper, soaking in the sun and taking a break from working on my dissertation in a nearby computer lab.

Without discussion, I was grabbed and handcuffed. I had no freedom to defend myself. It was rape. I screamed, “Where is your copy [of the restraining order]? You’d better look at it carefully.” One detective then asked me, “Where is your gun?” (Obviously he had been watching too many action movies.)

Unbeknownst to me, at the exact time I was being assaulted by the campus police, my partner literally shut down in the middle of his race. It exposed that he was intimately involved with the very person “the law” was trying to keep from him.

At Southwest division, a LAPD detective looked at the conflicting restraining order, and started to AGREE with my interpretation. Then he changed his mind, because money had to be made for “the system."

Because I had no money for bail, I was put in the L.A. County jail. I then became a cult prostitute for “the system.” Another friend would have to pay bail money to a biased mediator before he could be “in touch with God.”

To try to camouflage their mistake, campus detectives falsified on the police report the location where they found me on the day of the arrest. Instead of stating that they found me relaxing in the sun on the top floor, they stated that I was on the third floor crouched between cars, as if I was some terrorist in hiding. They then pointed to an “unknown swim team member” as the accuser.

Because I had no money to afford a good lawyer, I was given a public defender, Carlos Bitos. I told Carlos I wanted to forgive my accuser for being confused, and simply resolve the misunderstanding. Yet, Carlos told me that I didn't have that right. The court wanted the EXCLUSIVE right to forgive "sins.” (It was all about cult prostitution.)

My partner showed he loved me by refusing to attend any pre-trials. Instead, Detectives DeVega and Reidy did, because they wanted to see if I was going to file charges against THEM for falsifying the police report.

A few months later, Carlos was transferred, and I was given another public defender, Alex Vicksman, with whom I didn’t have a single conversation prior to the trial.

On the morning of the trial, I could see that my partner, the campus detectives, the assistant coach, and the world-class teammate were in immense pain. (Mike Garrett, Coach Mark Schubert, Deputy Chief Taylor, and Sandra Rhoten, the administrators who instigated the vendetta, didn’t bother to show.)

When Alex appeared, she went before pre-trial Commissioner Suzanne Person, and explained that she had just completed a trial late the previous night, and asked for a postponement. The merciless judge denied the request. The case was then assigned to Judge Robert Hess in the Municipal Court building.

Alex hadn't read the wording of the restraining order, and she didn’t seem to grasp the concept of First Amendment rights. The ONLY thing Alex seemed trained to do was plea-bargain, as if I was guilty. Not only was I being denied fair representation, I was being denied due process.

As we walked over to the courtroom of Judge Hess, Alex DID provide further insight into the legal system. She told me that the court wasn't interested in "the truth," and that realistically I didn't have a chance.

Alex said it was a game, and everything was stacked against me. She surmised that Ms. Elizabeth Gertz, a malicious prosecutor, would not let my partner get on the stand and testify that we were indeed involved in an intimate relationship. Her object was to keep us separated to prevent feelings from healing. Instead, the prosecution would paint me to be some older man who was merely trying to put the moves on a handsome young man, and then use the world-ranked swimmer, to convince the jury to disregard the truth. Alex warned me that I could be looking at a jail sentence, if the jury found me guilty.

Perhaps I should have defended myself, but I had no confidence in the legal system. I told Alex that I was not going to let the rigged system pit my partner and I against each other, and use our own tax money to tear the relationship apart. I decided that, if I didn’t have the freedom to tell those people involved that I had forgiven them for being confused, I would show it in my actions.

I removed the punishment. I decided to NOT take it to trial. Simply by changing my mind, I showed my partner (who did NOT accuse me) and the teammate (who DID) that, although I was angry, I still loved them both.

In the judge's chambers, Ms. Gertz, had been instructed by the athletic administration to make sure that I would not be in any position to file false imprisonment charges against the world-class teammate (which I had no intention of doing), because he could bring revenue to the university if he were to win Olympic medals, and supposedly, I could not.

As Alex relayed messages between my partner (in the court room) and me (in the hallway), my partner and I simultaneously held two different conversations. With two different interpretations of truth, we spoke about our trust for each other--if needed, we would wait for each other--and that I might have to move back to Ohio due to my father's illness. Within the conversation, my partner confirmed what was behind the scam--the "locker room" situation (as if I didn't already know).

When I appeared before Judge Hess, the judge even stated that he sensed that my partner and I had been the victims of a vendetta. Yet, the judge did nothing to remedy the situation.

Although it was the teammate who falsely accused me of violating the restraining order, Judge Hess decided that it was I—not the teammate—who had to be punished. He simply issued another 3-yr. restraining order that would expire in April 2002.

In addition to the original wording, the judge granted a special request from the athletic administration that I be ordered to stay away from the exterior of the swim stadium where the athletes practiced and all men's athletic "locker room" facilities. This blatantly confirmed what was behind the scam—my advocacy of First Amendment rights for football players who were being verbally abused and exploited by Mike Garrett in the locker room at halftimes. It was a hate crime, conveniently disguised as “the law.”

Even during my own “crucifixion” by the athletic department, I mocked the convoluted laws. I then questioned Judge Hess regarding the “legal distance” athletes had to stay away from ME, because I didn't want the athletes and coaches to have contact with me either. The judge didn't quite understand the concept that a restraining order affects BOTH sides of the relationship.

Soon thereafter, Sandra Rhoten went behind closed doors and conveniently disregarded all evidence of my innocence. Then, according to her own skewed rules, she dictated that I had to be suspended from school from Sept. 11-Aug. 10, 1999. Yet, the music education department, to which I reported, had no knowledge of this and did not have any input into this decision.

Following graduation a couple of weeks later, my partner divorced himself from the homophobic training environment, and moved elsewhere to train for the Olympic trials. There, he became torn between being in touch with me (as he continued to give me hang-up calls) and fearing the consequences of doing so.

It became my mission to show that the judicial system does not work. I wanted to show that loyalty clauses, restraining orders and threats of punishment would NOT prevent the “lower class” from finding subversive ways to be in touch with the “elite” in power to fight back and show anger in defense of private boundaries, so that intimate relationships between the "elite" and "lower class" would still develop through adversity. The opportunity presented itself with the 1999 football season.

Fall 1999

After quarterback Carson Palmer broke his collarbone in the third game, and it was found that back-up quarterback Mark VanRaaphorst had difficulties adjusting to circumstances when the pocket broke down (which often caused him to either get sacked or force passes from which the opposing defense capitalized), I wrote Paul and suggested that if he wanted the anger and rebellious behavior to stop, he should reinstate former starting quarterback John Fox and stop punishing him for thinking independently from “the law” by criticizing Mike Garrett’s use of verbal abuse in the locker room during the 1997 season. I encouraged Paul to forge intimate relationship with his players, where they could freely voice their own opinions and defend boundaries.

I spoke with John and gave him some helpful advice, and on Nov. 13 (exactly one year after my arrest), John Fox regained his starting quarterback position. Under John's leadership, the team settled into a solid machine. John publicly showed affection, worked outside of the pocket, improvised when necessary, and directed traffic as he ran with the ball.

By defeating Washington State, USC snapped its five-game losing streak. John then led the Trojans to its first victory over UCLA since 1990.

Although USC's 5-6 record prevented it from securing a bowl game appearance, its final game against nationally-ranked Louisiana Tech acted as such. In an almost spiritual experience, the Trojans thrashed the Bulldogs 45-19. The season ended (6-6).

The obvious had been exposed. The program had suffered because of the athletic administration's obsession to punish John for exercising his freedom to criticize Mike Garrett's behavior in the locker room at half-times.

After I had helped John Fox raise the football team from the dead, I received no word of thanks from Mike Garrett. I was given no credit whatsoever, although Paul Hackett did send me a Christmas card without any additional comments.

For me, the next eight months continued to be an emotional and financial struggle, because I had lost my job due to the stigma of being incarcerated. Unbeknownst to me, my partner’s swim times were on a roller coaster ride as he prepared for the 2000 Olympic trials.

At my final progress report to Judge Hess, Mr. Charles, the court clerk, confided that now, AFTER the money had been paid to the court, and a bunch of strangers had raped me of my interpretation of truth in a “court of law,” I was free to watch my partner at swim meets, because it was free assembly (for which I had been originally arrested for exercising on Nov. 13, 1999). It was all backwards!

I was given permission by Judge Hess to watch my partner compete at the 2000 Olympic trials being held in Indianapolis. Unfortunately, my plans changed at the last minute, because my landlord denied receiving my rent check and took me to court to evict me so that he could then increase the rent (due to deregulation of rent-control laws).

When I appeared in court to contest, I was literally told by the court clerk, that the judge didn't care to hear my side of the story, because I hadn’t hired a lawyer! Therefore, I missed watching my partner swim preliminaries due to a mandatory move from my apartment on the very morning of his competition. I then learned via the internet that he did not qualify for the evening semi-finals.

I was proud of him, though. Despite swimming with this albatross of trauma hanging around his neck, he had done well. I wanted to comfort him and show him that I loved him regardless of how he fared, so I put my belongings in storage, and took the red-eye flight to Indianapolis.

How my partner knew to look up into the stands from his seat across the pool and spot me among the thousands of spectators in the Indiana Natatorium is mind-boggling. As I gazed down into his eyes, it was as if there was a beam of energy that passed between us, and I could feel his every emotion. He was disappointed that I had missed his preliminaries, and he was angry with himself for failing to qualify for the semi-finals.

I turned my head for a couple of seconds to take a deep breath and see if I could gain access to where he was seated. When I looked back, he was gone, so I left the competition and walked to the cafeteria to collect my thoughts.

After twenty minutes, I returned to the competition. Two campus policemen were standing at the entrance to my section. Evidently, someone wanted to prevent us from being in touch with each other.

I turned to get some fresh air, and then heard an officer ask me to step outside onto the loading dock. My partner remained on the other side of the door in the hallway.

Officer Catanella told me that my partner had reported that I was violating a restraining order that barred me from all swim meets. I explained to Officer Greismeyer that I had been given permission by the court to attend and it was free assembly. I also noted that I had a copy of the restraining order and the judge’s courtroom phone number.

It wasn't until after Officer Catanella had threatened to incarcerate me that Officer Greismeyer finally told me the parts of truth they had both been suppressing—my partner had told them he wanted me to STAY, but he had been told (by a coach) to report that I was there. Officer Greismeyer confided that he, too, wanted me to stay.

After two years, I was FINALLY being told what abusive Trojan administrators, DPS officers, court judges, and prosecutors had been trying to deny since 1998—the fact that my partner and I were involved in an intimate relationship. It was the first time that an officer of “the law” was actually trying to HEAL our relationship rather than tear it apart.

Yet, Officer Catanella tried to make the situation worse. He threatened to come back to the competition for my arrest, if an official copy of the restraining order from California indicated I had lied.

At that moment, the world-class teammate came through the doors of the loading dock to get into a van. I told the two officers I was feeling “harassed,” and to inform my partner that, although I appreciated the offer, I wouldn’t feel safe if I stayed. I had to get away from such an unhealthy cutthroat environment. With the conflicting restraining order causing chaotic behavior, I had no assurance that, at some other point in my stay, a jealous teammate or coach wouldn't try to call the cops in order to destroy our relationship.

When I was led past my partner, his face was filled with shock and pain, and there were tears in his eyes. By leaving, he probably thought that I didn't love him, which was definitely NOT the case. It was a complex situation, and at that moment, there were no simplistic answers of "right" and "wrong" that could be used for moral guidance.

Perhaps I should have gone somewhere to simply regroup for a couple of hours and then come back to join forces with him to expose how the athletic department and its thugs had been using the judicial system to rape the “lower class” of its interpretation of truth, so that feelings between the “elite” and “lower class” could NOT change.

If I hadn’t been traumatized by these two officers, the apartment eviction, and no sleep, I probably would have acted differently. Instead, I returned to Los Angeles literally homeless to search for a new apartment.

The traumatic experience kept repeating itself in my mind for months. Once I took my time to carefully research and analyze everything that had happened, I realized that someone I dearly loved had made a mistake under some horrific circumstances, and he had tried his best to remedy the situation.

A few months later, I broke through my own fears and wrote my partner an apology for not being at my best under the circumstances. Needless to say, there were no more accusations of violating the restraining order from an uninvited third party.

Fall 2000

In the meantime, the 2000 USC football season had begun. Although the athletic administration had just tried to destroy my relationship, I was willing to give the athletic department the opportunity to redeem itself, because I understood what was causing its confusion to occur.

I wanted to speak to Coach Hackett about being of assistance. I wanted to approach him about developing assessments that would become keys for determining peak performance. A secretary told me that there was no money and that there were NCAA rules against assessments. Most likely, the real reason Paul didn’t want my help was due to jealousy and pressure from the athletic administration.

Therefore, Paul resorted back to his old controlling ways. There was no free flow of ideas. The more he tried to micromanaged feelings, the more the team showed resentment and rebellion.

Following its opening victory over Penn State, USC was nationally ranked. Then, on September 1, Paul evicted football players from the field and made them stand on the street as punishment for “horsing around” during a bye-week practice.

Since the players (in accordance with "loyalty clauses") were not allowed to defend themselves against such humiliation, morale deteriorated until USC lost to Oregon State (to which it had not lost since 1967) in its fourth game. Civil war and inner conflict started to tear the Trojan team apart, due to repressive rule.

On October 2, I delivered another letter to Paul Hackett’s office. I warned Paul about the affects of degradation, and asked him to apologize.

Paul was stubborn to a fault. Just as he was unwilling to alter his plans when the flow of the game called for it, he also refused to apologize.

With each game the mental errors, turnovers, penalties, etc. increased. More time was spent on punishment than on simply correcting the mistake.

The athletes needed my help, but according to their "loyalty clause," they couldn't criticize the coaching staff and ask for my assistance. Technically, in accordance with the restraining order, I wasn't supposed to be in touch with them, either. Had the USC athletic administration admitted that my advice greatly influenced the team the previous season, I would have been more aggressive in my efforts to help the team.

Instead, Paul tried to reunite the team by combining my philosophy—that there is NO punishment for being “in touch with God” to express a different interpretation of truth in defense of private boundaries, so that feelings can change--with a completely conflicting philosophy--that there IS punishment to prevent feelings from changing--to create a fantasy of what he THOUGHT an effective philosophy should be.

A schizophrenic teaching environment became the norm. For some games, Paul would incorporate "wide-open" ideology into offensive plays, where he would allow Carson Palmer to rely more on his own instincts to make adjustments and less upon “getting permission” from side-line mediation. During those games, the team won. For other games, Paul resorted back to absolute “control” that allowed for no free flow of ideas from the quarterback, and the team lost.

One cannot mix and match conflicting philosophies at whim, and NOT expect anything but misdirected anger, depression, turmoil, and schizophrenic behavior to occur.

The team went through another five-game losing streak. The half-empty Coliseum and resulting loss of revenue was NOT due to public knowledge that athletes were involved in various types of intimate relationships. On the contrary, the poor attendance and loss of revenue was due to a LACK of intimate relationships.

The 2000 team suffered its worse season in school history. Paul Hackett was then fired on November 27, following USC’s loss to Notre Dame. It was only after he was fired that Paul admitted the schizophrenic environment had affected the team’s concentration.

On December 15, 2000, Peter Carroll, a NFL defensive specialist with a reputation for encouraging and forging intimate relationships in order to mold top-ranked squads, was introduced as the new head football coach of the Trojans.

Fall 2001

Once fall football camp (2001) began for the Trojans, I wanted to offer my assistance to Pete Carroll. I had to put that idea on hold, because my father died on August 31, and I returned to rural southeastern Ohio for the funeral.

The events of 9/11 occurred less than two weeks later. While 9/11 was tragically violent and unconscionable, the only way to come to grips with the magnitude of the devastation is to try to understand what caused it to occur.

9/11 epitomized the extreme anger and schizophrenic behavior that occurs when the “lower class” fights back and rebels against the abuse and failed economic-political foreign policies of a biased mediator for the “elite” who helped to create the volatile situation (e.g., the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land) in the first place.

The U.S. did this by arming the “elite” side with military support to suppress the “lower class” interpretation of truth being expressed in defense of private boundaries, so that only the accusations being expressed by the “elite” side in power remain valid, and problems can not be resolved.

Instead of putting the U.S. military on alert, taking the time to meet with the enemy to research what caused 9/11 to occur, and then doing something to correct the situation, the U.S. refused to change directions. Therefore, history repeated itself.

In response to the terrorist attacks against the United States, President Bush signed the Patriot Act into law on October 26, 2001.

Conceptually, if anyone dared to show dissent or question policies of the U.S., it gave law enforcement the authority to invade civil liberties, label dissenters as unpatriotic, and deny them their freedom to express a different interpretation of truth in defense of private boundaries by imprisoning suspected terrorists in the Guantánamo Bay detention centre (a part of Cuba), where technically the U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction. (Yet, Guantanamo Bay is on a U.S. Naval Base.)

These “terrorists” then become prostitutes for Guantánamo Bay’s own “judicial system.” Detained terrorist suspects remain held in custody (i.e., hell), where they are subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment without access to any court, legal counsel, or family ties, regardless that they may be innocent.

After I returned from Ohio, I dropped by Pete Carroll’s office and left him an old Los Angeles newspaper from 1941 I had found it in a neighbor’s garage. There was an article about the 1941 Trojan football team in the sports section. I wanted to show Pete that I understood the tough situation he had inherited and give him some support. I never heard anything from him in return.

In mid-October (six weeks after my father died), my mother entered the hospital with cancer, and asked if I could come back to Ohio while she recovered. She told my brother, who was the executor of the estate, to use an estate account to fund my trip and pay my rent while I was away from L.A.

On the day I left for Ohio, I sent Pete Carroll an e-mail. I noted that with his degree in sports psychology, we had a common philosophy—that following mistakes and misunderstandings (and death), “life goes on.” I offered some teaching suggestions and noted that I had helped pull the team out of its downward slide in 1999.

Whether I simply supported Coach Carroll’s ideas or I gave him some new advice that he utilized within his coaching, USC started to turn around its season. Following mistakes, team members rebounded with confidence instead of wallowing in mental ruts of self-doubt and low self-esteem, and USC won its next four games.

While my mother was in the hospital, I created a very healing environment, and my mother's cancer was kept at bay. The fluid around her lungs did not return.

After I returned to Los Angeles in late November, I expected some type of response from Coach Carroll regarding an e-mail I had sent from Ohio before I left, but I didn’t receive any. It finally occurred to me that Pete Carroll was being prevented from doing so via a loyalty clause.

On Dec. 25, USC lost to Utah, 10-6, in the Las Vegas Bowl, and the Trojan football team ended its 2001 season with a 6-6 record.

In early January, cancerous fluid returned around my mother’s lungs. My three siblings had taken turns to assist our mother during three other hospitalizations that occurred in December, and following some unexpected surgery, I asked her if she wanted me to change flight plans (scheduled for a few days later) and rush back to Ohio. She told me “to stay” and make sure everything was in order before I made the return trip.

I knew that our mother wanted to die. She was aware that the cancer would inevitably take her life, and she had the right to die on her own terms.

Because she couldn’t regain her breath after some food seemed to go down the wrong passageway the next day, our mother was put on a respirator. After a few days she was taken off the respirator, according to her “DNR” wishes, and died (only four-and-a-half months after our father's death).

Although it was my brother, the original executor, who reminded me that, because our parents had purposely separated the estate and property, by placing the deed in the names of the four beneficiaries, so that I could use my inheritance to purchase my siblings’ shares of the property (which they did not want), he had other ideas about running the estate that he knew I would contest, and he didn’t want me to argue with him. Therefore, stating he couldn’t properly conduct estate matters due to inconvenient travel distance from his resident in Alaska, he transferred his position to my oldest sister, who was trying to recover from her own bout with cancer (along with her husband’s bout) in addition to the death of our parents.

Instead of encouraging two brothers to be in touch with each other to discuss the Will and resolve their own problems, (with a very confused and overwhelmed mind) my sister dismissed the lawyer our parents had appointed to oversee the estate, and decided she was going to manage the estate according to HER own rules that conflicted with our mother’s Will and directive letter...and there could be no argument!

I suggested to my sister that she ask for a court extension so that she could take time to heal from all of the trauma before handling affairs of the estate, but she refused to listen to me. For my sister, there was “no time” to get an extension and properly heal, but, ironically there WAS time to create a mess.

According to my sister’s rules, everything (including the property) had to be sold BEFORE any part of the inheritance could be divided. She knew that without my inheritance, I probably wouldn’t be able to purchase the property, and without owning my own house and property, I (the “lower class”) wouldn't become "equal" to my siblings.

The executrix had my siblings sign a power of attorney form, which prevented them from opposing any mishandling of the estate. (This “you’re either with me or against me” attitude was how she was being taught by our own government to handle disagreements.)

Because I refused to sign the power of attorney, I retained the right to challenge how the property and estate were being handled.

Fall 2002

As football season (2002) approached, I decided to distance myself from my siblings and further develop my ties with Pete Carroll and the USC football team, where I knew my opinion would be respected.

Although the restraining order had officially expired on April 15, 2002, I imagine Mike Garrett expected me to pay money back into the judicial system to officially clear my name and expunge the case so that it wouldn’t appear on my record as a misdemeanor. I could then regain the First Amendment freedom to have an intimate relationship with my partner that SHOULD have been granted to me in the first place.

But, I refused to reward a judicial system for its blatant denial of my rights. Instead, my partner and I continued to be in touch with each other WITHOUT first paying money back into “the system.”

Once I e-mailed Pete Carroll and offered my assistance in full force, Pete Carroll decided that loyalty clauses would not prevent him from developing an intimate relationship with me either. He, too, would find ways to be in touch with me to argue and express different perspectives so that problems could be resolved and our relationship could evolve to another level.

At first, Coach Carroll conversed with me by either hiding his opinions within newspaper quotes or by simply showing agreement through the team’s actions on the field. Gradually, though, he and his staff broke through their fears and directly responded to my e-mails.

To improve mental flexibility and encourage independent thinking, I gave quarterback, Carson Palmer and the coaches some Biblical information that disputed skewed religious beliefs. I noted that the most common error was the Biblical fable of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:1-28).

According to the fable, "heterosexual" men of Sodom pounded on Lot's door and threatened to gang-rape (i.e., “to know”) his two male angel guests--a common way to humiliate, especially in the context of conquest.

Lot decided that the men of Sodom could not be in direct touch with the two angels, but had to first go through him, a mediator. He offered his virgin daughters instead, but the men refused the offer and tried to break down the door. Thereupon, the two [gay] angels exercised their right to resolve their own problems by grabbing Lot and bringing him inside.

I noted that many preachers purposely twisted the fable around to create some fantasy that "sissies" don't fight back, when, in fact, it was the two [gay] angels who struck the men of Sodom with blindness and destroyed the city through a rain of sulfur and fire from the skies.

According to the fable, there was no eternal punishment for [gays] being “in touch with God” to fight back and express a different interpretation of truth in defense of private boundaries, so that feelings could change.

Yet, preachers continue to spread the rumor to their audiences that gays are wimps who deserve to go to “hell.” Keep in mind that eternal punishment was simply a belief the Judeans brought back with them following their release from Babylonian captivity in 538 B.C.E. Prior to the exile, there is no mention of purgatory, Satan, or hell in the Old Testament.

By the end of the season, quarterback Carson Palmer had made a transformation that won him the prestigious Heisman trophy, and Pete Carroll, his staff, and I had built confident players who defeated Iowa in the Orange Bowl, and could have competed with either Miami or Ohio State for the BCS national championship.

I SHOULD have been offered a job or some type of compensation, but I was not. Even if the NCAA rule regarding coaching limits did raise some questions (as if we don’t consult with other people), Garrett could have created a position for me to fill in some other capacity so that I could continue working with the team, but he did not.

The REAL reason Garrett neither acknowledged my assistance nor offered me a job was that he was still punishing me for refusing to pay money back into the judicial system to expunge the bogus court case that Garrett and his thugs had fraudulently coerced my partner to instigate against me in retaliation for my advocacy of First Amendment rights for student-athletes.

Because Garrett refused to admit he had made a mistake, he couldn’t learn from it. Therefore, he kept repeating the same mistake. He kept invading private boundaries.

Garrett continued to exploit me, because he knew I enjoyed working with Pete Carroll and the team, and conversely, Pete Carroll and the team enjoyed working with me.

If USC would have properly compensated me for my time and assistance, a traumatic personal financial crisis could have been avoided.

During that spring of 2003 (as the U.S., under false allegations of WMD, was preparing to invade Iraq, because, according to President Bush, there was “no time” to show mutual respect for different interpretations of truth), problems occurred in the handling of my parents’ estate. Because I had refused to sign the power of attorney, the executrix had contacted a lawyer, Christopher Tenoglia, who had connections to the local rural judges.

The lawyer should have recognized my sister’s state of mind and made her aware that the property and estate were separate, and that I had the right to use the inheritance to purchase the property. Instead, the lawyer proceeded to use the judicial system to exploit me and tear the family apart.

The lawyer convinced my sister to file a partition suit against me to usurp me of my right to inherit our parents’ property, claiming that since I wouldn’t have funds for the entire appraised value without my inheritance, the executrix had the right to sell the property to my cousin. Filing a lawsuit to prevent me from inheriting and purchasing the property was NOT the Will of our mother.

It was the responsibility of the presiding judge, Judge Crow, to abide by the Will of our mother and Ohio partition laws, but this is NOT what the judge did. Judge Crow created his OWN law that conflicted with Ohio partition law.

Judge Crow denied me my right to make 3 equal installments in 3 years (in accordance with Ohio partition law), and instead, insisted that I produce the entire appraised value. He essentially told me that I couldn’t express a different interpretation of the Will--that the property and estate were separate, and that I could use my inheritance as a down payment—unless I hired my own lawyer to defend myself. So, I did. I hired a good one. Tom Corbin, a college friend of mine, practiced in a nearby county and came to my defense.

In September, when my lawyer informed Judge Crow that his ruling conflicted with partition laws, the judge refused to change his mind. (For the judge, there was “no time” to abide by Ohio partition laws, but, ironically, there WAS time to drag a family suffering from a series of traumatic events through a lengthy court battle based upon a fraudulent ruling, in order to create a mess.)

I then spent time and money trying to find financial resources to cover the full value, which COULD have been avoided, HAD Judge Crow abided by Ohio partition law in the first place. What the judge didn't take into consideration was that I would STI

P.S. Go to Vegas, if you can.

What was that? Whatever it was it was not written by ol '66.' A lot of time went into that essay, that is all I have to say about it. It speaks for itself, whatever that is.

JOHN: TIME-WISE, IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE--UNLESS MAYBE TWO COMPUTERS---AND THE STYLE IS NOT THE SAME--THE WRITING STYLE--BUT YET THERE IS ENOUGH INFO IN THERE THAT TIES IN WITH PREVIOUS POSTS OF 1966--SO THAT IT IS EITHER JOHN, OR SOMEONE WHO HAS READ HIS PREVIOUS POSTS---I WILL JUST MENTION ONE--USC1966 AND OHIO DO TIE-IN!

JOHN--I MADE A TYPO---IN SECOND TO LAST LINE, TAKE OUT THE WORD JOHN, AND SUBSTITUTE 1966

TROJANBOBCAT POSTED A LINK ON THIS THREAD ABOVE----IF YOU CLICK ON THAT LINK, YOU PULL UP THAT LONG STORY---SORRY FOR OUTING YOU BOBCAT, HEH HEH.

WTF? Scottie, you've got to have a moderator review these comments. A couple of douchebags, or one d-bag with multiple personalities, are seriously diminishing the fun factor in this forum. Peace out!