Faculty lawyer files trial brief with response to defense objections

Screen Shot 2019-04-13 at 7.41.32 PM

The lawyer representing the fired tenured faculty in a lawsuit against Ashland University filed a trial brief that also contained responses to the many objections that AU lawyers made on Friday afternoon. Jury selection is set to start on Wednesday.

Read the full document: Plaintiffs’ Trial Brief

If you’ll recall, one of the defense’s objections includes opposition to my potential testimony. The answer to that objection is quite detailed (it starts on page 16). It lays out the explanation for how and why I ultimately showed up on a potential witness list late in the process.

This is what happened: In late December, early January, when I read the deposition of College of Arts and Sciences Dean Dawn Weber, I noticed something that did not seem truthful, at least according to my own experience as a member of the Journalism and Digital Media Department. I found proof of my initial doubt in my email (AU hadn’t yet shut down my account), and so I sent that email thread to the lawyer representing the faculty.

Screen Shot 2019-04-13 at 5.39.42 PM

There are some other interesting responses to objections. One of my favorite involves the objection to including media coverage related to the university’s hiring practices.

This specifically relates to the hiring of Brandon Campo, the son of President Carlos Campo. Brandon Campo is a convicted felon who was ultimately arrested on campus for misdemeanor crimes (he was sentenced to 180 days in the Ashland County Jail). A few weeks after that sentencing, Carlos Campo called Judge John Good, who sentenced Brandon Campo, a “hillbilly judge” in front of Faculty Senate.

“…[T]here should not be special rules adopted for the university simply because the recent media coverage includes embarrassing and detrimental actions by the University and its senior administration,” the filing says. “Embarrassing conduct is not basis a basis for exclusion.”

Screen Shot 2019-04-13 at 11.03.12 AM

Finally, this one is minor, but I just love the last sentence of this argument against the defense’s claim that the court should exclude any comments regarding the background of defense attorneys or the size and resources of the law firm representing AU.

Screen Shot 2019-04-13 at 11.28.42 AM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s