The 74 Page “Court Document” being utilized by Mr. Shaun King, author of the now two articles on New York Daily New reporting sexual assault allegations against Peyton Manning, were ordered to be deleted after a motion from Manning and his co-defendants.
Above is page one of Mr. King’s 74 page document dated 10/15/2003. The case number matches that of the case file we have posted here.
Complete Case Review:
Case # 2002CA002228000000
If you scroll to page 13 of the document to: 10/15/2013 “Facts of the Case”, you see that the image was deleted per court order on 2/6/2004. Scrolling to page 17, you see that indeed on that day, the court ordered the document to be deleted.
Furthermore, on page 18 of 19 you can see that it was the defense that enacted the motion and the judge presiding agreed to delete the very record that Mr. King has obtained.
This leads us to note/infer three things:
- Mr. Manning and his defendants probably would contest the items within those 74 pages.
- A court of law did not feel that those pages warranted being kept in the record of the case.
- There were hundreds of pages of court documents filed after the deleted document, so the document cited by Mr. King is by no means the final say in the case. The 74 page document was 200 out of 252 dockets.
Again, the documents being utilized to demonize Peyton Manning are one sided and do not contain the argument from the defense, but only from the prosecution. Now we know that argument was ordered to be destroyed by the court and judge presiding over this case
Follow @QB_Speak
Link to Case Details
https://pro.polkcountyclerk.net/PRO/PublicSearch/Details/CR-255051#tabs-1
Worst part is, Manning is prohibited from responding in any way, including leaking the documents he filed in response (lest he face another lawsuit by Naughright). Most journalists would not present such a one-sided list of allegations as fact without trying to discover the other side’s story. But Shaun King is not most journalists.
LikeLike
Manning is prohibited from responding because of terms HE AGREED TO in the settlement. And which he promptly broke and had to settle again. I’m not sure what happened that day but I do know the Mannings decided to smear the trainer in a book and have had to write her 2 checks because of it. And the school also had to write a check and their was a third party witness supporting her.
LikeLike
The original case was not against Manning, they were against ut. In fact, the defendant reported to ut 33 cases of sexual misconduct, one of which references the Manning incident. She settled with ut for $300000. Then after the book incident she sued Manning for defamation, to which they settled, since then they agreed to not speak about the incident. And what was said in the book was nothing really, he didn’t eve. Reference her name or go into detail about the incident, his lawyers decided it was better for a millionaire to settle than to fight the issue, and also agree to a none disclosure.
LikeLike