The Blind Side Lie (Oher v. Tuohy)
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 09. 2023
- Was Michael Oher blindsided? 👨💻 Remove personal information off the web with Incogni with code LEGALEAGLE legaleagle.link/incogni ⚖️⚖️⚖️ Get a great lawyer with EagleTeam! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers
⚖ Who do think is right in this case?
👨💻 Remove personal data online with Incogni! legaleagle.link/incogni
Please Do JFK 1991 FILM REVIEW ON IT'S LAW ACCRUCY
Also maybe the FILM Double Jeopardy.
Just saw the part where you said he was 18 when he signed this, but there were no disabilities, so it's a null thing, since he didn't meet the requirements for being a conservatee. I think that solves it right there: it's a void contract, based on Tennessee state law. They're claiming that the conservatorship was just a formality taking his age into account, and they didn't make any money off of him because of it? Ok, then, they can have the judge get rid of the conservatorship, since it doesn't mean anything to them anymore anyway.
@@justrosy5this. Sounds like they blurred the lines of conservatorship and adoption, because in the film, they made Michael seem like he was slow as hell compared to real life Michael. The real issue here is whether they actually behaved like conservators by actually looking after the money and keeping it separate. Also, by being conservators they could dictate he go to their Alma mater. That film deal for the tuohy family borders on how in the Social Network, Zuckerberg screwed Edward out his shares
@philwill0123 dude right. Holy crap.
I would like to hear the family explain why they enforced the conservatorship with his life story but not his NFL career. He's competent enough to manage 8 figures in salary but can't negotiate a movie deal?
Funny how the NCAA investigator was painted as the villain of the movie but it looks like she was completely right
It was a nice little Easter egg for us
NCAA wants to hold the monopoly of young athlete exploitation in the country, that's why they make so much effort to spot it.
I’d love it if a new movie was made telling the real story and they called it “Blindsided”.
@@AstraRuneI see what you did there.
And they made her so nasty she might as well have been wearing devil horns. It’s almost like the Tuohy’s own lawyer wrote that scene
I never saw The Blindside, but I always thought it was weird how the movie marketing and accolades focused way more on Sandra Bullock playing the "mother" rather than the tragic childhood of Michael Oher. He looked like a side character in his own life story and now over a decade later it finally makes sense why
Well the movie is a dramatic representation that makes it look like Sandra is a white savior but he has also spoken about this before, he was already a decently successful player before the involvement of the white saviors, and that he was represented pretty badly.
The movie never sat well with me, and I couldn't place why exactly. Now I know why.
It reeked of White Saviour Syndrome. I've helped a lot of young people through rough patches. Lost count of how many said I improved or saved their lives. That gave me no claim on their future successes. Seems the Touhy family treated this kid like a prop in a story where they were stars and he was a secondary character. 🖖✌
@@AhavaMathWhen I saw the film, it felt like I was watching an inspirational disability movie, but the disability was melanin 💀
Not really that hard to figure out. The why is and has always been movies with white leads do better.
"We're too rich to be crooks" is the opposite of a compelling argument. The crookedest people I know are all also the wealthiest.
You know 'wealthy' people😉
That's how you become wealthy
@@kanedakuyou put the scare quotes on the wrong word. It's wealthy 'people'.
@@kalexander1981 that would be a different joke, you should make it.
That's funny because the richest people I know are the most honest, whilst the homeless and benefit scroungers that I encounter are quite different.
The fact that Oher's side is asking for transparency on the money made during his conservatorship and the Tuohy's seemingly responding with 'nuh uh and also we're offended you even asked' makes me immediately more likely to believe Oher.
Tuohy's side claim "absolutely no money, nothing to report about, well, they got money from the film, and from the book, but it's not millions, it's, like, about five hundred grands that were split on five members of the family, and Oher got his part."
I sorta kinda maybe see this claims a bit contradictory, but maybe hundred grands is so much a pocket money for Tuohys that they really didn't saw a need to file accounting.
@@khaerinaenno because they are rich I am sure the had parties, events and such in which people paid to meet and greet him. While to him it might have seemed like a fancy thing they do these people could have paid big money to have him at these things. Imagine going to an event monthly for several years and they got 100k per event. That is upwards of 1.2 million per year over 10 plus years in meet and greet fees.
@@muadhnatethat's never stopped anyone before
@@khaerinaennolets not “theyre so rich they didnt even notice” them, please. they didnt get rich by not paying attention to their money.
@@SaintxGlobal I never said they didn't notice. I said that they didn't saw a need to report it. Like, you know, some justices didn't saw the need to report some gifts and vacations.
"The Tuohys are rich, why would they con someone?" is like saying "Jeff Besoz is rich, why would he use loopholes to avoid paying taxes?"
It's the xQc excuse.
Also once you're rich enough, other things like fame and your alma mater being in your debt matter a whole lot more.
They're rich, why wouldn't they con someone? It's not like they can't buy their way out of any consequences
One of the major problems with the excessively rich is that they become disconnected from the social contract
"They're rich, why would they want to _own_ someone?" - There was a war about that sort of thing, but it seems that it didn't stick the first time.
Rich people do things to become more rich, fame and recognition. That's why so many make it known of the charities they donate to. They go to auctions to brag what they donate. AND TO GET RECOGNITION AND DONATIONS FOR THEIR OWN CHARITIES.
I always find it comical when very rich people use the claim that they're "too rich to care about money." They wouldn't have *gotten* incredibly wealthy if they didn't care about money.
They to rich to care about money when they get caught. When no one is looking, they care exactly as much as having huge unneeded piles of it implies.
Yeah, the lawyer saying that stinks of desperation to me, unless Americans really love rich people so much that this argument actually works.
Yeah she wouldn't be booking book deals if it wasn't for his story. They may not have made money off of the movie but they would make money for other engagements and charity work. I think Michael feel betrayed. This sounds like a man who is hurt by someone he didn't expect to hurt him. Given his history....
My head would be spinning in circles.
@@misslady582 Yeah her being a "motivational speaker" is all thanks to Oher. I would love to see how often she refers to him by name or brings up the Blind Side in her speaking gigs. It got their name out in the world and people donated to them because of it.
they don't care about the money, they're just addicted to getting it
The fact that they included a scene in the movie where someone points out exactly what they allegedly did and frames that person as a bad guy is so wild
I simply cannot fathom caring enough about football to adopt a child specifically to get them to my college.
@@datadiva9353 you don’t have to care enough about football you have to care enough about money.
@@tarettime9392 What money? Michael's lawsuit claims that it is Michael's "belief" that the Tuohy's earned millions from the movie... but not long after the lawsuit the movie studio made a public comment and clearly stated that what the Tuohy's said was true... they didn't earn millions and Michael earned an equal share. There is no reason to believe the movie studio was lying because it's clear those records are going to be requested in the court proceedings in this trial. So what money are you referring too? The $34 million Michael earned playing football? The Tuohy's didn't take nor ask a dime of that money!
@@covertpuppytwo3857 "there's no way the movie studio is lying because there's a trial guys! There's no such thing as hiding evidence! I am super gullible and state opinions as fact and cite my own opinions as a source!"
-you
Seriously? "They can't be lying, and the proof is that they're going to be asked for the documents in court"? What a joke
@@covertpuppytwo3857 citing the fact that Michael made money playing football does not in any way address what's going on here, and is just subject-changing by someone who has a very strong opinionated belief, but absolutely no real basis to have that belief.
This family is definitely shady. The fact they let the movie portray Michael as mentally handicapped when in reality he has above average intelligence shows you how much they consider him part of the family. No parent would want their child portrayed that way if it wasn’t true
Agreed
I mean he did have trouble in school
The main problem I have is he was always good at football ever since he was a kid but the film had to portray him as Ferdinand
@@tahraethestoryteller6079 from what I’ve read the whole reason he got into that school was because he had really good grades
@@tahraethestoryteller6079 Struggling in school is no. way. the same as being mentally handicapped. How dare you even try to entertain that thought.
"mentally handicapped"? The movie I saw showed a kid who's EDUCATION was a train wreck. It also showed him being intelligent and improving quickly as he got good teachers and tutors. It even showed him catching up and even graduating with his senior class. Did you miss that part of the movie?
Placing an adult in conservatorship in order to get them health insurance is like putting a teenager in high intensity inpatient rehab for trying a cigarette.
As someone who was sent to rehab for just being depressed/ a moody/ abused teen, yup. I was told I was a "bad kid" cuz I [checks notes] sometimes didn't clean my room or do my homework. I had all As and a couple Bs.
Yeah, no. The insurance system is so shitty in this country that being in a conservatorship is unfortunately a very successful way to get insurance.
@@turkicnomad5632so is adoption. Which they intentionally avoided
@@turkicnomad5632They are wealthy and could buy him great insurance. You are correct for normies.
Or even inpatient treatment for coming home smelling of the cigarette the teenager was telling their friend *not* to try
The conservatorship is the main issue for me. It stinks of all sort of shenanigans, specially knowing that adoption was an option.
This 100 times over. Conservatorship to me has always been something used to take care of the elderly who are no longer in their proper faculties, and even then you hear so many horror stories about abuse.
I honestly cannot imagine a scenario where anyone would do this to a child without planning to manipulate them from the start.
Yeah. Even going with the most generous view of them trying to protect him, you don’t keep financial AND MEDICAL control of your kids after they leave home. The financial thing is hinky af, but he was a professional football player and he had no say in his medical treatment? WTF?
This. And according to Michael Lewis, he said he was told that they decided to go with the conservatorship because of the speed of getting it done.
every time I see this term used on a celebrity it's eventually been proven to be used to control someone
The conservatorship isnt really the worst part for me its the lie about not being able to adopt him because he was too old when adult adoption is a thing in Tennessee.
To be honest, "the blind side" is so american a story that It HAS to finish in a legal court.
And include antiBlack racism!
🙃
The Blind Side 2
The part I find shocking... How can somebody who is not considered able to legally sign documents on their own allowed to legally sign away their rights on their own?
Welcome to the world of conservatorships! Goodbye to your own life!
He didn't. His mom and Dad were there at court and the Mom and Dad signed away his rights to them. It wasn't shady at all. Now maybe you could say the parents were ignorant of the law, but Micheal and his mom and Dad all read the paper work and signed it willingly.
@@TheBasher-_-
You really shouldn't make up stuff.
His father is and was deceased at that time.
His mother didn't sign anything!!
The Touhys asked her to appear at court.
Michael was over 18 at the time, so no rights to sign away!!!
Because they very likely misrepresented what the paperwork did to him and because he was young, and trusted the Tuohy's to want what was best for him he didn't know or think to look deeper.
He was told it would basically be the same as adoption which was wrong on every front.
Exactly. Either the person is capable of giving their consent, in which case the conservatorship should be denied, or they arent capable; in which case their "consent" is meaningless and shouldnt be able to be used to take their rights away
In the latter case its basically the same as getting a sleeping person to consent
"You can't get into a college unless you're part of a family," multiple lawyers apparently said. You're telling me these colleges won't take orphans, then.
Legacy admissions are not subject to the more rigorous admissions process that other students go through.
not that it’s impossible but the fact that the couple graduated from that college means that he’d be more likely to be considered through association than a random person applying with no legacy in the institution. Plus things like grants and scholarships that would have passed by him due to that lack of association.
Does that college have a special track for legacy admissions? Maybe a weirdly(/deliberately misleadingly) worded reference to becoming a legacy applicant? Seems weird, if the applicant were already being scouted, but I have no idea how any of that relationship, between college applications and athletics, works 🤷♀️
Hmm, since legacy admissions are so preferential, using them to give him a leg up certainly makes sense... though it also gives ammo to the fictional NCAA's claim that families are just grooming the next round of college football talent.
Right? That's extremely stupid. Colleges in the US will take any adult willing to sign their life away in loans. Grants and scholarships are just an admission by the general public that colleges charge too much money, and the loans are obscene, but anyway, yes, any college will take any student over the age of 18 who's willing to go into life-long slavery over it.
I side with Oher, purely because the conservatorship is already plenty shady, with no accounting done throughout the entire decades of it.
All I've seen when it comes to a lot of conservatorships is that it seems to almost always end up happening when people want someone else's money, property, etc. I've seen way too many stories of conservators that have basically legally robbed people, and those people had no way to stop them from doing so (and then said conservatorship is ended once said conservator has drained the person or persons finances, or worse, continued as said conservator(s) take any other money the person or persons have paid monthly (such as pensions and Social Security)). It's too damn easy to gain a conservatorship without the person whose life is being taken over knowing what is happening until it's too late.
But he had no money or property to start with?
@@mealsome1571But he could have considering he was a highly sought prospect with prospects of going to the NFL.
Sadly...it is far too easy to legally steal people's money in so many ways. It happened to my family with a trustee with fiduciary obligations.
@@mealsome1571Michael Oher made 35 million dollars in just NFL contracts. Who knows what other sponsorship deals there were and how much these vampires drained from Michael.
The defense of "how could an already wealthy family exploit someone they love for a few thousand dollars" made me snort so hard I spilled my coffee
What do people with lots of money and power usually want most? More money and more power.
@@jliller as evidenced by the megacorps that run this country and the government
It's a valid argument, it speaks to motive. Why would they cut him out of $100k from a movie deal when they're worth 100 mill? The risk/reward ratio makes no sense.
It's like someone accusing you of shoplifting when you make $200k/year. Why would you risk it over what amounts to pocket change?
@@zanido9073oh you don't understand rich people
@@zanido9073cause that's not all they got from it
This is why you should wait 20 years to make a movie about a real life event so things like this can be flushed out ahead of time.
"Don't make statues to the living" as they say.
this way you can make sequels every few years that reframe what happened in the previous movie, and we all know how much hollywood loves sequels these days ...
I hope they have a sequel.
It never did sit right with me how stupid and helpless they presented Oher in the movie. If it were fictitious, perhaps, but presenting a real guy as too stupid to understand how you play a linesman in football because he's too busy playing with a butterfly? And of course Lady White Savior had to come in and show him how good he is, not that he was already an accomplished player on his own
Yeah I am pretty sure he has also spoken about this before, he was already a decently successful player before the involvement of the white saviors, and that he was represented pretty badly.
Accomplishmed player. Made the Deans list. So even the “learning disability” was a lie.
He certainly was, but I always assumed that was Hollywood 's license. That's what they thought would sell.
@@apeters8 Pretty weird "artistic license" to depict a real, living contemporary as having a mental disability they do not actually have.
I wouldn't want there to be a movie about me that depicts me like Forrest Gump.
@@Poldovico Because the point of the movie was not Oher's story, but the Tuoy's and how great they supposedly were. Having Oher with a disability in the movie makes the Tuoy's even better from a narrative standpoint. Reality be damned.
I think the problem is that they wanted to have control over Michael without making him eligible to inheritance like their other children. They wanted to benefit from having him be a part of their family without giving up anything of them own. They wanted the credit for adopting a black son. Look at the scene where he is interviewed by ncaa about the legitimacy of his adoption. She was actually right all along
You're right. He has no legal recourse for inheritance if he's not in the Tuohy's will. I would LOVE to see their will and see if Michael is a part of it. Bet he's not.
You don't have to give your kids inheritance, they could have just drafted a will that doesn't include him.
My bet is that Michael is excluded. Each kids inheritance should be larger than Ohers total lifetime earnings.
@nerrickk9024
Edit: The original portion is much more state specific than I originally realized, and particularly doesn't appear to apply to Mississippi (which I neglected to consider is where the case was based). Instead, the reasons for leaving him out of the will would more likely be based on not affording him the opportunity to contest the will, or the bad optics/potential unjust enrichment claim that could have befell the estate had it been uncovered that he was adopted but then left out of the will entirely.
---Original---
there's a legal provision called "forced heirship" where if a child meets certain conditions (too young, have a disability, etc.), they're entitled to inherit from their parents, even if they're not in the will. So if Michael had been adopted, and then suffered a debilitating injury, he would be entitled to inherit 1/3 of the estate (the estate divided by the # of children) even if he was left out of the will. Never adopting him prevents any circumstances such as forced heir, or a will being nullified which would allow him to inherit from them.
@@nerrickk9024 Parents don't have to leave all their money to their children but children can legally contest the will and depending on the situation might be awarded something.
If Oher tried contesting the Tuohy's will it would have 0% chance unless he's in the will.
I think the case sort of begins and ends with telling him adoption wasn’t possible when it was. There’s really not a non-shady reason for making that lie.
Yeah, and them refusing to show open accounting. It's extremely shady.
@@HifuutorianDid they refuse to show open accounting? Maybe to the public. But it sounds like the accountings will be examined as part of discovery in the court
@@jaxdragonvein8162 Their refusal is what led to the lawsuit I think.
@@Hifuutorian There was no reason for them to ever do an accounting. They did not have a conservatorship of the *estate* over Michael Oher... they had a conservatorship of the *person* . These media lawyers who keep talking about them "never doing an accounting for 19 years" are parroting nonsense. When you create a conservatorship of the estate, you have to have all those assets written into the legal documents.... then you have to submit annual accounting to show what's going on with all that money you're in control of. When you create a conservatorship of the person.... there ARE NO assets defined in the conservatorship court order.
Michael Oher was a penniless high school senior when it was created. And there has NEVER been any money linked to his conservatorship to do accounting ON.
As a law nerd and an adoptee, I'm hoping this opens people up to considering how many parents/foster families also use their adopted children/foster kids for financial and social gain. This is a classic case of the children the foster system/adoption industry are supposed to protect being stripped of their personal narratives and personhood. This is just the surface of the insidiousness.
As a self-proclaimed "law nerd" you might find it interesting to know that in Tennessee there are 3 basic kinds of conservatorships:
- Conservatorship of *Estate* . The authority to manage a person's finances.
- Conservatorship of *Person* . The authority to handle their personal health and life decisions.
- Conservatorship of *Person & Estate* . Authority over both.
In the summer of 2004, Michael Oher was between his junior and senior year and didn't have a penny to his name. His GPA was in the toilet and he might never get to college at all. There was no book or movie yet. The Tuohys created the *least controlling* conservatorship that would make them his legal guardians and *_hopefully_* satisfy the NCAA should Oher pick Ole Miss as his final choice in the upcoming months. They filed for Conservatorship of *person* . They had no control over any of his finances and since he had no assets when it was filed, his conservatorship more than likely isn't even linked to a bank account.
@@aldoabruzzi6417 it's still bizarre when they could've just legally adopted him without any conservatorship.
@@Tyler-hk4wo It makes perfect sense that they didn't legally adopt him.
1) They had a time limit. Signing day was in 6 months. It usually takes much longer than that to legally adopt
2) Why would they adopt an 18 year-old (man, basically) that they had only met a year and a half before? Particularly one with his dumpster fire of a background. Pretty risky don't you think?
3) And besides, Sean Tuohy was only 44, if Michael was still in their family in a few years there was plenty of time to adopt him later... right now they had to satisfy the NCAA in the quickest way possible.
@@aldoabruzzi6417 I don't buy it especially your second point. Why would that be risky? There's no harm in an adult adoption which is legal in their state and it doesn't come with the shady aspects of a conservatorship. Legally it isn't usually even done unless there are mental or physiological disorders. They should probably investigate the judge and the lawyers of the tuohys who apparently didn't know what adult adoption is.
@@Tyler-hk4wo You don't understand my second point? Seriously? He spent his formative years in that horrible environment. Was his mother on drugs when she was pregnant with him? Was he sexually/ emotionally abused? Again... they only knew him for a year and a half. He could be a secret psycho... they wouldn't know.
As I explained above there was nothing "shady" about the conservatorship. Just because it GAVE THEM control over his medical and life decisions... it means nothing if they never USED that control.
Yes, he had no mental or physiological disorders. That means that he wasn't *trapped* into this agreement. If the Tuohys abused their power in any way, he was an adult who was *of sound mind* and could end it any time he wanted (like he's doing now). Why would any judge look at it with suspicion?
- He was finally getting health and dental insurance at 18
- He was getting car insurance for the truck they bought him
- He was getting a chance to go to the college he wanted (if he made the grades)
- There was no book or movie at that time. The earliest he might POSSIBLY have assets and be making legal decisions was still 5 years away after college. He wouldn't be an 18 year-old kid by then... he would be 23.
- He can end it any time he wants
Anyone with half a brain could see that this agreement was definitely *in his best interest* .... and it was.
The fact that a cognitively intact adult was allowed to give up his right to make medical decisions for himself by the courts is the biggest stink of all my book.
Exactly. Why did they need the power to make all his medical decisions? Why didn't the court ask any questions? Can you just buy people like that, if you get them to sign a piece of paper?
@@Finwolven Sadly, you can. A lot of elderly people have found themselves in conservatorships with sketchy people. There was a huge scandal a few years back about it. I think an elderly woman was kicked out of her senior living center because there wasn't any money left in her account, and it turned out that she'd signed herself into a conservatorship with (either the director of the facility or someone connected to them?). It was presented to her as part of the standard paperwork to move in.
If he’s “cognitively intact” then why would he need to be adopted as an 18 year old?
@@honestabe411to be part of a family. It happens a lot with families with a step parent who raised them but the birth parent wouldn't give up rights, so they waited until they were 18 and made their family permanent and legal.
The emotional gratification of legally joining the family he thought he was already a part of?
I find it amusing how the attorney for the Tuohys claimed Oher knew about the conservatorship and points to his book in which he wrote that he was told it was basically adoption, meaning he didn't know what it really was. That's a fumble for Tuohys.
The attorney should have kept his damn mouth shut. He should know that even if somehow these people are innocent they look terrible in the eyes of the average person. Almost any statement is a waste of breath and can only hurt them
@@skeetsmcgrew3282 It sounds like he is used to working for famous people. He is probably so removed from average people that he has lost all sense of what most of us would see as normal.
@@skeetsmcgrew3282 the thing is that even given the small possibility that the family was innocent, that would mean their lawyer would've been the guilty party so still should've stayed quiet. Even if for the sake of argument that even the lawyer was inept, it's hard to believe after decades no one would've realized that the conservatorship was basically overkill, unnecessary, and that Michael was still signed it under false pretenses set by others.
@@seandobbins2231 Ok fair, but in this case it did not apparently severely affect him until he discovered the conservatorship this year. I agree it's ridiculous that nobody has noticed until now, but that's arguably the fault of the state for allowing a person to permanently give up their rights without any checkups. My father has to reapply for his damn handicapped parking permit every 5 years ffs.
@@seandobbins2231 The lawyer that made the comment on the current case is not the same one who set up the conservatorship
A lawyer friend said to me that the more you know about the law, and the more you know about the details of this case, the creepier it all gets. This is further confirmation of what she told me.
The Blind Side (Book) was published just two years after the family first welcomed him into their home. Doesn't that seem like a fast turnaround for a book to be written and published about an evolving story when your sole concern is what's best for the young man in your home (and conservatorship)?
The book was written by Wall Street reporter Michael Lewis (who, despite the title of "Wall Street reporter," is also very critical of Wall Street). The Blind Side, the book, features Oher's story as a part of the books larger narrative on how football has evolved since the 1980s and specifically about linemen capable of protecting their quarterbacks back (their blind side). He knew about Oher through his childhood friend Sean Tuohy.
So *no* I do not think the timing on the book was suspicious. Michael Lewis has written on sports for years.
I make no comment on anything else, but the timing? I don't think so.
Michael Lewis was also a personal friend of the Tuohy's before they even heard of Oher... Just to put the timeline into perspective.@@ncpolley
@@FinwolvenI think this is the most important observation regarding how Michael Lewis came to write this story.
Michael Lewis was working on a book covering the evolution of the importance of left tackle position in the NFL after the career ending hit Lawrence Taylor put on Joe Theismann. How it went from one of the lowest paid positions on the team to one of the highest, etc. He was also writing a magazine article about his old high school baseball coach, so he was on a trip back in his old hometown of Memphis. While he was in town, he decided to look up a friend he hadn't seen in ages, Sean Tuohy. He visits Sean and finds out he had this huge, homeless kid living with him who played basketball and football. He started to write a magazine article about Oher, but soon they would move Michael Oher to left tackle.... and he decided to merge Michael's story with the book that was already half written. Is there ANYTHING about these people that you're NOT suspicious of?
All I'll say is this: if the Tuohys weren't up to anything shady, they sure picked a shady way to go about things.
😂 100% facts
Exactly! And why did they not sever the conservatorship after he was 25?
It's as though they stabbed somebody and said "the lawyer said this was the right thing to do".
Whether they made money off him or not the fact they lied about not being able to adopt him speaks volumes.
Yeah they probably didnt wanted to that is the reality, I think he agree to something and now feels cheated, and blame it for I read the lawsuit and not alot concret fact are brought up is more to describe ill intent but the closest they got is saying the production company donated to to thougy foundation 200k implying that as a form of a bribe but not even fully saying it, the talks alót about them making millions from the movie when the producers already come out say it was false then go on to say stuff like he is not sure his signature to give away his NIL is forge or not but that he would had willingly sign that, so is like I dont fully claim is fake because the i May be sue for lying but I claim it might be fake because I wouldnt had sign that, I think the tuohy did use ths story for appearences (white savior crap) and social standing but not really for money, if they do it for money forensic auditors should be able to find it specially if it is millions as he claims
In their respond, the Tuohys admited that they never intended to legally adopted Michael Oher. They only called him family in “colloquial” sense (whatever that means) and they only called him son occasionally. Which I find ironic since they always put him as “adopted son” in their website
It's one of those rare situations where you actually hope the IRS gets involved and starts digging deeply.
As a disabled person, conservatorships terrify me. The idea that someone could file court documents claiming that because I’m autistic and have adhd and be granted complete control over my life is genuinely anxiety inducing. While I can recognize why it might be needed in certain situations I have seen far too many cases of people being forced into these situations to ever trust them.
I’m just grateful there’s treatment that works, for me, for fibromyalgia. It’s a neurological disorder in which your pain receptors never stand down, so you hurt all over, all the time. This causes anxiety & depression, of course, and also cognitive issues, because of mental fatigue from the relentless pain.
How many women were paced in such conservatorships, and even committed to mental health institutions, before anyone understood this disorder?
Being disabled in any way brings out the predators. I hope you stay safe, and that you are having a good day. I hope you do have good days.❤️
I've heard that happening to elderly people as well (like, even those that were still self sufficient, mostly healthy, and mentally sharp were placed under conservatorships for real shady reasons). It's genuinely disturbing how easy it is to be placed under someone else's thumb in the US... the "land of the free", lol.
@@Rime_in_Retrograde
Conservatorship was originally designed as a way for someone to be protected but now people can extend legal control over another person.
I can empathise. My three teens are autistic, one also has ADHD. As one has such a kind nature that they will want to help friends, my main worry is that others will take advantage of them and they'll loose any money etc they have. Recently a friend of theirs had been upset that their nitro subscription on discord was coming to an end, so my teen gifted them a year's subscription. This 'friend' subsequently cut contact and blocked them on all media. They'd also signed up to subscriptions themselves, then wondered why the bank card was declined. I was not happy, but we went through trying to get reimbursements. More budget training is needed.
I don't know if we have Conservators here in the UK. We do have Lasting Power of Attorney: Property and Finance, and Lasting Power of Attorney: Health and Welfare. These can only be registered if the person it is for is mentally competent and agrees. We have to go through the courts otherwise. We have these in place for my mother-in-law as she has alzheimers and vascular dementia. She was getting muddled over bank cards - thinking they'd been stolen, cancelling them, finding them, getting new ones, getting new PINs, confusing the cards. We spent about a year suggesting it to her, as she was so worried about people stealing her money, or scamming her. She also ran up a phone bill trying to renew her car insurance. Sorting through paperwork, she'd insured it twice! We spent time slowly suggesting it to her, and she agreed. Most bills are direct debit, so as an Attorney I just have to make sure her carers are paid for. The LPA also mean I was able to claim benefits for her.
At least the medication is working and she no longer thinks gangster builders are living in the attic, breaking into the house, stealing food and single shoes, and then calling the police multiple times a day to report all the thefts.
It's terrifying.
I'm steadily putting energy into working with a lawyer to make sure I can lock bio-family out of controlling my life (not a conservatorship, just raised in a cult) and the idea of being even more completely without someone's power is disturbing. It's part of why I decided to avoid getting an official diagnosis for autism. Too many horror stories in 2020 about doctors deciding that autistic patients should just have a DNR without ever asking them.
At this point I trust someone _less_ if they don't have some form of disability, because abled people keep being awful.
That they didn’t just adopt him when they easily could have is incredibly convincing of the idea that they’re acting nefariously.
Unless they're innocent and "Aunt Deb" cooked up the whole thing to line her pockets.
Especially considering they were so wealthy. Who gets a bad lawyer when they are super rich?
Rich people are often influenced by "friends" to use (and get ripped off by) crooked lawyers
@@skeetsmcgrew3282 cheap people. even if rich, will still go for cheapest option.
@@skeetsmcgrew3282 The victims of the Bernie Madoff scheme come to mind. A lot of his clients were wealthy, but got duped.
That NCAA investigator is looking like a hero right about now calling the Tuohy's motives into question.
Yeah... I kind of feel like if they were so concerned about being classified as Boosters, maybe urging him to just go to (and play football for) literally any other college would have been a simpler solution than becoming legal conservators.
The fact they chose not to adopt him (don’t care if they were advised against it by legal, they were wrong) and still to this day never ended the conservatorship shows they had their own agenda.
Why would they legally adopt him? He had a birth mother and REAL family were living a few miles away. Besides, in his autobiography he says that he already felt like part of the family BEFORE they ever discussed becoming his legal guardians.
@@aldoabruzzi6417He hadn't lived with his mother and siblings since he was in 1st grade. At that time his mother gave up all her 12 children to social services. She was a drug addict and his father was in jail. Yeah, adoption looked good to him.
@@vrjanice2 But did it look good to the Tuohys? If you read Michael Oher's 2011 autobiography, it makes perfect sense why they didn't formally adopt him away from his mother and biological family.
_"There was just one condition for living with the Tuohys, and this had been made clear to me since I first started relying on them: They wanted to make sure I was going to keep a relationship with my birth family. At no point did they want there to be any kind of a feeling like they had taken me away from my mother, or kept me from her and made me cut all ties."_
He goes on to write about them insisting he visit her regularly, Sean giving his mom a job at one of his restaurants to try and keep her clean, bringing her to his football games, buying her what Oher calls _"a nice church dress"_ so she could come to senior night and stand with him out on the field _"as the seniors were escorted out on the field by their _*_parents_*_ "_
Hmm... insisting he not cut ties with his mother and birth family. Giving his crack-head mom a job. Bringing his mother to his games and buying her a dress so she could stand on the field as his MOTHER. Anyone who questions why they wanted to be his legal guardians and not adopt him away from his birth mother knows NOTHING about his story and probably just wants to hate them. Michael Oher should read what he himself wrote back in 2011 and stop casting doubt on their motives
I was SO uncomfortable with the movie, not only for the White Savior plotline, but also because Oher was portrayed as ... well, a little simple-minded, and not really seeming to have a lot of agency in his own life. The whole movie made me squirm.
I will say it one last time XD , Michael has already talked about it before, but he does not like the movie, as you say they paint him dumb, and like he needed the help to play football, but he was brought into the family by already being a really promising football player, before meeting the Thoughy
The White Savior plotline was even worse when you realize how much it twisted the story. They made it look like they took in this poor random kid and he just happened to end up being good at football, but only with their help of course. In reality, he was already a star player and one of the top college prospects in the country when they "took him in". They gave him a place to live and the tutoring he needed to get into college - the college they just happened to be boosters for. It is ironic that the movie has an NCAA investigator describing what is supposed to be the NCAA's "cynical" concern - and it is almost certainly exactly what they were really doing.
@@Dadofer1970 Wow. I'm not a football fan, so I had never heard of this young man. It's so messed up that the story wasn't told from HIS point of view, when it was really his story.
@@Dadofer1970 It is not cynical when it's the truth. But obviously they would like to show it that way.
@@meneldalyes, that was my point and why I put the word in quotes. The movie was portraying it as a cynical point of view, but it actually was the truth.
So basically the movie should have been about how they blindsided him into a conservatorship
well the sequel at least XD
@@amazedsatsuma Uh, that would be interesting. A sequel movie.
Get Sandra Bullock on the line. 😮
That what happened sad
@@peteryanes3413 yeah it is. That movie was a big deal too, everyone was patting that lady's back
Has anyone looked into the judge who approved his conservatorship?
It said right in the documents that he really didn't meet the criteria for being in one, yet some judge approved this. I can't help but wonder if the judge was a family friend too...
🤔
Or the judge was bribed
That's the good ol' boy network in action.
It’s just sick that the Tuohys went to Michael and said “We can’t legally adopt you, but here’s this contract that is basically adoption,” but not tell him what it truly entails. I have an older sister and a younger brother, but there is also another girl that is my sister’s age that is with my family all the time. When people ask who she is I say immediately without thinking “That’s my other sister,” they’ll ask if we adopted her and I say legally no, but she knows she’s family. She spends the holidays with us, goes on vacation with us, and when I moved out and went to college and she graduated from college she moved into my room while she was looking for jobs and a place to rent. My dad bought a car for her, went to all of her softball games at college, and when friends of her met my dad they got confused and said, “I thought you didn’t have a dad, whose this guy.”
If they couldn’t adopt him legally that doesn’t mean getting a conservatorship is the next best thing. If you truly love someone and treat them as family you don’t need a piece of paper to legitimize it, you give them the love and care they deserve, not because you have to honor something you signed.
When you love someone you want them to get things that make them happy. Michael Oher wanted to go to college and play football for Ole Miss. The only way the NCAA would let him play ball there is if he was their legal guardian. The Tuohys did the conservatorship FOR HIM.... so that he could have what he wanted. They never used the power it gave them during those 4 years, and they never used that power after he graduated and went to the NFL. So what's wrong with that?
@@aldoabruzzi6417 "The only way the NCAA would let him play ball there is if he was their legal guardian. The Tuohys did the conservatorship FOR HIM.... so that he could have what he wanted." 15:22 makes it clear that conservatorship was NOT the only way for them to become his guardians and that adoption would have been EASIER if it happened after Oher turned 18. Even if they believed that conservatorship was the only thing they could do, TN law requires that a conservatorship preserve as many of the person's legal rights as possible, in the "least restrictive" way. There's no reason to grant them the authority to make medical decisions, for example.
@@StarUnreachable The whole "medical decisions" thing comes from when he got his hand gashed in a football game his junior year. It's all in the book. They took him to the hospital where he totally wigged out, jumped off the table and was tearing the place apart.... all because they wanted to give him a little numbing shot before they stitched him. It took like 3 orderlies to keep him from running out of there. Made a HUGE scene. They had to call Leigh Anne Tuohy to drive over there and calm him down. He DEFINITELY couldn't be trusted with his own medical decisions.
@@aldoabruzzi6417 Being scared of or even refusing medical care doesn't mean you are incapable of making medical decisions. He has no disabilities that would necessitate them having that level of control, and them having that level of control wouldn't affect his reactions (like, they'd need multiple orderlies even if it was the Touhys deciding he needed a shot).
@@StarUnreachableOf course it does. If a 17 year-old is so terrified of a little needle that they would *decide* to leave the hospital with a gash in their hand, bleed all over the place, and most likely get an *infection* ... then they are not making adult medical decisions. If my 17 year-old did that, I would make the parental medical decision to drive them back to the hospital and we would not leave until they faced their fears and got the stitches.
The whole goal of the conservatorship was to get him into Ole Miss. If all went well, he would be away from home for the next *4 years* . This amount of control they had was entirely appropriate.
I do find it sinister that the Tuohys apparently asked Michael to call them 'mom' and 'dad' only to Not adopt him. Regardless of the financial exploits that just seems cruel to me.
Yea, and the reasons that they gave for putting him into the conservatorship makes no sense. Getting a driver's license, getting insurance, helping with college admissions... you don't need a conservatorship to do ANY of those things. You can just do what any damn parent does in that situation, which is guide them and let them sign their own damn signatures.
He couldn't be legally adopted he was too old 💀
@@noteminemsburneraccount324 You literally CAN be legally adopted. Tennessee law allows people over 18 to be adopted. Even the lawyer in the video mentioned this fact 🤡
@@VolsPride oh you mean like in his book how he knew it was a conservatorship 😙
@@noteminemsburneraccount324
Tennessee literally allows the adoption of people over 18.
They put him in a conservatorship because that way Oher wouldn't be entitled to any share of the Touhey's estate like an actual member of the family even those that were adopted
The Tuohy's lawyer saying that Oher knew that it was a conservatorship well before the recent allegations he's been making is utterly misleading because the thing he's claiming isn't that he was lied to about it being a conservatorship, but that he was lied to about what a conservatorship meant, something the quote from his book supports where he states that this was the equivalent of being adopted which needed to be done instead of a real adoption because he was an adult.
Exactly! It’s so clearly malicious
The thing I want to know is how many back room deals did they make that are not publicly known. Did they sell his rights overseas. Did they make him do a signing, commercial, events in which they were paid. Did he go to dinner with them where he meet and greet a bunch of people like it was normal and did they get paid.
The thing is they did it to make money.
I am unclear if for what reason would the NCAA care about his adult status?
@@kameljoe21The NCAA didn't want others to just start trying to wine and dine prospective players by "adopting" them and paying for all their expenses so that the prospective player would then feel a connection to that person and thus choose to go play at the same school.
Which would greatly affect the types of players that get into different colleges since the colleges with more rich sponsors and alumni would likely all get better players while the lower tier schools would be left with the undesirable players in a sense
But frfr... I've never seen a situation where you want a legal adult to be a part of your family and papers have to be signed...you just welcome them in.. 9/10 he had no idea what he was signing and just was glad to be there.
I was a high school exchange student in Germany almost 30 years ago. The host family was very close to me and when I pursued my PhD several years afterwards, they still let me stay with them for a couple of years.
The host parents and all their kids treated me really like a family. They even treated my kids as family too. And of course, in goes both ways. I really love them as my family too.
All that without any contract. And I don’t really see why being in a family requires paperwork.
If the family wanted to support him financially or in any other way, without anything in return, I am sure they can do so and can always find a way to do so. If they really loved him and want to commit to the boy, I guess they can just adopt him and take all responsibility. Otherwise this conservatorship really makes no sense to me.
Its because they said they adopted him and have whole charity about adoption. Its important to use your word carefully
"I'm filthy rich, i wouldn't con you" is exactly what a person who would do that would say.
ANY RESPONSIBLE "PARENT" would have explained to Michael not only what he was signing, but been very firm in teaching him to NEVER SIGN ANYTHING YOU DONT UNDERSTAND. Shocking and disgusting behaviour right there, they took advantage of him and his learning needs.
he didnt really have parents because he was in the foster care system. his real mother was a drug addict and his real father was in prison.
@@cerebrumexcrement But these people supposedly wanted to be his parents. They failed at that.
I don't know of any parents that meet this standard.
"he acknowledged he was in a conservatorship! He knew!"
The example verbatim from Oher: "yeah so they're my conservators which is just adoption for adults they told me"
Seems that lawyer can't see the forest for the trees, or employs the same shady tactics some publishers use for book reviews on covers. Ignorance vs malice
lawyers look for loopholes and technichalities to get people off the hook. So yes, he's being purposedly obtuse.
The only question I might ask is if conservatorship is recognised outside of Tennessee whereas adoption might not be. It's one thing to say that Tennessee allows it, I wonder if that is a small wrinkle in this, especially in regards to the NCAA.
This is accurate; it's also a lawyer speaking at a press conference.
Y'know, the kind 'the Kraken' used to make before Jan 6. happened?
Yet funnily, lots of blustering in the public eye never ends up happening in the court - because there your words can, in fact, have repercussions.
@@neilbiggs1353It wouldn't have mattered, because the Tuohy's were only boosters at Ole Miss. If Michael had decided to go to another school where the Tuohy's were not boosters and had not donated funds, it wouldn't have mattered.
It's like they said in the movie. The concern was that if Michael went to Ole Miss, then other people who were boosters at specific colleges might do the same thing and find a kid in the foster system with athletic talent and basically groom them to play for their school of choice.
@@ndawn90 That is why it might matter here - Ole Miss is in Mississippi. If Oher had been determined to go there, then maybe there is a logic in the Tuohy's efforts to beat the 'booster' counter-argument, as you know other teams in the division would try to question his eligibility if they could. Mississippi law may be as relevant here as Tennessee.
They could have helped him with his college, health, drivers licence WITHOUT having a conservatorship.... it's super strange. Even then, they should have STOPPED it when he was 25. Having complete ownership over someone even just in "name" when the person doesn't need it is completely immoral
Having it at all is completely immoral.
To be honest, even though my mom loved that movie, I was always incredibly skeptical of The Blind Side, and while I'm somewhat amused to see my suspicions were confirmed by reality, I can't help but feel incredibly bad for Michael Oher and how his "family" took advantage of him. Here's hoping things work out well for him in the end.
I can't stand the "White savior" trope movies so I cringed watching it then never again and it was so rampant around that time with so many movies , it was sickening
I definitely hope Michael gets justice
@@thepubknight6144 is every black kid that’s adopted by a white family a white savior issue. Clearly the movie just on its own was a great movie that was emotional and showed a great human beings that came in contact with another great human being who in the end loved each other and was helped and life was improved vastly. A great family was formed. So the fact of not having any information other than the movie you were watching at the time thinking like you are is so corny.
Ah yes, they fed him, clothed him, gave him a car, and got him into university, but clearly they took advantage of him.
I don't normally watch sports movies, so it is kind of sad that the one sports movie I have seen ended up being based on a lie.
I think we all learned from Britney Spears how much trust and good faith a conservator can be assumed to have.
idk about u but it inspired me to be a conservator. i need to find people who want to sign their rights away so their paycheck can become my paycheck. its a great passive income opportunity.
@@cerebrumexcrement you really are excrement
@@cerebrumexcrement Have you considered a career in the exciting world of supervillainy? The Legion of Doom is hiring, apply today!
@@cerebrumexcrement lol,😢
The story of him not realizing what situation he was in until this year checks out. Yes, he said priorly that he was in a conservatorship, but it was shown that he did not know what that meant at the time, and it was unneeded, given adult adoption was possible.
Literally what justification is for that unless they were actively deceiving him for their own gain?
Thank you, exactly. Even in Oher’s quote from his book, he incorrectly states that it’s basically the same as adoption and that you can’t adopt an adult. Meaning he genuinely believed the incorrect thing he was told. The only conclusion im getting is this was malicious asf
Then again, if you assume, as you clearly do, that Oher's background and lack of education/sophistication was such that he was incapable of understanding the implications of conservatorship, then doesn't it kinda make sense to have people with a (supposedly) better understanding of law and business contracts negotiate and sign said contracts in his stead? If you believe him simple enough that he couldn't have possibly known what the hell he was doing when signing the conservatorship, how do you expect him to navigate the treacherous world of NFL and Hollywood contract negotiations? Ironically, the same brand of paternalistic, condescending liberal white guilt appear to motivate both the Tuoys and their critics...
@@jugurthasyphax6341No because he could still have hired a manager and lawyer and sought aid through other players. Not sign over all legal authority including the ability to seek medical treatment and handle his own finances indefinitely. And literally nobody brought up race but you, this is about legal manipulation not race.
@@jugurthasyphax6341 There's a difference between capacity and ability. I have no doubt he would have the capacity to understand it, but it seems the trusted authority figures in his life did not fully explain or disclose what a conservatorship legally meant.
This is just like showing someone who has never ridden a bicycle and then expecting them to be able to ride it down the street without help on the first try.
It is hard to fully hold someone responsible or judge them for knowledge/understanding that they didn't have a reasonable path to obtaining.
@@jugurthasyphax6341 He was 18 at the time. I'm not sure I would've made a different decision if presented a document by people I had placed my trust in. I sure as hell wasn't an expert in contract law at 18 and definitely didn't know what a conservatorship was.
Also, what lack of education/sophistication? He was in high school and already headed for college ball before he was even taken in by the family. They just steered him to Ole Miss.
So if Oher says that he wants the conservatorship ended, and the Tuohey's legal argument is that they would never use their conservatorship powers in that way and don't want to keep him in it against his will, the judge has literally no reason to not just end it immediately right?
i remember back when this actually happened this family was loudly like HOW DARE YOU SAY WE'D ADOPT A KID JUST SO HE'D PLAY AT A COLLEGE WE WANT TO HAVE A GOOD BLINDSIDE. its even a scene in the movie, and i really do believe its guilt. they used this guy for money and social clout while legally keeping him from claiming anything a real family member would get
The funniest part of the video is when the lawyer said that the rich people wouldn't steal.
Where does he think rich people got their money then?
Right anyone can steal ppl think only poor ppl doni know lots of people who think that it so sad
It hasn’t been proven yet but this is one of the most believable accusations I’ve heard in a while.
Yeah seeing how the family has talked about this in public comments makes it more sus too.
@@dismurrart6648and all of the negative comments concerning Oher have the same verbiage, which makes me think the family are paying for ppl to comment on vids, stories finale themselves look good.
@AimSowards that or the people commenting(the ones who aren't bots) are just parroting something they heard because they haven't actually thought about it enough to form their own opinions.
@@AimSowards maybe but a story like this draws the racists with their dog whistles any opportunity to attack.
"He can end the conservatorship whenever he wants and we promise we never cheated him... but also we're not settling this lawsuit because it is a complete sham despite it only asking us to end the conservatorship and prove we didn't steal money"
Like bro. If you didn't steal money and are OK with ending the conservatorship then you wouldn't have had to make any statement at all. you just produce what the lawyer wanted and the case gets dismissed lol
Lets summarize. They had him living with them off and on for a majority of time since he was 12ish, but waited until they realized he was 18, able to make his own decisions, and out of the school and federal system, before they offered him "adult adoption" then gave him a conservatorship that just so happened to allow them school and medical access (which gives the illusion that they adopted him, and had those rights based on adoption making you a part of the family, as opposed to an ala carte style addendum to the conservatorship). This all seems like they realized their cash cow was about to head to better pastures without them, and they decided they needed to keep control. Its shady as hell.
Not sure that’s the right summary; sounds like he was living between foster care places and homelessness since 12; this relationship didn’t happen until his junior year of K-12. And since he was held back a few times, he was probably older than the standard junior (whose maybe 16).
Oher's petition @10:03 seems crystal clear. Giving him and 'equal cut' should be 100% of it since it's all supposed to be in his best interest, not theirs. With an audit surely they will discover some unethical profiteering.
So what happens when they go after him because they never got a cut of all the money he made from using their names, images and likenesses in his books, speaking engagements, interviews, etc.?
Because even though the story revolves around him it includes all of them.
@@aldoabruzzi6417 i doubt he ever used their NIL in such a way that they would have any such claim. It's not like every time you mention someone in a radio interview you owe them money.
@@scottmatheson3346Yes, I know that. I was being facetious. These people think that the Tuohys owe Michael Oher all this money from their books and speaking engagements because they used his NIL alongside their own. They don't realize that since they're writing and speaking about their *own* first-hand experiences, they can do it and mention Michael all they want because they were there. As long as they aren't selling anything with ONLY Michael's NIL and not their own... standing next to him, sharing an experience with him... they don't owe him a dime.
He did get 100% of his cut. What are you talking about?
Considering the lawyer was friends with the family, I think I'm going with Oher. I feel like a regular lawyer would never do this, because adoption's well... adoption.
Edit: The quote from his book *really* solidified my placement
Friends- she was related. Aunt Deb - huge conflict of interest. If they were above board they would have hired an impartial 3rd party to oversee it all.
@@karinaz8756 No she was a friend of the family, she was close enough that they called her aunt deb. Still sketchy just not a direct relation.
EDIT: Ah, never mind. Misunderstood. It was payment notices, not payments.
̶C̶o̶n̶s̶i̶d̶e̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶n̶e̶y̶ ̶g̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶l̶a̶w̶y̶e̶r̶,̶ ̶I̶'̶m̶ ̶w̶o̶n̶d̶e̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶m̶u̶c̶h̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶w̶a̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶l̶a̶w̶y̶e̶r̶.̶
@@Moleculor what money? A few consulation fees?
@@skeetsmcgrew3282 Ah, I went back to 8:10 and rewatched. Apparently it was payment *notices* that went to her, rather than payments.
I have suspicions they didn’t adopt him because they didn’t want inheritance going to him instead of their “real” kids. I wish I were not this cynical.
I have seen this point, but wouldn't a will excluding him be the same? I think if it was done maliciously, as implied (just avoiding too much bias when writing this as evidence will show the right side) an adoption would have not giving so much control over him, so the most jumping to the eye reason for the concervationship , would be only that having control of his stuff, or as mentioned, just bad consulting from the lawyers if proved they didnt profit from it.
The world is cruel to those hopeful about it
@@Chalo122790ive read a comment about forced heir.
If he got a disability (which woth football isnt impossible) he could still comtest if adopted even if he was left out. Where as a conservatorship gives no legal family ties
That doesn't make sense. You can have a will that leaves someone out pretty easily.
you can leave your real kids out of your will, if you wish so.
The inheritance theory seems to be the most plausible one to me. By placing Oher under a Conservatorship instead of just adopting him, they made sure that the inheritance of their enormous fortune ONLY went to their biological kids upon their passing.
Nah. It’s fairly easy to exclude a child from inheritance via a will, biological or otherwise. No need to overthink it. An adoptive parent isn’t entitled to the child’s income or control over their business signature. A conservator is.
Edit: I meant an adoptive parent of an *adult* child wouldn’t be entitled to the adoptee’s income or business consent.
No, the Conservatorship means he can't get out of thumb from them: He literally can't enter into contracts without their approval. Technically, he doesn't have a lawyer representing him on retainer, the lawyer is doing him a favor, because until the conservatorship ends he can't hire a lawyer.
He also can't make _medical_ decisions. Why is that in the conservatorship? Hmm? What in the effin hell is that for there?
They wanted to own him. They _did_ sell him to FOX, his likeness, his life story, his everything in complete perpetuity. The 'didn't want him in the will' is nonsense. Even if true, it'd mean they really _didn't_ think of him as an equal member of the family, and from there, everything else becomes rather pointless, doesn't it? They wanted to get a talent to play college football at their university, and they then got their author friend to write a book about how they were such great people, and got a movie made.
It's all scummy.
@@Finwolven not being a lawyer or legal expert, I don’t know, but could the medical component of the conservatorship be that, if he sought out his own medical care, a mental health specialist could determine that he’s fully capable, and therefore should not require supervision?
That is what I'm thinking. If the records are what they say they are, then id say that you are correct. They didn't take advantage of his NFL career that I can tell, so that shows you they aren't out for everything they can get. I was upset that they didn't ask the family's lawyers about that.
@@75aces97 Did you even watch the video? Conservators are not "entitled to the child's income", they are responsible for managing it, like a trustee.
Sidenote: I think people should read: I Beat the Odds by the real Micheal Oher instead of watching The Blind Side
Why the hell would they be entitled to make ANY money off him? It's absurd greed. You don't steal from your children in the first place. And "we didn't take that much" is not a defense. These people are the lowest of the low
Arguing they're making money off "His story" is straining the case. It's the story of their interaction with him. If they made money off his games it's another matter, but the blind side is the story of them all.
never said story@@officechairpotato
Sure, but in that case are they making money off him or off their family story?
@@artcamp7
@@officechairpotato it’s not the story of “them all”. It’s a story of MICHAL’s life. You’re literally proving the point. They define themselves as ADOPTIVE PARENTS. So why the Conservatorship.
@@officechairpotato it’s not the story of “them all”. It’s a story of MICHAL’s life. You’re literally proving the point. They define themselves as ADOPTIVE PARENTS. So why the Conservatorship. If Michael wasn’t an athlete they wouldn’t even had bothered. Know that he was in a conservatorship explains why they pushed so hard for Michael to go to Ole Miss. it all makes sense.
The fact that he's been IN the NFL for 8 seasons and there's NEVER been an accounting for the conservatorship is enough to make me ask questions. Because by law he didn't have control over his funds. As a conservatee you CANT have control over your funds. They might've allowed him to USE money he earned, but the control was theirs. If he wanted to go on a vacation and they didn't want him to, they legally could've withheld the funds to do so. And he mayve chosen his agent, but again that's because they LET him. IMO, they allowed him those freedoms, so that he wouldn't realize what a conservatorship actually was. Basically allowing him to think it's like an adoption, but hiding the actual truth. In fact, when Emily D Baker read the original filings in the conservatorship, there wasn't even an evaluation DONE to see if he NEEDED A conservatorship
The conservatorship never filed proper paperwork the entire 19 years. Not surprising this took so long to be realized
Brittany Spears's father had ordered her not to have any more kids. That is pretty controlling.
Every contract that was signed needs to be read and every deal ever made with his name needs to be read. Those people made money some how off of him and that is the only reason they did it. The law is pretty clear as to how to adopt and the werid part is why the NCAA needed him adoptive or anything in regards to that.
@@kameljoe21 Read a contract??? That is UnAmerican!
They NEVER sought any of his NFL salary.
Yeah, I'm on Oher's side with this. The biggest piece for me is how they portrayed the "adoption" in the movie, conveniently excluding the fact that it really was a conservatorship only to later admit that it was a conservatorship when they were confronted. Especially how they skirted around it saying that it was necessary or the only option left but not necessary enough to be transparent about it.
The part that made me stop for a second was fishman's quote at 12:45 "Michael got every dime, every dime he had coming". The first part reads as "Oh, he got a fair split" but then the second part reads as "He's lucky enough to get anything" because the second he said "every dime he had coming" sounds like Oher got jack shit and was somehow a fair deal
"Why would a family worth tens of millions of dollars exploit a person for money?" Yesh, because there's never been a person who BECAME worth tens of millions by exploiting others...
Yea a family worth $100m would totally risk doing some shady shit so they could stiff him $100k from a movie deal.
Totally.
I'm siding with Michael simply for the fact that a conservatorship is not something you "fall into" as something you offer anyone. You don't "accidentally" decide on that, nevermind with an attorney. This on its own already smells fraudulent to high hells.
Yeah, on top of that, the claim that they never exercised their conservatorship after a certain point is literally impossible, because the wording of the conservatorship means that Michael Oher was literally not able to enter into any kind of contract of agreement concerning his own finances, healthcare or education.
They say that Michael picked his own agent and that is probably true, but the signature on that agent's contract would have _had_ to be one of the Tuohy's for it to be legal.
Why would he need to get adult adopted at 18?
@@honestabe411he didn't really have a family of his own, and they made him feel like he was part of their family. Adopting him would secure legality like next of kin
@@honestabe411 why would they lie about adult adopting him?
@@cat-le1hf they were trying to explain conservatorship to someone who has mental deficits
So the attorney claims that if he wants to terminate the conservatorship at any time, they would gladly comply - but the lawsuit makes pretty clear that he wants to end it, and yet, they do not end it as a demonstration of good faith.
Ehh. I don't think there is a 'winning' for them in this case. If they ended it, a lot of people would turn around and accuse them of trying to sweep their past actions under the rug. It's like getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar and trying to remove it with the person watching you, cookie still in hand. They're gonna look guilty whether they let it work its way through the courts with this case or try to end it now. IMO, don't steal cookies if you don't wanna get in trouble.
@@panicwithcompulsion How would it sweep their past actions under the rug if they end the thing NOW? It doesn't change anything about the past, nor does it end the lawsuit. But it certainly would give more credence to their assertion that they are fine to do whatever he wants.
@@panicwithcompulsion If they end it now, they would have to return ALL documents that concern him back to Oher. So, refusing to put everything on the table is quite telling…
I feel like a conservatorship is just a legal way of telling someone "I own you."
In the 6th grade my church youth group did an overnight sleepover event and some friends and I decided to stay up all night watching movies and playing games. The twist? The only movies they had at the event were "The Blind Side" and "National Treasure" so we alternated watching the two movies like 4 times back-to-back-to-back-to (you get the point) and now they are inextricably linked in my mind. The news of this case not only ruins the Blind Side (a movie I have been permanently sick of since) but also beloved Nick Cage Classic "National Treasure." Truly heartbreaking news.
You have to really hate sleep to watch those movies over and over.
From all the books and the film, my takeaway is they wanted to maintain rights to use of his name and story without needing to clear any of it with him. They can sell "their" story and use it to profit without fairly compensating or consulting him.
Makes me think of how they portrayed him in the movie as slow, and not even into football when they found him. Did he sign off on that portrayal?
The excerpt from the memoir implies that the lie is what Oher was told and didn't realize the deception until later.
Yep the memoir wording still works with the idea that they tricked Oher into thinking that conservatorship was a fancy term for adult adoption.
Why would they oppose ending the conservatorship? They already got what they wanted out of him. This is so sick and sad.
Something I find especially suspicious is that they claim Oher got a fair cut, yet he has 0 legal control over his finances. Even if he got a cut, that money basically just goes to straight his conservators. Additionally, they could have helped him with his finances and everything else (college admissions, driver's license, tutoring, medical care, etc.) without even adopting him by giving him advice and helping him grow his own skills. Lastly, the fact that he negotiated his own contracts and such proves that they were failing to uphold their duties as his conservators since they should have been the ones handling that type of decision.
It seems to me that Oher never needed to be in a conservatorship in the first place. I don't know if his conservators just got really bad legal advice or intentionally misled him, but the conservatorship should've never been granted in the first place.
It's the hijinks behind these feel-good stories that make me suspicious of recent _The Sound of Freedom_ , where Tim Ballard, founder of that anti-sex trafficking group, is portrayed as this savior dude. But he and his group have been criticized for exploitation and exaggerating things, and recently he had to step down because of some claims employees made.
I've not seen the movie, but I have seen multiple videos describing how everything in that movie is a flat out lie, or so exaggerated that it effectively is a flat out lie.
The movie dramatized some of the events to make disparate events narratively cohesive rather than a cavalcade of unrelated unpleasentness, but the big picture of it is generally did happen. Some of the details were blended together or given artistic liberty like any "true story" movie, but the fundamentals of wide scale child trafficking being pervasive and anti-trafficers putting their lives at risk to prevent it is real.
I can’t believe anything about child trafficking after the absurd allegations about the pizza place in DC. I know someone who is good friends with the owner and the toll those accusations took on him were awful. When you lie in the details how can anyone believe what you say?
When I got conservatorship over my adult sister, she was interviewed in private by the judge. Special care was taken to make sure she understood the ramifications.
Why can’t the USA do that?
The USA, especially the South, was the dumping ground for European prisoners and convicted criminals. What do you expect.
because ron desantis taught us that there are benefits from being enslaved.
I didn't think you could do it without going in front of a judge here, honestly.
Because in the USA we have to make exploitation easier and more effective. Just look at health insurance laws.
You can do it. In fact in these kind of cases the "ward" is assigned a lawyer by the state called the guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem is there to ensure that the ward is fairly represented by both sides. Understand. The ward could have his lawyer and the conservator could have their own separate lawyer and a guardian ad litem is assigned to make sure both sides and both lawyers are on the up and up and that the "ward" understands exactly what is going on. The judge, for some unexplained reason waived Oher that right so the only legal advice he got was from the Thouy's lawyer Aunt Debbie.
It's insane to me that parents apparently don't have the same level of obligations to their children as conservators. I would assume "must make decisions in the best interest of your child" would be a minimum requirement
Thank you for actually making a facts based video in response to this petition. I was tired of listening to everyone involved with the daily wire just shaming Michael for not being thankful that the Tuohy's breathed in his direction. As if that makes up for taking advantage of someone.
Why are you listening to the Daily Wire if not for takes like that?
@@Tyler-hk4wo Stupidly assuming unbiased journalism existed. Besides what am I supposed to do? Ignore opposing viewpoints so I can't formulate opinions on them.
@@dustinpulliam583 I never said unbiased journalism exists. I'm just saying that the daily wire usually focuses on takes like that. You have to kind of assume it.
@@Tyler-hk4wo No the unbiased journalism comment was my response to your question lol. I went there assuming they'd report in good faith and they proved me wrong.
@@dustinpulliam583 Oh! My bad I'm sorry. I'm so used to snarky responses on youtube. Have a good one.
There are a three weird things about this that weren't really mentioned.
1) The fact that the story is about Oher, yet they split the money equally is strange.
2), Michael Lewis' profits from the book seem _very_ low (and they also split 5 ways which is crazy). This is post-Liars Poker and Money Ball Michael Lewis, he made millions off this book
3) apparently Sean Touhy is on video bragging about how much he made off the movie and how he negotiated a hard deal, now he could have been full of crap, but he did say it while appearing on some Bravo reality TV show.
So there's more to this, and there's no arguing that the mom hasn't based the last 15 years off her life on this, there's zero chance she's a motivational speaker without Oher, so they can't argue they haven't been enriched.
The wild part about that last one us that their son is claiming they didn't even make any money on it. Even without the bravo clip, this is a lie because they at least got a quarter of a million. This is him trying to discredit oher, but it makes him look sus af.
@@dismurrart6648 but I believe the son is on record in an interview saying that he did make money too, so the family isn't doing themselves any favors...especially the dad with his "Do you have any idea how rich I am?" comment.
I honestly think, the family didn't make any more money from the movie than they claim (or not very much more), but clearly they've used the success of the movie afterwards to their advantage. Like being on TV shows, being motivational speakers, etc., but I'm not really sure how that can even be quantified...it's a bit like mooching and them wanting to be famous rather than them actually taking money from Oher.
@andrewshandle oh yeah it's maybe 100k ish more each for the family but there's a lot of carefully chosen words that strike me as very manipulative in their stuff. Either way, they remind me of the worst wealthy people I know
Not really against you, but:
1- I think a 5 way split is not terrible, but at the moment they probably thought that as a family they all deserve the same, and if we see each person as an individual, getting to say I am more important might seem rude, and also the whole percentage negotiations might just get ugly (just see the regular problems when there is a will, people normally go crazy over money) to me an equal split sounds ok. But maybe will be proven they use the power they had to reduce what was a better deal for him.
2- I am not 100% in the know about the book, but with the previous point covering some of it, its all about the deals in the book, probably there was no % of earning/profits that was negotiated so will end up being, on who negotiated and if it was a regular kind of deal for the time.
3- Again goes to what you said the movie deal, we dont know how much they made, in this video is mentioned a not exact 700k paid to the agency , that needs the agency fees removed and then split in 5, we dont know if every member had a different deal, if there is the evidence that the family, excluding Michael had better deals, or even the parents got better deals, I think will be good evidence of them abusing the conservationship if they didnt fight for a hard deal for him too (I am sure there would still be way for them to weasel out of something like this)
4- (your extra point) Yeah they 100% enriched from using his name and relationship, the sue seems to be focused on the movie, and that i think will just come to the deals that were done for it, but for sure they got too much money that they would have never got if not for the movie publicity and to be honest, the oscar publicity from the movie.
They DEFINE THEMSELVES as ADOPTIVE PARENTS. A conservatorship requires a financial audit every 6 months. The family can’t produce one.
The fact they could have adopted him and the only (stated) reasons why they didn't were because "it doesn't make a difference" and the falsehood of it not being possible are VERY shady
I agree and I would know
You realize in the movie it never said he was adopted right? He himself in his book stated he wasn't adopted.
@Pochi1 The movie heavily implied he was adopted, and Legal Eagle mentioned there is an inconsistency of when Oher realized he was never adopted
Not sure how this completely deflates my statement
@@Maxisamo1 There is no inconstancy when he realized he wasn't adopted because he always knew he wasn't adopted. I don't think you understand that when you are adopted you get a new birth certificate. When he got his license and everything since then that required a birth certificate he most definitely knew.
@Pochi1 It's weird how you're putting more responsibility on the guy who put all his trust into the wealthy family that was helping him during his time struggling through school, than the wealthy family that had all these resources
Damn, I didn't know he lacked medical control. He had a NUMBER of concussions in the League, and they played it pretty fast and loose with his injuries too.
I hope a second movie comes out about THIS and then they could call it Blind-Sided.
Heck, get Jordan Peele on it to make it a horror about a black kid getting gaslit. It could actually talk about how foster-kids and the like are often manipulated financially, legally, and emotionally.
It be an interesting film for sure!
10:27 love the lawyers argument ‘Why would rich people be greedy? They have so much money. That would be silly’
This is gross. I feel so bad for Michael... those monsters took advantage of him. I fully believe they deceived him about the adoption. Legal contracts are confusing and if you have someone you trust telling you to sign, you'll do it.
I think they did as well. The contract is too obvious
Yeah they gambled taking in a Homeless kid in hopes of him becoming a wealthy Athlete when they were already wealthy and in demand
@@losttechwetlights7493rich people are still greedy
Wasn’t even a gamble, I’ve been listening to other videos on this and Michael was already pretty much guaranteed to be scouted by some college team when they took him in. It was just a question of which school would get him
@@losttechwetlights7493 Do you know how much money is enough for rich people? More.
This makes me want to do a Blind Side/The Vow double feature with the knowledge that Channing Tatum’s character cheated on his wife & Sandra Bullock’s character is being sued by the kid she “adopted”
You can tell a lot about who someone’s family is by their absence from every holiday for the rest of that person’s life despite not being dead.
I see no scenario in which getting him to sign into a conservitorship is not sinister.
*especially* when they say it's adoption papers
@@phantom_isle Well the Tuohys claimed their lawyers told them they couldn't legally adopt Oher for being over 18 (which is false) and that a conservatorship was "essentially the same thing" (also false)
Same
@@dentonjackson3267If they cared for Michael as much as they claim, they should've combed through that document with that lawyer so they knew exactly what they were making their "son" sign into.
I had one thought. What if they considered him an absolute moron and were afraid he would get himself into a stupid situation that would make them look bad? They didn't know he would become independently wealthy at the time. By taking away his rights they ensure they can terminate any contract he gets himself into. Extremely condescending and explicitly racist, but not as bad as assuming they might be able to profit off of him someday
The notion that they could execute duties to Oher as his fiduciaries is ridiculous. What I find particularly egregious about the situation is the control that they have over his likeness. They have benefitted from him in so many ways and still continue to do so.
This isn't just fraud or theft, it's slavery. They saw someone with talent they could manipulate and groomed him to think he was loved instead of being exploited. Those people should be in prison including the judge who approved this.
💯💯💯
What I find fishy is how adamant they are about there not being any profits, instead of just giving him his share of allegedly nothing.
What... does that even mean? "They should've just given him nothing instead of telling him there was nothing."
Also they said they gave him the $100k, so idk what video you're referring to
As seen with Britney, conservatorships need more regulation by legislature!
It feels like people abuse them to borderline enslave the person
I'm sure theyll get around to it in the year 2100. Jk we'll have a civil war by then
Um, Britney Spears lost custody of her kid in California no less. Do you know how hard you have to try as a woman to get the government to take your kid away?
@@jeremyweaver7689…wtf are you saying 😭 that shit happens all the time, some places are better than others for sure, but its not that outlandish pal
@@Runthemjewels also has no bearing on if her dad abused her
One aspect of this that makes it seem even more sketchy is that they frame it as “to help with admissions” the only admissions that “helped” was to Ole Miss. add the fact that his high school coach High Freeze was hired by Ole Miss the next year this whole thing was obviously boosters being boosters.
He was a top recruit that some rich fast food owners saw in need and brought him in so he would end up at their Alma Mater
"You can go to a wide variety of schools based on your talent. And we think Ole Miss is the best option."
Say what?
@@NybergCarl Can’t wait for the discovery on this one. Hope they make Hugh Freeze testify.
Brought more like bought.
@@kingofnonation5843 yep
The movie made me feel like the Tuohys only wanted a big, gifted football player to send to their beloved Ole MIss. And that was in a portrayal that was supposed to make the them look good!
And then there's the white savior layer on top of that. I never understood why anyone liked the film.
The biggest red flag is that the conservatorship explicitly did not let him make his own medical decisions.
That could be due to some NCAA thing. Remember this was all supposedly so he could play college sports.
@@ChrisEdwards7910 Not "supposedly"... Michael needed the conservatorship to accept the scholarship and play football at Ole Miss!
@@covertpuppytwo3857 Supposedly. There is no obvious reason why adoption couldn't have accomplished that without stripping him of his decision-making rights.
@@ericeaton2386 _"There is no obvious reason why adoption couldn't have accomplished"_ - Actually, in Michael's story, there actually was an obvious reason. Michael was 3 months away from turning 18 and a senior in High school when the conservatorship process began. A conservatorship is a quick and easy process which satisfied NCAA rules and what Michael needed to gain the scholarship and acceptance into the Ole Miss football program. An adoption process is a far longer process and wouldn't have been completed in time for Michael to begin his freshman year in college! And I'll remind you that Michael himself claims he didn't know that a conservatorship stripped him of decision-making rights until recently... if you actually believe Michael, then it would make sense that the Tuohy's NEVER used their authority to strip Michael of any decision-making rights or Michael would have known about it!!!! COMMON SENSE!
@@covertpuppytwo3857 All reporting states he was 18 at the time the conservatorship started, the video from legal eagle states it. You are making definitive statements while getting a basic piece of information wrong. And adult adoption is a faster process than adoption of a child.
I don't know if it would have been fast enough if this case. But the statements from the Tuohy's have gone from: they couldn't adopt an adult to the most recent court filing where they said they never intended to adopt him. So, we don't know if it would have been possible because they either didn't think they could or they never wanted to try.
The fact that they were like "we explained what conservator meant" & pointed to his book where he says "they would be named my "legal conservators" They explained that means pretty much the exact same thing as "adoptive parents"" That's hands down manipulation if I ever saw it.
But he has no proof they ever said that to him. He'll claim they did, and they'll claim that he just misunderstood. It's nothing more than a *19 year-old* "he said / they said".
@aldoabruzzi6417 they have no proof that they explained it except for a quote where he shows he doesn't understand it
@@ellenh5468 Exactly. Like I said, he CLAIMS they explained it to him that way, they CLAIM they never said it that way and he just misunderstood. A "he said / they said".... from way back in 2004. Why are all these morons acting like it PROVES the Tuohys lied to him?
@@aldoabruzzi6417 I dunno, even by their own telling of the story at 14:20, they themselves say that they explained it to him as "this will make you part of the family." While not directly saying it's the same thing as adoption, it still seems like a pretty deceptive way to word it.
Although even if you assume they weren't outright lying to him, the fact that nobody involved apparently bothered checking that he actually understood any of it before signing such a major legal document is still a pretty major issue that would certainly have the appearance of pointing more toward deception.
@@kainotachi No, they were wording it as the NCAA sees it.... which was the only reason they were creating the conservatorship in the first place. In the NCAA's eyes, them becoming his legal guardians made it more official that he was part of their family and not some "pay-for-play" employee. Back then Michael Oher *already* saw himself as one of the family and did not NEED need some piece of paper making it official. He clearly states in his 2011 book that he considered it to be a "formality". I know you won't accept this, but the way they always describe it... they saw it the same way.
Unless he has a recording of it from 2004, he has no proof that the Tuohys told him that a conservatorship was the same thing as an adoption. Even in 2011 he was relying on *his memory of a conversation* that occurred 7 YEARS earlier when he was an 18 year-old. He cannot prove that he didn't just misunderstand them. To say that his 2011 recollection is *proof* that they LIED to him is ludicrous. Now in 2023, It is nothing more than a 19 year-old "He said/They said" that really has no bearing on his petition.
I always felt that even in the movie, it showed that they never would've had anything to do with him if he weren't skilled at football, suggesting that they were using him.
Nothing pisses me off more than the go to phrase of these rich scumbags. "We're already rich, why would we do something terrible for a little more money?" Because to become so obscenely wealthy in the first place, you need to have sold your soul and have no sense of morality. Look at the head of pretty much every scam, they are far more likely to already be wealthy.
That sounds a lot like a line said by a generic villain
Calls into question how they got rich to begin with. Were those other kids even really theirs?????
Right that's probably how they got rich in the first place. You have to take every possible cent.
SO the Tuohy's were rich and couldn't afford a lawyer who knew that adult adoption was legal in Tennessee? That just reeks of foul play. All it takes is one google search and their entire legal team going into it didn't know? That is super shady.
Where did you get the idea that's what their lawyers told them? Do you know for a fact that's what their lawyers said?
@@aldoabruzzi6417 there's no beneficial reason to go into a conservatorship over adult adoption unless for underhanded purposes. Conservatorships aren't usually done unless the individual has mental health or physiological problems. In his book even Oher talks like conservatorship was the legal equivalent of an adult adoption since that's how it was explained to him. He had no reason to distrust the tuohys before then.
Why not adopt someone you love who is supposed to be like a son and part of the family?
@@Tyler-hk4wo I just spelled this all out for you on that other thread. Why are you going down the same list of lame talking points here?
@@Tyler-hk4wo Here, I'll explain it to you again.
>>"there's no beneficial reason to go into a conservatorship over adult adoption unless for underhanded purposes. "
A conservatorship is faster than an adoption. They were under a time constraint with National Signing Day coming up
>> "Conservatorships aren't usually done unless the individual has mental health or physiological problems. "
Usually doesn't mean that those conditions are mandatory. They needed to establish themselves as his legal guardians.
>>"In his book even Oher talks like conservatorship was the legal equivalent of an adult adoption since that's how it was explained to him."
He CLAIMS that's how it was explained to him 19 YEARS ago. Can he prove that accusation? No
>>"He had no reason to distrust the tuohys before then."
Read his 2011 autobiography. Because of his upbringing... he distrusted EVERYONE.
>>"Why not adopt someone you love who is supposed to be like a son and part of the family?"
- An adoption wouldn't be completed by National Signing Day
- They only met him a year and a half before.
- They could always adopt him later when they weren't in such a hurry
@@aldoabruzzi6417It's literally what they said their lawyers had said. That they couldn't adopt him as an adult in Tennessee.
I work as one of the primary accountants for the wards and estates at a fiduciary firm. At least in my state, accounting is strictly monitored by supervising court. It’s a whole ordeal every year to get fiduciary fees approved with lengthy invoices of detailed description of services; there’s no guarantee that they’ll get approved. The business is expensive, but the idea is that you’re making your ward money and maintaining a long sustainability estimate while meeting their needs as best as possible. It’s utterly insane to me that the accounts were either not submitted and never pursued, or the court accountants didn’t raise any red flags. And more so the ward is supposed to be represented by a separate attorney who runs the risk of being disbarred and fined significantly if caught exploiting their client.
This is either misrepresentation or criminal. Either option is exceptionally shitty.
I obviously don't know the details, but when something smells this bad, it's hard to imagine there is not some greedy dead fish at the heart of it. Also, am I the only one who finds it strange that every member of the Tuohy family got an equal share of money from the film? That seems like a very odd and unfair arrangement right there.
For sure. The saying “When there’s smoke, there’s fire” didn’t come into existence for no reason and this situation seems to fit that perfectly.
How would you decide their shares? I don't know how I'd even begin to assign a number to each person. Just giving each an equal portion seems like exactly the sort of answer people would choose to avoid endless negotiations and hurt feelings over who was more important to pay.
@@ericsmith6394 no no no no, you got this shit twisted. The entire film is about Michael’s life and the open hand the family gave him. But It’s *his* life story, not theirs. They just gave him the basic necessities that countless black youth arent granted, but they werent the ones who made it to the nfl. He was. Therefor they do not deserve equal share. Especially when theyre supposed to be this altruistic family. No, Michael should’ve gotten half of the total, and then the other half can be split between the family. 🤷🏾♂️ Thats equitable.
@@ericsmith6394 pretty much agree, specially in what might be the case of no big royalty earnings and what might just be a flat payment for the movie if the last part is correct regarding no % if the movie was a success, I take it as they didnt negotiated a royalty(?) percent and even there as mentioned pretty successful movies are in the red just to avoid this kind of payments
@@RunthemjewelsThis. Split it 50%, then the family can split that however they want.
"Hollywood may not be the most reputable source of info" is one of the most accurate sentences said in history
PoS bot
you mean the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park werent real?????
@@analcommando1124 except Jurassic Park
Especially when it comes to accounting.
Well, yes, when people think historical fiction is truth.
Honestly I kind of feel like one of the most damning things is how the Tuohys were like "Oh, we would've ended the conservatorship whenever if he'd just *asked* :( :( :("
.....but aren't ending the conservatorship despite being taken to court over it.
Who says they aren't ending it? According their lawyers they filed to end it immediately when he filed his petition. It took 5 months for it to be created.... ending it doesn't happen overnight. Not that it really matters.... it's been inactive since he left college back in 2009.
Seems like it's really dangerous to have an easily abuseable "un-person"ing mechanism enshrined in law. Even in the sorts of cases the mechanism is meant for, abuse is sadly very common.
This is kinda heartbreaking and disgusting. This man thought they loved him but in truth they were just using him. They straight up used him for his potential at a young age and tricked him into believing they would adapt him. That's just cruel. This man has spent the last 19 years believing they loved him and that he was their son but instead they just wanted to control him and reap the benefits and cash off of his success. Disgusting.. truly disgusting. I feel for Michael I can't begin to imagine how much it hurt him to learn this.
It’d be such an incredibly, incredibly deep betrayal. 😞
To me, the fact that they never adopted him when they could have says it all. A contract giving white people so much control over a black man and his physical labor... Everybody knows about Mississippi, I guess. Damn, this is wild. That poor man, that's whole familal foundation crumbling. And I hope he gets back the rights to his story and likeness.
Put your own little bit of prejudice in their…
Racist but I totally agree with the rest of what you are saying. These are not nice people.
@@Alex-yv4vrNo one needs to ‘put’ anything in there. It’s absolutely blatant.
@@Alex-yv4vrNo they didn’t. They just pointed out the FACT that white people have been exploiting black bodies for centuries. But congrats, you actually showed YOUR prejudice 👍🏾
This reeked of White Saviour Syndrome. I've helped a lot of young people through rough patches. Lost count of how many said I improved or saved their lives. That gave me no claim on their future successes. I never felt like the non-white kids I helped owed me extra, but that movie sure made it plain that the Touhys were saints offering special white charity. Plus portraying Michael as a big but dim guy who needed a little white boy to explain football tactics. The film stopped short of having the actor grin while saying "yassuh master Touhy, I's gonna win you some fine football games." I'm so very impressed that they resisted. 😑
Seems the Touhy family treated this kid like a prop in a story where they were stars and he was a secondary character. And they want his eternal gratitude. No one should be relegated to NPC status in their own life.🖖✌
Im really side eyeing the family for not also ending the conservatorship much much earlier if they really cared about doing what's best for him and they genuinely thought that would help him going to college