No slander to say this is the ugliest family feud in state history
Kevin Ollie already has accused UConn of racial discrimination because of the disparate treatment he received compared to Jim Calhoun.
The NCAA already has accused Ollie of lying about relatively minor offenses and turned those into major offenses.
Ollie and UConn have long-since doubled and tripled down on an arbitration process that will leave the fired Huskies basketball coach with about $11 million or nothing.
So why wouldn’t Ollie sue his former associate coach Glen Miller for slander?
When you’ve dived this far into the mud, why would anybody stop now to get hosed off with the cleansing water of compromise? When you’ve burnt this many bridges, when you’ve scorched so much earth, why put down the legal torches?
For those of us who haven’t been exhausted by the nastiest, most protracted family feud in Connecticut athletic history, there is almost a perverse curiosity in what will come next.
On Tuesday, we were again rewarded. Yes, another branch has sprung from the Ugly Tree.
Glen and Yvonne Miller step right up.
In a complaint filed in Hartford Superior Court by Ollie’s attorney Jacques Parenteau, you have been accused of slander by Ollie and Stephanie Garrett, mother of former UConn player Shonn Miller, for making false statements to NCAA officials about a possible $30,000 payment by Ollie to Garrett.
Ollie’s lawyers insist there is no truth to any payment, and there has been no proof of it. Beyond that, UConn didn’t use it to
make its case for firing Ollie for “just cause” in March 2018.
One of key elements of defamation for a public figure is actual malice. So let’s get to the juiciest part. Soon after Ollie terminated Miller in March 2017, Ollie’s lawsuit asserts that Miller told at least one person that Ollie would pay and get what’s coming to him. “I was three years away from retiring,” Miller allegedly said. “He has ruined my life. I don’t know what I’m going to do. I can’t even get a job on campus. I’m going to get him.”
Miller also allegedly called Ollie an “f-ing inhaler” (we cleaned that up).
People are hurt and angry in the hours and days after they are fired. Miller would be no exception. What would be far more disturbing is if Miller said and really meant he was going to “get” Ollie.
That is one a hell of an accusation of malice.
I’ll be honest. I’d be fascinated to see that get into court, have a witness or multiple witnesses swear on a Bible that Miller said it.
It would be incredible theater. And, unless somebody had recorded it, a he said/she said scenario that might be impossible to prove.
That in itself wouldn’t prove slander anyway. Another element of defamation is a false statement purporting to be fact and that’s where this gets mighty hazy. The way I understand it if I called Ollie or Miller a “f-ing inhaler” that’s my opinion. Not slander (oral) or libel (written). But if I said I think Ollie paid Stephanie Garrett $30,000 that — open to legal interpretation — still might be considered a false statement.
Yet I read and reread the
11 pages involving Miller and the $30,000 among the
1,355 pages released last spring by UConn and I can’t find where Miller claimed Ollie did it. Or even that he thought Ollie did it.
Miller said his wife was told by Garrett that Ollie had given her the money to move to Connecticut. Yvonne had befriended Garrett that season.
Miller, who received limited immunity, did tell the NCAA he had previously alerted UConn officials of the situation when the FBI started investigating schools a few months earlier in September 2017 when it made several arrests in a national payoff scandal.
Yvonne Miller’s January
2018 testimony was not among the released documents, but Ollie’s lawsuit asserts that Miller told NCAA investigators that Garrett told her that Ollie had paid her $30,000 cash in an envelope in his car at the Nathan Hale campus hotel.
Unless they maliciously fabricated it, does the Millers telling the NCAA that Yvonne was told by Garrett about the money constitute a false statement? That’s one for the lawyers, but it sure seems shaky.
Another element of defamation is publication or communication of that statement to a third party. Ollie’s lawyers assert UConn’s release of 1,355 pages under the Freedom of Information Act was a violation of Ollie’s privacy and that the slew of media reports that followed allowed for the identification of Garrett.
The school has said it released documents in direct response to a FOI request by Ollie’s own attorneys and that the media requested and received these same documents as required. A public university, UConn said, is not permitted the selective release of public records to certain parties while denying the same records to others. You can’t blame Miller on this front.
Parenteau told Dave Borges of Hearst Connecticut Media, “Glen Miller is the University of Connecticut’s star witness. And he was motivated to get Kevin Ollie.” Miller’s attorney Drzislav Corcic responded: “I think it’s a transparent attempt to intimidate a witness right before the NCAA hearing, and we’re going to defend it vigorously.”
An NCAA hearing on the Ollie infractions has been scheduled for Thursday.
Question: If Ollie is so hot to go after Miller on the
$30,000 testimony, why isn’t he also trying to sue him also on all the other things Miller said about the Ray Allen/Rudy Gay FaceTime calls, Boo Willingham, Danny Griffin and Derek Hamilton? The NCAA said Ollie provided false or misleading information about arranging impermissible phone calls for a recruit (Hamidou Diallo), and about arranging impermissible workouts in Atlanta for players with Ollie’s friend Hamilton.
Why? Maybe because they’re true. By the way, all those other things help UConn in its case against Ollie.
Ollie fired Miller, hired Rafael Chillious because Chillious was supposed to recruit so much better than Miller. Chillious’ name shows up in the national corruption trial that he was in the hotel suite while Christian Dawkins, Marty Blazer and an undercover FBI agent entertained numerous college basketball assistant coaches looking to make payoffs in exchange for relationships to attract top players. Chillious was caught on video pledging “1,000 percent support for the plan,” but fortunately he and UConn were deemed not to have enough recruiting clout to pay off.
Many have been under the microscope at the trial, including UConn assistant Kenya Hunter, then on the Nebraska staff. A copy of a text message by Merl Codes to Dawkins was presented as evidence: “Do we need to do Kenya? I think we have done enough for them to see value. Can Kenya really get dudes?” There is no mention of Hunter being paid either.
There is nothing pretty about any of this, hasn’t been for month and months. Ollie wouldn’t have been fired for cause, just or unjust, if he had won games. The inability to come to a suitable buyout exposed Ollie to unpleasant truths about his program. He is flinging wildly now, seemingly content to take out any and everybody in his path and the harder he tries the worse he looks.
Although Ollie temporarily lost a racial discrimination claim against UConn, it still can be brought back after the arbitration decision. A key component of the complaint is that Calhoun, a white man, got away with much worse conduct involving, than Ollie, a black man did. This is Ollie’s mentor.
Ollie is seeking damages of at least $15,000 from Miller. He figures to be looking for much more, although how much could Miller actually give him? Miller’s attorney struck back saying he has subpoena power and is seeking financial information from Ollie about the slander suit. Heaven knows what this could expose about Ollie and where this takes us.
Like we said. This is the ugliest family feud in Connecticut athletic history.