What a shock
The internet is where I found the documents of the depositions of all the relevant characters of the lawsuit. You claim to have “first hand knowledge,” yet you won’t say who you are and you won’t produce anything. Yet somehow, in your own mind, that means you apparently know more even though all you’ve provided is recycled Kent Hance lies. Again, if you don’t give us a reason to believe you, we have no reason to believe you.
And yes, Hance absolutely did admit that they (not just he) had made the decision to fire him well before the lawsuit. And it wasn’t just him, either.
You don’t seem to grasp the significance of Bingham’s revelation. She was saying the exact same thing that Hance said in the deposition. Hance was asked the same question Bailey was asked, and I point Bailey out because his answer to that question is in that amendment that I posted.
So if Hance said what I said he said, then my assertion was correct: Hance conceded that the decision to terminate was made prior to (and therefore independent of) Leach’s decision to file the TRO. If I’m wrong, and you’re right that the decision to terminate was in retaliation for his filing of the TRO, then you’re saying that all these Tech guys lied in their depositions when they said it wasn’t that AND that they were in violation of their own policies.
So you either sank the 8-ball in a pocket you didn’t call or you sank the 8-ball in a pocket you did call but the cue ball went into a pocket as well. You lose in either scenario.
As to this offer of the money he’s owed, again what evidence is there of this? Your word? That’s gonna be a tough sell, especially since we know that Leach offered to settle the case and Texas Tech rejected it. https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/college/texas-tech-rejects-mike-leachs-offer-to-settle-suit-college-football/