But, you said that you refuse to sign an NDA as part of the settlement because you want to "expose" everything.
.
that's correct. i suggest you familiarize yourself with the definition of "everything."
It looks like everything you want to "expose", which is why you claim you won't sign the NDA, has already been "exposed" a year ago.
.
it looks like everything (there is that tricky word again) has been exposed? care to explain how everything has been exposed?
let me get this straight: first, you're using an article based on an article which i practically wrote. the original article which went national and was picked up by the AP (and thus numerous major sports outlets) was whose doing? who do you think decided what was to be and not to be released at that state? who do you think decided whose names were and weren't allowed to be quoted? who do you think decided whose names were and weren't to be used at all? who do you think has a text in which he wrote "that's what i want, if you want to take it a different way, ill pull the plug on the whole thing, and everyone you claim you are quoting or naming will all say you fabricated it?"
i had what i wanted released when i wanted. it was enough to lead to a major NCAA investigation at both institutions and have the first shot fired.
you think i would bust my nut before a first settlement was even offered? of course not. not only do they know i have a lot more, but they also don't know the extent that i have it.
There are either fallacies with your story (go figure, a narcissist lying to try to make themselves look better through exaggeration?), or your brilliant legal mind hasn't even done the most basic of research to see if holding out for a settlement that doesn't include an NDA is even worthwhile.
.
that entire paragraph is predicated on the belief that the things mentioned in that article were all of the issues that i have proof of happening.
"everything." go look it up, moron.