- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 3/31/19 at 9:31 pm to Irish LSU Fan
Get off the LSU board.
Posted on 3/31/19 at 9:45 pm to Irish LSU Fan
quote:did you really not follow my post? It was pretty basic.
"probably & unlikely"
Are you referencing my thread title?
Posted on 3/31/19 at 9:48 pm to El Campo Tiger
Pic would have a better impact with purple mushroom....
Posted on 3/31/19 at 10:02 pm to Irish LSU Fan
Emmert's comments didn't state that the FBI was providing information, just that they are "working" together. You have implied that means handing over evidence.
Yet, three months after making that statement, Emmert's organization had to ask the court for documents, instead of just getting it from the FBI. There is guarantee that the court is going to grant the motion (in fact I think that is unlikely).
Yet, three months after making that statement, Emmert's organization had to ask the court for documents, instead of just getting it from the FBI. There is guarantee that the court is going to grant the motion (in fact I think that is unlikely).
Posted on 3/31/19 at 10:19 pm to ellessuuuu
quote:
There is guarantee that the court is going to grant the motion (in fact I think that is unlikely).
The Motion to Intervene was denied, without prejudice, for being improperly filed and for failing to state a legal basis in which the Motion should be granted. It was never re-filed which tells me they had no legal basis (which I found to be implied in the Court’s ruling).
But you're absolutely right. "Working together" does not mean the FBI is giving the NCAA anything. If Irish read more into it, Emmert has also said that their hands are tied and can only receive information as it becomes available during the trial. The NCAA has begged the FBI to release their files, and their pleas have been unsuccessful. They wouldn't have tried to file the Motion they did if the information was being provided to them by the FBI. The NCAA is worried that if this case doesn't go to trial and/or the information they want isn't made part of the record at trail that they will never by privy to the same.
This post was edited on 3/31/19 at 10:24 pm
Posted on 3/31/19 at 10:24 pm to lsufball19
The only way the NCAA gets everything from the FBI is in the Discovery phase, which would be bad for the NCAA.
lol
lol
Posted on 3/31/19 at 10:27 pm to D500MAG
quote:
The only way the NCAA gets everything from the FBI is in the Discovery phase
the discovery phase has already happened, and even if proffered during discovery that doesn't mean it's publicly available. Because something is discoverable doesn't make it admissible. Discoverable information also includes information that may lead to other evidence that may be relevant. Plenty of things provided in formal discovery do not end up being admissible in trial. For instance, the wiretaps of Wade were obviously part of discovery yet were deemed inadmissible at trial.
This post was edited on 3/31/19 at 10:29 pm
Posted on 3/31/19 at 10:30 pm to lsufball19
I think elllessuuu meant there is *no* guarantee...
This post was edited on 3/31/19 at 10:32 pm
Posted on 3/31/19 at 11:14 pm to Irish LSU Fan
quote:
Emmert said the NCAA is working in conjunction with the FBI on the investigations. The FBI hasn't "dumped all their files" at the NCAA office in Indianapolis yet, he said."
Didn’t read past the OP but lol at anyone that believes this horseshite.
Posted on 3/31/19 at 11:51 pm to lsufball19
Good deal. I didn't realize it had been denied. I thought their request to e-file the motion was denied, but that the motion was still pending.
I expected it to be denied (the NCAA has lost this exact same motion in prior litigation), but glad it is official.
ETA. Definitely meant to say "no guarantee". My mistake, we're on the same page here.
I expected it to be denied (the NCAA has lost this exact same motion in prior litigation), but glad it is official.
ETA. Definitely meant to say "no guarantee". My mistake, we're on the same page here.
This post was edited on 3/31/19 at 11:53 pm
Posted on 3/31/19 at 11:55 pm to ellessuuuu
I mean it was denied without prejudice which means they could re-file, but they haven’t. My guess is when the judge says it needs to state a legal basis to intervene in a criminal proceeding that means 1) they didn’t state one in their original Motion which is comical in and if itself for an attorney; and 2) the judge didn’t think there was a legal basis. Judges do this all of the time to attorneys that make requests of the Court when the court doesn’t have a legal basis, to their knowledge, to do so. But, to give them the benefit of the doubt, they’ll allow them to at least try to find a precedent. The ncaa still not having refilled that Motion tells me they had no legal basis to intervene.
This post was edited on 3/31/19 at 11:57 pm
Posted on 4/1/19 at 12:04 am to lsufball19
I read the brief. It cited a ton of cases that really weren't relevant. You could tell it was a long shot at best.
Did the US Attorney file a response? Denying w/o prejudice, but telegraphing what the outcome on the merits would be probably helps the US Attorney from having to weigh in one way or the other.
Did the US Attorney file a response? Denying w/o prejudice, but telegraphing what the outcome on the merits would be probably helps the US Attorney from having to weigh in one way or the other.
This post was edited on 4/1/19 at 12:06 am
Posted on 4/1/19 at 12:07 am to ellessuuuu
I’m not aware whether a response was filed or not. I haven’t even read their brief. Where did you find it, I’d love to read it
This post was edited on 4/1/19 at 12:09 am
Posted on 4/1/19 at 5:50 am to ellessuuuu
quote:
the NCAA filed a motion asking the court to give the NCAA access to inadmissible evidence. Why would the NCAA do this if they thought the FBI was going to hand over everything? LINK
Not saying you are wrong, but one reason to file the motion is to give FBI cover. There may be serious privacy concerns, but if the judge orders the production of the recordings, the FBI may be relieved of liability for following the court's order.
ETA-- other posters are following more closely and state that judge denied the request. That bodes well for WW AND OTHER COACHES allegedly caught on tape.
This post was edited on 4/1/19 at 5:56 am
Posted on 4/1/19 at 7:03 am to Irish LSU Fan
I hope LSU isn't punished as "an example".
Posted on 4/1/19 at 8:24 am to lsufball19
Posted on 4/1/19 at 8:25 am to beauxroux
Yep. I haven't seen the denial order, I'll look for it today, but that would be a huge victory for WW.
This post was edited on 4/1/19 at 8:27 am
Posted on 4/1/19 at 5:11 pm to ellessuuuu
No legitimate lawyer truly believes a private party or entity has the right to intervene in a criminal proceeding? When your motion starts by saying there is no criminal counterpart to the civil rules of procedure allowing for an intervention, but that is exactly what we are asking the court to do....you have already lost the motion.
Posted on 4/1/19 at 5:57 pm to ellessuuuu
Not only will the FBI not be giving any information to the NCAA that has been determined to be irrelevant by the court, it would be illegal for them to do so. In fact it is illegal for anyone (i.e. the defense) to release that information. Which is why it was "leaked" and not just released. If WW could prove who "leaked" this transcript, he would probably have the basis for a good law suit.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News