- 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
re: The Latest on Medicine Cabinet Gate
Posted on 5/12/10 at 1:19 pm to jdrumdog
Posted on 5/12/10 at 1:19 pm to jdrumdog
quote:
client, you didn't answer my question.
I did, I just sent to Soph
quote:
At any point (provided the limitations haven't expired) new evidence can prompt criminal charges- whether or not the case is open, inactive, or closed.
1
Posted on 5/12/10 at 1:24 pm to EmperorGout
quote:
No, you stated that he did it to save Joe Vitt. Which, quite honestly, you're not going to recover from in this thread
Based on the evidence from the tape transcripts, it seems Vitt was to be the fall guy. Maybe this wasn't Santini's sole motivation or only motivation, but Loomis hanging Vitt out to dry kinda sucks.
Posted on 5/12/10 at 1:26 pm to blueslover
Nothing new in the write-up. Thanks for the find though, blues.
And I find it hard to believe that Santini's associates would say he doesn't have an extortionist bone in his body lol. I wouldn't say that about a friend either, even if they were. Perception is reality.
As far as the NFL goes....haven't they been sitting on this as well?
And I find it hard to believe that Santini's associates would say he doesn't have an extortionist bone in his body lol. I wouldn't say that about a friend either, even if they were. Perception is reality.
As far as the NFL goes....haven't they been sitting on this as well?
Posted on 5/12/10 at 1:28 pm to ClientNumber9
client, I asked a simple question. I'm totally doing this to be an a-hole.
I asked if there was one going on. The answer is yes or no. It's not maybe. I understand what you're saying, trust me.
If you can show me where there's a criminal investigation ongoing, I'll shut up about it.
I asked if there was one going on. The answer is yes or no. It's not maybe. I understand what you're saying, trust me.
If you can show me where there's a criminal investigation ongoing, I'll shut up about it.
Posted on 5/12/10 at 1:34 pm to jdrumdog
Frequently, when there is a pending civil lawsuit arising out of an incident that can also result in criminal charges, the prosecutors will lay low and ride the coattails of attorneys' investigation and discovery in the civil case. The defendant in the civil case will then often plead the Fifth to not allow the civil case to help make the potential criminal case against him or her.
Posted on 5/12/10 at 1:41 pm to jdrumdog
quote:
I'm totally doing this to be an a-hole.
Hmmm. Well, ok.
quote:
If you can show me where there's a criminal investigation ongoing, I'll shut up about it.
A criminal invesigation is ongoing, I can assure you. Hell, there's proof of that on this thread alone, per Jeff Duncan:
quote:
Rest assured, these charges are serious. Stealing a narcotic such as Vicodin is a felony offense that can carry a maximum sentence of 10 years. The Drug Enforcement Agency and Jefferson Parish Sheriff's office say they are investigating the case
Criminal investigations are always ongoing- even on cases that may be deemed closed or inactive- should the need arise or if new information comes to light. The mere fact that JPSO and the DEA are still examining evidence means criminal charges are always looming.
Posted on 5/12/10 at 1:53 pm to ClientNumber9
loomis is a scumbag
Posted on 5/12/10 at 1:53 pm to jdrumdog
quote:
I'm totally doing this to be an a-hole
par for the course
quote:
If you can show me where
BOOM
Posted on 5/12/10 at 2:00 pm to ClientNumber9
Sorry client,
I don't think you understand what I'm saying, which is fine.
If you really work in law enforcement at any level, and you really believe that criminal investigations are always ongoing whether they're closed, open, inactive, etc....I say more power to you.
You can serve as the beacon of light for the rest of us.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying, which is fine.
If you really work in law enforcement at any level, and you really believe that criminal investigations are always ongoing whether they're closed, open, inactive, etc....I say more power to you.
You can serve as the beacon of light for the rest of us.
Posted on 5/12/10 at 2:01 pm to jacks40
lol@jacks.
Decided to chicken up again, have we? lol
Decided to chicken up again, have we? lol
Posted on 5/12/10 at 2:04 pm to jdrumdog
As long as when Duncan says the DEA and Jefferson Parish Sheriff are investigating the case I can understand that to mean there is a "criminal investigation ongoing" then I will chicken it up. Whatever that means
Posted on 5/12/10 at 2:11 pm to jacks40
Sure thing guy.
And I understand you want to forget the chicken incident. I would too.
And you can take it however you want. It's a civil case with an investigation that isn't a criminal one, there's the possibility of it being criminal if any evidence is found to be...well, you get the point.
We'll see. It's like soph says...just interesting this is a civil case.
That is all. Have a good one there jackie boy :)
And I understand you want to forget the chicken incident. I would too.
And you can take it however you want. It's a civil case with an investigation that isn't a criminal one, there's the possibility of it being criminal if any evidence is found to be...well, you get the point.
We'll see. It's like soph says...just interesting this is a civil case.
That is all. Have a good one there jackie boy :)
Posted on 5/12/10 at 2:56 pm to jdrumdog
It's also interesting that he waited a year before going public with it, and is going public by demanding money.
IMO, you lose the moral high ground by acting as he has. He claims he quit because he didn't want to cover something up, so after he quit, why didn't he go to the press or file suit immediately? Why wait a year? And why go to the Saints first, demand that they pay or you'll sue?
I'm not saying that nothing happened or that it's not a big deal. I'm just questioning why it's become something NOW, instead of when it happened. Also, if this is such an open and shut case, why is it taking the DEA and JPSO a year to investigate? And why did JPSO only get involved AFTER the suit was filed?
IMO, you lose the moral high ground by acting as he has. He claims he quit because he didn't want to cover something up, so after he quit, why didn't he go to the press or file suit immediately? Why wait a year? And why go to the Saints first, demand that they pay or you'll sue?
I'm not saying that nothing happened or that it's not a big deal. I'm just questioning why it's become something NOW, instead of when it happened. Also, if this is such an open and shut case, why is it taking the DEA and JPSO a year to investigate? And why did JPSO only get involved AFTER the suit was filed?
This post was edited on 5/12/10 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 5/12/10 at 3:07 pm to Sophandros
There is so much fail in here I don't know where to start.
Santini is not suing for 2 million. He is suing for lost wages and backpay. According to GG, 2 milion is the starting point. There is no figure given in the lawsuit.
Jeff Parish officials were notified before the suit was filed. It was a federal case basically, JPSO will never overly be involved.
The DEA was notified before the suit as well. But it's about the COVERUP, not the stealing of the pills themselves that has brought the lawsuit.
I don't know Santini nor Loomis but one has a 30 year track record of being involved in investigations and such and the other is a pencil pusher wh gets Mr Benson coffee in the morning
Santini is not suing for 2 million. He is suing for lost wages and backpay. According to GG, 2 milion is the starting point. There is no figure given in the lawsuit.
Jeff Parish officials were notified before the suit was filed. It was a federal case basically, JPSO will never overly be involved.
The DEA was notified before the suit as well. But it's about the COVERUP, not the stealing of the pills themselves that has brought the lawsuit.
I don't know Santini nor Loomis but one has a 30 year track record of being involved in investigations and such and the other is a pencil pusher wh gets Mr Benson coffee in the morning
Posted on 5/12/10 at 3:11 pm to jdrumdog
quote:
It's a civil case with an investigation that isn't a criminal one, there's the possibility of it being criminal if any evidence is found to be...well, you get the point.
Per ESPN as of this afternoon-
Santini Allegations
quote:
The Drug Enforcement Administration has told The Associated Press that it is aware of the allegations and that an investigation is pending.
The DEA doesn't investigate civil lawsuits, so any pending investigation is criminal. Whether or not a criminal case is pursued or what will be the outcome, I have no idea. (I have seen guys with 10 prior arrests caught with their hands in the cookie jar not go to trial in "interests of the judicial workload".) But I do know that depending on how deep any cover up (assuming Santini has any real proof) goes and how much Vicodan was stolen, this could be a real mess.
Again- paint Santini with whatever brush you choose but if he's got hard evidence of a crime, it's no bueno. He may be a douche, but douches routinely turn over information against other people to get them locked up for decades.
Posted on 5/12/10 at 3:12 pm to Sophandros
When this initially came out, Santini said he resigned as a result of "harassment" on the part of the organization. The part of the claim is for lost wages from that.
This post was edited on 5/12/10 at 3:18 pm
Posted on 5/12/10 at 3:27 pm to stapuffmarshy
I agree that something against the law happened, but does it deserve jail time? The law may say so, but punishments don't always fit the crime.
On the other hand, Soph has a point. The timing of the lawsuit is very fishy. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. While you seem to place overwhelming trust in Santini simply because he was an FBI agent, you should also realize that they are also very good at making the evidence look as bad as possible. Also you should realize that you are mostly going to hear one side of the story because Santini benefits from moving public opinion to his side while the Saints have to be extremely careful because they may have criminal charges brought against them.
It is foolish to jump to conclusions about this
On the other hand, Soph has a point. The timing of the lawsuit is very fishy. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. While you seem to place overwhelming trust in Santini simply because he was an FBI agent, you should also realize that they are also very good at making the evidence look as bad as possible. Also you should realize that you are mostly going to hear one side of the story because Santini benefits from moving public opinion to his side while the Saints have to be extremely careful because they may have criminal charges brought against them.
It is foolish to jump to conclusions about this
Posted on 5/12/10 at 3:45 pm to stapuffmarshy
quote:
Santini is not suing for 2 million. He is suing for lost wages and backpay. According to GG, 2 milion is the starting point.
If 2 million is his starting point, then we would have to believe that his salary was over 2 million per year, since he quit the team less than a year ago. I find it difficult to believe that his salary was 2 million or higher per year.
Plus, you conveniently omit that he went to the Saints and demanded 2 million or he would sue. THAT is what I'm talking about.
quote:
Jeff Parish officials were notified before the suit was filed. It was a federal case basically, JPSO will never overly be involved.
And a year ago they said that they didn't believe that they needed to investigate as the team had taken the necessary steps at that time.
quote:
I don't know Santini nor Loomis but one has a 30 year track record of being involved in investigations and such and the other is a pencil pusher wh gets Mr Benson coffee in the morning
These things are irrelevant. What's relevant is that Santini's conscience didn't compel him to come out with this until a year after the fact. It's not like he left the company yesterday and had been holding information. He hid stuff for a year, and is now playing whistle-blower because he figures he can make some cash.
Posted on 5/12/10 at 3:47 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:
Again- paint Santini with whatever brush you choose but if he's got hard evidence of a crime, it's no bueno. He may be a douche, but douches routinely turn over information against other people to get them locked up for decades.
Except that he chose not to act on this until a year later. If he really were doing things above the table (and people continuously point out his 30 year history with the FBI, so he has to know how to operate or who to contact with evidence), then why didn't he IMMEDIATELY do something after he quit?
Posted on 5/12/10 at 4:03 pm to blueslover
cant believe this is now the 3rd headline on espn.com 
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News