dallastigers

quote:

---

Give them all the ampersands.

---

I can finally contribute to LSU’s NIL…

quote:

---

All of these players can still go out and make money however they choose.

---

And they can still make true NIL or even some NIL mixed with basically pay to play NIL elsewhere.

quote:

---

provides a “colorable argument” to cover conference-wide policies as well.

---

What was the language? Conferences and especially schools have been given a little more leeway to make rules than a governing body that affects most schools in the country (and all schools with bigger TV contracts).


Also, what stops the NCAA or other schools who support this particular NCAA rule from finding favorable local judges in the other states to issue an injunction against these players playing on the road? At this point if Ole Miss doesn’t sign anyone like this I can see their judge deciding that the NCAA was correct on them being professionals. With all these local judges applying federal law in multiple locations eventually the Feds are going to have to decide if a local BR judge in a local judicial district full of bad judges and some from similar districts elsewhere are applying federal law correctly. There is also the stay in the federal judge’s TPO or injunction (can’t remember which) that involved players seeking a 5th year.

I think part of judicial reform needs to be to speed up the process. I am tired of courts being so slow and used as a tool to delay unless both sides actually agree to it. It’s worse when Judges are purposely just slowing things down like with deportations.

quote:

---

Restricting one’s ability to earn a living is against the Constitution especially if said industry has not been collectively bargained or has anti-trust exemption.

If a player wants to get paid playing college football, and a college is willing to pay that player, then that’s what will be. It’s against the Constitution otherwise.

---

If a hooker wants to get paid for sex and a John is willing to pay that hooker…

Against the constitution or against the Trust law that is usually the basis for all the recent rulings?

quote:

---

Louisiana license plate 573EWW is registered to a black Nissan Versa owned by a 31 year old female in Monroe. She did do some time in Texas for cruelty to a child and abduction with a 10 year max. It is at least a possible car.

---

Just having a gun may cause her problems.

quote:

---

A Louisiana judge

---

The father of Judge Eboni Johnson-Rose.

Earlier ruling was by a judge who is also in the 19th which many seem to complain about the quality being elected there this past decade.

quote:

---

It's bid day at LSU.

---

Wasn’t today also the first day of fall classes?

It seems better to have done this last week.

This might be something like the Bee. The link lists entertainment above the article.

quote:

---

They also argued Anthony was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial because of decisions limiting courtroom access during his trial.

---

I also never understood why this was even attempted just because they decided to not have an overflow room set up for more of the public to watch it on closed circuit tv and had other restrictions to avoid disruptions and recording it with devices.

There were regular members of the public there every day. I saw a report on at least one guy who made it inside the courtroom every day. Members of the press were also there and sending reports multiple times a day.

Just having limited spots, enforcing behaviors, and not allowing devices to take pictures or to video or audio record the trial including of the jury doesn’t equate to not having a public trial.

I am sure it will be brought up again on appeal.

quote:

---

Was Karmelo aware of any of this when he stabbed him? If not, of what relevance is it to the case?

---

It’s not which is why is wasn’t in the trial, but the new defense is trying to claim there was supposed to be a gentleman’s agreement to focus 100% on that day or specifically under the tent that day which prosecutors threatened to break if Karmelo took the stand thru the prosecution attempting to open the door to prior actions during their cross of Anthony (specifically the texts and stalking accusations a couple of hours before the murder which I don’t think should have been part of agreement and not sure about any of the rest).

According to the defense that possibility and the likelihood that Anthony would fail to avoid opening the door especially when not prepared properly in advance forced them on the last day to decide not to let Anthony testify which Anthony agreed with (this was what the delay was about that last day before defense rested).

The defense says the prosecutors gained a bigger benefit than the defense under the agreement by threatening or waiting to do this on the last day, and that the judge didnt put an absolute stop to the possibility of the door being opened. Prosecutors claim the Defense had already brought up something positive at school in Anthony’s past opening the door, and the defense admits the prosecutors never explicitly stated Anthony’s testimony was included but was just assumed to be all encompassing. Prosecutors also say the defense didn’t really want to put Anthony on the stand as he would have done more harm than good.

So basically since there is a he said she said aspect to the gentleman’s agreement on crossing Anthony it appears all the past stuff is being brought up now as an attempt to show who did or did not gain the larger benefit by agreeing not to bring up past behaviors while later threatening to try to open the door during cross of any testimony by Anthony.