Started By
Message
re: Let's say the Leo Lewis stuff is thrown out by the NCAA
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:11 pm to Vecchio Cane
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:11 pm to Vecchio Cane
quote:
Giving kids free swag isn't against the law.
but perjury is against the law.
1
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:11 pm to Pickle_Weasel
quote:
Are you arguing that he's not SA#39?
No.
But I'm not stating that he is SA#39 either. I don't want to be in that lawsuit.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:12 pm to Whereisomaha
quote:
I don't know what that means
The university agrees with a lot of the Leo Lewis stuff. But if that RR stuff is bogus, the whole thing is. That's what your argument seems like.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:13 pm to pankReb
quote:
but perjury is against the law
Perjury? Who's taken an oath or testified in court?
Did I miss something?
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:13 pm to bamasgot13
quote:
Leo withdrawing his testimony is a big deal
So Leo tricked OM into self imposing penalties? Leo one smart cookie.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:13 pm to Vecchio Cane
quote:
But I'm not stating that he is SA#39 either. I don't want to be in that lawsuit.
This is my favorite part....
Please tell me where it's illegal to release that Leo is SA#39?
Last time that I asked for this....someone made up something called Herpa.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:14 pm to Vecchio Cane
quote:
Perjury? Who's taken an oath or testified in court?
Come on....I don't believe that you're this stupid.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:17 pm to pankReb
quote:
someone made up something called Herpa.
A typo that changes Ferpa to Herpa is just as egregious as the "false" claims you attribute to Leo. Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:18 pm to pankReb
per·ju·ry
/'p?rj(?)re/
noun
Law
noun: perjury; plural noun: perjuries
the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation
/'p?rj(?)re/
noun
Law
noun: perjury; plural noun: perjuries
the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:19 pm to Vecchio Cane
quote:
A typo that changes Ferpa to Herpa is just as egregious as the "false" claims you attribute to Leo.
So specific claims in testimony by Leo is the same as a typo?
Well shite.... all of our violations the NCAA claims to have found were just a typo then.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:19 pm to Vecchio Cane
Good...I'm glad that you understand what perjury means. Now maybe attribute that definition to the context of the discussion.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:22 pm to Whereisomaha
quote:
m not reading this right I don't think, but if an actual justice court says you are wrong, you are wrong by the actual law. That takes precedent over the ncaa which is why the ncaa hands PSU and Baylor like cases to actual justice courts.
Um, no. People are cleared in criminal court then found liable in civil courts quite often.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:29 pm to pankReb
quote:
So specific claims in testimony by Leo
And the dance continues. Proof of these claims, please.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:31 pm to Vecchio Cane
quote:
And the dance continues. Proof of these claims, please.
So you're saying that he didn't make these claims that are included in the NOA?
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:32 pm to Pickle_Weasel
quote:
The other shite can be disproven
It's sad that you actually believe this to be true.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:33 pm to pankReb
This piddly little Mom 'n Pop store vs a couple is teenage athletes ain't going to court. No one can prove the teenagers willfully disparaged the business or caused future earnings to suffer resulting in the store closing shop. Ole Miss had a sucky season last year, the "bloom" of the Freeze regime has faded, Ole Miss self imposed a bowl ban this year based on the Leo Lewis/Barney Farrar allegations in the amended NOA.....anybody's business that depends on OM Football is going to suffer in a college town like Oxford.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:33 pm to pankReb
quote:
So you're saying that he didn't make these claims that are included in the NOA?
this whole thing is ridiculous. Yes, he made claims that are in the NOA. Ole Miss side thinks those claims are false (biased) and that RR's lawsuit will prove they are false and will somehow result in relief from NCAA (won't). Everyone else thinks the claims are true (biased) and understands that the burden is on plaintiff to prove claims are false, that any harm was caused by these claims and not something else, and (the doozy) that conspiracy took place (good luck with all three of those).
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:34 pm to Pickle_Weasel
Let's get a few facts straight, genius.
1.) LL identified the make and model of the booster's car, and the booster's appearance.
2.) There is a fricking text message that implicates the booster paying LL.
3.) The booster met with LL multiple times.
4.) Your COACH set up LL with a booster.
5.) He is a kid that didn't think he was going to be testifying a year later about minute details of your school paying him. Picking apart the words "wad of cash" and "bag of cash" or whatever the frick that lame arse defense was is absolutely hilarious.
6.) I can set my email up to send it at any time I want, whether I'm there or not. So can anyone else in the world that is not a fricking retard.
1.) LL identified the make and model of the booster's car, and the booster's appearance.
2.) There is a fricking text message that implicates the booster paying LL.
3.) The booster met with LL multiple times.
4.) Your COACH set up LL with a booster.
5.) He is a kid that didn't think he was going to be testifying a year later about minute details of your school paying him. Picking apart the words "wad of cash" and "bag of cash" or whatever the frick that lame arse defense was is absolutely hilarious.
6.) I can set my email up to send it at any time I want, whether I'm there or not. So can anyone else in the world that is not a fricking retard.
This post was edited on 6/22/17 at 2:37 pm
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:36 pm to pankReb
quote:
It's easy to prove that they don't use security tags. It's easy to prove that they didn't have an employee by the name of Emily. It's easy to prove that no gift cards were used on the dates and for the amounts specified by Leo Lewis during his testimony.
All are considered insignificant facts that will be totally ignored by any judge. Witness testimony almost always has little factoids like this that are incorrect or inconsistent. The point is, RR can not prove that this was done for slanderous purposes even if LL was lying about all of it.
RR will lose this case.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:37 pm to bamasgot13
quote:
Everyone else thinks the claims are true (biased) and understands that the burden is on plaintiff to prove claims are false
No...Everyone realizes that the burden is on the plaintiff. We just also realize that RR has legitimate proof against the claims that Leo made. Others refuse to believe this to be even a remote possibility.
Page 3 of 6
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News