Started By
Message
re: As the Bayou Burns | LSU/FBIThread | UPDATE: HBO Documentary on the way
Posted on 4/10/19 at 12:02 pm to lsufball19
Posted on 4/10/19 at 12:02 pm to lsufball19
quote:
Now you find me the exception that allows the NCAA to request, and obtain, inadmissible evidence obtained by a federal agency.
your cited portion of the act, doesnt say anything about evidence not used in a particular court case. So maybe you didnt include all of it. The FBI has stated they are handing over evidence, so that would contradictory to your quote as well.
This particular case isnt the first or the last either(Although under current info is one currently pertinent to Wade) so deeming inadmissible in one case, doesnt exclude the evidence from others.
quote:
If the NCAA was confident they were going to receive everything they never would have filed a Motion to Intervene in this case (for the purpose of gathering the case file), a Motion that was denied for being improperly filed and failure to cite legal authority allowing them to intervene.
Again, FTR, I am not trying to say you are wrong about anything here. I am just trying to filter out the TR bullshite that gets stated here that is not factual.
I was not aware the NCAA filled a motion. Do you have a link to that? I am curious to read it.
1
Posted on 4/10/19 at 12:06 pm to ibldprplgld
quote:
That actually is business: exchange of goods or services for payment. It can't be anymore clear than that. But I know you'll retort quickly with absolutely nothing substantive.
Again, payment is not a qualifier for business. No matter how many times you say, it doesnt change the definition
quote:
Your AU compadre made a statement;
no he didnt. You invented his statement and rolled with it. Several(not just I or him)tried to tell he did not make the statement, but you continued.... They even went back to the direct quote to show you 
Posted on 4/10/19 at 12:08 pm to ibldprplgld
quote:
LSU's compliance office has been a thorn in the side of LSU coaches for years; it's run like the KGB and they self-report everything (and I do mean everything) to the NCAA
This used to be a point of pride.
Nowadays the Tiger Rant wants to burn LSU compliance at the stake.
Posted on 4/10/19 at 12:09 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
your cited portion of the act, doesnt say anything about evidence not used in a particular court case.
the cited language references any information obtained by a federal agency. Like I said, if it makes it's way into the court record, the information isn't protected. If it doesn't, the FBI can't release it without consent of Will Wade (or Dawkins). Sorry, you're wrong.quote:
The FBI has stated they are handing over evidence, so that would contradictory to your quote as well.
Yes, they are handing over evidence that are lawfully able to release. they have never, ever, said they are releasing their entire case file.
Now you tell me what the purpose of the NCAA filing a Motion to Intervene was if they are going to get everything.
quote:
Again, FTR, I am not trying to say you are wrong about anything here
You kind of are. And unless you want to pay my hourly rate to prepare a case brief for you, you can do your own legal research to prove me wrong. I've given you the statute. I've provided the language of the statute. I've also provided the exceptions. If you want to argue with it or rebut what I've said, then the burden belongs to you my friend
quote:
so deeming inadmissible in one case, doesnt exclude the evidence from others.
Right, and I believe the feds have already filed a pre-trial Motion to prevent Wade from testifying and from his tapes being released in the April trial. That's why i have been clear to say IF Wade's testimony and/or the wiretaps of him are found to be inadmissible, the feds won't be releasing them to the NCAA. I never said it was already deemed inadmissible in the upcoming trial. However the legal argument will be the same as the last trial. The tapes of Wade are not relevant to the underlying charges involving Dawkins. The current trial is for bribery. Dawkins was not charged for bribing Will Wade, nor does that tape have anything that would bring any sort of relevance to the charges of Dawkins allegedly bribing others. Just like it wasn't relevant in whether or not he was guilty of wire-fraud in October.
quote:
I was not aware the NCAA filled a motion. Do you have a link to that? I am curious to read it.
I did at some point. Someone on tigerdroppings found it, but I can't remember what thread it was now. The NCAA cited a bunch of case law that was completely irrelevant to what they were trying to do, which is probably why, in his ruling, the judge said he'd need to see some legal authority allowing them to intervene. I'm sure you could find it through google or maybe the DOJ website.
This post was edited on 4/10/19 at 12:21 pm
Posted on 4/10/19 at 12:10 pm to ibldprplgld
I seriously doubt the FBI is going to release anything to the NCAA.
LSU fandom aside for a moment, consider the implications;
let's say you cheated on your job, but didn't commit any crime. Then, let's say some law-enforcement agency, in the course of investigating someone else committing an actual crime, comes across circumstantial evidence you might have cheated in your job.
They're not going to give that evidence to your employer. It was obtained in a confidential manner by a law-enforcement agency, using techniques that require a court order, and are specifically limited to the target of that investigation.
I mean, if Winn Dixie fires Alice the cashier because the cops told the company that Alice said she let somebody use someone else's Plenti card, and that's the ONLY way Alice is implicated,... then Alice has a very winnable lawsuit. It's not the police's job, nor is it in their scope of practice, to monitor who uses what Plenti card.
And similarly, it's not in the FBI's scope to investigate college coaches for potential recruiting violations. The FBI investigates federal crimes.
LSU fandom aside for a moment, consider the implications;
let's say you cheated on your job, but didn't commit any crime. Then, let's say some law-enforcement agency, in the course of investigating someone else committing an actual crime, comes across circumstantial evidence you might have cheated in your job.
They're not going to give that evidence to your employer. It was obtained in a confidential manner by a law-enforcement agency, using techniques that require a court order, and are specifically limited to the target of that investigation.
I mean, if Winn Dixie fires Alice the cashier because the cops told the company that Alice said she let somebody use someone else's Plenti card, and that's the ONLY way Alice is implicated,... then Alice has a very winnable lawsuit. It's not the police's job, nor is it in their scope of practice, to monitor who uses what Plenti card.
And similarly, it's not in the FBI's scope to investigate college coaches for potential recruiting violations. The FBI investigates federal crimes.
Posted on 4/10/19 at 12:13 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
NYCAuburn
Damn.
You and your staggering ignorance have outlasted my patience. Most people learn to take their licks and move on...you keep doubling down and coming back for more helpings.
Credit to you for your persistence, I suppose.
Posted on 4/10/19 at 12:15 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
Again, payment is not a qualifier for business. No matter how many times you say, it doesnt change the definition
I mean this is a stupid discussion, but the simple definition of business is "the practice of making one's living by engaging in commerce." What do you think "commerce" is? I'll tell you. It's "the activity of buying and selling, especially on a large scale."
I have no idea why you have sidetracked here, but in this context, "business" 100% has to do with the exchange of money.
This post was edited on 4/10/19 at 12:17 pm
Posted on 4/10/19 at 12:16 pm to lsufball19
quote:
You kind of are. And unless you want to pay my hourly rate to prepare a case brief for you, you can do your own legal research to prove me wrong. I've given you the statute. I've provided the language of the statute. I've also provided the exceptions. If you want to argue with it or rebut what I've said, then the burden belongs to you my friend
He is 100% not going to provide anything substantive, but he's going to go back and forth with you and request you bring facts to the table when he's only pulling shite out of his arse.
My best advice: let this idiot go about his day and you do the same. You already stomped on his dick with facts and he's too dense to realize it -- but don't you worry, he'll rebut you with his opinion for days.
Posted on 4/10/19 at 12:23 pm to lsufball19
NYCAuburn [offline]
Posted on 4/10/19 at 12:28 pm to lsufball19
quote:
I have no idea why you have sidetracked here, but in this context, "business" 100% has to do with the exchange of money.
The supposition has been made that Wade lied when he said he had no business dealings with Dawkins.
Those who are convinced Wade is guilty, or who want to see Wade fired point to the phone calls between he and Dawkins as "business."
Those of us who deal in reality know that just talking to someone isn't business. Words and details matter, and in this sense, there is no evidence Wade lied about that.
Posted on 4/10/19 at 12:34 pm to ibldprplgld
quote:
Those of us who deal in reality know that just talking to someone isn't business. Words and details matter, and in this sense, there is no evidence Wade lied about that.
To my understanding, Dawkins is simply a "friend" of Wade, and the person involved in the affairs of Smart was his AAU coach and "mentor" Shannon Forman. Wade, unfortunately for him, got caught up in an FBI investigation and was caught on a wiretap making some very suspect comments to Dawkins, but we don't have anything to prove Wade did business specifically with Dawkins, which is why this whole "Wade lied" stuff is speculative at best right now, unless we are to guess what the conversations he's had with Alleva entailed and/or extend the definition of lying to omission of other things he did wrong with other people. This Forman guy is someone LSU has known about long before any of this saw the light of the media. It is also my understanding LSU questioned Smart about Forman when Smart spoke to LSU officials before he was cleared to play in early March. Forman is honestly the perfect bagman for Smart given his long-standing relationship with Smart. And Forman is refusing to speak with anyone and can't be compelled to.
This post was edited on 4/10/19 at 12:42 pm
Posted on 4/10/19 at 12:42 pm to Tuscaloosa
If anyone is interested, here is a good article from al.com about a mock NCAA inquiry the media got to participate in. It has some good info on what the NCAA can and can't use and what their standard for evidence is. It's from 2011 but I don't much has changed since then:
LINK
LINK
quote:
The NCAA's standard of proof is equivalent to "clear and convincing evidence" in a civil case, such as those involving parental rights, Potuto said. "The burden of proof doesn't mean each piece of evidence has to reach that burden," she said. "It means in the complete totality of it you can get there, which means you may reject some of it."
quote:
Information from confidential or anonymous sources cannot be used as evidence to support an allegation or be presented during a hearing. But it's frequently the catalyst for an investigation.
quote:
When deciding whether to move forward with a case, the staff considers the amount of detail provided, the consistency of the information, the motivation for a person to provide false information, and whether the person has direct or indirect knowledge.
"It's very similar to investigative reporting," Emmert said. "We don't have subpoena power. You don't have subpoena power."
The NCAA's inability to subpoena documents or testimony can't be overstated.
Posted on 4/10/19 at 12:45 pm to BrerTiger
I believe the only major change is the NCAA can now use court documents and documents obtained in other investigations in their own investigation. They used to be forced to conduct completely independent investigations. But no, they still cannot use anonymous sources of information as evidence. (i.e. the yahoo articles and information therein cannot be used as evidence but could trigger an investigation) The thing is, they know the source of the information but don't have access to it as of now and may never, at least as far as Wade is concerned.
This post was edited on 4/10/19 at 12:47 pm
Posted on 4/10/19 at 12:52 pm to lsufball19
quote:
"business" 100% has to do with the exchange of money.
This is 100% false. Again exchanging money is not a qualifier of the definition of business. Can exchanging money represent business, yes, but not all business is the exchange of money.
quote:
I have no idea why you have sidetracked here,
Really? its from the statement that Wade made last year.
Posted on 4/10/19 at 12:59 pm to lsufball19
quote:
which is why this whole "Wade lied" stuff is speculative at best right now
What Wade said re: Dawkins may technically be true in a way that would make Bill Clinton proud.
But from his employer's point of view, it comes off like this:
"Sweetheart, I did not have sex with that woman. I was just talking with that woman about some great sex about to go down between me and a totally different woman. We cool now, bitch?"
I think Eddie Murphy said something to that effect in Raw while reminding his woman he still LOVED her.
quote:
unless we are to guess what the conversations he's had with Alleva entailed
If Will Wade was entirely truthful with Alleva back in October, then why suspend him in March? To appease the national media? Fear of the NCAA?
I mean, Joe's public statements make it pretty clear he feels like there's a lot Will Wade didn't tell him.
quote:
“I wish he’d come in and just tell the truth,” Alleva added. “Just tell me what went on. I can handle the truth, even if it’s bad.”
LSU would have zero problem right now firing Will Wade with cause. He's already in breach of contract for taking so long just to come in and tell his boss his side of things.
Anybody think Will Wade would win a lawsuit against LSU? Do you think LSU hasn't already developed their preliminary defense arguments for such a lawsuit?
Obviously, they don't want to pull the trigger or they would have done so already. If he was a coach with a losing record, he'd probably already be fired. They are biding their time to see what else develops. Wade has some top shelf legal talent. If nothing new drops, he's got a good chance of wiggling out of all this. The FBI doesn't have any interest in going after the universities or the shoe companies. They just want to nail the middlemen.
Posted on 4/10/19 at 1:01 pm to lsufball19
quote:
the cited language references any information obtained by a federal agency
Yes it does. Yet, evidence gets released all the time. you even state it here
quote:
Like I said, if it makes it's way into the court record, the information isn't protected
quote:
Yes, they are handing over evidence that are lawfully able to release
Again, I am asking where it says evidence not used in a court case can not be released. Your quote says nothing about this and this is your point.
quote:
they have never, ever, said they are releasing their entire case file.
Never said they were going to, but they also havent said they were going to hold back info either
quote:
You kind of are
You havent actually shown it all. I merely asked you to show it. You have even been contradictory(see above)
quote:
I've provided the language of the statute. I've also provided the exceptions.
You did not in relation to your claim
quote:
I did at some point. Someone on tigerdroppings found it, but I can't remember what thread it was now. The NCAA cited a bunch of case law that was completely irrelevant to what they were trying to do, which is probably why, in his ruling, the judge said he'd need to see some legal authority allowing them to intervene. I'm sure you could find it through google or maybe the DOJ website.
Id like to see it. I was not aware of it and I dont believe it has been brought over here at all. I dont really go over to TDTR
Posted on 4/10/19 at 1:03 pm to civiltiger07
quote:
NYCAuburn [offline]
Some of us like to eat lunch...
Posted on 4/10/19 at 1:09 pm to lsufball19
quote:
They used to be forced to conduct completely independent investigations.
Back in the Dale Brown Gestapo days they were feared.
Not so much these days.
But even back then, if everybody kept tight lips there wasn't much they could do.
So far, it certainly seems like the NCAA has little to go on outside of whatever the FBI might give them. We don't know what their interviews turned up but LSU felt confident enough to play Javonte so that means it is unlikely the interviews produced anything useful for the NCAA.
Posted on 4/10/19 at 1:12 pm to lsufball19
That's all pretty much my understanding as well. Wade didn't lie about doing business with Dawkins unless a money trail to Dawkins is uncovered.
Posted on 4/10/19 at 1:13 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
the cited language references any information obtained by a federal agencyquote:
Yes it does. Yet, evidence gets released all the time. you even state it here
seems like you aren't comprehending what lsuball19 is writing. Yes, evidence gets released all the time, but not evidence that was ruled inadmissible in court.
quote:
Again, I am asking where it says evidence not used in a court case can not be released. Your quote says nothing about this and this is your point.
quote:
No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request
Page 65 of 81
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News