Well, this is interesting...





  • @mayjay so can some of that apply to us?



  • This kind of legal maneuvering doesn’t make my heart all warm and fuzzy. It’s almost an admission of guilt. Can’t prove their innocence so attack the ambush.

    I hope Gottfried has a good lawyer who helps clear this up instead of just delaying it again. The investigation has hurt recruiting long enough, its time to get it over with.



  • @dylans It is pretty standard not to give evidentiary weight to findings that are not final.

    Most importantly, it is not a “legal maneuver” to require the NCAA to follow its own rules. Maybe you would like to decide how many of their rules they can break in their prosecutions before you would think it is unfair?



  • @Crimsonorblue22 Dunno. Might only delay things. The NCAA might withdraw the Notices and do it again once the appeals are final. If the appeals vacate the trials, the NCAA rule does not seem to allow the use of the trial evidence. But I haven’t studied the whole thing. Better minds than mine–better PAID minds, indeed–will have to cogitate on this. I predicts lots of billable hours for the lawyers involved.



  • @mayjay You are correct and OJ is innocent. Still doesn’t give me the warm and fuzzies of an innocent man vindicated. Perhaps you have a better term than legal maneuvering. I didn’t know that was a trigger point. Lesson learned. Lol



  • @dylans The way you used it suggested you saw no value in it. To me, yes, it is a trigger point to suggest assertions of the right to only have legitimate evidence be used against you is a legal maneuver akin to an ambush. I spent a career trying to protect and respect the rights of people involved in legal proceedings. I discovered that people seem oddly willing to discount the rights of others but are highly protective of their own. If we decide that people who are not innocent therefore have fewer rights to fairness, be prepared to welcome the police at your own door.



  • @mayjay You have wholly missed my initial point and completely mischaracterized me in your sensitivity. Sorry bud. I actually considered law school once upon a time.



  • @dylans Maybe it was the sarcastic OJ comment? Oops, I did misread how you used ambush.



  • @mayjay The OJ comment was snarky, but at that point i was kinda confused. I really don’t know what is a benign comment theses days. You sure can’t point out any racial differences or gender or height or weight or hair color or… Nothing is safe, even when making an off the cuff comment in the presence of an old judge. If I can unintentionally offend the supposedly blind justice I’m totally screwed. Believe me if I was ripping lawyers you’d know, it wouldn’t be so polite; you’d be getting my true feeling based on personal experience (and I’ve never been on the losing side).



  • @dylans Let’s start over. I was only defending the need to follow procedures to protect people’s rights, and to make any organization follow their own rules. I never took it as an assault on my profession. Forgive me please for the misunderstanding because I didn’t realize my comment sounded defensive. I meant to be simply illustrating how rules and procedures are important, no matter what we think we “know” about how a case should come out.

    I think OJ, by the way, was guilty as hell, but the prosecutors deserved to lose because they managed to get important evidence excluded or minimized in importance by how they botched the rules of evidence. A clean presentation with competent non-celebrity-seeking prosecutors would have nailed his ass!



  • Ah the poor @mayjay trying to make peace with the libs he defends. Lmao. Long time old adversary. Trusting you’re living the dream and life has been good?



  • Man our Hawks looking good this year.



  • Btw you can’t please a lib. Always mad about something. That’s why they have safe places through all colleges in America. They need a place to digest disagreements to their beliefs.



  • @DoubleDD You seem displeased…


Log in to reply