Printable View
According to the ruling by the Ethics Commission last week. They had 7 days to comply with the ruling. I know John Doe and others are suing or threatening, but WHO will ask OM if and when they will release the names, or if they ever actually will??
I'm not holding my breath!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucky Dog
Didn't one of them file an appeal? Won't that delay the release until the appeal is heard/dismissed?
Yeah- appeal was filed to delay it
Someone give me all the reasons why boosters would want their names kept secret other then just being a ole miss dick.
7 *working* days according to the document
Yeah, it's in court. I don't know how long it will take the court to respond, but I don't see this moving past round 1 of motions. John Doe has little chance.
Because your phone starts ringing off the hook from Pat Forde, Joe Schad, CBS, etc... and every creep on the internet tries to Facebook friend your wife. You have to explain the PR hit to your job & family. And google never forgets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Lambert
Either way, they're delaying the inevitable imo. However, if they find that the booster does have a right to privacy, I'll be on the phone with their lawyer pretty quickly. I decided way back when that I was going to watch the people that came after me burn to the ground. That's happening. Next on the list is the NCAA, but I've got to wait to see how this goes and of course, let them finish their ongoing work first.
So how can one person that is suing to keep their name out of it prevent all of the names from being released? I don't understand how that affects all the names.
One State Institution needs to write their own book titled " How To Circumvent The Mississippi Public Records Act, Volume I. They have been in violation of this act (law) since 5 business days past after the first public records request was officially made. If you excede that time frame , then you must send written notification to the requester with a legitimate reason why you can not furnish the records within the 5 day requirement and the requester must agree to this and a mutual release date is agreed upon. This may stall releasing the unredacted names. It shouldn't , but it might, but they will be eventually released. As the Ethics Commisison ruled they are not exempt, and anyboby who can interpret the provisions under the act knew there was no valid reason for this BS by a state agency. And that NCAA response way back when they said they couldn't release any records due to confidentality is BS also. State Law would supersede any policies or rules under the NCAA. If the NCAA had a problem with that then they would gone through the proper filing with the Ethics Commission.
This was my question as well, as it would seem that they would just release all the names but John Doe's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tbonewannabe
However, then someone mentioned that John Doe has refused to tell the ethics commission which booster # he is, & thus they can't release anyone because they aren't sure who John Doe is.
Didn't they already do this with Steve? They said the person that would release it was on vacation and would send it when they got back or something along those lines? Of course that just gave them time to figure out how to get someone to sue as John Doe and further delay it along with the other stall tactics.Quote:
Originally Posted by yjnkdawg
This whole thing is just trying to keep their last bought class on campus so they don't transfer this year. Then they keep Shay Shay and Little for the next year probably because they will think they are going pro right after that year. It is all about hanging onto this class to try and get them through the bowl ban.
So with that logic, how do they know he has the right to sue? It could be some random UM fan that is not named in the NOA.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Political Hack
If the booster gets a ruling that his name is exempt then the MS Public Records Act is a defunct law. If he is a party in the requested documents then his name will be released under the public records act. Those lawyers know this . It's purely a stall tactic.
They don't & it's one of many reasons why his appeal will be denied.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tbonewannabe
But regardless, it still delays the process because someone has to review the situation & deny it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tbonewannabe
The reason about the person being on vacation is BS. Shutting down a section of your agency because someone is on vacation is laughable. Agencies are supposed to have another employee or employees trained to handle situations that occur if this did actually occur.
Then Steve should be collecting the penalties and fines. OM is just attempting to keep that 2016, 2017 class on campus -- you are correct.... Those classes have many at received illegal benefits.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Tbonewannabe
It was a "stay" request on the ethics commission ruling. If the ruling is place on hold (stay granted), it would impact all of the names.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tbonewannabe
Agree, why is why I said there delaying the inevitable imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by yjnkdawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tbonewannabe
I don't think anyone is suing anyone. The booster(s) just filed an appeal and the internet ran with it and said they are suing Steve.
That is true on the inevitable. They can use all type of potential stall tactics, but as long as the MS Public Records Act remains intact then all parties in the requested documents will be made public. Now if for some unusual reason that KFC's secret recipe was in there, which would have no merit as to the requested documents and would be an exemption regardless, then that information would be redacted. Very few things are exempt and can be excluded and again those Attorneys know that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Political Hack