Who are players C & D?

Might have been posted else where but who are C & D? I'm assuming they play at OM because it doesn't say they enrolled else where.

This one is confusing to me as well. If B and E are who we think they are, why are they getting merchandise from Rebel Rags in 2016, when they were members of the 2015 recruiting class. Maybe I'm reading into it too much but seems to me like they could be withholding some of the allegations and PSA B might not be who everyone is assuming.

5. Allegation number five ? It is alleged that one former staff member (Former Staff Member B) arranged for a friend of the family of Prospective Student-Athlete D to receive impermissible merchandise from a store owned by a booster on one occasion in 2013 and that Former Staff Member A arranged for Prospective Student-Athletes B and E (both student-athletes enrolled at another institution) to receive merchandise in 2014, 15, and 16. The value of the alleged impermissible recruiting inducements is approximately $2,800 and is charged as a Level I violation.

What if B & E were teammates, just in different classes, and B set up them up by committing to them out of nowhere. The 2 I'm thinking of were offered at the same time and the timelines might add up to receiving benefits all the way from 14-16.

They worded allegation #5 together terribly. They are obviously trying to lump the state guys together. Leo clearly didn't take any ole miss gear from rebel rags in 2016.

As for PSA C & D, I would not be surprised at all if the one that recieved clothing in 2013 was tunsil. It didn't "have to do with draft night" so they technically didn't lie, but don't be surprised if he is still in the addendum somewhere. I know that CeCe and Leo liked to hang out together in Oxford, wouldn't be surprised if he is C or D. From the Clarion Ledger when Leo was committed to OM:

During the Rebels Week 6 contest against Alabama, Ole Miss hosted a number of the country's top prospects and planned for Lewis to be in attendance.

The linebacker's whereabouts 90 miles away caused a stir.

"I was in Starkville because I was really wanted to see the (Texas A&M-Mississippi State) game ," he said. "I knew that was going to be a good matchup."

Rumors of inside linebacker being spotted in The Grove popped up throughout the day.

Were they true?

"I went to Oxford later that day," he said. "I hung out with (CeCe Jefferson) that night."

This will likely be the biggest in-state battle until Lewis signs his National Letter of Intent. Until then, while he expects things to slow down, the linebacker is well aware that his recruitment is far from over.

"I wouldn't say my recruitment is over because recruiting never stops," Lewis said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeviousDawg34

They worded allegation #5 together terribly. They are obviously trying to lump the state guys together. Leo clearly didn't take any ole miss gear from rebel rags in 2016.

As for PSA C & D, I would not be surprised at all if the one that received clothing in 2013 was tunsil. It didn't "have to do with draft night" so they technically didn't lie, but don't be surprised if he is still in the addendum somewhere.[/INDENT]

---

I think there is a lot they are leaving out. Specifically, I think they left out any alterations to the charges in the original NOA. The NCAA could have expanded their information behind the original charges - like Tunsil stuff - where they had added evidence. We know the NCAA does this - they did it to UNC. Miller accused OM of housing stuff, and Barney gave them evidence. That is added to the old charges. If Saunders rolled over, that new info would be in the old charges. If Kiffen rolled over to save his career, that goes in the old charges.

It is very, very telling that they did not release the NOA/Addendum. They are lying. Again.

Shitbirds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg

I think there is a lot they are leaving out. Specifically, I think they left out any alterations to the charges in the original NOA. The NCAA could have expanded their information behind the original charges - like Tunsil stuff - where they had added evidence. We know the NCAA does this - they did it to UNC. Miller accused OM of housing stuff, and Barney gave them evidence. That is added to the old charges. If Saunders rolled over, that new info would be in the old charges. If Kiffen rolled over to save his career, that goes in the old charges.

It is very, very telling that they did not release the NOA/Addendum. They are lying. Again.

Shitbirds.

---

This is a great point. Remember, this is still the first NOA. They didn't receive just the allegations in the addendum, they received a NOA with 21 allegations. Remember, in the original NOA, allegation #2 was a failure to monitor. That allegation is now changed to Lack of Institutional Control, so the LOIC is not the last allegation, but actually the 2nd of 21. That was going to get out if they didn't make it public, so they mentioned that change. Otherwise, they said, "there are 8 new allegations, none of which refer to NFL draft night". I guarantee the failure to monitor allegation was not the only original allegation that was updated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeviousDawg34

This is a great point. Remember, this is still the first NOA. They didn't receive just the allegations in the addendum, they received a NOA with 21 allegations. Remember, in the original NOA, allegation #2 was a failure to monitor. That allegation is now changed to Lack of Institutional Control, so the LOIC is not the last allegation, but actually the 2nd of 21. That was going to get out if they didn't make it public, so they mentioned that change. Otherwise, they said, "there are 8 new allegations, none of which refer to NFL draft night". I guarantee the failure to monitor allegation was not the only original allegation that was updated.

---

A Tiger can't change its stripes, and TCUN has revealed to us who they truly are right through this entire process -- lying and manipulative SOB's who truly care nothing for the reputation and integrity of their university or the faith in the players they are recruiting to make a favorable decision to attend school in Oxford if they tell the truth.

IMO there's significantly more in the NOA, and if not, they should have released the NOA upon releasing the video.

My question is - has anyone filed a FOIA request to get the NOA?? They have admitted to having receiving it. It is a public document. Someone needs to obtain it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg

My question is - has anyone filed a FOIA request to get the NOA?? They have admitted to having receiving it. It is a public document. Someone needs to obtain it.

---

They said it was provided to their outside counsel I believe. As long as it stays with their attorneys it wont have to be released until the file their answer. I may be wrong, but that would still fall under privilege???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hrdawg82

They said it was provided to their outside counsel I believe. As long as it stays with their attorneys it wont have to be released until the file their answer. I may be wrong, but that would still fall under privilege???

---

Emails and manuscripts from video conferences fall under foia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeviousDawg34

This is a great point. Remember, this is still the first NOA. They didn't receive just the allegations in the addendum, they received a NOA with 21 allegations. Remember, in the original NOA, allegation #2 was a failure to monitor. That allegation is now changed to Lack of Institutional Control, so the LOIC is not the last allegation, but actually the 2nd of 21. That was going to get out if they didn't make it public, so they mentioned that change. Otherwise, they said, "there are 8 new allegations, none of which refer to NFL draft night". I guarantee the failure to monitor allegation was not the only original allegation that was updated.

---

You should've been an investigative journalist. What you've just written can't be stressed enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinningIsRelentless

Emails and manuscripts from video conferences fall under foia

---

Understand, but if you were their lawyer and the NOA was much worse that what we have heard, would you email them a copy of it? I would email the transcript to the production they read into the camera and thats about it. All deeper discussions about it would be held in an office protected by privilege.

Dozens of people have already sent FOIA's including Steve. It's gonna be a battle for OM to keep it hidden until their response. UNLESS it was sent directly to the out of state council, who then summarized it and emailed a summary to Ole Miss, the NOA has been in the hands of Ole Miss representatives. Which means it is subject to a FOIA request. My guess? someone gets their hands on it before OM releases it with their response. I can promise you though, it will be an all at legal war behind the scenes over the next 90 days. It's not just Rosebowl asking for the NOA this time, it's big name reporters from accross the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeviousDawg34

Dozens of people have already sent FOIA's including Steve. It's gonna be a battle for OM to keep it hidden until their response. UNLESS it was sent directly to the out of state council, who then summarized it and emailed a summary to Ole Miss, the NOA has been in the hands of Ole Miss representatives. Which means it is subject to a FOIA request. My guess? someone gets their hands on it before OM releases it with their response. I can promise you though, it will be an all at legal war behind the scenes over the next 90 days. It's not just Rosebowl asking for the NOA this time, it's big name reporters from accross the country.

---

Steve mentioned his legal counsel believes they have a good shot at getting it because they were on campus in MS reading from a document on the video so they should have a good shot but you know they will delay delay delay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hrdawg82

They said it was provided to their outside counsel I believe. As long as it stays with their attorneys it wont have to be released until the file their answer. I may be wrong, but that would still fall under privilege???

---

Yes, you're wrong. It absolutely does not fall under privilege. The document from a third party is not part of the attorney client privilege.

It also doesn't matter that they keep the document in the possession of third parties. The public records act applies to any documents that have been used in the conduct of any business by the public body. Even if the letter was sent directly to outside counsel, they immediately used it for the conduct of business of the University. If not that, it certainly was used to prepare the response.

Public bodies can't avoid public records act disclosures simply by housing embarrassing documents with third parties. For them to say they can't produce it because their outside counsel has it would be a frivolous defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnson85

Yes, you're wrong. It absolutely does not fall under privilege. The document from a third party is not part of the attorney client privilege.

It also doesn't matter that they keep the document in the possession of third parties. The public records act applies to any documents that have been used in the conduct of any business by the public body. Even if the letter was sent directly to outside counsel, they immediately used it for the conduct of business of the University. If not that, it certainly was used to prepare the response.

Public bodies can't avoid public records act disclosures simply by housing embarrassing documents with third parties. For them to say they can't produce it because their outside counsel has it would be a frivolous defense.

---

This is correct. Ironically, just after writing my FOIA question, I got a FOIA from our City Clerk for some zoning records. Should have kept my question to myself!