So boosters names will remain redacted?

[Really Clark?]

The Motion to Intervene arguments from the booster were not to be heard until 6/27 at the Ethics Commission. If that has not been cancelled or dismissed, why would anyone expect the names to be released before that meeting?

[Dawgology]

The Motion to Intervene arguments from the booster were not to be heard until 6/27 at the Ethics Commission. If that has not been cancelled or dismissed, why would anyone expect the names to be released before that meeting?

A) Ole Miss said they would
B) MS Ethics Commission said they should

But in reality, shortly after the Ethics commission tabled everything once Ole Miss said they would release the unredacted copy I said this was a stall tactic and that they would lean on something that came up to not release the names. You could see it coming from a mile away. I actually stated it on this message board so you could probably go find it.

I started this topic because I think it is important for college athletics and our state in general to shed a light on this as much as possible. The fact that this hasn't been covered by ANY media is disheartening.

[Really Clark?]

A) Ole Miss said they would
B) MS Ethics Commission said they should

But in reality, shortly after the Ethics commission tabled everything once Ole Miss said they would release the unredacted copy I said this was a stall tactic and that they would lean on something that came up to not release the names. You could see it coming from a mile away. I actually stated it on this message board so you could probably go find it.

I started this topic because I think it is important for college athletics and our state in general to shed a light on this as much as possible. The fact that this hasn't been covered by ANY media is disheartening.

Points A and B was made prior to the Motion to Intervene though. The booster removed the case (some say the judge was going to dismiss anyway) from Circuit Court so they could file with the Ethics Commission. This was done after they had ruled and UNM stated they would comply with the Ethics Commission. By procedure, I think the Ethics Commission was correct in the handling of this so far. They even chastised UNM for not complying originally and having this case brought to them.

[Dawgology]

Points A and B was made prior to the Motion to Intervene though. The booster removed the case (some say the judge was going to dismiss anyway) from Circuit Court so they could file with the Ethics Commission. This was done after they had ruled and UNM stated they would comply with the Ethics Commission. By procedure, I think the Ethics Commission was correct in the handling of this so far. They even chastised UNM for not complying originally and having this case brought to them.

It doesn't change the fact that the Ethics Commission could have made an actual ruling and made it happen.

[Really Clark?]

It doesn't change the fact that the Ethics Commission could have made an actual ruling and made it happen.

No they couldn't. They have to allow a week for a written response and set the hearing. That's procedure. Now they could have ruled that the written response wasn't sufficient and dismissed the Motion but when they did not, they could not rule without arguments being presented at a hearing.

[Dawgology]

No they couldn't. They have to allow a week for a written response and set the hearing. That's procedure. Now they could have ruled that the written response wasn't sufficient and dismissed the Motion but when they did not, they could not rule without arguments being presented at a hearing.

It's my understanding that a hearing was set and at the last minute/hour Ole Miss submitted a written response which they accepted and tabled the hearing. In fact, I believe Steve was down there to present his argument but ended up not doing it because it was tabled.

[Really Clark?]

It's my understanding that a hearing was set and at the last minute/hour Ole Miss submitted a written response which they accepted and tabled the hearing. In fact, I believe Steve was down there to present his argument but ended up not doing it because it was tabled.

But the Motion to Intervene was filed after that. Once that occurred and the Ethics Commission granted (which they should have) the booster the ability to give a written request for review and a hearing for his motion, then the Ethics Commission has to let the process play out. As frustrating as it is, I would absolutely want the Ethics Commission to act the same way, regardless of who filed the motion.

[Mimi's Babies]

The Motion to Intervene arguments from the booster were not to be heard until 6/27 at the Ethics Commission. If that has not been cancelled or dismissed, why would anyone expect the names to be released before that meeting?

Correct, Meeting is still set for June 27 at 10:00 am.... in Jackson, MS.... I believe that RR have the right to show up also....

Anyone know how we can get this meeting Live streamed where we can WATCH it live on Elite Dawgs?
I doubt CLiar will even show up. Anyone know anyone at the news stations in Jackson area? If WCBI live streamed the counting of ballots in Starkville surly they could live stream this... Anyone friends with anyone who works there?

[msbulldog]

The Motion to Intervene arguments from the booster were not to be heard until 6/27 at the Ethics Commission. If that has not been cancelled or dismissed, why would anyone expect the names to be released before that meeting?

That was my understanding from the Ethics Commission legalese I read Clark.