Pure speculation -2nd NOA

[WesternSkyDawg]

Here's guessing that TCUN had the 2nd NOA sent solely to their out of state lawyers with a plan that no copies would be sent to the school or even made. Can just upload it to Dropbox or other e-storage and give the password to Vitter, Bjork, and Freeze. Then if it gets out, try to claim improper conduct on the enforcement staff to get lesser penalties, as with the Miami case.

Probably convinced Rosebowl's source is in Oxford.

Wonder who else would've gotten a copy? Barney maybe? Do accused boosters get served with a copy?

Should be no surprise the sumbiches are thumbing their collective noses at the FOIA laws. Transparency my ass.

Can't hide it forever.

[1bigdawg]

If they received it in dropbox, I believe it is subject to MS open records law, because the document was open on a computer in Mississippi.

[Leeshouldveflanked]

How long before Jim Hood sues the NCAA and pays one of his buddies $20 Million to do the work?

[codeDawg]

Someone would need to file an ethics complaint. Of course, by the time the investigation and a hearing is held, the document will be public as part of their response.

[Dawg-gone-dawgs]

How is it that we all got to see the first one but can't see this one? If I'm OM what kind of message does that send? I take it as this one is worse and there are names in there they don't want us to see. That makes me want to see it even more.

[PassInterference]

Someone would need to file an ethics complaint. Of course, by the time the investigation and a hearing is held, the document will be public as part of their response.

Rosebowl is doing that.

[Bubb Rubb]

We got to see the first one when they ultimately submitted their official response. The same thing will happen when they respond to the second one. For now, they have 90 (or as much as 120 days) from the point of reception to respond. They are going to withhold and stall until then. They will say it's because they want to protect people named in it, but more than likely it's to try and control the message and sway public opinion in the weeks leading up to the response.

At the end of the day it really doesn't matter what they do...they're 17ed. Everyone should just be patient and enjoy the slow burn.

[Mobile Bay]

How is it that we all got to see the first one but can't see this one? If I'm OM what kind of message does that send? I take it as this one is worse and there are names in there they don't want us to see. That makes me want to see it even more.

Please be Archie, please be Archie, please be Archie.

[Johnson85]

Here's guessing that TCUN had the 2nd NOA sent solely to their out of state lawyers with a plan that no copies would be sent to the school or even made. Can just upload it to Dropbox or other e-storage and give the password to Vitter, Bjork, and Freeze. Then if it gets out, try to claim improper conduct on the enforcement staff to get lesser penalties, as with the Miami case.

Probably convinced Rosebowl's source is in Oxford.

Wonder who else would've gotten a copy? Barney maybe? Do accused boosters get served with a copy?

Should be no surprise the sumbiches are thumbing their collective noses at the FOIA laws. Transparency my ass.

Can't hide it forever.

None of that is relevant. It became subject to Mississippi Public Records Act the moment they read it and use it to inform any decision they make. Claiming it's with their attorneys is completely irrelevant, it just sounds better than sayign "17 no we aren't complying with the law. If you want to go file an ethics compliant we'll pay the $100 a day penalty. That's pretty small potatoes when we've already 'voluntarily' forfeited a few million with the 'voluntary' bowl ban."

[MadDawg]

Rosebowl is doing that.

I believe the penalty for not complying with a FOIA request is a $100 fine per day. The Network hasn't stopped laughing yet.

[Tbonewannabe]

Please be Archie, please be Archie, please be Archie.

I hope this also. If they had to cut out Archie then would they raise the speed limit on campus?

[spbdawg]

#

[MadDawg]

It's $100 per violation.

And as of now, there is one request they have denied. And someone will have to sue them to force a judgement against them. So spend thousands on lawyers to force ole miss to release info that will cost them $100 a day to keep under wraps. And by the time you get a judgement, they will probably have released it anyway. This is the very reason Rosebowl didn't pursue it last time. This time will be no different. Our FOI laws were written to force someone like a circuit clerk to comply or be personally liable for $100 per day fine. The threat of that fine is laughable to a multi-million dollar entity like an SEC athletics program.

[Mimi's Babies]

Please be Archie, please be Archie, please be Archie.

Many more than ARCHIE and with MORE MONEY.....

[Tbonewannabe]

Does the SEC office receive any NOA copy of SEC members?

[starkvegasdawg]

NCAA should just release all NOA's publicly with all names redacted.

[blacklistedbully]

Posted this a year or so ago....never got a response, but let's try again:

Question for the lawyers or legal experts here RE: FOIA requests
I actually posted this on another thread, but am hoping this will get seen and answered by the right folks.

I've read a few posts about people complaining about the $100 fine due if a FOIA or similar state version is not met with compliance. The issue being, such a small fine is no deterrent, making it easy for Ole Miss to indefinitely avoid releasing the documents.

But I got to thinking what would or could occur if that did happen. So, this is what I'm thinking:

The thing to do is file the FOIA request, then when they fail to comply go to a judge, who would likely instruct Ole Miss or their law firm to comply with the FOIA request post-haste, and pay the $100 fine.

If there was still non-compliance, the requester could seek civil contempt charges against Ole Miss and their representation. That could then expose them to an additional, larger fine, not for the FOIA breach, but for Contempt of Court. Now you're also talking possible jail time until they comply. I don't think Ole Miss or their lawyers would want the media hit they would get from something like that, nor do I think they would want to risk leaving it in the hands of a judge to decide whether or not he will throw one of them in the pokey until they obeyed the court order.

Can you imagine if that happened? Is it possible from a legal POV?

[codeDawg]

State law dictates that FOIA is overseen by the ethics commission. The lawful process is filing a complaint, followed by an investigation ending in a ruling. There is then a judicial appeals process.

If you are trying to get to get information you will probably get it, but it may take a while.

[WesternSkyDawg]

None of that is relevant. It became subject to Mississippi Public Records Act the moment they read it and use it to inform any decision they make. Claiming it's with their attorneys is completely irrelevant, it just sounds better than sayign "17 no we aren't complying with the law. If you want to go file an ethics compliant we'll pay the $100 a day penalty. That's pretty small potatoes when we've already 'voluntarily' forfeited a few million with the 'voluntary' bowl ban."

Oh, I agree it's not relevant to whether it's subject to the public records laws; it clearly is, as possession by the entity's agent or representative (it's hired lawyer) is possession by the entity.

They're thumbing their noses at the public records law, without question. There's no legitimate argument that they're meeting any enumerated exception.

I'm saying they're also trying to create an argument or trap for lesser sanctions, claiming the enforcement staff leaked it if it gets out. Their fanboy writers claim incessantly that the enforcement folks leaked the first NOA right before signing day last year.

Hell, they should've sent copies to all OM recruits so they could make truly informed decisions. Since Freeze lied or mislead 17 year old kids and their parents about what was in it, the players should get to transfer out penalty free.

[blacklistedbully]

State law dictates that FOIA is overseen by the ethics commission. The lawful process is filing a complaint, followed by an investigation ending in a ruling. There is then a judicial appeals process.

If you are trying to get to get information you will probably get it, but it may take a while.

I presume there are different laws, state-to-state, and confess I am not well-versed enough to know the relevant federal law, but as an example, I know the following is true in Arkansas:

The FOIA provides for both criminal and civil enforcement. The FOIA’s criminal sanctions are found in Section 25-19-104, which provides that “any person who negligently violates any provisions of this [act] shall be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.” A Class C misdemeanor is punishable by a fine of up to $500, imprisonment for up to 30 days, or both.

Does anyone know if we have similar laws on the books in Mississippi, or if there are federal laws that are similar?

I don't doubt there is an ethics commission assigned to deal with such things, but does that preclude a judge, once he has issued a 2nd demand for FOIA (or state version) compliance, from issuing contempt of court charges should the demand not be met?

[GreaterCowbell]

I presume there are different laws, state-to-state, and confess I am not well-versed enough to know the relevant federal law, but as an example, I know the following is true in Arkansas:

The FOIA provides for both criminal and civil enforcement. The FOIA?s criminal sanctions are found in Section 25-19-104, which provides that ?any person who negligently violates any provisions of this [act] shall be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.? A Class C misdemeanor is punishable by a fine of up to $500, imprisonment for up to 30 days, or both.

Does anyone know if we have similar laws on the books in Mississippi, or if there are federal laws that are similar?

I don't doubt there is an ethics commission assigned to deal with such things, but does that preclude a judge, once he has issued a 2nd demand for FOIA (or state version) compliance, from issuing contempt of court charges should the demand not be met?

Here's the Code:

? 25-61-15. Penalty for wrongful denial of access to record.

Any person who shall willfully and knowingly deny to any person access to any public record which is not exempt from the provisions of this chapter shall be liable civilly in a sum not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00), plus all reasonable expenses incurred by such person bringing the lawsuit.

If you look at this website on FOI request you will quickly conclude that the whole process is administered by Ole Miss Surrogates. http://www.nfoic.org/mississippi-foi-resources

[Mimi's Babies]

I presume there are different laws, state-to-state, and confess I am not well-versed enough to know the relevant federal law, but as an example, I know the following is true in Arkansas:

The FOIA provides for both criminal and civil enforcement. The FOIA’s criminal sanctions are found in Section 25-19-104, which provides that “any person who negligently violates any provisions of this [act] shall be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.” A Class C misdemeanor is punishable by a fine of up to $500, imprisonment for up to 30 days, or both.

Does anyone know if we have similar laws on the books in Mississippi, or if there are federal laws that are similar?

I don't doubt there is an ethics commission assigned to deal with such things, but does that preclude a judge, once he has issued a 2nd demand for FOIA (or state version) compliance, from issuing contempt of court charges should the demand not be met?

Here is the Ethics Law for MS..... What concerns me is that Tom Hood.... is probably the AG's brother.... an OM graduate.....

http://www.ethics.state.ms.us/ethics/ethics.nsf/PageSection/A_records_model_PR_rules/$FILE/Mississippi%20Model%20Public%20Records%20Rules%20( 3-5-10).pdf?OpenElement
http://www.ethics.state.ms.us/ethics/ethics.nsf/PageSection/A_records_R-08-009/$FILE/08009.pdf?OpenElement (this ruling is against OM)

[blacklistedbully]

Here's the Code:

? 25-61-15. Penalty for wrongful denial of access to record.

Any person who shall willfully and knowingly deny to any person access to any public record which is not exempt from the provisions of this chapter shall be liable civilly in a sum not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00), plus all reasonable expenses incurred by such person bringing the lawsuit.

If you look at this website on FOI request you will quickly conclude that the whole process is administered by Ole Miss Surrogates. http://www.nfoic.org/mississippi-foi-resources

That is the code pertaining to the fine. That I already knew. What I am suggesting is that may not necessarily preclude the party who filed the FOIA request, upon being denied and subsequently getting the fine, from then also going back to the judge who assessed the fine (and instruction to comply again) and asking for civil contempt of court for denying the judges ruling when they fail to comply again.

At that point, you're looking to go beyond the codes and fines associated with non-compliance of FOIA, and moving it to "contempt of court" for not complying with the judge who assessed the fine and told the defendant to comply, typically in a narrow window of time.

1. File FOIA request
2. Have it denied or not responded to in timely manner
3. Go to judge or ethics commission and file complaint
4. Judge issues $100 fine and instructs UNM to comply within certain time limit
5. When UNM again refuses to comply, go back to judge and seek contempt of court, not for failure to respond to FOIA request, but for failure to follow said judge's instructions the 2nd go around

[Dawgology]

Or just get every State fan we know to file a FOIA request. $100 per violation could add up.