Ethics commision meets tomorrow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chip

The result is that UM's attorneys state that UM will release the redacted NOA amendment and their response the week of June 5

---

What I understood was that the names will be un-redacted when they release the NOA(s) & amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chip

The result is that UM's attorneys state that UM will release the redacted NOA amendment and their response the week of June 5

---

Or their response? He was challenging the redaction of booster info as that is totaly illegal. If the ethics commission rules in UM's favor on this then a dangerous precedent has now been set in the state.

You're correct. I just read the letter from the UM attorney and in paragraph 4 it says Ole Miss will release the NOA amendment without redacting names the week of June 5.


"...UM plans to publicly release the 2017 Amended NOA, along with UM's response to the 2017 Amended NOA, the week of June 5, 2017. When it does so, and consistent with UM's commitment to transparency, UM will not redact the names of third parties."

The letter goes on to say that they will release an Un-redacted copy of the 2016 NOA with the names listed therein.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chip

You're correct. I just read the letter from the UM attorney and in paragraph 4 it says Ole Miss will release the NOA amendment without redacting names the week of June 5.


"...UM plans to publicly release the 2017 Amended NOA, along with UM's response to the 2017 Amended NOA, the week of June 5, 2017. When it does so, and consistent with UM's commitment to transparency, UM will not redact the names of third parties."

The letter goes on to say that they will release an Un-redacted copy of the 2016 NOA with the names listed therein.

---

Cool

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgology

Cool

---

I'd have to say, yeah...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chip

You're correct. I just read the letter from the UM attorney and in paragraph 4 it says Ole Miss will release the NOA amendment without redacting names the week of June 5.


"...UM plans to publicly release the 2017 Amended NOA, along with UM's response to the 2017 Amended NOA, the week of June 5, 2017. When it does so, and consistent with UM's commitment to transparency, UM will not redact the names of third parties."

The letter goes on to say that they will release an Un-redacted copy of the 2016 NOA with the names listed therein.

---

Where are you reading OM's letter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PassInterference

Where are you reading OM's letter?

---

I had a friend text it to me.

I'd attach it here, but I don't know how.

I figured it out. There's a page 2, but it's just a "call me with any questions" statement, and signature from the lawyer. The meat is here:

[IMG]http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/...no/image1.jpeg[/IMG]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chip

I figured it out. There's a page 2, but it's just a "call me with any questions" statement, and signature from the lawyer. The meat is here:

[IMG]http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/...no/image1.jpeg[/IMG]

---

What I gather from reading the first few lines of this is that the BS flows straight from the top of the fountain at that pathetic excuse for an institution of higher learning. It sounds just like the spin of Yancy and their delusional fans. They claim they "plan" to release the names when everyone knows they wouldn't have released crap if SR hadn't forced them.

P.S. Is Steve Robertson working his way toward a statue on campus?!?*** He's quickly becoming a living legend in the EggBowl rivalry.

Commitment to transparency...my big old ass.

So transparent that their excuse for redacting in 2017 contradicts what they did in 2016. In 2016, their NOA response left names redacted. So it's false that it's their policy to not redact names in NOA responses that they release.

So if I'm understanding correctly, they are agreeing to release both the amended NOA and it's response as well as their initial response with the names unredacted? If so, Rosebowl for the win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PassInterference

So transparent that their excuse for redacting in 2017 contradicts what they did in 2016. In 2016, their NOA response left names redacted. So it's false that it's their policy to not redact names in NOA responses that they release.

---

Confucius say: you are very wise grasshopper. Very wise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PassInterference

So transparent that their excuse for redacting in 2017 contradicts what they did in 2016. In 2016, their NOA response left names redacted. So it's false that it's their policy to not redact names in NOA responses that they release.

---

Yep, another straight up public lie by the Culture of Corruption .

Need a countdown clock until June 9th at 11:59 pm because that's when the will probably release it

Confucius, that's what I got from the letter too. I guess we will have to wait and see if they actually follow through. Looks to me like the ethics commission is a joke. They could've forced OM's hand today. If the investigation is over and they have a response prepared, why not go ahead and release the info.? It's chicken crap to wait until after the SEC spring meetings to turn it loose. At least the Esquire Jolly is on record stating that the names will be published publicly the week of June 5th. The media (if any really care) can hold on to that record and hopefully apply more pressure to OM for transparency as the COI bell tolls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BB30

Well, when their fans keep attacking him about his past and calling him nothing but a junkie and that is putting it nicely compared to what some of them have tweeted I can understand. The dude has completely turned his life around. There are some things you can poke at but for former addicts that are clean and have managed to stay clean that is not something to joke about or harass someone over. It is actually a pretty amazing feat as the majority of addicts can't stay sober for long. I don't blame him for going after them.

---

You are correct... This man is an UPSTANDING man who knows the FATHER...

People need to realize that they had better be CAREFUL of whom they point fingers.. Until you know the WHOLE STORY, which is coming in his book.... KEEP your mouth SHUT...

This man is someone's child, Husband, father, friend, or brother.

For people who party like there is no other in certain places... SHUT UP....

My guess is that if UM doesn't produce the documents as written in today's letter requesting relief from the Commission's direct action, then Steve will have to request that the Commission compel the documents as described in this letter. I would think that the Commission would indeed act upon such a request.

Rosebowl is up 30, with the ball and taking a knee on Ole Miss 3 yard line with 2 minutes left....

Thanks for the INFO Chip... I appreciate this greatly....

No problem