Steve responded to this, actually. Sounds like this was just the final recommendation, but that recommendation has since been accepted and order given.Quote:
Originally Posted by West Tn Dawg
https://s2.postimg.org/tsfhmn3fd/Capture.png
Printable View
Steve responded to this, actually. Sounds like this was just the final recommendation, but that recommendation has since been accepted and order given.Quote:
Originally Posted by West Tn Dawg
https://s2.postimg.org/tsfhmn3fd/Capture.png
Hmmm just a question since I'm not an attorney but what will happen if OM tells the ethics commission to 39A themselves. Heck they been telling the NCAA to do that for the last 4 years. Will someone go to jail, someone lose money what are the penalties?
Those names also become public record and as such can be included in future publications without fear of reprisal. In case someone was writing a book or something on the matter!Quote:
Originally Posted by bostondawg
:rolleyes:
As an attorney friend told me, FERPA does apply. There are some people in Oxford and elsewhere in a whole heap of trouble. How does operating your "university" without accreditation and federal money sound Confederates?
What happens if Ole Miss refuses or can they? What's the consequence? Is it getting fired, jailed or just a fine?
Both possibly Jack.
wonder if they were "BLINDSIDED" by this **
Yay, Steve won again. And still no one has released the boosters names. The legislature enacts law, it doesn't enforce them. This could be hung up forever, or at least long enough for no one to care. That motion the John Doe filed last time and withdrew was probably so they could file one this time prohibiting OM from releasing it by court order until a case can be heard. They'll delay, delay, delay by any means necessary until all this is over and done with and nobody cares.
If y'all knew who it was, you'd know they're playing with a lot of resources at their disposal and more than just the boosters themselves have a vested interest in keeping their names out of the public eye. Their respective employers would also want to keep their names out of it. I guess we could see the names in the next 7 days if Ole Miss follows the ruling, but I wouldn't be surprised if they find some underhanded way to collude back door with these boosters to keep things quiet.
Butler Snow in Ridgeland is probably putting up a good fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Political Hack
I had said a while back, when all this started, that the booster's name was not exempt under the MPRA. The only way something can be redacted is if it does not pertain to the public records' request , or it is exempt such as for example a company trade secret. This was just strictly a stall tactic. Been there and done that on redactions and furnishing public records.
Agreed. I'll be thrilled if the names are released, but do not expect it to happen anytime soon. There are far too many parties involved, and far too many ways to delay this ruling. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I expect we'll see multiple appeal/delay tactics employed soon. Hell of an effort by Steve no matter the outcome. It's disgusting that he is the only member of the media willing to hold The 17'n $hitbirds accountable for their underhanded ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Political Hack
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perpetual Underachiever
One State agency could write a book on "How to Circumvent the MS Public Records' Act". I wonder which agency that is ??? Hmmmm
If I am not mistaken, the fine is very minimal.... Don't forget, we are a state run by Trial Lawyers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Lambert
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeshouldveflanked
? 25-61-15. Penalty
Any person who shall deny to any person access to any public record which is not exempt from the provisions of this chapter or who charges an unreasonable fee for providing a public record may be liable civilly in his personal capacity in a sum not to exceed One Hundred Dollars ($ 100.00) per violation, plus all reasonable expenses incurred by such person bringing the proceeding.................. The amount would be dependent on how a violation is perceived.
Agreed... bet this has little impact on OM releasing the names. They'll have a new motion in 6-7 days.
I think it's per day or per page or something, so legally it may actually add up. If they have to back pay the costs, and it's based on a daily fine, that could add up.Quote:
Originally Posted by yjnkdawg
Would this come out of public or private funds?Quote:
Originally Posted by Political Hack
Code is here: http://www.ethics.state.ms.us/ethics/ethics.nsf/PageSection/A_records_entire_pub_rec_act/$FILE/Public%20Records%20Act_3.29.16.htm?OpenElementQuote:
Originally Posted by Political Hack
It doesn't say anything about the fine being per day or per page. If that is the case, expect the inbreds up north to just pay the fine and stall.
Ole Miss thought they were going to write a new chapter on how to successfully deal with the NCAA and instead wrote a book about how to do everything wrong. I've.... hell NOBODY has ever seen anything like it.
So many folks knew in advance of the investigation what was taking place, and they knew a second NOA was on the way before it actually happened. So many folks have called this entire saga verbatim and have been spot on with their information.
What I find so odd, is that so many eyes have seen, reviewed, and picked both NOA's apart - the unredacted version. Tons of OM folks + their attorneys's + named Boosters & their attorney's + various coaches & their attorneys + student-athletes & their attorneys. Literally dozens and dozens of eyes have see the unredacted version. Yet the actual names of the individuals contained in the NOA's haven't leaked out to the public? It's hard to keep a secret in the best of circumstances, it's difficult in the world today with instant access to all sorts of material for things not to leak. Yet here we are left guessing who the named individuals are in an NOA that's over 18 months old and an amended NOA that was released 5 month ago?