Started By
Message
re: As the jar cracks - Johnny Manziel's downfall is upon us
Posted on 8/7/13 at 4:37 pm to AUnite
Posted on 8/7/13 at 4:37 pm to AUnite
quote:
The sooner the people that are enjoying this soap opera can realize what it is, the easier it will be to accept Johnny walking on the field in a few weeks.
I've bailed from this thread repeatedly but the delusional Aggies keep me coming back.. The NCAA doesn't need burden of proof, and it's obvious he did it. Done deal... at least 4 games, I predict 6. Could be ineligible if any key witnesses crack.
3
Posted on 8/7/13 at 4:39 pm to RT1941
quote:
Whoa! You good.
google is my friend quote:
How'd that law exam go today?
It's at 6:30...and my brain REALLY hurts. Corporate law is boring as hell to me.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 4:41 pm to madddoggydawg
What I don't understand is why JFF signed so much shite? It takes a lot of time and effort to sit and sign hundreds, maybe even thousands of items. The ESPN Mag article said his own parents had car loads of shite for him to sign every time he saw them. His dad had stuff in his car for him to sign when they played golf together. The therapist advised JFF to "limit his the time he spent autographing for his parents to 30 minutes a week."
Why would he waste all of his free/off time signing items that were numbered and up into the hundreds? And why would he do it multiple times at multiple locations?
Why would he waste all of his free/off time signing items that were numbered and up into the hundreds? And why would he do it multiple times at multiple locations?
Posted on 8/7/13 at 4:42 pm to RT1941
quote:
quote: It's inadmissiable in a court of law. Last time I checked, the NCAA isn't a court of law. Also, according to this, it's only illegal to record private phone calls in the state of CT. It says jackshit about videos.
Boom.
Bottom line here is that, regardless of what you think of the rules, jff agreed to play by them when he agreed to play college football at an NCAA school. It doesn't matter who else may have violated the rule, or whether the rule is fair. If he took money for his signatures, according I the rules he's no longer an amateur athlete.
They may not even need the tape. He's been so arrogant, acting like rules and laws don't apply to him, there are plenty of people who likely know the truth here. The NCAA just needs one. They don't have the burden of proof a prosecutor needs. Auburn played hardball with the NCAA over Cam. Will A&M do the same over this spoiled brat whose family is openly critical of the university?
This post was edited on 8/7/13 at 4:46 pm
Posted on 8/7/13 at 4:42 pm to AUnite
quote:
It's at 6:30...and my brain REALLY hurts. Corporate law is boring as hell to me.
Good luck!
Posted on 8/7/13 at 4:42 pm to AUnite
quote:
It's inadmissiable in a court of law. Last time I checked, the NCAA isn't a court of law. Also, according to this, it's only illegal to record private phone calls in the state of CT. It says jackshit about videos.
Photo/video is not audio dumbass. You can take video footage without consent. The audio, however, does fall under their definition of "listening in on a conversation between parties" as defined on the VERY WEBSITE YOU LINKED. and requires the consent of ALL parties.
And I said nothing of evidence. It is a felony to record conversations in CT without consent of all parties. The broker could face criminal charges if his identity were known and he really recorded their conversation.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 4:43 pm to RT1941
quote:
RT1941
Thanks
I'm doing my last minute cramming, but this damn thread keeps distracting me
Posted on 8/7/13 at 4:44 pm to madddoggydawg
quote:
Done deal... at least 4 games, I predict 6. Could be ineligible if any
I don't think this is a suspension issue. I believe it's an eligibility issue. He either is or isn't.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 4:46 pm to Crew92Ag
I am going to break some sad news to you about the NCAA.
They don't care about due process and the rule of law. We got nailed a few years ago on the say so of a so called secret witness and a trumped up Federal case in Memphis where they never did establish a clear money trail.
They broke their own by laws and dropped the hammer on us and there was nothing Alabama could do but grab their ankles.
They don't care about due process and the rule of law. We got nailed a few years ago on the say so of a so called secret witness and a trumped up Federal case in Memphis where they never did establish a clear money trail.
They broke their own by laws and dropped the hammer on us and there was nothing Alabama could do but grab their ankles.
This post was edited on 8/7/13 at 4:48 pm
Posted on 8/7/13 at 4:48 pm to geauxranger54
quote:
Exactly. The thing that pisses me off abou this whole situation, is it will all end up probably amounting to jack shite, yet ESPN can go make this huge ordeal without any sort of proof. Its freaking stupid, and reckless. If this turns, that they have no proof, and nothing happens, Joe Schad should be fired. Period. I can't stand how reckless these media outlets are.
First time anyone besides an Auburn fan has said this. I don't remember any sympathy when it came to Cam.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 4:50 pm to madddoggydawg
quote:
The NCAA doesn't need burden of proof, and it's obvious he did it. Done deal... at least 4 games, I predict 6. Could be ineligible if any key witnesses crack.
You truly don't have any clue about anything.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 4:52 pm to Crew92Ag
quote:
And I said nothing of evidence. It is a felony to record conversations in CT without consent of all parties. The broker could face criminal charges if his identity were known and he really recorded their conversation.
I'm not even going to bother to look that up, because it's still irrelevant.
The broker can show the NCAA the video under condition of anonymity. He would never have to testify, hell the video doesn't even have to be released to the public. The NCAA can just look at it, and say "Yep that's him. Thanks. He's ineligible."
That may seem fricked up, I think it is, but that is the power the NCAA has.
They don't have to present or authenticate evidence in court. They simply review whatever information they can get their hands on, then decide however they want if they think a violation occurred or not.
I'm sure some UT alum will make it worth the broker's effort to make sure the NCAA gets a look at this video. He's already proven he's willing to play ball by asking ESPN for money.
Someone will pay him. If it isn't the Manziels or A&M, my money is on UT.
This post was edited on 8/7/13 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 8/7/13 at 4:52 pm to Crew92Ag
Holy. fricking. shite.
Joe said he saw a video. Last time I checked, a video includes audio. It also mentioned expectation of privacy. If there was more than JFF and that broker in the room, that expectation is lost.
NO WHERE IN THAT STATUTE does it say you have to have all parties consent to record a video. It says you must have all parties consent to record a PRIVATE PHONE CONVERSATION.
You don't read very well do you?
From the website, and then clicking on the applicable CT Statute:"Sec. 52-570d. Action for illegal recording of private telephonic communications. (a) No person shall use any instrument, device or equipment to record an oral private telephonic communication unless the use of such instrument, device or equipment (1) is preceded by consent of all parties to the communication and such prior consent either is obtained in writing or is part of, and obtained at the start of, the recording, or (2) is preceded by verbal notification which is recorded at the beginning and is part of the communication by the recording party, or (3) is accompanied by an automatic tone warning device which automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at intervals of approximately fifteen seconds during the communication while such instrument, device or equipment is in use."
I'm doubting it's a felony...the statute, explicitly says: " (c) Any person aggrieved by a violation of subsection (a) of this section may bring a civil action in the Superior Court to recover damages, together with costs and a reasonable attorney's fee." I don't see any mention of jail time.
ETA:
Nope, " it is a Class D Felony in Connecticut to engage in wiretapping or "mechanical overhearing" of a conversation." Other wise, you just face a civil lawsuit. from here
I win.
quote:
Photo/video is not audio dumbass. You can take video footage without consent.
Joe said he saw a video. Last time I checked, a video includes audio. It also mentioned expectation of privacy. If there was more than JFF and that broker in the room, that expectation is lost.
NO WHERE IN THAT STATUTE does it say you have to have all parties consent to record a video. It says you must have all parties consent to record a PRIVATE PHONE CONVERSATION.
quote:
The audio, however, does fall under their definition of "listening in on a conversation between parties" as defined on the VERY WEBSITE YOU LINKED. and requires the consent of ALL parties.
You don't read very well do you?
From the website, and then clicking on the applicable CT Statute:"Sec. 52-570d. Action for illegal recording of private telephonic communications. (a) No person shall use any instrument, device or equipment to record an oral private telephonic communication unless the use of such instrument, device or equipment (1) is preceded by consent of all parties to the communication and such prior consent either is obtained in writing or is part of, and obtained at the start of, the recording, or (2) is preceded by verbal notification which is recorded at the beginning and is part of the communication by the recording party, or (3) is accompanied by an automatic tone warning device which automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at intervals of approximately fifteen seconds during the communication while such instrument, device or equipment is in use."
quote:
And I said nothing of evidence. It is a felony to record conversations in CT without consent of all parties. The broker could face criminal charges if his identity were known and he really recorded their conversation.
I'm doubting it's a felony...the statute, explicitly says: " (c) Any person aggrieved by a violation of subsection (a) of this section may bring a civil action in the Superior Court to recover damages, together with costs and a reasonable attorney's fee." I don't see any mention of jail time.
ETA:
Nope, " it is a Class D Felony in Connecticut to engage in wiretapping or "mechanical overhearing" of a conversation." Other wise, you just face a civil lawsuit. from here
I win.
This post was edited on 8/7/13 at 4:59 pm
Posted on 8/7/13 at 4:52 pm to tampajoe
quote:
First time anyone besides an Auburn fan has said this. I don't remember any sympathy when it came to Cam.
if it makes you feel better, i have no sympathy for johnny either.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 4:54 pm to Crew92Ag
quote:
Crew92Ag
3 posts Alter?
Posted on 8/7/13 at 4:56 pm to Roger Klarvin
The NCAA doesn't give a frick about proof, they either like you and want to make more money off of you and don't do anything to not much at all, or they say frick you we're just not that into you and hit you.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 4:56 pm to Tiger Voodoo
quote:
The broker can show the NCAA the video under condition of anonymity. He would never have to testify, hell the video doesn't even have to be released to the public. The NCAA can just look at it, and say "Yep that's him. Thanks. He's ineligible."
Posted on 8/7/13 at 4:59 pm to Othello
I would seriously doubt that, Othello 
Posted on 8/7/13 at 4:59 pm to AUnite
quote:
ETA: Nope, " it is a Class D Felony in Connecticut to engage in wiretapping or "mechanical overhearing" of a conversation." Other wise, you just face a civil lawsuit. from here I win.
How do you win? Mechanical overhearing includes recording audio of a conversation between two people even if they are not on the phone. and that is what the audio portion of what he recorded is.
You need to realize that video does not include audio. Some device record both, but they are not the same thing. Once again, according to what you posted, the broker has committed a felony by recording the audio of their meeting. The video portion is fine and I never argued that.
So actually, I win.
This post was edited on 8/7/13 at 5:06 pm
Posted on 8/7/13 at 5:01 pm to Roger Klarvin
Nothing happened to SCam Newton
Nothing will happen to Johnnie football
just the way it is, ethics and money do not coincide when money is involved ethics is out the windows.
the VP Lach even had to step down for letting the Cam and Miami situation get out of hand. The payoffs were made and the NCAA is in it to win it. They will do nothing and it is even been reported here in Central Arkansas that some powerful TAMU alumni have a 11 million dollar bonus for John if he makes it to his senior season. Corruption is at all levels.....
Nothing will happen to Johnnie football
just the way it is, ethics and money do not coincide when money is involved ethics is out the windows.
the VP Lach even had to step down for letting the Cam and Miami situation get out of hand. The payoffs were made and the NCAA is in it to win it. They will do nothing and it is even been reported here in Central Arkansas that some powerful TAMU alumni have a 11 million dollar bonus for John if he makes it to his senior season. Corruption is at all levels.....
Page 190 of 340
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News