new USAToday article.....

[dawgface]

http://amp.usatoday.com/story/561183001/


TURN IT UP!!!!!

 

[coach66]

I don't see Ole Miss's strategy holding up. Mars

Fixing to kick that ***.

 

[57stratdawg]

Arent they still going to have to prove that Freeze/Bjork/SID told those writers that's what was discussed on those calls?

 

[Willow Grove Dawg]

Several of those writers will be willing to testify about those calls

 

[pDigital32Dawg]

Can we hire Mars as a school attorney?

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

Seems like they keep shooting themselves in the foot

But Freeze having been onboard for 5 or so years, he should be in the know.

Ignorance just won't work here.

 

[HD6]

Even if they don't testify, when they showed Freeze called Bruce Feldman and then a half hour later Feldman releases an article with "Ole Miss sources" in it, that's going to be tough to disprove.

 

[LawDawg97]

Yes. Mars will depose them, as they are relevant

Several of those writers will be willing to testify about those calls

to the claims in his case. They will be under oath to tell the truth whether they want to testify or not.

(assuming he doesn't get the truth directly from Freeze or Bjork. Obviously the most direct option.)

 

[Shamoan]

I disagree. Seems like mars is trying to argue intent, which he states specifically.

Fwiw, I have only been practicing bird law for one fortnight.

 

[Uncle Ruckus]

And various other lawyerings?

 

[knot2brite]

Ask OJ about the burden of proof in a civil case. If the glove doesn't fit, they still get all my ****.

 

[dog12]

Ask OJ about the burden of proof in a civil case. If the glove doesn't fit, they still get all my ****.

"Preponderance of the evidence" versus "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Big difference.

Personally, I am looking forward to the depositions of Freeze, Bjork, other Ole Miss coaches/players/recruits, and the writers of the articles blaming Nutt for the NCAA trouble.

Oh, and after that, some of them will get to testify on the stand in court.

All of that sounds interesting.

 

[stateguy]

to the claims in his case. They will be under oath to tell the truth whether they want to testify or not.

Haven't journalists been able to not release info on/from confidential informants in court cases? While I hope they make ole miss look bad, I don't know if they can be compelled to speak in a deposition. It's not like this is a murder case or something. You are lawdawg though and probably know more about this than I do.

 

[CoastRat.sixpack]

He won't need the journalists to testify because he will have both Freeze and Bjork under oath. Since their defense is that they aren't covered by the agreement, I expect there are no plans to lie under oath.

 

[mount lefroy]

I disagree. Seems like mars is trying to argue intent, which he states specifically.

Fwiw, I have only been practicing bird law for one fortnight.

Mars is saying that precedent favors the party that doesn't draw the contract. "UM" agreed not to disparage for the length of the payments. Not employees at that time.

Mars will win by settlement. "UM" knows this.

 

[LawDawg97]

In this case we're not talking about a

Haven't journalists been able to not release info on/from confidential informants in court cases? While I hope they make ole miss look bad, I don't know if they can be compelled to speak in a deposition. It's not like this is a murder case or something. You are lawdawg though and probably know more about this than I do.

confidential informant. A simple question would be: Mr. journalist, on __ date Hugh Freeze called you and you spoke for __ minutes. Later that day you reported that my client was responsible for the majority if the NOA violations. Did you obtain that information during that conversation with Hugh Freeze? The answer is either yes or no. But if he says I can't divulge that because I promised Mr. Freeze I wouldn't - that means yes as well.

 

[messageboardsuperhero]

I'm not in any way a lawyer, but here's my two cents:

This whole thing boils down to who is included in the "control group"- only the admins at the time the document was signed or are future admins included as well? And is it the responsibility of those admins to inform their subordinates (i.e., Freeze and Campbell) of this arrangement. It seems like a tough hill to climb for Mars on the surface, IMO.

But in the end, I really couldn't care less who ends up "winning" this thing- because the longer Mars and his team are allowed to dig, UM loses. The damage has really already been done, but if Mars makes it to the discovery phase and is granted subpoena power, the collateral damage could be catastrophic. And the collateral damaged is all that anyone not involved in the case really cares about.