Re: rr lawsuit

[gymdawg.sixpack]

Re: rr lawsuit

This theory may well have been presented already and i missed it but what are the chances this rr gaytard (do i need a lawyer if i say that?) has gone the who lawsuit route knowing tsun fans are so cultish and hate leo so much that they're likely to go buy stuff at his place and he'll rack up?

 

[ShrubDog]

There is no telling what is going on in this guy's mind but if his sales explode it would dismantle his defamation case. He has to prove that RR has taken a hit on sales.

 

[engie]

He'd just cook the books, IMO...

 

[patdog]

The defense will have a forensic accountant looking at those books. It's going to be pretty hard for a non-financial professional to cook the books good enough that a good forensic accountant can't find it.

 

[engie]

Meh -- he just never enters the cash transactions into the books from the time of the decision to file suit going forward. Hence cooked books and no forensic trail. Unless they do one hell of an inventory audit, which would turn up all sorts of goodies, since he'd been swagging out players in multiple sports for many years...

 

[patdog]

It's not that simple. There would still be signs that a good CPA could pick up on and figure out what's going on. I can think of a couple without even spending any time on it.

 

[VillagepeopleDogs]

He would have to explain the shortage if purchases minus sales didn't equal current inventory. Lots of ways shortages happen, but he would need to explain them, or he could hide purchases or sales or inventory, then you check his IRS info. Follow the $.

 

[patdog]

Shhhhh.

 

[tatedog]

I'm sorry but I just have to laugh at the entire notion that this guy maintains competent records of any kind.

 

[engie]

Or just go off book when you purchase the inventory to match everything back up.

This isn't that guy's first rodeo and he's got the liquid assets to win that game forever -- provided he isn't a total idiot. He's been playing this game for a long time. Those books will say whatever he wants them to say.

 

[patdog]

It's a lot harder than it sounds to get it right and not leave signs.

 

[engie]

"Leaving signs" is hardly relevant as it relates to this case, nor is it proof of anything. There is reasonable doubt in the purview of this investigation on basically any book in existence. If this case was built on common sense it would already be thrown out because everyone knows he's been swagging out kids for a decade or more and has never been shy about it. His books are going to mean totally different things to the two different sides, hence why it's an impossible case for him to win from the very beginning.

 

[patdog]

It's very relevant. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. If his records can be shown to be unreliable, it's going to hurt his case pretty badly.

 

[VillagepeopleDogs]

If the register don't click, you must convict.

 

[josebrown]

"Red flags"....Oh, and code words, such as...umm...Emily(cough)(cough)...**

 

[VillagepeopleDogs]

If you do that, then you have no proof of 'cost of goods sold' to base profits or losses.

 

[bomanishus]

I think what RR is saying is this:

This theory may well have been presented already and i missed it but what are the chances this rr gaytard (do i need a lawyer if i say that?) has gone the who lawsuit route knowing tsun fans are so cultish and hate leo so much that they're likely to go buy stuff at his place and he'll rack up?[/QUOTE

that the testimony is going to cause him to be disassociated, and because of that, his business will not be able to sell university-licensed apparel and other items.

 

[MSUDAWGFAN]

Question: Can you he just use the "Accounting mistakes were made" defense if it doesn't line up?**

 

[VillagepeopleDogs]

The IRS don't care if mistakes were made.

 

[ShrubDog]

that the testimony is going to cause him to be disassociated, and because of that, his business will not be able to sell university-licensed apparel and other items.

Last week this came up and someone said this would not effect the store. He has a contract with the suppliers not the licensing companies. My recollection is clouded...

 

[Arloguthrie]

Respectfully, I think y'all are getting too hung up on damages. There are many ways to prove damages in a case such as this, including damage to reputation and loss of projected future earnings. It wouldn't be uncommon for the plaintiff to retain an expert to opine on the projected loss of future revenue. And whether or not plaintiff can show he's already sustained damages would almost certainly be a jury issue. Lastly, under Mississippi law false statements which tend to injure another in his trade, business or profession are deemed defamation per se, meaning the statements are presumed harmful.

 

[Xusuromohses]

What's funny is that you probably don't think the guy paid players. 2 years ago you were proud of the fact that he did.

I'm sure it is 'harming' his business in some way. But the guy's been playing players for years. That's why the suit is frivolous and will get thrown out.

You won't listen to any of this, so good luck.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

Can #39's statement be proven false? Wouldn't #39 simply show apparel and say it was given to him? Unless RR has him on camera exchanging cash (it would not surprise me to find out UM secretly filmed these guys as well as recorded phone calls) how does RR prove the statements to be false?

 

[LawDawg97]

Respectfully, I think you are getting too hung up on the allegation that

Respectfully, I think y'all are getting too hung up on damages. There are many ways to prove damages in a case such as this, including damage to reputation and loss of projected future earnings. It wouldn't be uncommon for the plaintiff to retain an expert to opine on the projected loss of future revenue.

there were false statements.

I also find it amusing that you and all of your brethren are positive that this is all made up, yet you expect an expert to testify that y'all are going to quit shopping there because of all the Leo lies.

 

[Arloguthrie]

Can #39's statement be proven false? Wouldn't #39 simply show apparel and say it was given to him? Unless RR has him on camera exchanging cash (it would not surprise me to find out UM secretly filmed these guys as well as recorded phone calls) how does RR prove the statements to be false?

I don't know. I like to see how all the evidence shakes out before rushing to judgment. And Leo couldn't produce any of the merchandise he supposedly received for free. (Neither could Kobe and Lindsey Miller.)

 

[Drebin]

Respectfully, I think y'all are getting too hung up on damages. There are many ways to prove damages in a case such as this, including damage to reputation and loss of projected future earnings. It wouldn't be uncommon for the plaintiff to retain an expert to opine on the projected loss of future revenue. And whether or not plaintiff can show he's already sustained damages would almost certainly be a jury issue. Lastly, under Mississippi law false statements which tend to injure another in his trade, business or profession are deemed defamation per se, meaning the statements are presumed harmful.

He hasn't even been disassociated yet. Why file a lawsuit to claim damages for something that might happen if the COI rules a certain way? It's stupid to even debate how he intends to prove damages because this "lawsuit" will never get that far, nor intends to. He just wants to depose those two SAs.

 

[engie]

I don't know. I like to see how all the evidence shakes out before rushing to judgment.

The guy has been swagging out players for years. And proud/boisterous of it. And it is well known to all around that town and many others. You've heard about this and were well aware of it's existence long before there was a notice of allegations. True or false? That's the part I don't understand. Everyone from OM acts like they are plugged in -- but RR's scheme was not a secret. Either they are being liars/hypocrites about it now or they weren't plugged in in the first place. I know, I know.... "it isn't what you know, it's what you can prove."

You really think none of those guys could produce any Ole Miss swag allegedly given to them by RR? Or they just didn't bring it to their NCAA meeting with them and thus a cleverly phrased response from your legal team? Well, allegedly, since that legal team apparently wasn't actually at the meeting either....

 

[Arloguthrie]

there were false statements.

I also find it amusing that you and all of your brethren are positive that this is all made up, yet you expect an expert to testify that y'all are going to quit shopping there because of all the Leo lies.

See above. I don't know if there were false statements. I do think there are enough inconsistencies that a good attorney like Merkel will have plenty to work with, if you've read the portion of the NOA response pertaining to RR.

On the expert, he/she would merely be an economist or CPA who can run the numbers on likely scenarios if the jury finds that RR's future sales will be negatively impacted. There's not anyone, to my knowledge, who could meet the Daubert requirements of possessing expertise on whether people will shop at RR.

 

[Arloguthrie]

He hasn't even been disassociated yet. Why file a lawsuit to claim damages for something that might happen if the COI rules a certain way? It's stupid to even debate how he intends to prove damages because this "lawsuit" will never get that far, nor intends to. He just wants to depose those two SAs.

Often in a defamation suit a large part of the motivation is to clear the plaintiff's name, and that's perfectly acceptable. He's never had the opportunity to cross-examine the SAs, never been able to challenge them on the portions of their story that don't add up. So I would imagine that deposing the SAs is a big part of his motivation. It's not always about money.

 

[Arloguthrie]

The guy has been swagging out players for years. And proud/boisterous of it. And it is well known to all around that town and many others. You've heard about this and were well aware of it's existence long before there was a notice of allegations. True or false? That's the part I don't understand. Everyone from OM acts like they are plugged in -- but RR's scheme was not a secret. Either they are being liars/hypocrites about it now or they weren't plugged in in the first place. I know, I know.... "it isn't what you know, it's what you can prove."

You really think none of those guys could produce any Ole Miss swag allegedly given to them by RR? Or they just didn't bring it to their NCAA meeting with them and thus a cleverly phrased response from your legal team? Well, allegedly, since that legal team apparently wasn't actually at the meeting either....

False. You probably won't believe me, but I know nothing about RR giving away anything for free. To the contrary, I've heard from multiple individuals who know him that he would never give away anything for free. Also, if I were advising a friend, I would tell him to be very careful about making statements like you are making, but proceed at your own risk.

 

[ShrubDog]

Proving that the plaintiffs name has been damaged in the community is the hardest thing to prove in a defamation case. At least that is what a lawyer said.

 

[tatedog]

False. You probably won't believe me, but I know nothing about RR giving away anything for free. To the contrary, I've heard from multiple individuals who know him that he would never give away anything for free. Also, if I were advising a friend, I would tell him to be very careful about making statements like you are making, but proceed at your own risk.

I have never seen anyone claim that the business owner personally handed over the items. In fact, another name is used, who although Ole Miss sycophants assume must be a store employee, is also never implied. If the students received store merchandise gratis then their claims are valid, regardless of whether or not any certain party was aware. Good luck proving no store employee ever handed out freebies with or without consent.

 

[engie]

I'm stating exactly what I fully believe to be factual as second hand info both from a person in his inner circle and several others separately. I have never knowingly made any false statements to hurt him or anyone else.

But you are right -- I don't care enough about it to end up in the middle of it and given the unhinged nature of everything going on over there -- it is definitely best for me to just be quiet.

 

[tatedog]

there were false statements.

I also find it amusing that you and all of your brethren are positive that this is all made up, yet you expect an expert to testify that y'all are going to quit shopping there because of all the Leo lies.

I also love how Ole Miss fans are so fast to jump in and defend Freeze because he was totally unaware (and according to Ole Miss attorneys incapable of being aware) of what his subordinates were doing. Yet, they assume that the owner of RR is some omnipresent and omniscient being who monitors every transaction in his store with 100% accuracy. Maybe based on their supervisory capabilities alone, they should swap jobs.

 

[ezsoil]

I don't know. I like to see how all the evidence shakes out before rushing to judgment. And Leo couldn't produce any of the merchandise he supposedly received for free. (Neither could Kobe and Lindsey Miller.)

Yo Arlo, none of the three in question have been asked to produce any of the merchandise..so don't say they couldn't.......as stated in pages 32-34 of the response..it just says that the OM investigators could not find any evidence to confirm their testimony....they even produced a chart showing all of the people they asked if they received free stuff...let's look at that list closely...it included Tunsil and his mom (who certainly have an axe to grind with Miller), the majority of the athletes asked were those who signed with Ole Miss....

 

[LawDawg97]

False. You probably won't believe me, but I know nothing about RR giving away anything for free. To the contrary, I've heard from multiple individuals who know him that he would never give away anything for free. Also, if I were advising a friend, I would tell him to be very careful about making statements like you are making, but proceed at your own risk.

So you are stating that you have sources that RR would NEVER give anything away for free. Thus, any reasonable person would infer that your statement is that the SAs are lying. But engie better be careful about making statements based on other sources? You are a great advisor. And obviously have years of trial experience to boot.

 

[Shamoan]

I find it hard to believe someone must be associated with a university to sell their licensed merchandise. Joe blow in Idaho is selling licensed NCAA goods and apparel of teams from around the country as we speak and has little to no association with any of the universities. People keep repeating that, but I don't think it is remotely accurate whatsoever. Furthermore, the NCAA gets a cut of everything sold, and I find it doubtful that they would prohibit any party from making them money. The whole idea that he can't sell ole miss gear seems ill contrived and void of any understanding that no one has to have an association to sell NCAA items, so being disassociated has no bearing on his ability to sell said items. Someone explain how I am wrong and what I am missing because people that repeat that argument just sound ignorant. Maybe I'm the ignorant one...so please enlighten me.

 

[tatedog]

So you are stating that you have sources that RR would NEVER give anything away for free. Thus, any reasonable person would infer that your statement is that the SAs are lying. But engie better be careful about making statements based on other sources? You are a great advisor. And obviously have years of trial experience to boot.

It's only defamation when a poor, young black guy says it about a rich, old white guy.**

 

[tatedog]

Don't worry. Foxy Matlock will be back shortly with his opinion.

 

[Dawgbite]

Only the manufacturer or the person contracting the licensed product must pay licensing fees on an item. The retailer does not have to be licensed in order to sell officially licensed products because the licensing fee has already been paid prior to it reaching a retail storefront.