NFL: Holy Shit Saints

[Beef]

(04-24-2012 05:51 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  How so? This allegedly happened back in 2004. The federal statute of limitations is five years. Louisiana has a six year statute. Both have expired. Lawyer Dave can verify this.

I thought that if they are currently trying to cover something up now, that that's an offense of its own and opens back up the statute of time.

[TeamPlayer1]

WOW,

Isn't this terrible for the Saints? I'm sure all Falcons fans are sympathetic and their hearts go out to all New Orleans fans. Just like they would do for us. LoL!

[AsylumGuido]

(04-24-2012 06:01 PM)pauliwood Wrote:  So the Federal Bureau of Investigation is launching a probe into this matter for no reason then? Come on man this is the FBI that has gotten involved. This will not end well for Loomis, they will find something.

It may come down upon the accuser.

[phocis850]

Loomis is gonna wet the bed tonight. I wouldn't be surprised if he has a stroke soon due to stress.

[NZFalcon]

yawn.

[Passepartout]

Going from bad to worse for the team!

[JDaveG]

(04-24-2012 05:48 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  I know I said ESPN initially, but I am really expecting action against the ex-employee that supposedly fed the ESPN reporter, Barr, this story.

But, it is interesting that Barr is a reporter that worked in Atlanta and Minneapolis. Maybe a little malice might not be out of the question.

Not out of the question, but very, very hard to prove. They would have to know that Barr knew the story was false or acted with reckless disregard of the truth. That's not a subjective standard -- there is caselaw defining it.

Let me ask you this -- when is the last time you heard of a libel or slander case filed by a public figure succeeding? Yeah, me neither.

And I'll say again, the reporter doesn't have to reveal his source, so unless Loomis knows who it is and can prove it, he's SOL on his lawsuit.

[JDaveG]

(04-24-2012 05:51 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  How so? This allegedly happened back in 2004. The federal statute of limitations is five years. Louisiana has a six year statute. Both have expired. Lawyer Dave can verify this.

Federal/LA statute of limitations for what?

We don't know if the statute has run unless we know what crime they think was committed. Maybe the Feds are going after something other than wiretapping. Or maybe the statute can be tolled until the day a fraudulently concealed act was discovered. We just don't know at this point. It could have run, but I doubt the Feds would be wasting resources on it if they thought they didn't have a case. For the record, that's exactly the same thing I said when they indicted Vick -- I was a hopeless apologist before then. But the Feds don't play around. If they indict, they usually convict.

And I'll also say this, having a little bit of experience working with the FBI on criminal cases -- they are the single most professional law enforcement agency in the world. I'll say it again -- they aren't going to waste resources on a case they think they can't prove. If they drop their investigation, that's a pretty good indication they don't believe they will prevail. As long as they're looking into it, Loomis and anyone else involve had better be concerned.

[phocis850]

Who wants to put money down that Loomis was doing shady deals and the feds were looking for another way in to investigate.

[RockHoward]

Hey guys! The Saints have already admitted that this report was true. Didn't you read the quote were they sais that it was 1000% wrong? That means they confirmed it. Here is the math:

100% wrong means: it is wrong
200% wrong means: it is right
300% wrong means: it is wrong
400% wrong means: it is right
500% wrong means: it is wrong
...
1000% wrong means it is right.

Case closed. '-)