Below is a link to an article on LewRockwell.com, a libtertarian site. It's an interesting take on the whole case and very closely reasoned - from the libertarian point of view...
Young case link
Young case link
"Illegal conviction of Logan Young..."
- Thread starter TIDE-HSV
- Start date
Interesting article. There are, however, several inaccurate statements in the piece that cause me to look at this as little more that Libertarian rhetoric. For example:
There are many other errors in the piC then LL avoided paying taxes on the income derived from his agent status, and LY arranged payments so as to help him avoid that reporting as the actions were prohibitted by at least the NCAA. That would be a federal crime on both of their parts.
There are many other errors in the piece, but the message is still one that is valid to many - the federal government is going too far into the matters that should be resolved in the state.
What reason? Where is the Shelby county DA's remarks?
A couple of problems here. The author is 1st saying there was no inducement. He then states that Coaches have tremendous influence. If the coach is a public official, the purchasing of his influence is illegal. It matters not whether it was $150K or a fancy dinner. Second, where does the author get the notion that LL was legally Means' advisor? Stated a different way, the author is trying to say that LL was Means' agent. If that was the case, then LL avoided paying taxes on the income derived from his agent status, and LY arranged payments so as to help him avoid that reporting as the actions were prohibitted by at least the NCAA. That would be a federal crime on both of their parts.
Probably not, but that doesn't render it legal. Not many people are prosecuted for placing a $100 bet on a ballgame, but that doesn't free up everyone in the state to gamble for high stakes.
This is simply incorrect. Most state evidentiary laws are directly based on the federal rules. No lawyer files a case in federal court because they think the evidence rules are more favorable. There are very few differences, and those that do exist usually make the state laws more lenient. Federal law in NO WAY allows for hearsay evidence. In fact, Federal Rule of Evidence 802 reads:
There are of course exceptios that exist. They are the same in state court. It is obvious that the esteemed lawyer who assisted in this article is not a litigator.
There are many other errors in the piC then LL avoided paying taxes on the income derived from his agent status, and LY arranged payments so as to help him avoid that reporting as the actions were prohibitted by at least the NCAA. That would be a federal crime on both of their parts.
Probably not, but that doesn't render it legal. Not many people are prosecuted for placing a $100 bet on a ballgame, but that doesn't free up everyone in the state to gamble for high stakes.
This is simply incorrect. Most state evidentiary laws are directly based on the federal rules. No lawyer files a case in federal court because they think the evidence rules are more favorable. There are very few differences, and those that do exist usually make the state laws more lenient. Federal law in NO WAY allows for hearsay evidence. In fact, Federal Rule of Evidence 802 reads:
There are of course exceptios that exist. They are the same in state court. It is obvious that the esteemed lawyer who assisted in this article is not a litigator.
There are many other errors in the piece, but the message is still one that is valid to many - the federal government is going too far into the matters that should be resolved in the state.
Isn't Ellen Degeneres a libertarian?bamatex82 said:
I think I'm a libertarian trapped in a man's body...
:eek2:
Thanks Bamalaw92
I read the article myself Saturday morning and found it very intriguing. I guess I never fully understood the entire scope and weight of the trial but I did have questions and concerns in regards to what made this case "federal" in the first place. You were able to answer most (if not all) those questions. I still think Professor Anderson made some valid points and I'm in agreement that the "feds" do sometimes over -reach their jurisdiction and constitutionally deignated powers. I'll leave it at that.
I read the article myself Saturday morning and found it very intriguing. I guess I never fully understood the entire scope and weight of the trial but I did have questions and concerns in regards to what made this case "federal" in the first place. You were able to answer most (if not all) those questions. I still think Professor Anderson made some valid points and I'm in agreement that the "feds" do sometimes over -reach their jurisdiction and constitutionally deignated powers. I'll leave it at that.
I saw...
some of the flaws spotted by 92. However, I share the author's general discomfort with the current reach of RICO. The federal confiscation statutes are an area of even worse abuse.
some of the flaws spotted by 92. However, I share the author's general discomfort with the current reach of RICO. The federal confiscation statutes are an area of even worse abuse.
A couple of questions and comments:
1. I do not understand why it is important who initiates a "bribe". Is it not legally a bribe if a State Trooper stops me for speeding and offers to not write me a ticket for a cash payout of $150, or is it only a bribe if I initiate the transaction? If he makes the overture, it is incumbent upon you to refuse. If you do not, you are committing a crime.
2. It seems to me that the real question here is not if Logan paid LL to get Means to go to UA. The jury found him guilty of this. The real question is whether LL was a public official. If not, I do not think there was a crime here. And I find it hard to stretch my mind around the concept of a HS football coach as a "public official".
3. That said, what Logan did was clearly a violation of NCAA rules. And Logan WAS a booster as defined by NCAA bylaws. I also find it hard to believe that Logan was a "rogue booster". He was a guy that was closely associated with the UA football program, was a close friend of Mal, and talked to Ivy Williams over 60 times, conversations that Ivy himself had a hard time explaining when put upon the stand last week. So while it is unclear to me if Logan's actions constituted a federal crime, it is clear that both he and UA were guilty of breaking the NCAA's regulations and were deservedly punished. For if UA did not rein in Logan, an insider, who were they likely to be reining in? We can debate whether the rule is fair or not, but UA clearly was guilty of the rules as they currently are promulgated.
1. I do not understand why it is important who initiates a "bribe". Is it not legally a bribe if a State Trooper stops me for speeding and offers to not write me a ticket for a cash payout of $150, or is it only a bribe if I initiate the transaction? If he makes the overture, it is incumbent upon you to refuse. If you do not, you are committing a crime.
2. It seems to me that the real question here is not if Logan paid LL to get Means to go to UA. The jury found him guilty of this. The real question is whether LL was a public official. If not, I do not think there was a crime here. And I find it hard to stretch my mind around the concept of a HS football coach as a "public official".
3. That said, what Logan did was clearly a violation of NCAA rules. And Logan WAS a booster as defined by NCAA bylaws. I also find it hard to believe that Logan was a "rogue booster". He was a guy that was closely associated with the UA football program, was a close friend of Mal, and talked to Ivy Williams over 60 times, conversations that Ivy himself had a hard time explaining when put upon the stand last week. So while it is unclear to me if Logan's actions constituted a federal crime, it is clear that both he and UA were guilty of breaking the NCAA's regulations and were deservedly punished. For if UA did not rein in Logan, an insider, who were they likely to be reining in? We can debate whether the rule is fair or not, but UA clearly was guilty of the rules as they currently are promulgated.
1. I don't think it matters
2. I agree...this will be the focus of the appeal. Authorities seem to be split on whether teachers and coaches are public officials. This can potentially go all the way to the US Sup CT.
3. You make a lot of sense, but will be met with scorn for taking this position.
2. I agree...this will be the focus of the appeal. Authorities seem to be split on whether teachers and coaches are public officials. This can potentially go all the way to the US Sup CT.
3. You make a lot of sense, but will be met with scorn for taking this position.
That is the whole crux of the NCAA case, even though they did not present it that way. The NCAA didn't do any show cause orders for Cottrell and Williams , but they punished U of A as if they were guilty of every accusation. They didn't even mention Mal Moore in any of their charges, but it was plain from the evidence they presented (LY's access to Mal, Mal being in LY's suite at a Vanderbilt game, etc.) that they considered LY an insider with influence in every aspect of Alabama athletics, and a willing party to recruiting abuses. They even dusted off the 10 year old Kenny Smith matter and indulgged in a flight of fancy to link LY to that. Whether anyone thinks that the criminal prosecution of LY was the result of those out to get him or not, there can be little doubt that the NCAA was out to get him from the beginning of the investigation.TRU said:
My wife is a school teacher here in Florida and I have never heard her or any other teacher or coach referred to as "public officials". I don't know about in Tennessee but here in FL, they (teachers & coaches) are referred to as "state employees". When one thinks of "public officials", elected and appointed officials come to my mind, i.e., county commissioners, city council members, mayors, sheriffs, judges or even property appraisers. I too thought about the possibility of this case going before the Supreme Ct.Bamalaw92 said:
As I said, the states appear to be split on this issue. The question is, do we want the US Sup. Ct. to make things uniform for all states or leave it to the states to decide for themselves.CrimsonBeachBum said:
I, for one, think that we need a uniform definition. Otherwise, paying a coach to secure the services of a player could be legal (though against NCAA rules) in Florida, but illegal in Tennessee.
Since LY was tried under the federal statute for bribing a public official, there should be a definition that would apply in all states. Perhaps the law should be amended rather than having the courts decide.
Since LY was tried under the federal statute for bribing a public official, there should be a definition that would apply in all states. Perhaps the law should be amended rather than having the courts decide.
He was not indicted for bribery. Count One was that LY conspired with LL and others to cause Means to attend college and play football at the Bama. The indictment stated that LY, a University of Alabama booster, provided approximately $150,000.00 in cash to LL, from September 1999-October 2000 to ensure that Lang would encourage and cause the athlete to sign a national letter of intent, attend college and play football at the University of Alabama. This is the RICO count. In essence it is a conspiracy to commit a crime, with the underlying crime being bribery under TN law. RICO is a federal statute. Count Two was crossing state lines with the intent to further unlawful activity specifically bribery of a public servant. Count Three was structuring the $150,000.00 financial transaction by making cash withdrawals from his bank account in amounts less than $10,000.00 so that no Currency Transaction Reports (CTR's) would be filed with the Internal Revenue Service. All of these are federal crimes. As a way of example, Murder is generally not a federal crime, but conspiracy, crossing state lines, etc. makes it one.PsychoJoe said:
Last edited:
so Tennessee did not indict under it's own bribery statute, but the Feds reached in with RICO. It is no wonder that so many see this as a conspiracy.
Are any of the crimes that LL is charged with federal crimes? It would seem that the same three charges could be applied to him as well.
Are any of the crimes that LL is charged with federal crimes? It would seem that the same three charges could be applied to him as well.
Latest threads
-
Yahoo: 'We have not proven anything yet' - Kadyn Proctor not ready to crown Alabama's OL despite tremendous talent, experience and upside- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: If the College Football Playoff isn't broken, why fix it?
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Ole Miss freshman Adams, 18, killed in shooting
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Judge dismisses Pryor-led OSU lawsuit vs. NCAA
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0