Move to strike as nonresponsive.
DCI Special Agent Mark Ludwig……
- Thread starter joelbc1
- Start date
Shannon violated NCAA rules by betting..period. His name was given to the NCAA by UIowa when they turned over the information given them by the DCI. Shannon was sanctioned by the NCAA… I don’t think he was ever criminally charged by any one.
It's up for debate as to whether a warrant was needed. The courts will settle this.
State Senator Dan Dawson of Pottawattamie County, who is also a DCI agent himself, countered Petersen's point.
Dawson argues that while people can be worried about privacy, geofencing without a warrant is fine in this case.
Iowa coach and lawmakers discuss DCI sports betting probe
Wednesday marks the third straight day there is new perspective on the Iowa DCI Sports wagering probe. This time the conversation continues with state lawmakercbs2iowa.com
That makes sense why they had to go all the way to Pottawattamie county to get the warrants😂
Yeah, that's my point. He did not violate any laws. NCAA infractions don't count.
You challenged Jimmy's bona fides by making a joke about him staying at a Holiday Inn Express. I told you he was an experienced lawyer and judge. I asked you what your legal training and education was, and you didn't answer the question but said you will wait for the courts to rule. You did not respond to the question but gave a non-answer.
No, you have already stated your opinion. And when the Courts disagree with your opinion, you won't change yours.
The NCAA sanctions don’t count….correct. However, they mattered. A lot.
Shannon was a very real victim here and he may be the only one involved with no real recourse.
Come on Tenacious. This is an internet message board. We have no way of knowing what is real and what is bluster on this site.
The fact that someone asserts that they’re a firefighter, teacher, war hero or whatever the heck, means very little to me.
These threads regarding the DCI are fascinating though. Everyone thinks they have it all figured out based on only one side weighing in.
Tenacious, if you were charged with a crime, would you be okay with only the prosecution presenting their version of events? The jury would then decide your fate? You good with that?
We need to wait for the courts to rule on this. That process affords all parties an opportunity to state their case.
I have met Jimmy in real life in a professional setting. What I told you is true. Does it really surprise you that a bunch of lawyers hang out here? If you don't believe it, oh well.
If I was charged with a crime, I would would my trial. Hopefully, while waiting for my day in court, I would not make a damning admission.
DCI Agents have said that other DCI agents were doing things that were wrong, illegal, or immoral, so we have heard more than one side. I'm all for waiting to hear the other side of the story, but in the case of Noah Shannon, all that the DCI did was rat on a kid to the NCAA for something that never needed or was required to be shared with the university. If this is all as bad as it looks, I am furious my taxes were spent in this way and I want some answers.
Shannon is the biggest victim. Probably cost him an NFL payday. His recourse is a civil suit.
How so Jimmy? Please point to any post where I sided with the DCI.
In fact, the below is my first post from the other thread. By the way YOU literally liked the post.
So Criminal investigators turned over information for someone who wasn't conducting criminal activity. Hmmm...Does the DCI sub-contract with the NCAA to enforce their rules as well? Didn't think so. The people of the State of Iowa needs to send a bill to the NCAA for the services that our state conducted for them.
Understood and I know splitting hairs is what the law is all about...in some ways. Also understand that civil court has a different burden of proof...but there still seems a contradiction that one court can establish responsibility for wrongful death when another didn't. Interesting.
BTW, I tend to agree the evidence was overwhelming. Still waiting to hear how OJ's search for the real killer is going.
And more of your tax money will be going out the door at the end of this.
I truly think this could be a $50 million dollar case between all the athletes
All Shannon needs is an expert or two to project his draft stock and earnings before and after. He could end up in the NFL with an additional "bonus" after all is said and done.
That is why I think it could get to triple digit millions
They turned it over to the UIowa, who was obligated to turn the names given them to the NCAA. That is how the NCAA came up with Shannon’s name.
But Kim won’t say a thing about it….after she said something about it.
I wonder what Brenna would be saying if Miller was the AG when this shit hit the fan?
Criminal responsibility . . . potential jail (the ultimate loss of freedom) . . . hence the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
Civil responsibility (most of them) . . . money damages . . . doesn't command the higher burden of proof.
Once you get past any preconceived notion that criminal responsibility is not the same as civil responsibility (I'd take issue with your "splitting hairs" take), it's pretty straight forward.
Not a perfect analogy but there are plenty of cases where a Plaintiff proves a Defendant to be civilly liable for compensatory damages but the jury concludes that the Defendant shouldn't be liable for punitive damages (different burdens of proof)
The damages issue is an interesting one. Maybe it is because I'm a civil defense lawyer at heart but I think that Noah Shannon's case isn't worth what @Jimmy McGill thinks it may be worth.
Is there value? Absolutely. Proof of damages is the tough part. Proving "what might have happened in the future" is extremely difficult. Best analogy off the top of my head is the "loss of chance to survive" doctrine in medical negligence cases. For example, I've been involved in delayed diagnosis situations where the allegation is the physician breached the standard of care by not diagnosing cancer earlier. An obvious issue is whether the earlier diagnosis would have resulted in a different end result. The claim ultimately rests by proving that the patient would have had a X% greater chance of survival if the cancer had been diagnosed 6 months earlier. Plaintiff has to prove the the treatment rendered late (allegedly) would have resulted in a better outcome. What is the value of that X%?
With Shannon, the claim would be "what did his inability to play in 2023 'cost' him?" Can he still be drafted? Yes. Can he sign a free agent contract as an undrafted player? Yes. Did it "cost" him the chance to showcase his skills? Yes. Did the delay in a year result in a degradation of his skills? That's tough to prove. I'd argue that there are plenty of athletes who suffer season ending injuries in their Senior year who land on pro football rosters after getting healthy. And, at risk of being accused of lacking total sympathy, this isn't a situation where Shannon was deprived of ever playing college football. He was returning for a 6th year of eligibility (and, yes, I know that it was to improve his draft stock).
Where would Shannon have been drafted this year? In what round? AJ Epenesa was drafted in the 2nd round and signed a deal for 4 years, $5.8M, including signing bonus.
Contract/signing bonus for drafted players in 2023: https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/draft/2023/
Riley Moss' "package" totaled nearly $5.5M as the 83rd overall pick (3rd round) in 2022.
If his privacy rights were violated, does he have a case? Absolutely. I would never take issue what such a claim. Even if you factor in "pain and suffering" or "mental anguish" damages, I just don't think that the "value" of that case is anything close to triple digit millions. All I'm saying is that the crystal ball on the damages issue is really, really fuzzy.
Is there value? Absolutely. Proof of damages is the tough part. Proving "what might have happened in the future" is extremely difficult. Best analogy off the top of my head is the "loss of chance to survive" doctrine in medical negligence cases. For example, I've been involved in delayed diagnosis situations where the allegation is the physician breached the standard of care by not diagnosing cancer earlier. An obvious issue is whether the earlier diagnosis would have resulted in a different end result. The claim ultimately rests by proving that the patient would have had a X% greater chance of survival if the cancer had been diagnosed 6 months earlier. Plaintiff has to prove the the treatment rendered late (allegedly) would have resulted in a better outcome. What is the value of that X%?
With Shannon, the claim would be "what did his inability to play in 2023 'cost' him?" Can he still be drafted? Yes. Can he sign a free agent contract as an undrafted player? Yes. Did it "cost" him the chance to showcase his skills? Yes. Did the delay in a year result in a degradation of his skills? That's tough to prove. I'd argue that there are plenty of athletes who suffer season ending injuries in their Senior year who land on pro football rosters after getting healthy. And, at risk of being accused of lacking total sympathy, this isn't a situation where Shannon was deprived of ever playing college football. He was returning for a 6th year of eligibility (and, yes, I know that it was to improve his draft stock).
Where would Shannon have been drafted this year? In what round? AJ Epenesa was drafted in the 2nd round and signed a deal for 4 years, $5.8M, including signing bonus.
Contract/signing bonus for drafted players in 2023: https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/draft/2023/
Riley Moss' "package" totaled nearly $5.5M as the 83rd overall pick (3rd round) in 2022.
If his privacy rights were violated, does he have a case? Absolutely. I would never take issue what such a claim. Even if you factor in "pain and suffering" or "mental anguish" damages, I just don't think that the "value" of that case is anything close to triple digit millions. All I'm saying is that the crystal ball on the damages issue is really, really fuzzy.
Last edited:
I'm probably repeating myself here. In law school, we had a forum with a senior St. Paul police officer, an FBI agent, and a prominent criminal defense attorney.
Guess what they all agreed upon. Never talk to law enforcement. Even if you are innocent, they can make you guilty with your own words. Be polite, tell them no.
Guess what they all agreed upon. Never talk to law enforcement. Even if you are innocent, they can make you guilty with your own words. Be polite, tell them no.
It would not make sense to be convicted of crime with a much higher burden of proof (say, 95%) but not found liable civilly (didn't get to 50%) if it was the same "wrong" with the same evidence. It could make a lot of sense if there was not enough evidence to satisfy the higher burden of proof in criminal court (say, 95%), but enough in civil court (got to 51%).
However, I would hazard to guess that the majority of D1 teams have one, or more, players involved in sports gambling.
Reynolds is following the advice of attorneys. Solid decision.
Bird would say nothing as she would still be a county attorney.
cough cough. B.S. She ran her mouth all the time as county attorney. Sorry, I may know more about her than you. Just as you might know more about prophylactics than me.
And here I thought you'd be responding to post 97. My expectations were too high.
For what? I have put my cards on the table. You keep going back and forth.
Post 97 is clear.
You stated "You clearly are siding with DCI', yet you're unable to support that statement.
How have I gone back and forth?
Come on Jimmy, just say "I'm sorry Northern".
You clearly are in your posts. "wait for the courts", Well, I know a whole hell a lot more about the law than you. This is a slam dunk against the state.
It truly is not even possible that the state doesn't end up paying money. If I'm wrong I'll leave here forever. If you are wrong, will you do the same?
I have no dog in this fight, but I gotta say it's refreshing to see two guys debate back and forth pretty sharply without one of you going full asshole and choosing the childish name-calling route which seems to have become the norm here.
