Maurice Washington Faces Charges

[Moiraine]

13 minutes ago, bugeater17 said:

 

Do you really think your question is a valid question? I mean come on, you ask it because there is no way of proving the response. I could say 90% and neither you nor I would be able to prove the other wrong. Is that really what your after? 

 

And yes, you do miss the point of my post. You simply don’t know what you are talking about. But since you continue to miss the point of my post I will repeat once again. You stated lawyers wouldn’t take this case pro bono. You in fact are wrong because it is 1) unjust to charge Mo the same as an actual producer of child porn - so social advocates would have interest; and 2) it is a highly publicized case that deals with a fairly new law - large law firms would love to sign it up and assign to a new associate to handle - the partner then takes credit if successful and gains other clients in the future because he is then deemed an “expert” on this law.

 

 

I didn't state lawyers wouldn't take this case pro bono. I stated "I can’t see this as being the type of case a bunch of lawyers would be lining up to do for free if he weren’t a football player."

 

The lining up to do it for free part implies that I think it's highly unlikely he'd get a free lawyer if he and the case were unknown, not that I think it never happens or could never happen.

A huge part of the reason it's "a highly publicized case" is because he's a football player.  The statement you originally replied to says "if he weren't a football player." The only argument I'm making is that the NCAA isn't stopping him from getting free representation because in my opinion he likely wouldn't have gotten free representation if not for being a football player. Nothing you've said has changed my mind on that because you haven't even provided your opinion on how often this happens. I have no clue how often it happens and since you haven't responded, I'm guessing you don't either. I think it's unlikely he'd be able to get a free lawyer if he wasn't a football player. You seem to think it's likely he'd be able to get a free lawyer if he wasn't a football player. The major difference is you keep saying "you're wrong" and "you don't know what you are talking about" over and over but you haven't provided any evidence to back up that statement.

[bugeater17]

3 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I didn't state lawyers wouldn't take this case pro bono. I stated "I can’t see this as being the type of case a bunch of lawyers would be lining up to do for free if he weren’t a football player."

 

The lining up to do it for free part implies that I think it's highly unlikely he'd get a free lawyer if he and the case were unknown, not that I think it never happens or could never happen.

A huge part of the reason it's "a highly publicized case" is because he's a football player.  The statement you originally replied to says "if he weren't a football player." The only argument I'm making is that the NCAA isn't stopping him from getting free representation because in my opinion he likely wouldn't have gotten free representation if not for being a football player. Nothing you've said has changed my mind on that because you haven't even provided your opinion on how often this happens. I have no clue how often it happens and since you haven't responded, I'm guessing you don't either. I think it's unlikely he'd be able to get a free lawyer if he wasn't a football player. You seem to think it's likely he'd be able to get a free lawyer if he wasn't a football player. The major difference is you keep saying "you're wrong" and "you don't know what you are talking about" over and over but you haven't provided any evidence to back up that statement.

 

Because you are picking and choosing facts to fit your narrative. The facts are this is a highly publicized case on a fairly new statute. That has appeal which makes is more likely to entice an attorney to take a case pro bono over any other regular case that walks in off the street. Perhaps you should inquire with other attorneys about reasons they take cases pro bono (other than to meet firm mandated quotas). I am providing you reasons why attorneys take cases pro bono - you are just choosing to ignore those and ask for “evidence” that simply doesn’t exist in any provable way, which is yet another logical fallacy in your response. 

[Moiraine]

14 minutes ago, bugeater17 said:

Because you are picking and choosing facts to fit your narrative. The facts are this is a highly publicized case on a fairly new statute. That has appeal which makes is more likely to entice an attorney to take a case pro bono over any other regular case that walks in off the street. Perhaps you should inquire with other attorneys about reasons they take cases pro bono (other than to meet firm mandated quotas). I am providing you reasons why attorneys take cases pro bono - you are just choosing to ignore those and ask for “evidence” that simply doesn’t exist in any provable way, which is yet another logical fallacy in your response. 

 

It would not be nearly as highly publicized if he wasn't a college football player at a major program. We can agree to disagree on that, and it's a pretty major part of the argument. I'm not doing anything you're accusing me of doing though. I understand all the details you've given, I just don't think they are very important compared to what I think is the biggest reason why the case is highly publicized. The most important aspect in my opinion is that he's a football player, and without that he would likely not get a free lawyer. And if you google "California revenge porn," there are bunches of headlines on his case and the headlines about his case start with "Nebraska player" "Husker player" "football player." They don't start with any of the other stuff that makes the case unique.

 

I agree with you completely on the bolded and understand your reasons why this has more appeal than another "regular case." But that means nothing whatsoever to me as far as numbers go. Maybe a "regular case" has a 0.01% chance of getting a free lawyer, and maybe due to the unique nature you've described, this type of case would have a 10% chance. That doesn't mean the NCAA is what's stopping Washington from getting free representation, because 10% is still unlikely. You get up to 30, 40, 50% and I would say that he is at a disadvantage because of the NCAA.

[PasstheDamnBallGuy]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

I agree with you completely on the bolded and understand your reasons why this has more appeal than another "regular case." But that means nothing whatsoever to me as far as numbers go. Maybe a "regular case" has a 0.01% chance of getting a free lawyer, and maybe due to the unique nature you've described, this type of case would have a 10% chance. That doesn't mean the NCAA is what's stopping Washington from getting free representation, because 10% is still unlikely. You get up to 30, 40, 50% and I would say that he is at a disadvantage because of the NCAA.

 

You just made up percentages to make it seem as close to an impossiblity as you can. The percentages should be irrelevant anyway though. The fact is that the NCAA could take action on something like this regardless of why the lawyer chose to do it.  The system they have right now is deeply flawed in that the players have no power and the NCAA has such a convoluted and wide reach that they can pick and choose what to do. There is a reason all of the major sports have unions and why fighters in the UFC are trying to get one also now. 

[Moiraine]

15 minutes ago, PasstheDamnBallGuy said:

You just made up percentages to make it seem as close to an impossiblity as you can. The percentages should be irrelevant anyway though.

 

 

It's obvious I don't know what the percentages are and I'm giving examples and what they would mean if they were true. The percentages aren't irrelevant. They are wholly relevant to your post about "individual rights." If Washington would have a very low percentage chance to get a free lawyer as a regular unknown, then the NCAA's rules are not what is preventing him from his "individual rights." If the % is low, it's extremely likely he wouldn't have had a free lawyer without being a college football player, and if the NCAA rules prevent it, he won't have one as a college football player. Therefore the NCAA is not the cause of his not having a free lawyer. He wouldn't have had one in either circumstance.

 

My percentages seem pretty darn reasonable to me, for the record. I didn't just pick them "to make it seem as close to an impossibility" as I can. It can't be that easy to get pro bono lawyers, especially if no one knows who you are, right? Seems like it would be a rarity.

I don't disagree that the system is flawed, and that's not what I'm discussing.

[PasstheDamnBallGuy]

10 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

It's obvious I don't know what the percentages are and I'm giving examples and what they would mean if they were true. The percentages aren't irrelevant. They are wholly relevant to your post about "individual rights." If Washington would have a very low percentage chance to get a free lawyer as a regular unknown, then the NCAA's rules are not what is preventing him from his "individual rights." If the % is low, it's extremely likely he wouldn't have had a free lawyer without being a college football player, and if the NCAA rules prevent it, he won't have one as a college football player. Therefore the NCAA is not the cause of his not having a free lawyer. He wouldn't have had one in either circumstance.

 

My percentages seem pretty darn reasonable to me, for the record. I didn't just pick them "to make it seem as close to an impossibility" as I can. It can't be that easy to get pro bono lawyers, especially if no one knows who you are, right? Seems like it would be a rarity.

I don't disagree that the system is flawed, and that's not what I'm discussing.

 

I don't see how the percentages are relevant at all except in that it is a greater than 0% chance. Its obviously not impossible therefore a rule that prevents it from being possible is infringing on that right. You don't get to take away rights and then say, nah they probably wouldn't have used them anyway. 

[Ulty]

Maurice Washington is not the first college football player to get into legal trouble requiring the services of an attorney. It happens all the time. How have the hundreds of prior issues involving attorneys been looked at by the NCAA? How do attorney fees with college athletes usually work? I don't recall hearing any stories in the past about legal services being cracked down upon as impermissible benefits. Does the NCAA even care about that aspect of it, is it even an issue?

[Guy Chamberlin]

12 hours ago, JoeSakic2019 said:

Im guessing in California nobody knows about Mo Washingtons case.

 

It was the lead story in the Sports Digest section of the San Francisco Chronicle the day the case broke, probably because Washington is from the South Bay. ESPN gave the story play for 24 hours. 

 

I haven't seen any follow up in the national press since then.

[Huskr25]

Regardless of all this, the NCAA cant ask how MW paid for his attorney, nor can they ask his family. That is all part of attorney-client confidentiality. So even if it was free, NCAA would never get that answer nor can they demand it. 

[4skers89]

3 hours ago, Ulty said:

Maurice Washington is not the first college football player to get into legal trouble requiring the services of an attorney. It happens all the time. How have the hundreds of prior issues involving attorneys been looked at by the NCAA? How do attorney fees with college athletes usually work? I don't recall hearing any stories in the past about legal services being cracked down upon as impermissible benefits. Does the NCAA even care about that aspect of it, is it even an issue?

If someone were to look into past cases where student athletes got into serious legal trouble they were probably kicked off the team and no longer NCAA athletes.  Mo’s case is kind of strange since he’s facing a new law and he probably violated the child pornography law but isn’t a child pornographer.  Once the legal process plays out it could get interesting based on the severity of punishment whether Mo can stay on the team. I get a feeling from Frost’s comments that if (worst case) Mo gets jail time then he’ll have no choice but to kick him off the team.  

[Moiraine]

59 minutes ago, 4skers89 said:

If someone were to look into past cases where student athletes got into serious legal trouble they were probably kicked off the team and no longer NCAA athletes.  Mo’s case is kind of strange since he’s facing a new law and he probably violated the child pornography law but isn’t a child pornographer.  Once the legal process plays out it could get interesting based on the severity of punishment whether Mo can stay on the team. I get a feeling from Frost’s comments that if (worst case) Mo gets jail time then he’ll have no choice but to kick him off the team.  

 

 

There are plenty of players who weren’t kicked off the team before the legal system decided things. Jameis Winston comes to mind, and he was accused of a lot worse.

[4skers89]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

There are plenty of players who weren’t kicked off the team before the legal system decided things. Jameis Winston comes to mind, and he was accused of a lot worse.

Crab legs wasn’t charged on the sex assault incident.  I don’t believe players get suspended for being investigated.

[Moiraine]

Just now, 4skers89 said:

Crab legs wasn’t charged on the sex assault incident.  I don’t believe players get suspended for being investigated.

 

 

I thought by serious legal trouble you were talking about that kind of thing. I didn’t realize you were talking about convictions.

 

And it depends on what the charge is. Is what Washington did worse than beating someone up and being found guilty of it? ‘Cause I’m guessing some of those players have stayed on teams.

[funhusker]

19 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I thought by serious legal trouble you were talking about that kind of thing. I didn’t realize you were talking about convictions.

 

And it depends on what the charge is. Is what Washington did worse than beating someone up and being found guilty of it? ‘Cause I’m guessing some of those players have stayed on teams.

Alex Lewis was facing felony assault when he transferred to NU.  He played for 2 seasons, right?

[Moiraine]

2 minutes ago, funhusker said:

What did Alex Lewis do?  

 

 

That’s who I was thinking of. But he transferred. I do think it’s a little silly schools will take someone in who’s gotten into trouble somewhere else as if that’s someone better than keeping a player who’s done the same thing.