ADVERTISEMENT

Pitino- doesn't matter if I'm Coach 2

I would assume that it matters greatly whether or not he is Coach 2 as it may assist UL in minimizing or denying a buyout of his contract. I may be way off, but I would think he would have clauses within his contract in regards to upholding NCAA rules and regulations as the coach.
Yep. This is crucial both civil and criminal. First, the inevitable civil suit between Pitino and Louisville regarding his contract. I think they owe him something like $44 million if they terminate without cause. There's a provision in his contract that says for him to be terminated with cause he must have willfully engaged in conduct that puts the school in bad light. So, poor supervision isn't willful, that's negligence probably. If his assistants did it, that's not enough. If he's coach 2, that means he's in it directly, up to his chest in the muck. He is actuallly directly involved in arranging payments to kids. That's willful, and Louisville can dismiss with cause and not owe him the 44 mil. Although practically they'll pay something to make the lawsuit go away.

On the criminal thing, I think there's a chance he faces charges if he's coach 2. A lot of people, me too, were thinking initially that it was simple: the people named in the suit (Gatto, etc.) were actually in criminal danger, while those who weren't named (coach-2, etc) were necessary parts of the story, but weren't in criminal danger, only NCAA danger. I no longer think that's right. I think he could be indicted for conspiracy to bribe, etc.

Based on what we know so far, unlike others who were wire-tapped or video recorded, apparently with RP they just have phone records. They know Pitino called Gatto, or vice versa, 3 times the day before Bowen committed to Louisville. But they don't have a transcript. So rick will say "sure we talked. About the weather. About Rozier. About the price of rhubarb in Denmark." But I suspect Gatto is singing like a canary, as are the other named defendants. They'll tell a different story, one much more believable in the circumstances.

So whether he's coach2 very much matters. It could cost him $44 million. It could cost him his freedom.
 
He would be the worst case client- thinks he is innocent and can't keep his mouth shut.

He doesn't think he is innocent. Somewhere hubris turned into CYA - he is in serious CYA mode right now. If $44m is on the line, you're going to say whatever you have to say with a straight face.

We've seen this before from coaches.

Of course it doesn't help when your AD and good friend who has stood by you in past scandals publicly claims he would have fired him had he known he was Coach 2.

CYA move by the AD trumps Pitino's CYA move.
 
Last edited:
If everyone remembers, several years ago, he became really sick, even had to go and stay at mayo clinic, rumor was he had a std that was attacking his blood and brain, apparently they couldnt help with the part it was attacking the brain
 
Without a transcript, it might be hard to convict him in a criminal case. A good lawyer will just say the other party is clearly a criminal trying to get a lighter sentence by delivering a bigger fish.

NCAA rules however say the head coach pays, whether they knew or not. After Strippergate, the NCAA surely can drop a show-cause on him just on circumstantial evidence. TheY don't have the same burden of proof.
 
So will the NCAA ever get involved and investgate the 100k bribe? If they get started today, Rick doesn't get any NCAA sanctions until about 2025. He and OJ can hang out in Florida till then, open a bar or something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GridCats
Let Mr.Pitino talk and talk and talk. I think his attorney better advise him the FBI wiretapped his conversations and some day there is a very, very good chance it will be played back in a court of law.

"Mr. Pitinio is that your New York voice on the tape? Are you the man the parties address as Rick?" Thank you, now that we have established it is your voice ...................

Pitino is not playing around with an incompetent NCAA investigation nor is he going to be helped by his buddies on TV and the print media when he faces judgement day. This is the FBI we are talking about. This is a different ball game Mr.Pitino.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GridCats and awf
That looks yummy. Gimme some!


giphy.gif


:popcorn:

Pass the popcorn and don't be a pig........
 
Technically a lawyer is an officer of the Court which takes precedence over the representation of the client. Meaning if your client lies on the stand and you know it's a lie, you have an obligation to tell the judge who then takes recourse as the judge sees fit. Now does that happen in real life? Probably not as much as it should. [roll]

Actually I don't think you are allowed to tell the judge depending on what state you are in, I don't know the laws for every state but I think in the majority of them, as soon as you realize your client just perjured his/her self, you just have to request permission to withdraw without breaching your ACP. You would just tell the judge that you can no longer ethically represent your client without risking your ability to continue to practice law. Of course, if your client is asked and answers a question...and you motion to withdraw citing your inability to ethically represent without risking your practice, the judge will know right then that the reason is that your client committed perjury. But you are correct, a lawyer is an officer of the court, and has a duty of truthfulness, and it would be a criminal act for them to suborn perjury. It gets sticky though, an attorney has to be very careful.. there are all kinds of conduct rules that can be broken. For instance, lets say your client just perjured him/her self, they just committed a crime, if you tell the court that they just committed a crime, you effectively just testified against your client, correct? And that is a big no no for a defense attorney correct? So, I think...if you realize your client just perjured their self..the best course of action would be to motion for a recess so you can speak to your client, then ask them for permission to disclose it to the court, and have that testimony stricken from the record, if they refuse, then you just motion to withdraw without breaching your ACP , and walk away from an extremely controversial issue that has been ruled on in both directions...damned if you do, damned if you don't.
 
Actually I don't think you are allowed to tell the judge depending on what state you are in, I don't know the laws for every state but I think in the majority of them, as soon as you realize your client just perjured his/her self, you just have to request permission to withdraw without breaching your ACP. You would just tell the judge that you can no longer ethically represent your client without risking your ability to continue to practice law. Of course, if your client is asked and answers a question...and you motion to withdraw citing your inability to ethically represent without risking your practice, the judge will know right then that the reason is that your client committed perjury. But you are correct, a lawyer is an officer of the court, and has a duty of truthfulness, and it would be a criminal act for them to suborn perjury. It gets sticky though, an attorney has to be very careful.. there are all kinds of conduct rules that can be broken. For instance, lets say your client just perjured him/her self, they just committed a crime, if you tell the court that they just committed a crime, you effectively just testified against your client, correct? And that is a big no no for a defense attorney correct? So, I think...if you realize your client just perjured their self..the best course of action would be to motion for a recess so you can speak to your client, then ask them for permission to disclose it to the court, and have that testimony stricken from the record, if they refuse, then you just motion to withdraw without breaching your ACP , and walk away from an extremely controversial issue that has been ruled on in both directions...damned if you do, damned if you don't.

You know he's an attorney, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cindog28
Actually I don't think you are allowed to tell the judge depending on what state you are in, I don't know the laws for every state but I think in the majority of them, as soon as you realize your client just perjured his/her self, you just have to request permission to withdraw without breaching your ACP. You would just tell the judge that you can no longer ethically represent your client without risking your ability to continue to practice law. Of course, if your client is asked and answers a question...and you motion to withdraw citing your inability to ethically represent without risking your practice, the judge will know right then that the reason is that your client committed perjury. But you are correct, a lawyer is an officer of the court, and has a duty of truthfulness, and it would be a criminal act for them to suborn perjury. It gets sticky though, an attorney has to be very careful.. there are all kinds of conduct rules that can be broken. For instance, lets say your client just perjured him/her self, they just committed a crime, if you tell the court that they just committed a crime, you effectively just testified against your client, correct? And that is a big no no for a defense attorney correct? So, I think...if you realize your client just perjured their self..the best course of action would be to motion for a recess so you can speak to your client, then ask them for permission to disclose it to the court, and have that testimony stricken from the record, if they refuse, then you just motion to withdraw without breaching your ACP , and walk away from an extremely controversial issue that has been ruled on in both directions...damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The Rules of the Kentucky Supreme Court have a specific rule that addresses this issue. The rule is 3.130 with reference made to rule 1.6. If a client has perjured himself on the stand during a criminal trial, the simple act of asking to withdraw on the grounds you mentioned does not relieve the attorney of his liability if he knows his client has lied under oath. The rules allow an attorney to disclose information to the court which would establish a defense to a criminal charge against the lawyer based on the conduct of his client. That is clearly stated in the rules. However, I agree, it is a terrible situation for the attorney to be in.
 
The Rules of the Kentucky Supreme Court have a specific rule that addresses this issue. The rule is 3.130 with reference made to rule 1.6. If a client has perjured himself on the stand during a criminal trial, the simple act of asking to withdraw on the grounds you mentioned does not relieve the attorney of his liability if he knows his client has lied under oath. The rules allow an attorney to disclose information to the court which would establish a defense to a criminal charge against the lawyer based on the conduct of his client. That is clearly stated in the rules. However, I agree, it is a terrible situation for the attorney to be in.

But if you have knowledge that the United States Court Of Appeals for the 8th circuit has already reversed a ruling made by the Iowa Supreme court that almost mirrors the Kentucky Supreme Court's rule on the matter, and subsequently granted a writ of habeas corpus based on a deprivation of effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment , how much faith do you have that the Kentucky Supreme Court rule would be held in a United States court of Appeals? Has it ever been challenged and held?

The Kentucky Supreme Court can have a rule that "The simple act of asking to withdraw does not relieve the attorney of his liability if he knows his client has lied under oath" , but the United States Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit has also already ruled that "The intent to commit perjury does not alter a defendants right to effective assistance of counsel , and that counsel's intention to inform the court was a threat to violate the attorney's duty to preserve client confidences". It's a twisted web.

I guess the biggest things to take into account here , or the biggest questions here are,

1- Had Robinson not admonished to Whiteside that he would inform the court if Whiteside committed perjury, and instead just allowed him to commit perjury and then informed the court, would the the United States court of Appeals of the eighth circuit had ruled any differently?

2- How would the United States Court of Appeals of Sixth Circuit rule? Or have they already? They would likely not rule against the 8th circuit, if they disagreed with that ruling they would probably just refer it to a higher court.

3- If you motioned to withdraw, although you still carry a liability..do you actually think you would ever be held accountable for invoking your attorney client privilege? Not a snowballs chance... there is not a court in America that is going to prosecute you for refusing to admit you know your client committed perjury because he told you the real story.

4- Instead of Robinson threatening his client with "If you commit perjury I will tell the court", had he informed his client "If you commit perjury, I will recuse myself from your case" to persuade him to not commit perjury, how would the higher court rulings have changed, or would they have?

5- Once you become that defense attorney who breached your attorney client privilege, or more importantly, once you become that attorney who openly says on a message board that there are instances where you would voluntarily breach your attorney client privilege, how do you think that might affect your practice going forward?
 
But if you have knowledge that the United States Court Of Appeals for the 8th circuit has already reversed a ruling made by the Iowa Supreme court that almost mirrors the Kentucky Supreme Court's rule on the matter, and subsequently granted a writ of habeas corpus based on a deprivation of effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment , how much faith do you have that the Kentucky Supreme Court rule would be held in a United States court of Appeals? Has it ever been challenged and held?

The Kentucky Supreme Court can have a rule that "The simple act of asking to withdraw does not relieve the attorney of his liability if he knows his client has lied under oath" , but the United States Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit has also already ruled that "The intent to commit perjury does not alter a defendants right to effective assistance of counsel , and that counsel's intention to inform the court was a threat to violate the attorney's duty to preserve client confidences". It's a twisted web.

I guess the biggest things to take into account here , or the biggest questions here are,

1- Had Robinson not admonished to Whiteside that he would inform the court if Whiteside committed perjury, and instead just allowed him to commit perjury and then informed the court, would the the United States court of Appeals of the eighth circuit had ruled any differently?

2- How would the United States Court of Appeals of Sixth Circuit rule? Or have they already? They would likely not rule against the 8th circuit, if they disagreed with that ruling they would probably just refer it to a higher court.

3- If you motioned to withdraw, although you still carry a liability..do you actually think you would ever be held accountable for invoking your attorney client privilege? Not a snowballs chance... there is not a court in America that is going to prosecute you for refusing to admit you know your client committed perjury because he told you the real story.

4- Instead of Robinson threatening his client with "If you commit perjury I will tell the court", had he informed his client "If you commit perjury, I will recuse myself from your case" to persuade him to not commit perjury, how would the higher court rulings have changed, or would they have?

5- Once you become that defense attorney who breached your attorney client privilege, or more importantly, once you become that attorney who openly says on a message board that there are instances where you would voluntarily breach your attorney client privilege, how do you think that might affect your practice going forward?
Are you really this big of a clown? I clearly told you what the Supreme Court rules are in Kentucky. That isn’t conjecture. It isn’t opinion. I gave you the specific rules. You don’t breach the privilege by refusing to assist someone committing a felony. If the federal courts rule on the Kentucky Supreme Court rules, so be it. As far as myself, I’m not concerned with explaining what the rules are in Kentucky on an anonymous message board. Those are the rules. That you can’t accept those are the rules, is your problem.
 
Rick is right in a way,if he was at UNC it wouldn't matter if he was coach 2,like many individuals in these types of situations he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.(yes I know we are talking FBI vs NCAA but I just couldn't resist bringing up this point)
 
I keep saying nothing about this will shock me anymore...and I keep being wrong. Pitino is a sociopath that genuinely thinks everyone is dumb and believes everything he says. Wow.


I've got to take up for Pitino. He is a sociopath, for sure, but dumb he is not. He knows he's lying but he knows all his internet UL fans are likely to be too dumb to recognize the lie. Easy audience.
 
But if you have knowledge that the United States Court Of Appeals for the 8th circuit has already reversed a ruling made by the Iowa Supreme court that almost mirrors the Kentucky Supreme Court's rule on the matter, and subsequently granted a writ of habeas corpus based on a deprivation of effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment , how much faith do you have that the Kentucky Supreme Court rule would be held in a United States court of Appeals? Has it ever been challenged and held?

The Kentucky Supreme Court can have a rule that "The simple act of asking to withdraw does not relieve the attorney of his liability if he knows his client has lied under oath" , but the United States Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit has also already ruled that "The intent to commit perjury does not alter a defendants right to effective assistance of counsel , and that counsel's intention to inform the court was a threat to violate the attorney's duty to preserve client confidences". It's a twisted web.

I guess the biggest things to take into account here , or the biggest questions here are,

1- Had Robinson not admonished to Whiteside that he would inform the court if Whiteside committed perjury, and instead just allowed him to commit perjury and then informed the court, would the the United States court of Appeals of the eighth circuit had ruled any differently?

2- How would the United States Court of Appeals of Sixth Circuit rule? Or have they already? They would likely not rule against the 8th circuit, if they disagreed with that ruling they would probably just refer it to a higher court.

3- If you motioned to withdraw, although you still carry a liability..do you actually think you would ever be held accountable for invoking your attorney client privilege? Not a snowballs chance... there is not a court in America that is going to prosecute you for refusing to admit you know your client committed perjury because he told you the real story.

4- Instead of Robinson threatening his client with "If you commit perjury I will tell the court", had he informed his client "If you commit perjury, I will recuse myself from your case" to persuade him to not commit perjury, how would the higher court rulings have changed, or would they have?

5- Once you become that defense attorney who breached your attorney client privilege, or more importantly, once you become that attorney who openly says on a message board that there are instances where you would voluntarily breach your attorney client privilege, how do you think that might affect your practice going forward?

What aren’t you getting?

Case in point, Mcgregor vs. McMahon 2002 case number 1.22.3-124/35 CLEARLY states that in the absence of evidence pertaining to an assisted felony on behalf of the attorney Client privilege, one is appointed honorary notary for the purposes of those deemed to be effective council.

The Kentucky Supreme Court has rules on this. The 6th circuit doesn’t like to be overruled and the 7th circuit typicallly respects that.

@irishcat1965 , I watched a lot, and I mean a LOT of law and order growing up. Gotta love internet lawyers.
 
What aren’t you getting?

Case in point, Mcgregor vs. McMahon 2002 case number 1.22.3-124/35 CLEARLY states that in the absence of evidence pertaining to an assisted felony on behalf of the attorney Client privilege, one is appointed honorary notary for the purposes of those deemed to be effective council.

The Kentucky Supreme Court has rules on this. The 6th circuit doesn’t like to be overruled and the 7th circuit typicallly respects that.

@irishcat1965 , I watched a lot, and I mean a LOT of law and order growing up. Gotta love internet lawyers.
The bottomline is the Kentucky Supreme Court would have amended the rules if they thought there was an issue. They have not. I clearly cited the applicable rules in Kentucky. They aren’t my opinion. The rules are in black and white and can be googled. My opinion on whether the rules are right or wrong is irrelevant. The Supreme Court didn’t ask for my input in drafting them. I’m just pointing them out.
 
The bottomline is the Kentucky Supreme Court would have amended the rules if they thought there was an issue. They have not. I clearly cited the applicable rules in Kentucky. They aren’t my opinion. The rules are in black and white and can be googled. My opinion on whether the rules are right or wrong is irrelevant. The Supreme Court didn’t ask for my input in drafting them. I’m just pointing them out.

My post made absolutely no sense.
 
Are you really this big of a clown? I clearly told you what the Supreme Court rules are in Kentucky. That isn’t conjecture. It isn’t opinion. I gave you the specific rules. You don’t breach the privilege by refusing to assist someone committing a felony. If the federal courts rule on the Kentucky Supreme Court rules, so be it. As far as myself, I’m not concerned with explaining what the rules are in Kentucky on an anonymous message board. Those are the rules. That you can’t accept those are the rules, is your problem.

Wow, for a supposed litigator you go to name calling pretty quick, makes me think you are either not one, or not a very good one. You don't do that in the court room do you? "Your honor, the prosecutor is a clown!" lol... but anyway, on to my response...YES.. the Kentucky Supreme court, as well as every other court in the United States of America is going to tell you to not assist your client in committing perjury. However, myself, the DC Bar association, the Arizona bar association, a handful of other state bar associations, a ton of scholarly references, and a bunch of other "clowns" disagree with you, and the Kentucky supreme court that "stopping the proceedings , breaking your attorney/client privilege, and informing the court that your client just committed perjury and you know this because he told you a different story" isn't an acceptable course of action.
 
The bottomline is the Kentucky Supreme Court would have amended the rules if they thought there was an issue. They have not. I clearly cited the applicable rules in Kentucky. They aren’t my opinion. The rules are in black and white and can be googled. My opinion on whether the rules are right or wrong is irrelevant. The Supreme Court didn’t ask for my input in drafting them. I’m just pointing them out.

Actually, no..the Kentucky Supreme Court would not "amend their rules" if they thought there was a problem, they wouldn't even change their ruling if they got reversed by a higher court. For instance, the Iowa Supreme court has rules exactly the same as The Kentucky Supreme court, guess what...they got their ruling reversed by a higher court, they didn't change their rules, they didn't change their ruling.. the next time an identical case comes to their court, they will simply say they have already ruled on that issue, and refer you to the higher court, which already ruled on that issue as well. You do understand that the higher court sets the precedent.
 
What aren’t you getting?

Case in point, Mcgregor vs. McMahon 2002 case number 1.22.3-124/35 CLEARLY states that in the absence of evidence pertaining to an assisted felony on behalf of the attorney Client privilege, one is appointed honorary notary for the purposes of those deemed to be effective council.

The Kentucky Supreme Court has rules on this. The 6th circuit doesn’t like to be overruled and the 7th circuit typicallly respects that.

@irishcat1965 , I watched a lot, and I mean a LOT of law and order growing up. Gotta love internet lawyers.

Uhm yeah, the 7th circuit isn't upstream from the 6th, they are lateral courts.. the only court upstream from the United States Court of Appeal for the 6th Circuit, is the United States Supreme court, and no...the United States Supreme court doesn't really care or respect that the 6th circuit " doesn't like to be overruled", they are going to issue a ruling based on their own interpretation of the law regardless of the 6th circuit's interpretation.
 
Actually, no..the Kentucky Supreme Court would not "amend their rules" if they thought there was a problem, they wouldn't even change their ruling if they got reversed by a higher court. For instance, the Iowa Supreme court has rules exactly the same as The Kentucky Supreme court, guess what...they got their ruling reversed by a higher court, they didn't change their rules, they didn't change their ruling.. the next time an identical case comes to their court, they will simply say they have already ruled on that issue, and refer you to the higher court, which already ruled on that issue as well. You do understand that the higher court sets the precedent.
What I understand is that you are full of shit and don’t know what the hell you are talking about. And the more you talk, the more foolish you look. But considering you are a tard fan, that goes hand in hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: morgousky
Uhm yeah, the 7th circuit isn't upstream from the 6th, they are lateral courts.. the only court upstream from the United States Court of Appeal for the 6th Circuit, is the United States Supreme court, and no...the United States Supreme court doesn't really care or respect that the 6th circuit " doesn't like to be overruled", they are going to issue a ruling based on their own interpretation of the law regardless of the 6th circuit's interpretation.

:joy: @morgousky - might wanna throw this one back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: morgousky
What I understand is that you are full of shit and don’t know what the hell you are talking about. And the more you talk, the more foolish you look. But considering you are a tard fan, that goes hand in hand.

How foolish do you look that you didn't grasp the concept of "Duh Ville", "Duh" being the key word. Im not a card fan, I am a UK fan... my screen name is a play on words that mocks Cards fans when the say "The Ville or Da-Ville"

It's ok that we disagree on this topic, a WHOLE LOT of people disagree and have differing opinions on this topic, heck I had four final year law students (one of whom is my wife) that all four disagreed with you on this topic during their group last night, I could literally post 1000's of reputable law professors who disagree with you on this topic.

We can do so without tossing names back and forth.. or we can toss names back and forth I am cool with that too.
 
How foolish do you look that you didn't grasp the concept of "Duh Ville", "Duh" being the key word. Im not a card fan, I am a UK fan... my screen name is a play on words that mocks Cards fans when the say "The Ville or Da-Ville"

It's ok that we disagree on this topic, a WHOLE LOT of people disagree and have differing opinions on this topic, heck I had four final year law students (one of whom is my wife) that all four disagreed with you on this topic during their group last night, I could literally post 1000's of reputable law professors who disagree with you on this topic.

We can do so without tossing names back and forth.. or we can toss names back and forth I am cool with that too.
I don’t care what you think about it. I don’t care how many law professors you think agree with you. I don’t care how many law students you think agree with you. I don’t care if the head cook at White Castle agrees with you. You aren’t a lawyer and don’t have a damn clue what you are talking about. I happen to get the Bench and Bar which is sent to all Kentucky lawyers. In the Bench and Bar, the Supreme Court lists all of its AMENDED rules including showing the red line changes. They amend their rules all the time. You can continue to shovel your shit all day and night. It doesn’t change the fact that you are wrong. Now I’m done with this topic. So keep on trucking if you wish.
 
Last edited:
Uhm yeah, the 7th circuit isn't upstream from the 6th, they are lateral courts.. the only court upstream from the United States Court of Appeal for the 6th Circuit, is the United States Supreme court, and no...the United States Supreme court doesn't really care or respect that the 6th circuit " doesn't like to be overruled", they are going to issue a ruling based on their own interpretation of the law regardless of the 6th circuit's interpretation.

The stipulations for attorney client privilege as deemed by the SCOTUCommonwealth which are clearly outlined in case McFarlane vs. McGregor are clear. The powers that Be must form a writ expressing malcontent notions for review by the 7th district court of appeals and cannot be deemed the fault of honorary notaries.

The 5th court will never see your argument. Will never drift past the 6th.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aike
I don’t care what you think about it. I don’t care how many law professors you think agree with you. I don’t care how many law students you think agree with you. I don’t care if the head cook at White Castle agrees with you. You aren’t a lawyer and don’t have a damn clue what you are talking about. I happen to get the Bench and Bar which is sent to all Kentucky lawyers. In the Bench and Bar, the Supreme Court lists all of its AMENDED rules including showing the red line changes. They amend their rules all the time. You can continue to shovel your shit all day and night. It doesn’t change the fact that you are wrong. Now I’m done with this topic. So keep on trucking if you wish.

I was being nice when I said they disagreed with you, they actually laughed and said "he said he would do what???" But anyway, yeah I am done with topic too, you clearly think there is a right and a wrong, and I keep telling you there is 1000 hours worth of reading material on this topic with differing views, your opinion is right to you, and I hope you never have to breach attorney client privilege. Keep on trucking!!
 
ADVERTISEMENT