This is from his twitter feed one hour ago. I posted it Here for convenience

Quote:Attorney Richard Gibbs Johnson, founder of the law firm of Richard G. Johnson Co., L.P.A. in 1990, is a leading practitioner in the area of plaintiffs' legal malpractice and related legal ethics and professional responsibility issues.

Practice Areas:

Legal Malpractice
College Athlete Right to Counsel Cases
Disqualification
Fee Disputes
Judicial Ethics & Conduct
Legal Ethics & Professional Responsibility
Sanctions
Sports Agent Malpractice
UCC Articles 3 & 4 (fiduciary forged check issues)


1/ James Wiseman is eligible to play, Coach Penny Hardaway is not a booster, and University of Memphis President M. David Rudd and Athletic Director Laird Veatch are taking an unusual stance--they're doing the right thing for James, Penny, and the school!

2/ Under the NCAA Constitution, only President Rudd can determine whether James is eligible—not the NCAA, which tries to bully and intimidate its members to do what it says, but President Rudd has told them to pound salt. So James IS eligible unless and until he says he's not.

3/ James is not alleged to have done anything wrong. James' mother is alleged to have accepted financial help to move her family from James' high school coach, who was Penny Hardaway. That is not illegal, immoral, or wrong. Instead, it was a charitable act by Penny.

4/ Penny was not a booster, which is defined in part as a person who has "made financial contributions to the athletics department or to an athletics booster organization of that institution," because he gave to neither. He was also not listed as a booster by the University.

5/ In 2008, Penny gave a tax-deductible million dollar donation to the University of Memphis, a charitable non-profit 501©(3), for a sports hall of fame, of which he would be in first as a star Tigers BB player and then as a star NBA player. It was a very good deed by Penny.

6/ Even if he had been labeled a booster, under NCAA bylaws, that designation is either "presumed" or "indefinite," as there are two competing definitions, neither of which has defined thresholds or parameters. So a $1 contribution is the same as a $1MM one.

7/ Also, since no one stays in any man-made category forever, which factors are to be considered in determining when a booster status expires is unstated? Without a threshold and duration, there is no enforceable definition, which is construed against the NCAA by a court.

8/ Boosters can only violate NCAA bylaw chapters 13 on recruiting and 16 on benefits for enrolled athletes. Penny was a high school coach, when he gave a high school player's mother money to help with moving costs, so even if he was a booster, neither of these would apply.

9/ James is black and a projected first-round draft pick. Penny is black and has had a great career, plus we need more black college BB coaches. Why is the NCAA attacking James' mother and his coach, when one needed financial help, and the other was kind enough to give it? Why?

10/ Both James, Penny, and the University have actionable claims against the NCAA for breach of contract and tortious interference with contract. James' mother has a claim for invasion of privacy. Any claims will be tried in state court in Memphis. The NCAA would get hammered.

11/ The NCAA is evil personified at the most petty level. They have attacked a fine young man, his mother, and a splendid coach, who have done nothing in the least bit wrong. President Rudd and AD Veatch should be applauded and thanked for recognizing the equities here. Courage!

Thanks for posting. I was about to do it.

#8 in particular is quite interesting.

NCAA ain't gonna like it but the longer this drags on, the worse it gets in the court of public opinion for them.

(11-10-2019 12:29 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Thanks for posting. I was about to do it.

#8 in particular is quite interesting.

That’s was the most interesting bit to me as well!

Hope he contacts the lawyers

If it’s true that Penny wasn’t listed as a booster then the NCAA was trying to throw mud somewhere to justify their arbitrary decision

#4 is interesting as well.

(11-10-2019 12:41 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  #4 is interesting as well.

Yeah, #4 and #8 go together. If Ballin can get the court to agree with that, the NCAA is toast.

Just don’t pull a Sheryl Lipman and blurt our that the player’s ineligible.

(11-10-2019 12:53 AM)bubbapt Wrote:  Just don’t pull a Sheryl Lipman and blurt our that the player’s ineligible.

Uh, Leslie Ballin and Randy Fishman aren't Sheri Lipman, lol.

Just the opposite.

(11-10-2019 12:45 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 12:41 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  #4 is interesting as well.

Yeah, #4 and #8 go together. If Ballin can get the court to agree with that, the NCAA is toast.

Looks like the NCAA was trying to bully Memphis into being hasty and scared and rule Wiseman ineligible. Dr Rudd called their bluff

(11-10-2019 12:55 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 12:45 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 12:41 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  #4 is interesting as well.

Yeah, #4 and #8 go together. If Ballin can get the court to agree with that, the NCAA is toast.

Looks like the NCAA was trying to bully Memphis into being hasty and scared and rule Wiseman ineligible. Dr Rudd called their bluff

The NCAA is a huge bully. And inconsistent.

Not sure this is Rudd's call, as much as it is Wiseman being willing to fight.

(11-10-2019 12:55 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 12:53 AM)bubbapt Wrote:  Just don’t pull a Sheryl Lipman and blurt our that the player’s ineligible.

Uh, Leslie Ballin and Randy Fishman aren't Sheri Lipman, lol.

Just the opposite.

That’s quite apparent.

I hope the 30-for-30 ends with us winning a national championship

Of course the University makes the ultimate decision whether a player can play

That is a very separate point from whether the NCAA, which controls the signature tournament as well as many other aspects of play, including television, will designate that as violative

With that, all of our points seem to be aimed at the petty, arbitrary nature of the NCAA

We want them to help stop the graft. We don’t want a recruit getting cars from school boosters and we don’t want faculty handing out unearned grades

However, we don’t need them labeling magnanimous museum gifts as turning someone into a restrictive booster, nor making modest assistance while an unrelated to the college adult, made to seem ugly

If Wiseman’s mom had been provided free rent this immediate last spring, he is ineligible
If James was given a Trans Am by a booster, he is ineligible

For the NCAA to link helping a family move closer to other family as similarly sinister is just wrong

I won’t speak to the TSSAA at THAT time, which very well may have had a point in disallowing an immediate play transfer, but that is another very different point. Hell, helping move when a kid is what, 16? is less corrupt looking than a high rated recruit’s dad getting a coaching job, which we have done several times as have many other schools with the NCAA’s blessing

I’ll even buy that falsely taking an SAT goes directly to the heart of corruption

And, I’ll even grant the NCAA some leeway in making a decision and later changing their minds, but NOT 5 plus months later after the detriment to the student as well as the dragging through the mud of the coach and others over something THEY ALREADY disclosed.

Damn that is arbitrary.

The NCAA will need to save face. Offer them a token and let them make a self serving statement about benefits. But especially after reading this, make it a small token that does not involve game suspensions. Maybe one less recruiting trip by one coach. Win win

Tort: a wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to civil legal liability.
Adj: tortious
constituting a tort; wrongful.

used in a sentence: The ncaa is a bunch of tortious tools.

This is a great legal analysis of the situation. If this does go to court....in Tennessee...it should be jury trial. All James and his attorneys need to do is request a jury trial and they will get it. The publicity and exposure the NCAA will get from testimony, discovery and depositions willl be embarrassing. it is time to play hard ball with these jerks.

(11-10-2019 01:45 AM)DallasTiger Wrote:  This is a great legal analysis of the situation. If this does go to court....in Tennessee...it should be jury trial. All James and his attorneys need to do is request a jury trial and they will get it. The publicity and exposure the NCAA will get from testimony, discovery and depositions willl be embarrassing. it is time to play hard ball with these jerks.

No way the ncaa allows this to stay in the Shelby county courts...I’m sure wisemans legal team is expecting this as well.

(11-10-2019 01:53 AM)tigerderek Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 01:45 AM)DallasTiger Wrote:  This is a great legal analysis of the situation. If this does go to court....in Tennessee...it should be jury trial. All James and his attorneys need to do is request a jury trial and they will get it. The publicity and exposure the NCAA will get from testimony, discovery and depositions willl be embarrassing. it is time to play hard ball with these jerks.

No way the ncaa allows this to stay in the Shelby county courts...I’m sure wisemans legal team is expecting this as well.

Thee NCAA does not get to make the decision. The judge makes this decision. The NCAA can request a change of venue, and Wiseman's team can argue against a change.

(11-10-2019 10:21 AM)mapdude Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 01:53 AM)tigerderek Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 01:45 AM)DallasTiger Wrote:  This is a great legal analysis of the situation. If this does go to court....in Tennessee...it should be jury trial. All James and his attorneys need to do is request a jury trial and they will get it. The publicity and exposure the NCAA will get from testimony, discovery and depositions willl be embarrassing. it is time to play hard ball with these jerks.

No way the ncaa allows this to stay in the Shelby county courts...I’m sure wisemans legal team is expecting this as well.

Thee NCAA does not get to make the decision. The judge makes this decision. The NCAA can request a change of venue, and Wiseman's team can argue against a change.

I should have worded it different but I’d put money it’ll get change,bank on that...I sure hope not though.

(11-10-2019 10:24 AM)tigerderek Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 10:21 AM)mapdude Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 01:53 AM)tigerderek Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 01:45 AM)DallasTiger Wrote:  This is a great legal analysis of the situation. If this does go to court....in Tennessee...it should be jury trial. All James and his attorneys need to do is request a jury trial and they will get it. The publicity and exposure the NCAA will get from testimony, discovery and depositions willl be embarrassing. it is time to play hard ball with these jerks.

No way the ncaa allows this to stay in the Shelby county courts...I’m sure wisemans legal team is expecting this as well.

Thee NCAA does not get to make the decision. The judge makes this decision. The NCAA can request a change of venue, and Wiseman's team can argue against a change.

I should have worded it different but I’d put money it’ll get change,bank on that...I sure hope not though.

it's going to federal court

now which federal court? if it stays regional, sherry lipman is the judge of that federal court.