Nike Scandal? | Page 5 | Syracusefan.com

Nike Scandal?

JoeySimz said:
They’re not separate at all. This U.S. attorney from California comes from the law firm that represents Nike.

The revolving door of U.S. attorneys and corporate law firms. Bought and sold.
Expand...

JOC44 said:
The NY Avenatti problems didn’t even begin until last Tuesday when he and Geragos first contacted Nike. The bank fraud and wire fraud charges didn’t get worked up in a week. The two U.S. Attorney’s offices might have coordinated on the day they announced their charges (as they should), but the idea that the California charges came about because the U.S. Attorney came from Boies Schiller doesn’t really hold up.
Expand...

JOC44 is correct. The California bank and wire fraud charges involved frauds that Avenatti allegedly perpetrated against the People’s Bank of Mississippi and against one of his own clients, and appear to have nothing to do with Nike. They were the basis for a search warrant executed in February, 2019 https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/press-release/file/1147466/download .
 
So I take it the 11am press conference didn't happen? Guess he was distracted.
 
Did I hear correctly charges against him have been dropped?
 
JOC44 said:
The NY Avenatti problems didn’t even begin until last Tuesday when he and Geragos first contacted Nike. The bank fraud and wire fraud charges didn’t get worked up in a week. The two U.S. Attorney’s offices might have coordinated on the day they announced their charges (as they should), but the idea that the California charges came about because the U.S. Attorney came from Boies Schiller doesn’t really hold up.
Expand...
Mareiniss said:
JOC44 is correct. The California bank and wire fraud charges involved frauds that Avenatti allegedly perpetrated against the People’s Bank of Mississippi and against one of his own clients, and appear to have nothing to do with Nike. They were the basis for a search warrant executed in February, 2019 https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/press-release/file/1147466/download .
Expand...

I understand. I was’t arguing that the alleged crimes are not separate. I am saying that the decision whether/when to charge is a coordinated effort to discredit and handicap Avenatti while protecting their real client (Nike).

Hanna is from Gibson Dunn. And then there’s Berman.
 
JoeySimz said:
What? I can’t keep up
Expand...
I didn’t see anything in the news. Second hand, so more of a question than a statement. Maybe someone got the Jussie news confused with Avenetti. That’s all I see.
 
GoCuse14 said:
I didn’t see anything in the news. Second hand, so more of a question than a statement. Maybe someone got the Jussie news confused with Avenetti. That’s all I see.
Expand...
A point of confusion here is that Mark Geragos was Smollett's lawyer...as well as being Avenatti's (unindicted) co-conspirator.
And NO ONE is even raising the questions of why Geragos apparently is no longer representing Smollett and why he hasn't been indicted in the Nike extortion case.

Now I'm going back to something easier...talking about the tournament or next year's Orange team.
 
Zelda Zonk said:
Seriously, what’s the difference between:
• a settlement
• catch and kill
• extortion

In all three instances, Party 1 has information that could damage Party 2, and Party 2 pays Party 1 to not use/divulge that information.

If Avenatti’s “client” can justify a claim of damage to him/her/themself, doesn’t he have the right to represent them at whatever fee they both deem appropriate? If Avenatti and his client came by the information legally, where’s the crime?
Expand...
I agree 100% - there's been a perhaps subtle but terrifying shift in this country as far as people being charged with crimes and the ease of such actions - with or without cause - and the number of charges associated with alleged offenses...people are now being targeted at an alarming rate and having the book thrown at them...a slippery slope we are sliding down, imo
 
CardiacCuse said:
I agree 100% - there's been a perhaps subtle but terrifying shift in this country as far as people being charged with crimes and the ease of such actions - with or without cause - and the number of charges associated with alleged offenses...people are now being targeted at an alarming rate and having the book thrown at them...a slippery slope we are sliding down, imo
Expand...

I was being slightly facetious, but it almost seems like the difference is in who instigates the transaction. ?
If you're the Party who can be damaged by the information (Party 2), you're allowed to go to Party 1 to offer to purchase that information toward squelching it. But, if you're Party 1, you can't go to Party 2 to offer to conceal the information for the same transactional value. Almost makes sense, except...

If you're a 'whistleblower,' the information you have could be of value to the public. The Nike Payment Allegations, for example. So, 'threatening' to release it shouldn't be the part that is criminal. Concealing it is almost a form of complicity. If you know of a crime and don't report it... Didn't some school shooter's friends get charged for not reporting the guy, or for covering up something after the fact? Yeesh. It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle, peppered with ambiguity, and sauced with enigma.

I'm not sure how this is so wrong for Avenatti. He uncovered information, and tried to sell it to the company that would be damaged. That's a service. He would, ostensibly, have put his client into an NDA, and that would have protected Nike. It almost seems like the objection is to the savagery of the language used in the 'offer.'
 
Ryand877 said:
Expand...
JoeySimz said:
I understand. I was’t arguing that the alleged crimes are not separate. I am saying that the decision whether/when to charge is a coordinated effort to discredit and handicap Avenatti while protecting their real client (Nike).

Hanna is from Gibson Dunn. And then there’s Berman.
Expand...

Ah - so you’re saying that the U.S. Attorney in LA (Hanna) used to work for a law firm that represents Nike, and may still feel some allegiance to them.
 
If Avenatti was smart he would use the “we are all just water defence”......Because...you know...we are all just water.
 
CF00D9A5-0F9E-4BF9-8B8F-281FA4AE80C8.png
 
CardiacCuse said:
I agree 100% - there's been a perhaps subtle but terrifying shift in this country as far as people being charged with crimes and the ease of such actions - with or without cause - and the number of charges associated with alleged offenses...people are now being targeted at an alarming rate and having the book thrown at them...a slippery slope we are sliding down, imo
Expand...
Lawyers can't threaten criminal prosecution in exchange for a civil settlement. It violates ethical canons. He should be disbarred in short order.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,788
Messages
4,727,153
Members
5,920
Latest member
CoachDiddi

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
49
Guests online
1,938
Total visitors
1,987
Totals may include hidden visitors.


Top Bottom