Leaked email from gambling investigation

S

SwirlinLingerie

Well-Known Member
See this one that leaked out today? I saw this in a Keith Murphy tweet....

In the federal lawsuit filed on behalf of 26 former and current student-athletes mostly from Iowa and Iowa State against the Iowa DCI for allegedly violating constitutional rights by warrantless searches, here's an email from Christopher Adkins, Iowa DCI special agent to agents Brian Sanger and Troy Nelson, obtained via FOIA:

“I was thinking about the discussion yesterday surrounding the lowa football program. I might be in the minority, but I think this is one of those things that would bring attention to our unit, not only in the public's eyes, but also as far as the commissioner and even possibly the legislatures.

“As far as the coaches, players, and managers are concerned, we don't necessarily have a crime on the books in lowa, but I think it would be a good idea to report them to the University, the Big Ten, and the NCAA. If they get suspended or get a scholarship taken away, so be it.

“I know it seems like a lot of work for something small, but on a case like this, where it will be higher profile, we can show our worth to the powers to be along with sending out a warning that we will be overseeing things and hopefully work on slowing down these sorts of things in the future.

“And if we pursue this and it hits the media, which it would, and people start asking why nothing criminal was done - we can use that platform to hopefully push legislators for code changes moving forward.”
 
OMG. I knew these two were utter rouge agents but that email is a target rich environment should the coppers testify in this case, and I'm sure they will testify. It provides both a shared motive, intent and a plan. That is a conspiracy guys. I opine these guys are in trouble. Since they defied the AG and the Gov the state might refuse to pay their damages and punitive damages.

Most conspirators don't make writings like that one; they understand that is an entirely oral conversation.
 
It amazes me how such stupid people become cops that high up the food chain. It doesn't surprise me, it amazes me.

They not only seem oblivious to the concept of conspiracy, warrantless searches, and a host of other things...they email their plans, motives, and modus operandi over government owned servers, networks, and email addresses.

ELL OH ELL.

The cop wanted to make a name for himself...well, he did. On the Future Inmates Of America list. Man, I would hate being a cop in prison. It's going to amount to essentially solitary confinement.
 
Teddy said:
Since they defied the AG and the Gov the state might refuse to pay their damages and punitive damages.
Click to expand...
Honest question...

Can the state really do that? If my employer's forklift driver was acting negligently and ran over a truck driver who was here to pick up equipment, could my employer refuse to pay damages? I mean I know they can always refuse, but would that hold up?

Any law courses I took in college were 101s and 20 some years ago as part of a business administration degree.

Parallel question...

Assuming the State could legally refuse to pay those damages, would they? The optics of that would be pretty scummy, but I know the government isn't afraid of looking scummy. If I were a legislator and someone got royally f*cked by a DCI agent acting on the state's behalf, I'd be inclined to make sure that person was made whole...if for nothing else the chances of me being elected again.
 
Fryowa said:
Honest question...

Can the state really do that? If my employer's forklift driver was acting negligently and ran over a truck driver who was here to pick up equipment, could my employer refuse to pay damages? I mean I know they can always refuse, but would that hold up?

Any law courses I took in college were 101s and 20 some years ago as part of a business administration degree.

Parallel question...

Assuming the State could legally refuse to pay those damages, would they? The optics of that would be pretty scummy, but I know the government isn't afraid of looking scummy. If I were a legislator and someone got royally f*cked by a DCI agent acting on the state's behalf, I'd be inclined to make sure that person was made whole...if for nothing else the chances of me being elected again.
Click to expand...
Not a lawyer, but I wonder if some of that depends on the explicit illegality of their actions. Meaning if they violated their Civil Rights but not explicitly violated a law the state would have pony up too. But if they explicitly broke laws then the state might be free from paying.
 
Fryowa said:
It amazes me how such stupid people become cops that high up the food chain. It doesn't surprise me, it amazes me.
Click to expand...

Police units have a battery of tests that they issue to prospective candidates to ensure that no one gets in if their IQ is too high or they are too independent. In addition, the tests make sure that the people have at least borderline narcissistic personality disorder and think they are the most important people in the world who should be listened to by their lessers at all times.

There's an essay you should read called "The Rise of the Praetorian Class." It's one of the best essays I have ever read. Here's a little taste:

As the Praetorian Class ascends, the clear, albeit unstated, message that emerges is that actions and events in the Economic Class only occur with its tacit consent. Whether driving on roads, traveling in the air, visiting public land, walking down the street or even living in your own home, every action you take is predicated on its permission. By preconditioning the populace to enforcement of its edicts, most of which are completely arbitrary, the Praetorian Class sets itself up for a high degree of autonomy in its actions. This is confirmed by the fact that consequences for malfeasance within the Praetorian Class are almost never observed, and when it happens, it typically becomes a grotesque spectacle in which one of their own is sacrificed as an example, so as to keep appearances of effective internal controls.

...

As they serve in their martial role, members of the Praetorian Class learn to despise members of the Political Class and to view the plight of the Economic Class with detachment or even contempt. Law enforcement and military personnel will converse behind closed doors about the most horrific injustices and brutalities with cavalier amusement.
Click to expand...

Again, look at the quote from this dirtbag cop: "If they get suspended or get a scholarship taken away, so be it." Pure contempt for people who are better than them in every fucking respect. These assholes should be in prison. If I was barred in Iowa I would gladly represent Noah Shannon on a contingency basis because he has massive damages from this.
 
okeefe4prez said:
Police units have a battery of tests that they issue to prospective candidates to ensure that no one gets in if their IQ is too high or they are too independent. In addition, the tests make sure that the people have at least borderline narcissistic personality disorder and think they are the most important people in the world who should be listened to by their lessers at all times.

There's an essay you should read called "The Rise of the Praetorian Class." It's one of the best essays I have ever read. Here's a little taste:



Again, look at the quote from this dirtbag cop: "If they get suspended or get a scholarship taken away, so be it." Pure contempt for people who are better than them in every fucking respect. These assholes should be in prison. If I was barred in Iowa I would gladly represent Noah Shannon on a contingency basis because he has massive damages from this.
Click to expand...
What's your gut tell you for how this ends? For both Shannon and the DCI.
 
Fryowa said:
Honest question...

Can the state really do that? If my employer's forklift driver was acting negligently and ran over a truck driver who was here to pick up equipment, could my employer refuse to pay damages? I mean I know they can always refuse, but would that hold up?

Any law courses I took in college were 101s and 20 some years ago as part of a business administration degree.

Parallel question...

Assuming the State could legally refuse to pay those damages, would they? The optics of that would be pretty scummy, but I know the government isn't afraid of looking scummy. If I were a legislator and someone got royally f*cked by a DCI agent acting on the state's behalf, I'd be inclined to make sure that person was made whole...if for nothing else the chances of me being elected again.
Click to expand...
This situation is different than your hypothetical. In your hypo, the driver was acting within the scope of their employment but acted poorly. The argument on the state's behalf would be that by acting contrary to both the law and the policies of their department, they acted outside the scope of their employment. It's marginal and not likely to succeed.

The problem for the state with that argument is that they apparently communicated what they were doing and their intent to others in the organization and no one stopped them and may have even authorized or encouraged them.

I wonder how much the lawyers will calculate this incident cost Noah Shannon (assuming he is part of the lawsuit)...he could have played his way into being a solid draft pick instead of an UDFA.

What a bunch of buffoons...
 
Fryowa said:
Honest question...

Can the state really do that? If my employer's forklift driver was acting negligently and ran over a truck driver who was here to pick up equipment, could my employer refuse to pay damages? I mean I know they can always refuse, but would that hold up?

Any law courses I took in college were 101s and 20 some years ago as part of a business administration degree.

Parallel question...

Assuming the State could legally refuse to pay those damages, would they? The optics of that would be pretty scummy, but I know the government isn't afraid of looking scummy. If I were a legislator and someone got royally f*cked by a DCI agent acting on the state's behalf, I'd be inclined to make sure that person was made whole...if for nothing else the chances of me being elected again.
Click to expand...
I am a lawyer, although fully retiring on May 15. I have done far more cases against law enforcement than I can remember, a niche practice for me. I will try to provide an explanation without unnecessary technical language. The governing law in claims against the state's employees is generally governed by the provisions of Iowa Code 669.22 and more so in IC 669.21(b), for those that want to read this for themselves.

The cases against these troopers and the state probably fall within the mandatory reimbursement for damages of any sort. The law is different for counties, cities and other political subdivisions. Those employers can refuse to pay, and especially punitive damages. Punitive damages are not allowed against the state employees (entirely unfair) engaging in intentional torts-like the coppers in the case under discussion.​

Your forklift analogy is more apropos` than you think. There are two types of "tort claims." Negligent, which really is an accident through behavior outside legal requirements. The Alec Baldwin case is a perfect example of negligence. The movie/TV industries have union rules and specific standards that govern what is done with theatrical guns. The actor with the gun has the last duty to confirm there are no live rounds in the gun. The armorer that gives the actor the gun has an independent duty to confirm no live rounds before it goes to the actor. So, Baldwin's actions were reckless but still just negligent. Your skid load driver is just negligent.

There are other torts known as intentional torts. These cover behaviors that are not negligent but where the harm was intentional or so the conduct that caused the harm was so reckless that harm is almost certain to follow (e.g. shooting into a loaded building). These troopers did not "accidentally" commit the civil rights violations of which they stand accused. These were intentional acts. Moreover, they were intentionally done after the coppers' superiors told them not to pursue this issue.

So, in the end, no matter how bad the conduct state employees have no skin in the game. The taxpayers always pay, as is required by Chapter 669, and the employees seldom face any repercussions. I expect these particular troopers will not be employed in November this year-unless union rules prohibit it, so there might be some justice at the end of this one.
 
SwirlinLingerie said:
Me too. It you were trying to set the cops up by planting a fake email, you wouldn't make it that obvious.
Click to expand...
Having deposed hundreds of LEOs, they generally have a sense of invincibility, so they don't care what they do.

The sense of invincibility is exactly the thing that makes them lie prolifically, they don't think there will be repercussions.

This isn't all LEOs by any means but it is endemic in law enforcement generally. The higher the law enforcement the more illegal protections and the greater the dishonesty than the average person on the street could possibly believe.
 
Last edited:
ShemHawk said:
This situation is different than your hypothetical. In your hypo, the driver was acting within the scope of their employment but acted poorly. The argument on the state's behalf would be that by acting contrary to both the law and the policies of their department, they acted outside the scope of their employment. It's marginal and not likely to succeed.

The problem for the state with that argument is that they apparently communicated what they were doing and their intent to others in the organization and no one stopped them and may have even authorized or encouraged them.

I wonder how much the lawyers will calculate this incident cost Noah Shannon (assuming he is part of the lawsuit)...he could have played his way into being a solid draft pick instead of an UDFA.

What a bunch of buffoons...
Click to expand...
The law of agency and more than 100 years of precedent would describe the actions within the scope of employment, which does NOT require the actions of the employee/agent to be legal. The argument that they are not employed to violate civil rights would be defeated by the purported nature of the actions as law enforcement on their face. Although, the plaintiffs would like the troopers to be "in the course" because that's where they find the money.
 
This was a very nefarious deal. The pitchforks will be out for anyone involved in this particular scandal when all the facts become publicly known. Far worse is yet to come.
 
This finally explains everything to me.
I wanted to know all along what kicked this off.
My suspicion was exactly this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top