JoPar_v2

OP provides a link to a homer bama fan site to back up his point as if that means anything at all. this troll should be banned they do this all the time.

I’d rather have one of the many Eagles backs; they seem to have a glut at the position as well. Smallwood would be nice.

Lifetime moderator privileges, obviously ?

Hey if you want to disregard the posting rules and conventions of the board it’s cool, just don’t be mad if your thread gets pruned or merged. Not sure why so many are bent out of shape about the few rules there here. also: plenty of legitimate news sites reported the same thing in your link. Why did you elect hotnewhiphop.com?

My reading of that is the jewelry does have a direct tie to him, in that he was the one who got it on loan and then gave it to her. I think he is aware of the jewelry in question.

Yeah basically. They cohabited the home and held themselves out as a couple at some point, which is enough to establish a tenancy at will in Georgia according to our helpful GA attorney who was here yesterday.

No. Not even close. the notice is a prerequisite to bringing an eviction proceeding before the court.

The place was jointly occupied by the two; McCoy is the sole owner (specifically a trust owns it.)

One more time with gusto - her rights as a tenant remain until the eviction is ordered by a judge. Delaying that hearing is a tactic (she doesn’t have a “right” to infinite delays) or at best, a matter of circumstance. You’re conflating the two, not me.

Weird because I specifically said the procedural delay was a tactic, NOT a right.

Just because the future outcome is obvious does not mean she prematurely loses her tenant’s rights. She had 60 day notice to vacate...or eviction proceedings will be brought against her. You left out that second part. The notice does not state “you have 60 days to vacate...or the clock will strike and the bells will ring and poof you are no longer a tenant” as you seem to believe. due process and all that counselor. Maybe look that up.

Smart move

It’s not semantics at all. You’re arguing that she currently does not have tenant’s rights that have been established by Georgia and common law. That is simply not true, no matter how you want to word it. What do think the law says counselor? That the moment McCoy decided “i want this person out of the house” she lost her rights that her previous occupancy established? Because if you really think that...wow.

One is not necessarily going to affect the other. I smell something in this thread, but it isn’t a setup.

She certainly does have tenant’s rights until those rights are revoked by a judge via an eviction proceeding. That hasn’t taken place yet. So not sure what you’re even saying anymore.

Lol I don’t think anyone said anything about a right to “drag something on.” But for the landlord to assert his or her RIGHT they have to do more than just provide 60 day notice. Continuations and delays happen in court all the time. It ain’t a “right” it is a tactic. A litigation expert such as yourself should know this.

Just speculating - maybe she assumed the cameras in her place were not working because she had previously tampered with them? A statement from McCoy’s attorney insinuated that.

Which is something someone who doesn’t understand the full process of eviction would say. Go back to Westlaw and look into it a little more petey.

He’s more than able to defend himself, but all I’ve seen Tom do is scrutinize every angle of this story. So “protecting her from scrutiny” is flat out ridiculous. She isn’t “squatting” either chief.

Hey I never said I thought McCoy was particularly smart ?

No I think your suggestion is very plausible. Men are constantly trying to impress women. Why not fib and give her the jewelry to her as a gift, rather than admit he’s just passing loaners on to her?

Hard to tell just by reading text Petey. you have no idea why the eviction, which was initiated last year, has taken this long. The most recent delay was due to an emergency with her attorney, but we have zero information about any previous delays. They could have reconciled and McCoy put proceedings off, etc. In other words you’re assuming this woman is a deadbeat and in the wrong, when it’s equally possible McCoy stringed her along and kept her around, for any number of reasons.

For as long as the landlord “wills” it. Get it?

Yes I get the irony and don’t disagree. But I can’t use Owens’ childish behavior at times to justify the HOF’s vindictiveness and unprofessional behavior. TO was just a player. A transcendent wideout and one of the best on the field ever, but still just a player. The voters and HOF officials are supposed to be stewards of the game and its history as a whole. I don’t think it is out of line to hold them to a higher standard.

You’re absolutely right the voters started all of this and I have defended Owens from the start - he should have been a 1st balloter. This latest news is typical of how they’ve acted towards TO from the start. The HOF is a great honor and a big deal - it deserves far better leadership.