[vincesanity82]

Originally Posted by Gotham Dark Knight

Then you deal with your officials...you don't make it a Federal case. That is not my idea of a balance between State and Federal governments.

As for Poindexter, that above constitutes an opinion. He was doing something, he was making sure that the process being followed were not of an over aggressive nature. He denied a warrant based on issues he saw merit in....why not just say "He was not fast enough at his job to suit the National Media."

This whole thing is as big a circle as Paris Hilton...everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame...Sad...just a sad commentary on life.

I dont think its all media goth, poindexter wasnt doing the ivestigation right so the feds stepped in, point blank, if he wouldve done his job this investigation wouldve been done with already..

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by vincesanity82

I dont think its all media goth, poindexter wasnt doing the ivestigation right so the feds stepped in, point blank, if he wouldve done his job this investigation wouldve been done with already..

Vince, I don't think Feds could "just step in."...it has to be a Federal issue for them to do so. So far I have not seen anyway give reason why the feds are involved.

[vincesanity82]

One moment, prosecutor Gerald Poindexter is saying there is evidence of dogfighting in the two-story house owned by Falcons quarterback Michael Vick along the backroads of Virginia. The next, Poindexter is saying there might not be enough to file charges. This guy is a complete idiot, the feds had to step in because he is a moron...he wasted time and has been replaced because of his stupid strategy..

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by vincesanity82

One moment, prosecutor Gerald Poindexter is saying there is evidence of dogfighting in the two-story house owned by Falcons quarterback Michael Vick along the backroads of Virginia. The next, Poindexter is saying there might not be enough to file charges. This guy is a complete idiot, the feds had to step in because he is a moron...he wasted time and has been replaced because of his stupid strategy..

Don't think it works that way. The feds do not step in cause someone is a Moron. There needs to be a federal issue.

[vincesanity82]

Originally Posted by Gotham Dark Knight

Don't think it works that way. The feds do not step in cause someone is a Moron. There needs to be a federal issue.

''umm lets see dog fighting,guns,drugs,30+ dog carcusses, yea youre right sholuda kept on hiding vick..

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by vincesanity82

''umm lets see dog fighting,guns,drugs,30+ dog carcusses, yea youre right sholuda kept on hiding vick..

not saying those are not reasons for an investigation...I am saying it's not enough to involve the Feds thus far.

[Lefty Noob]

Originally Posted by Gotham Dark Knight

Don't think it works that way. The feds do not step in cause someone is a Moron. There needs to be a federal issue.

Well, hold on now. Not so fast, GDK. Could a perceived cover-up, or a level of incompetence, by the local law enforcement be a justifiable reason for the feds to step in and take over? If they get a tip that Poindexter isn't doing the job well enough, or hypothetically speaking, is taking under the table bribes or something to make it go away, is that reason enough to make it a federal issue? I really don't know, I'm asking.

[simple simon]

ok this is the last time im going to bring this up as it seems i am the only one considering this a possibility


i strongly believe the Feds have reason to investigate Vick under the guidelines of the R.I.C.O. Act

am i the only one that sees this ? .......... (if so there could be a HUGE 'i told ya so' at the end of this)

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by simple simon

ok this is the last time im going to bring this up as it seems i am the only one considering this a possibility


i strongly believe the Feds have reason to investigate Vick under the guidelines of the R.I.C.O. Act

am i the only one that sees this ? .......... (if so there could be a HUGE 'i told ya so' at the end of this)

Don't see it mate...I looked over the sections of the RICO Act that it may apply and I do not see it fitting under the definition of racketeering yet...not saying it doesn't...

Just not seeing how you go from not having a warrant yet, to the Feds jumping in and taking over...

[JRL]

The warrant Poindexter refused to sign was one that the feds had requested (not written). Information in the Atlanta paper indicates Vick had significant involvement with a dog fighter (now in S.C. jail) in the state of S.C. (hence the feds involvement). The same convicted dog fighter is the one that told the feds about the 37 dogs buried on Vick's VA property.

During the proscecution of the SC dog fighter Vick's name came up on several occassions - they didn't charge him because he was not a SC resident.

As I said earlier the feds are looking at the crossing of state lines and the apparent well organized multi-state ring of dog fighters / breeders of fighting dogs.

As much as I detest much of what the feds do I say let's wait and see what they have uncovered. They are now conducting tests on the dogs found buried on the property to see how they died (bullets, blunt force injury etc). If that is the case I see more problems for the scrambler we call our QB.

[azrael492]

Originally Posted by Gotham Dark Knight

Don't see it mate...I looked over the sections of the RICO Act that it may apply and I do not see it fitting under the definition of racketeering yet...not saying it doesn't...

Just not seeing how you go from not having a warrant yet, to the Feds jumping in and taking over...

I thougt gambling was covered under the Rico Act. There are supposed to be witnesses that see him as the big player at these events. What if it turns out that he was organizing them. Would that constitute a warrent under RICO. Just curious. I don't know that much about it.

[simple simon]

Originally Posted by Gotham Dark Knight

Don't see it mate...I looked over the sections of the RICO Act that it may apply and I do not see it fitting under the definition of racketeering yet...not saying it doesn't...

Just not seeing how you go from not having a warrant yet, to the Feds jumping in and taking over...

well from what i saw (and im no lawyer and speak little legalese) racketeering is mentioned a lot in the RICO Act ...... so to be sure i looked up racketeering

the practice of conducting or engaging in a racket, as extortion or bootlegging.
racketeering - Definitions from Dictionary.com

rack·et·eer
n. A person who commits crimes such as extortion, loansharking, bribery, and obstruction of justice in furtherance of illegal business activities.
racketeering - Definitions from Dictionary.com

seems possible he could be in violation of one or more of these ....... dont know that he is, but it certainly is possible

[vincesanity82]

DON'T PAINT VICK AS A VICTIM by Michael David Smith

William C. Rhoden of the New York Times is one of the intellectuals of the sports media world, a columnist whose ponderous style gives him an air of authority, whether the content of his columns is worthy or not.

Rhoden's column today (which is only available to Times subscribers) is certainly not worthy. Despite acknowledging in his first sentence that Michael Vick might have been involved in dog fighting (even Vick's media defenders aren't saying they think he's innocent) Rhoden spends the rest of the column lambasting the federal government for its involvement in the case, saying the feds are treating Vick unfairly and targeting him because of his celebrity.

And then Rhoden proceeds to supply evidence that runs counter to his thesis. He notes that the feds were not interested in helping local prosecutor Gerald Poindexter in a dog fighting investigation a few years ago:

"A man named Benjamin Butts was suspected of running a dog fighting operation. Dogs and training equipment were found on the property, and Poindexter authorized a search of Butts’s property," Rhoden writes. "...The Butts case was dismissed by a judge who said the search had violated his rights."

Rhoden sees the feds' lack of interest in the Butts case as evidence that they're only interested in Vick because he's a celebrity. But he fails to note another explanation: The feds could think they have no choice but to get involved this time because the local authorities botched a previous dog fighting investigation.

Is it possible that federal authorities want to take down a big-name defendant like Vick? Sure. But the feds wouldn't have gotten that opportunity if mounds of evidence related to dog fighting hadn't been found on Vick's property. Rhoden is wrong to portray Vick as a victim of anything other than his own actions.

ProFootballTalk.com -- The Best Pro Football Scoop on the Internet

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by vincesanity82

DON'T PAINT VICK AS A VICTIM by Michael David Smith


William C. Rhoden of the New York Times is one of the intellectuals of the sports media world, a columnist whose ponderous style gives him an air of authority, whether the content of his columns is worthy or not.


Rhoden's column today (which is only available to Times subscribers) is certainly not worthy. Despite acknowledging in his first sentence that Michael Vick might have been involved in dog fighting (even Vick's media defenders aren't saying they think he's innocent) Rhoden spends the rest of the column lambasting the federal government for its involvement in the case, saying the feds are treating Vick unfairly and targeting him because of his celebrity.


And then Rhoden proceeds to supply evidence that runs counter to his thesis. He notes that the feds were not interested in helping local prosecutor Gerald Poindexter in a dog fighting investigation a few years ago:


"A man named Benjamin Butts was suspected of running a dog fighting operation. Dogs and training equipment were found on the property, and Poindexter authorized a search of Butts’s property," Rhoden writes. "...The Butts case was dismissed by a judge who said the search had violated his rights."


Rhoden sees the feds' lack of interest in the Butts case as evidence that they're only interested in Vick because he's a celebrity. But he fails to note another explanation: The feds could think they have no choice but to get involved this time because the local authorities botched a previous dog fighting investigation.


Is it possible that federal authorities want to take down a big-name defendant like Vick? Sure. But the feds wouldn't have gotten that opportunity if mounds of evidence related to dog fighting hadn't been found on Vick's property. Rhoden is wrong to portray Vick as a victim of anything other than his own actions.

ProFootballTalk.com -- The Best Pro Football Scoop on the Internet

I am not sure that is his take...his take is the same as mine...If it wasn't for the Vick name, there would probably be no FED interest at all. Come on now, that is a bit obvious. I mean they had no interest in a Ring before. Why now? we can speculated on the why from here to doomsday, but who has given a reason?

[JRL]

GDK a few things to consider. Any criminal activity is open to investigation by any jurisdiction if the laws they over see appear to have been broken. Maybe the feds antenna went up as the story developed – perhaps the feds looked at the parties involved and thought this goes far beyond the backwoods of Virginia. A federal investigation is just that - an investigation - and if evidence doesn’t warrant continued investigation I doubt they waste much time continuing. Another angle I consider viable – what if the NFL requested a deeper look see by the feds?

As you say none of have answers only questions and speculation. I am anxious to see this story play out we will then have a better handle on what’s and whys of the feds involvement.