forums

Sean Allen... From enemy #1 to hero...

CaneClassic said:
I went to UCLA Law, the #15 law school in the country, and passed the California bar, which has the lowest passage rate in the country.

So yes. Thank you for your inquiry.

Thanks for the chop blocks, though, guys. I endured hours of misery within those halls with the specific hopes of being able to argue deposition strategy with you.
Click to expand...


Yes, your lesson on deposition strategy has been great. I just hope that you never have a 25 year old client that doesn't answer either "yes, "no," or "i dont know" during a four hour deposition.
 
Advertisement
Which state´s equipment manager bar did Allen pass that prepared him for a deposition?
 
CaneClassic said:
Jesus. Do you two take turns under Sean Allen's desk, or is there room under there for both of you?

You're typically a fun-to-read poster, bomb, it's a shame you're being such a huge ****. What do you take issue with? Where am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Guy was under a lot of pressure, under oath, was LIED to while under oath, and was put under the microscope. Outside of that he has furnished UM with evidence to HELP OUR CASE, helping them prove willful deceit by the NCAA... he's basically the U's best friend and star witness right now.

But you keep calling the guy juvenile names. SMH.
 
CaneClassic said:
I'm not suggesting he should have lied. I'm not sure why you're taking such remarkable issue with my stance that Sean Allen overshared in his deposition.

Read the damned transcript.

"Did you supply money from Shapiro to Robert Marve to purchase a car?"

The answer is no.

But Sean goes on this bumbling story about how Marve hounded him to ask Shapiro for help with a down payment, but only because there was insurance money exchanging hands, and he's not sure if anything ever came of it, but he can't remember the exact dates, and blah blah blah. Verbal diarreah.

That's how they got the Al Golden/Bridgewater/Dan Marino's allegation that was later dropped. Because Allen started just spilling information instead of truthfully answering just the question asked.

My point is that he offered way more information than he was legally obligated to provide.

Listen, if you're MoralMan Supreme, and you want all of Miami's dirty laundry out there, regardless of consequence, then I understand your position. You shouldn't want me to be your lawyer. But if you're trying to navigate a "process" and retreat as unscathed as possible, well, then, that's when you share only what you are legally obligated to.

Ya jerks.

Oh, and Sean Allen is a ****.
Click to expand...

I wonder what guidance or preparation the kid received from anyone. I doubt that UM could provide any because of its need to demonstrate cooperation. If you don't have someone to prepare you for your deposition and sitting with you or if you didn't go to law school (and sometimes even if you did), you might not be in the best position to handle a deposition well. Heck, even with preparation, witnesses mess up all the time. I have a hard time blaming the kid without knowing more.

Besides, while UM may want to navigate the process and emerge as unscathed as possible, Sean Allen simply may have wanted to avoid getting in any trouble by tesifying as truthfully and completely as possible. Someone representing UM might have wanted him to navigate the process and seek to retreat unscathed. Someone representing Sean might have told him to be as truthful and thorough as possible to avoid any negative repercussions from his testimony. He doesn't have a dog in the fight, so playing it close to the vest, while helping UM, might not help him.
 
Listen. You guys defending Allen have a fine argument. That he was scared, bullied, uninformed of his rights, just trying to do the right thing, whatever.

I get it. He's just some dope who loves The U, got caught up in a controversy, and is just trying to get by.

But that's not what you guys were arguing. You got in my face about the legality or ethics of deposition proceedings, and you were wrong. That was really my only point. That he didn't have to say all that he did.

I never said I didn't understand why he did it.

Can somebody call a priest? We need someone to saint Sean Allen up in this *****.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
DCF in LA said:
BigDikCane said:
some funny **** in this thread...
Click to expand...

The **** you know about funny? Unless it hit you in the head with a shovel, which I would find hilarious beyond belief.
Click to expand...

goodfellas-funny-guy.jpg
 
CaneClassic said:
Listen. You guys defending Allen have a fine argument. That he was scared, bullied, uninformed of his rights, just trying to do the right thing, whatever.

I get it. He's just some dope who loves The U, got caught up in a controversy, and is just trying to get by.

But that's not what you guys were arguing. You got in my face about the legality or ethics of deposition proceedings, and you were wrong. That was really my only point. That he didn't have to say all that he did.

I never said I didn't understand why he did it.

Can somebody call a priest? We need someone to saint Sean Allen up in this *****.
Click to expand...

As a bigshot california lawyer, you should probably recognize the giant leap you're making here when you accuse other people of wanting to canonize Allen. You don't have to grandstand and use hyperbole. it is what it is. The guy goofed because he didn't have any real legal representation at depo, answered the questions that were asked, and that's that. He's been a pretty big help to us now, having provided us with evidence to use against the NCAA and advocating for us on national tv.

I've taken and defended hundreds of depositions, as I'm sure you have because if not you wouldn't be displaying your brazenness here. Doesn't always go as planned. Deponents talk. You instruct them the best you can and they still talk. I'm pretty sure Allen didn't even have the benefit of being prepped for this thing. **** happens. Technically, Allen did **** up by giving extra information. I always tell my clients to tell the truth, but to answer as concisely as possible because "a deposition is your opponent's investigation, and you don't want to volunteer any information that they aren't asking you about."

That being said, any lawyer worth a **** would have followed up the "yes" or "no" that you WANTED Peewee to give with a follow-up question asking for elaboration, so your entire rant here is academic in practice. They would have gotten the info regardless.
 
CaneClassic said:
Listen. You guys defending Allen have a fine argument. That he was scared, bullied, uninformed of his rights, just trying to do the right thing, whatever.

I get it. He's just some dope who loves The U, got caught up in a controversy, and is just trying to get by.

But that's not what you guys were arguing. You got in my face about the legality or ethics of deposition proceedings, and you were wrong. That was really my only point. That he didn't have to say all that he did.

I never said I didn't understand why he did it.

Can somebody call a priest? We need someone to saint Sean Allen up in this ****.
Click to expand...

Don't disagree with that he may not have had to say everything he said. I didn't read the transcript of his deposition, so I don't know. I imagine, if the guy had been properly represented/prepared, he may have handled it all better. On that point, he interviewed with the NCAA before and possibly after his deposition. If he wasn't working at UM, he had no obligation to do that at all.

I don't know the guy and I'm not defending him. I just think criticism should be tempered here because he may have walked in entirely unprepared and, whether a grown man or a kid, being a witness in a deposition isn't necessarily something that can be managed so well--sometimes even when represented and prepared. He also apparently was walking into a deposition knowing that he had not been candid with the NCAA during his prior interview and that the deposition would reveal that fact. Not the best spot to be in as a witness.
 
MedleyCane said:
dk72 said:
rokulika said:
Guy really got a bad rap. He's a good dude.
Click to expand...

While I appreciate his efforts to try to make things right, he never should have been in that position in the first place. If he "loved" the team so much he shouldn't have been involved in anything related to illegal benefits of even the simplest, most minor kind. Especially given that he at times had a position working for the school itself, and thus increased the school's exposure and liability for any wrongdoing that occurred. His selfishness and greed is as responsible for the position the school is in today as the players that actually took the benefits from the con man.
Click to expand...

Yep, exactly!!!
Click to expand...

He put himself in the Shapiro mess, no one else did that. By doing so he really compromised the university. Good for him to try and redeem himself now but he'll always be persona non grata. He should have done something, anything other than take a big gulp of the Shapiro teet
 
Advertisement
I am not defending allen. he messed up. But, I don't understand posters like BisCane who say he compromised the university by involving himself with shapiro. First, nobody knew that shapiro was a scumbag back in the early 2000's. Also, don't we all know that this stuff goes on at all major universities? Do we expect our players to be saints and not accept a free club entrance or lapdance? If Allen was organizing that, I view that he was just trying to help out at the time. Retrospectively, it was stupid because shapiro turned out to be a dirty rat. But again, at the time, it seems he was just trying to help the program.

I understand if people disagree. Again, I'm not defending him nor his actions. I just think we need to take a step back and put this in perspective. He was trying to do things to help the program, go caught up with an awful person, and it bit him and the university in the ***.
 
Advertisement
Because you said "any lawyer worth a ****" would have followed up any undetailed responses from Allen with follow-up questions, thus making my "rant" "academic in practice." But if Maria ain't worth ****...

I wasn't attempting to appear brazen, or measure my **** against anyone else's. I just said Allen overshared. That's when people wanted to drop in with the "LOL U CAN'T LIE IN DEPOS, HE HAD TO, HE WOULD BE IN JAIL!!1!1" argument. And that line of reasoning is flawed.

Your point is the same as the one I conceded. Allen is a goof who didn't know how to navigate the depo. Fine. Cool. Give him a free pass. I understand why be blabbed.

And Allen did have representation for his deposition and was prepped beforehand. Allen didn't do a great job listening.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't be the first time a deponent **** himself under pressure. I'm not sure we disagree on much, but you seemed rather eager to assume that people were on Allen's nuts, and I'm not sure I saw it that way.

Ah well, it's all semantics. Can't change what happened. I think we're in a good position now regardless.
 
I'm just glad miami has qualified lawyers to handle this. They're doing a great job. Although, I'm sure CaneClassic could pick apart their legal strategy.
 
Anon, get off my balls, man.

I know the lawyer who was present at Allen's depo. He's a fantastic lawyer. Allen's testimony had nothing to do with deficient legal strategy.

Allen just overshared.

Tano, you're right, my man, no disagreement here. I didn't assume people were on Allen's nuts -- read the vitriol spewed because I used the word *****. Three months ago, people were ready to kill the guy.

Anyway, let's get back to what's important here: I CAN'T BELIEVE WE LOST SONY, JETHRO CAN'T RECRUIT, AND OUR D SCHEME IS SOFT!
 
Advertisement
Back
Top