2013 LGP College Football Thread

Forum for posts that are not hockey-related.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby newarenanow on Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:17 pm

ExPatriatePen wrote:
newarenanow wrote:What does the Dude have to say about this.

http://dudeofwv.blogspot.com/

:) :pop:


He makes absolutely no sense on that one.

And I think his connected source are the crazy tOSU fans that are also all on the "inside".
newarenanow
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 41,111
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:56 pm

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby ExPatriatePen on Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:18 pm

newarenanow wrote:
ExPatriatePen wrote:
newarenanow wrote:What does the Dude have to say about this.

http://dudeofwv.blogspot.com/

:) :pop:


He makes absolutely no sense on that one.

And I think his connected source are the crazy tOSU fans that are also all on the "inside".

As if he ever makes sense on any of his posts :pop:
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,719
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby newarenanow on Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:22 pm

I'm honestly suprised he is still around.
newarenanow
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 41,111
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:56 pm

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby KennyTheKangaroo on Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:26 pm

newarenanow wrote:I'm honestly suprised he is still around.


thats what most lgp'ers say when they read your jibberish :pop:
KennyTheKangaroo
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 11,739
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:15 am
Location: Under the Skycoaster

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby newarenanow on Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:27 pm

KennyTheKangaroo wrote:
newarenanow wrote:I'm honestly suprised he is still around.


thats what most lgp'ers say when they read your jibberish :pop:


Everyone wants more of me.
newarenanow
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 41,111
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:56 pm

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby ExPatriatePen on Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:27 pm

KennyTheKangaroo wrote:
newarenanow wrote:I'm honestly suprised he is still around.


thats what most lgp'ers say when they read your jibberish :pop:


Does anyone on here get picked on (UNNECCESSARILY) as much as Nan???
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,719
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby Rocco on Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:29 pm

slappybrown wrote:Rocco, that article is awful for a number of reasons. I read it and:

Despite Maryland's negative vote on increasing the exit fee, "each member, including the University of Maryland, has agreed to be bound by the vote of the Council," Judge Robert N. Hunter Jr. wrote in the appeals court's decision.


No, no it didn't. It recited the allegations in the Complaint. Its a motion to dismiss.

North Carolina's Court of Appeals rejected that argument, saying it doesn't apply to the ACC's claim that the penalty is due because Maryland broke its contract.


Same point.

I skimmed it quickly, and nothing in the NC decision has anything to do with what Maryland has or has not alleged. It doesn't even address what they allege in the MD lawsuit (and presumably what they'd argue in defense in NC case), nor should it, because the Appeals court was reviewing a motion to dismiss regarding jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, and comity. The MD complaint, if I recall, isn't seeking solely an equitable remedy. They have actual an actual breach of contract claim, as I said above.


So your problem with the AP article is that they quoted the judge's ruling on the matter? If I were more familiar with the NC courts it would seem to me that using such language is their way of suggesting they agree with the ACC and not Maryland. What I said is the article indicated MD is claiming the exit fee penalty is illegal. That is what they're arguing, correct? They're going to have a difficult time proving that. You said yourself earlier- MD can't let this go to discovery, because we'll likely find out things about the move that MD doesn't want people to know. They've gone to great lengths to avoid having any documentation available for FOIA requests.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013 ... iversities
Rocco
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 34,731
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Manor Farm

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby slappybrown on Wed Nov 20, 2013 12:48 am

Rocco wrote:
slappybrown wrote:
Rocco wrote:Maryland signed the contract. They're now in the position of explaining why they shouldn't be bound by terms to which they agreed. That's a losing hand. They've also argued that because the ACC lined up a replacement and the value of their TV deal didn't decline the ACC suffered no damage, which while true is a different argument that doesn't apply to the exit fee. The article I linked made clear that MD's saying the penalty is illegal and unnecessarily punitive. They're looking for a ruling in equity because the law is against them. If you're arguing for an equitable decision, you're saying that the law is against you but the situation isn't fair. Assuming that MD argues the penalty is illegal in the NC proceeding, if they lose there they'll have a res judicata problem with the MD proceeding.

The ACC has legal fees to be sure, but those fees are pooled amongst teams. They're also interested in proving they are willing to fight to make sure any team in the future that wants to bail knows the exit fee isn't negotiable. They also have the law on their side, which is a position of strength.

Was it a contract? The by-laws were at 17 and change for the exit fee, and then were amended. Was there something to sign at that point?


They are part of the ACC. They agreed to be bound by the by-laws, and the by-laws were changed. The understanding, at least with one school, was that the change was immediate. MD had no problems with previous exit fees.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... er-schools

The bylaws (contract) provide the method for amendment. If the amendment of the bylaws (contract) fails to comply with the requirements for amendment, the amendment to the bylaws (contract) may be invalid. This is really not that complicated, and I don't understand why you're having such a hard time understanding it. That's one of the claims made by Maryland in the MD state court case. It has nothing to do with equity or anything else. Without a copy of the ACC bylaws or the minutes of what went down at the time they amended the fee, I can't speak to the merits of their claim, but its not some "its not fair" argument. Its a contract-based claim predicated on the terms that the parties agreed to and has nothing to do with any equitable claim.
slappybrown
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,232
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:08 am
Location: Noted Board Henchman

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby Rocco on Wed Nov 20, 2013 1:01 am

I understand their argument just fine. I'm saying it is bogus. Before and after they pay lip service to the idea that the amendment is invalid they mention several times in the complaint about the inequity of having to pay such a large exit fee, in addition to whining about how the ACC is so mean to them because they won't let the Terps have a say in important conference matters. They're throwing everything to the wall in the hopes something sticks and convinces a judge to lower the exit fee.
Rocco
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 34,731
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Manor Farm

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby slappybrown on Wed Nov 20, 2013 1:11 am

Rocco wrote:
slappybrown wrote:Rocco, that article is awful for a number of reasons. I read it and:

Despite Maryland's negative vote on increasing the exit fee, "each member, including the University of Maryland, has agreed to be bound by the vote of the Council," Judge Robert N. Hunter Jr. wrote in the appeals court's decision.


No, no it didn't. It recited the allegations in the Complaint. Its a motion to dismiss.

North Carolina's Court of Appeals rejected that argument, saying it doesn't apply to the ACC's claim that the penalty is due because Maryland broke its contract.


Same point.

I skimmed it quickly, and nothing in the NC decision has anything to do with what Maryland has or has not alleged. It doesn't even address what they allege in the MD lawsuit (and presumably what they'd argue in defense in NC case), nor should it, because the Appeals court was reviewing a motion to dismiss regarding jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, and comity. The MD complaint, if I recall, isn't seeking solely an equitable remedy. They have actual an actual breach of contract claim, as I said above.


So your problem with the AP article is that they quoted the judge's ruling on the matter? If I were more familiar with the NC courts it would seem to me that using such language is their way of suggesting they agree with the ACC and not Maryland. What I said is the article indicated MD is claiming the exit fee penalty is illegal. That is what they're arguing, correct? They're going to have a difficult time proving that. You said yourself earlier- MD can't let this go to discovery, because we'll likely find out things about the move that MD doesn't want people to know. They've gone to great lengths to avoid having any documentation available for FOIA requests.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013 ... iversities

Are you **** with me?

Rocco, its a motion to dismiss. The part in the article where the AP reporter writes that "each member has agreed to be bound by the Council" and that "Maryland broke its contract" does in fact appear in the opinion -- prefaced by "the allegations in the Complaint are as follows." Saying that it "quoted the judge's ruling on the matter" where the quotes are the Court reciting the facts as alleged in the Complaint -- that it has no choice but to accept as true because its a motion to dismiss -- is something that a first-year associate wouldn't do. It is not "suggesting they agree with the ACC and not Maryland"; its nothing more than the court following the rules of civil procedure. My problem is not that it quotes the ruling -- its that it misrepresents what those quotes mean and their context in terms of where the case is and what the court can and cannot consider. The ruling is not a determination of those issues in any way. Read the opinion.

Maryland claims the exit fee is "illegal" for a number of reasons. It allegedly violates contract law, tort law, antitrust, and equitable concepts. I have no idea about the merits of all of those issues, because again, e.g., I don't know what the bylaws say, and I don't know if/how the amendment to the exit fee comported with the bylaws.

I certainly believe that Maryland is best served by avoiding discovery if they have the sort of emails and internal docs I suspect they have. Which is why I think they are writing a big, big check -- something like $35mm is what I threw out a page ago, which would be nearly double what WVU paid to get out 2 years early. But that doesn't mean the ACC gets full value on the claim and receives $52mm. I hope they do, and maybe their lawyers are awesome and Maryland caves (or maybe the B10 kicks in some dough to help) but IMO, I don't see that full fee happening through settlement.
slappybrown
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,232
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:08 am
Location: Noted Board Henchman

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby slappybrown on Wed Nov 20, 2013 1:14 am

Rocco wrote:I understand their argument just fine. I'm saying it is bogus. Before and after they pay lip service to the idea that the amendment is invalid they mention several times in the complaint about the inequity of having to pay such a large exit fee, in addition to whining about how the ACC is so mean to them because they won't let the Terps have a say in important conference matters. They're throwing everything to the wall in the hopes something sticks and convinces a judge to lower the exit fee.

Let's say the bylaws say you have to do XYZ to amend the bylaws. The ACC did not do XYZ and nonetheless voted on and passed the amendment. Is there a legitimate question as to the enforcement of the amendment? Because while I'm not inclined to assume that everything in Maryland's complaint is 100% God's honest truth and according to Hoyle, that seems to be a viable claim on its face that isn't just "whining."

Why wouldn't you include the allegations about inequity in the Complaint? Its their Complaint.
slappybrown
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,232
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:08 am
Location: Noted Board Henchman

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby Rocco on Wed Nov 20, 2013 1:21 am

I read the opinion. I've read a lot of opinions. I'm going to wager that I'm slightly more familiar with the legal writing of judges than you are. I'm aware that this specific ruling relates only to sovereign immunity, as I can read quite well. I'm saying that based on what the judge wrote it does not look good for Maryland's claims. Things don't end up in an opinion by accident. This comes from my experience in written opinions from courts of record. Maryland is hoping and praying and will probably end up getting a loan from the B1G.
Rocco
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 34,731
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Manor Farm

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby slappybrown on Wed Nov 20, 2013 1:22 am

Rocco wrote:I read the opinion. I've read a lot of opinions. I'm going to wager that I'm slightly more familiar with the legal writing of judges than you are. I'm aware that this specific ruling relates only to sovereign immunity, as I can read quite well. I'm saying that based on what the judge wrote it does not look good for Maryland's claims. Things don't end up in an opinion by accident. This comes from my experience in written opinions from courts of record. Maryland is hoping and praying and will probably end up getting a loan from the B1G.

Never mind, too personal.
slappybrown
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,232
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:08 am
Location: Noted Board Henchman

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby Rocco on Wed Nov 20, 2013 1:35 am

slappybrown wrote:
Rocco wrote:I understand their argument just fine. I'm saying it is bogus. Before and after they pay lip service to the idea that the amendment is invalid they mention several times in the complaint about the inequity of having to pay such a large exit fee, in addition to whining about how the ACC is so mean to them because they won't let the Terps have a say in important conference matters. They're throwing everything to the wall in the hopes something sticks and convinces a judge to lower the exit fee.

Let's say the bylaws say you have to do XYZ to amend the bylaws. The ACC did not do XYZ and nonetheless voted on and passed the amendment. Is there a legitimate question as to the enforcement of the amendment? Because while I'm not inclined to assume that everything in Maryland's complaint is 100% God's honest truth and according to Hoyle, that seems to be a viable claim on its face that isn't just "whining."

Why wouldn't you include the allegations about inequity in the Complaint? Its their Complaint.


Maryland is claiming one section of the bylaws applies. The ACC is claiming another section applies. If something has been done a certain way in the past and MD has not objected to it then they're stuck. The ACC's complaint indicates the discussions were going on for more than a year about modifying the exit fees. It should be relatively easy to determine whether they'd actually talked about the bylaws through discovery. The ACC is over 50 years old and courts are going to be hesitant to tell them how to handle their business. Immediately after announcing they were headed for the B1G MD made it clear they weren't planning on paying the whole fee.

They are certainly entitled to put whatever they want in the complaint, such as the section where they talk themselves up as being attractive to other conferences. They can raise whatever claims they want. They spend about 1.5 pages talking about the bylaws violation which they believe makes up their silver bullet, which is about as long as they spend talking about how the ACC is being mean to them by not letting them in the meetings. Their claim is a longshot and they know it's a longshot, so they want to have the option of convincing a judge that the amount of money is too severe and would cause them too much of a hardship.
Rocco
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 34,731
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Manor Farm

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby Rocco on Wed Nov 20, 2013 1:36 am

slappybrown wrote:
Rocco wrote:I read the opinion. I've read a lot of opinions. I'm going to wager that I'm slightly more familiar with the legal writing of judges than you are. I'm aware that this specific ruling relates only to sovereign immunity, as I can read quite well. I'm saying that based on what the judge wrote it does not look good for Maryland's claims. Things don't end up in an opinion by accident. This comes from my experience in written opinions from courts of record. Maryland is hoping and praying and will probably end up getting a loan from the B1G.

Never mind, too personal.


Never mind, deleted mine as well because it makes me seem so much better when I take personal shots at someone then delete them.
Rocco
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 34,731
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Manor Farm

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby slappybrown on Wed Nov 20, 2013 1:37 am

EDIT: LAWTALKINGGUYS

Also, mine wasn't a personal attack -- I was asking about your clerkship/work experience, but we're good.
slappybrown
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,232
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:08 am
Location: Noted Board Henchman

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby Rocco on Wed Nov 20, 2013 1:39 am

If you're going to throw out "you're a litigator" (which you then deleted, how brave of you) then don't be surprised if I play the "I do this once in a while" card. I've been doing criminal law since 2007. I've seen a few opinions. I've talked to judges. I don't claim to know everything a judge is thinking but I have a decent sense of when a judge wants you to read between the lines.
Rocco
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 34,731
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Manor Farm

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby slappybrown on Wed Nov 20, 2013 1:42 am

Rocco wrote:If you're going to throw out "you're a litigator" (which you then deleted, how brave of you) then don't be surprised if I play the "I do this once in a while" card.

I asked you if you were one, because I genuinely didn't recall. Its really strange that you seemed to be taking the quotes in the AP article at face value, but perhaps you read the opinion afterwards because you were so busy in court and ghost-writing opinions and what not.

Am I doing it right?
slappybrown
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,232
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:08 am
Location: Noted Board Henchman

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby slappybrown on Wed Nov 20, 2013 1:44 am

Rocco wrote: I've seen a few opinions. I've talked to judges. I don't claim to know everything a judge is thinking but I have a decent sense of when a judge wants you to read between the lines.

So has most anyone who has litigated anything of substance, but fair enough, we disagree.
slappybrown
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,232
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:08 am
Location: Noted Board Henchman

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby Rocco on Wed Nov 20, 2013 1:48 am

slappybrown wrote:
Rocco wrote:If you're going to throw out "you're a litigator" (which you then deleted, how brave of you) then don't be surprised if I play the "I do this once in a while" card.

I asked you if you were one, because I genuinely didn't recall. Its really strange that you seemed to be taking the quotes in the AP article at face value, but perhaps you read the opinion afterwards because you were so busy in court and ghost-writing opinions and what not.

Am I doing it right?


I actually read the opinion this afternoon. It's easy to find.

http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/ ... ItMS5wZGY=

The fact that the opinion tracks with the statement of facts of the ACC is a bad sign for MD.
Rocco
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 34,731
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Manor Farm

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby newarenanow on Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:33 am

Damn, I wish I was reading this last night.
newarenanow
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 41,111
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:56 pm

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby newarenanow on Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:34 am

ExPatriatePen wrote:
KennyTheKangaroo wrote:
newarenanow wrote:I'm honestly suprised he is still around.


thats what most lgp'ers say when they read your jibberish :pop:


Does anyone on here get picked on (UNNECCESSARILY) as much as Nan???


They just want to be me. Since they can't they have to pick on me to make them feel better. It happens. :D
newarenanow
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 41,111
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:56 pm

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby slappybrown on Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:52 am

Rocco wrote:
slappybrown wrote:
Rocco wrote:If you're going to throw out "you're a litigator" (which you then deleted, how brave of you) then don't be surprised if I play the "I do this once in a while" card.

I asked you if you were one, because I genuinely didn't recall. Its really strange that you seemed to be taking the quotes in the AP article at face value, but perhaps you read the opinion afterwards because you were so busy in court and ghost-writing opinions and what not.

Am I doing it right?


I actually read the opinion this afternoon. It's easy to find.

http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/ ... ItMS5wZGY=

The fact that the opinion tracks with the statement of facts of the ACC is a bad sign for MD.


There is no other "statement of facts" aside from the Complaint. Maryland hasn't filed an Answer to the allegations in NC. There is no decision for the court to make in terms of whose "facts" to "track", because in civil litigation, a recitation of the facts as set forth in the Complaint appears every.single.time in an opinion disposing of a MTD. It has no relevance as to the strength of either party's factual claims because the Court is bound by the facts as set forth in the Complaint, and cannot deviate from them. Every single opinion, whether the motion to dismiss is granted or denied, "tracks" the allegations set forth in the Complaint. I'm going to wager that I'm slightly more familiar with complex civil litigation than you are since that's my practice, and I've actually been practicing longer than you have. When we get to the Jameis Winston indictment, I'll keep quiet.
slappybrown
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,232
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:08 am
Location: Noted Board Henchman

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby ulf on Wed Nov 20, 2013 11:58 am

Yawn
ulf
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 13,442
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:41 pm

Re: 2013 LGP College Football Thread

Postby slappybrown on Wed Nov 20, 2013 12:35 pm

lol that is fair ulf, but Rocco and I are both terrible people who can't help ourselves.
slappybrown
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,232
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:08 am
Location: Noted Board Henchman

PreviousNext

Return to NHR

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Defence21, Dickie Dunn, KennyTheKangaroo, llipgh2, MalkinIsMyHomeboy, Rocco and 8 guests

e-mail