Now the issue is TRO enforcement. Right now, only WSU and UW are bound. In theory, George and the other schools could still meet and they would have the 9 necessary votes to dissolve the conference, as they are all out of state, and not subject Washington Superior Court jurisdiction at this point.
According to KREM, TRO granted
- Thread starter Cougsocal
- Start date
Should have said that only WSU and UW are under the Court's jurisdiction. Think of it this way - a UK court issues a TRO against you. It ain't worth jack outside the UK, until a court where you are located, i.e. has jurisdiction over you, agrees to honor it -- that's enforcement. Normally, there isn't a problem, unless it is fought. George could go to a Cali court and ask them refuse to enforce it for a number of reasons. Because the listed defendants include "the Pac 12 conference," which is not a corporation, and George, I'm not entirely sure who is covered by the TRO, beyond George. If it were me, I would have listed the other presidents by name, but I'm not a Wall Street big wig either. Hopefully, this was a situation where George felt obligated to hold the board meeting, and that he simply needed legal cover, i.e. the TRO, not to do so. If he is "hell bent" on holding the meeting, this ain't over by a long shot.
I don't see any indication that it's limited to WSU and UW. The order prevents the Pac-12 members from meeting and voting. Period. It does not yet decide who actually gets to vote.
Oh, but this is a significant piece of evidence:
"Oregon State and Washington State filed supporting exhibits that included a letter from the Pac-12's general counsel to Colorado in July that informed them explicitly that effective immediately "CU no longer has the right to vote on any matter before the Board." In the hearing on Monday, attorney Eric MacMichael argued on behalf of Oregon State and Washington State that all the schools want is "to see if they can save this conference and allow it to move forward."
Good ! WSU / OSU win and ultimately take control of the PAC 2 ! !
What follows :
1. Terminate most of the no longer PAC 12, keep an officer and someone with financial authority.
2. Move the PAC 2 headquarters to Spokane, not Pullman or Corvallis.
3. Identify the "lawyers" that wrote the documents/agreements that the old PAC 12 operated under.
File a civil complaint against each of them, charging misrepresentition - negligent. Only wish it could be a criminal complaint ! Ask $$$$$ damages ! Clarity means that a regulation is written so that the meaning will be easily understood by those persons directly affected by it. Thanks to "lawyers" is that what the PAC 12 officer's hires did ?
4. The PAC 2 must defend against "lawyers" in the future - any use of "lawyers" for the production of agreements or regulations must include signed agreement that those individuals be legally and financially responsible for subsequent proceedings that dispute the clarity of the created document they authored !
5. NEVER play the dogs again !
6. Kill the PAC 12 newtwork !
7. Start selling the MW on the benefits of termination of the MW and joining the new PAC N !
8. Act like you ( wsu/osu ) ARE in control, make the CA turds try to play catchup !
What follows :
1. Terminate most of the no longer PAC 12, keep an officer and someone with financial authority.
2. Move the PAC 2 headquarters to Spokane, not Pullman or Corvallis.
3. Identify the "lawyers" that wrote the documents/agreements that the old PAC 12 operated under.
File a civil complaint against each of them, charging misrepresentition - negligent. Only wish it could be a criminal complaint ! Ask $$$$$ damages ! Clarity means that a regulation is written so that the meaning will be easily understood by those persons directly affected by it. Thanks to "lawyers" is that what the PAC 12 officer's hires did ?
4. The PAC 2 must defend against "lawyers" in the future - any use of "lawyers" for the production of agreements or regulations must include signed agreement that those individuals be legally and financially responsible for subsequent proceedings that dispute the clarity of the created document they authored !
5. NEVER play the dogs again !
6. Kill the PAC 12 newtwork !
7. Start selling the MW on the benefits of termination of the MW and joining the new PAC N !
8. Act like you ( wsu/osu ) ARE in control, make the CA turds try to play catchup !
It is all about jurisdiction, Washington courts have no authority out of state except with consent -- trust me. Only federal courts have that reach.
Clearly further evidence that voting wise it is the Pac-2, which is damn good for us.
WSU and OSU should sue to damages if the other 10 get their way. I want millions because they don’t care about WSU or OSU.
And the "hold" is iffy. Tomorrow, George et al could show up in a Cali court seeking protection from our TRO. It is the downside of the federal system, we have 51 different legal/court systems. Cali courts are free to do what they deem appropriate, within state lines, as does Oregon, Arizona, Utah and Colorado. And any anyone feeling aggrieved by a state court ruling, or just because they want to, could show up in federal court too, as we have parties from several states.
Wouldn’t the conference have something about all disputes will be subject to such and such jurisdiction?
The complaint alleges that the Pac-12 is an unincorporated association, that does business in each state where a member is located, and is therefore a resident of Washington. For Kliavkoff, the allegation is he's a California resident based on information and belief.
Not to pull rank, but did you go to law school and pass the bar? I did. You are right that Whitman county does have venue, but so do 11 other counties, in 6 states, at least. Venue being a place where something relevant to the action has happened, basically. Jurisdiction can be explained by a Washington state patrolman. Can he go to San Francisco and arrest George, in California, if he refuses to comply with the TRO? No, unless a Cali court give him permission, because he doesn't have authority outside state lines.
So your contention is that it was a pointless exercise by a not exactly boutique law firm out of NYC? I'm not trying to be a smartass but I just don't see why that would be the case.
Choice of law provisions are common, i.e. California law shall be applied, but any court can apply California law, it doesn't have to be a California court, and you can consent to venue and jurisdiction in a given state. But that doesn't mean that that state can have a cop come to your state and seize you or your house. It only means you can no longer argue that a certain state court lacks of venue or jurisdiction. You may have consented to jurisdiction, but your state hasn't, that is its right, not yours. Consent of a court of general jurisdiction within your state would be needed. In the USA, each state is sovereign amongst themselves (like just Canada, Mexico and USA are each sovereign), but each must concede to federal jurisdiction. An FBI agent can arrest you and seize your property anywhere without state court permission. State law enforcement doesn't have that power.
Clear as mud?
No, there is a process in a federal system that must be followed, respecting the sovereignty of each state. A Washington court has no power beyond state lines, without consent of another state, it is that simple. For example: You are a Washington doctor who provides late term abortions, you provide an late term abortion to an Idaho resident, where the practice is felony when performed on its residents. Can an Idaho court issue an arrest warrant for you, and simply have a team of Idaho state patrol come into Washington state, where the practice is legal, and arrest you and hall you back to idaho to stand trial? The answer is no! They would need permission from a Washington superior court, which would likely be granted or denied based on where the abolition occur. If it occurred in Washington, their request would be denied, if performed in Idaho, the request would be granted.
One state's courts do not have the right to run roughshod over another state's laws, legal system and courts.
For what it's worth I was not impressed by the conference's attorney (although it was extremely on brand). I just think it's more likely that they realize they got caught, that this is at least a malum in se (and everyone knows it) and what a PR nightmare this would be for them especially with Twitter ablaze about it today.
Appreciate your perspective and insight though, never hurts to be aware of all potential outcomes in such a critical issue!
No, you acquire your state court order, and then you go to the other state, and ask their court to enforce your state's court order. If it has merit and complies with their their laws, they will. If bogus, or violates state law and is contested, they won't! Easy peasy lemon queasy!
So any on/gyn in Washington is going to have to stay out of Idaho, or refuse to treat any women from Idaho? I assume Idaho will be cranking out arrest warrants for any Dr. treating Idaho women
In the legal biz, you pick your battles, unless you are stupid or have a vindictive client you don't fight a loser, it is just a waste of time and money. Also it shoots your credibility of shit! They kicked three schools off the board already for leaving, what can they say ... nevermind!
It was just a hypo -- but if Idaho had a felony abolition law, and if you are stupid enough to do them in Idaho, put on the orange jump suit, you are going down, living in Spokane won't save your arse.
I was talking about not even being able to set foot Idaho, because they performed the procedure in WA. It seems the commerce clause should come into the discussion, but IANAL.
Agree that’s it’s a cog in the process. If nothing else, it forces the remaining members to think carefully and tread lightly with their response.
If they claim that they “haven’t given notice yet,” that would essentially mean that none of the new conference agreements are binding. With 8 teams in the top-25, what if Apple and/or ESPN come back and say, wait! Our new offer is $40M/school.
If they claim that they “haven’t given notice yet,” that would essentially mean that none of the new conference agreements are binding. With 8 teams in the top-25, what if Apple and/or ESPN come back and say, wait! Our new offer is $40M/school.
I just like that that pussy Kliavkoff was having his lawyer plead for the ability for Pac12 employees to work, while he’s grimy ass was on vacation in Montana.
I checked the bylaws again, and did not find any reference to designating a jurisdiction. That’s not necessarily surprising, since when this was written nobody anticipated dissolution…and because it’s a multi jurisdiction group, so they probably would never agree on a single jurisdiction.
But, there was reference to the “Pac-12 governing documents.” But I couldn’t find anything with that title or a description of what those are. I would expect that the constitution and bylaws would be governing documents…but I wouldn’t expect them to refer to themselves in that tense.
Listen to the hearing, doesn't sound like George is going to fight this , and will likely willingly comply with the court order, especial with that last "unanimous vote" concession re salary approval etc. So much of what I wrote was Civ Pro esoterica, with little application going forward.
The other interesting aspect of all this is that WSU/OSU seem to be getting a lot of support in the court of public opinion. I haven't seen any polls on the matter and everything I've read or heard is definitely limited and unscientific– but there are so many college football fans out there disgusted with the direction intercollegiate athletics is going. The TV networks, the money, the likely end of regional rivalries, the abandonment and dissolution of conferences with the rich getting richer, etc. It seems a high percentage of fans would like to see something that could slow, if not stop, the gears of this relentless machine that's destroying college sports for so many of us. As others have mentioned, even a lot of fans of the schools that bailed on the Pac-12 are not happy. These are fans that may be rooting hard for WSU/OSU in the David vs. Goliath fight for keeping the conference alive, FWIW.
Glad Cougar
Glad Cougar
I have a question on this issue. I would like to keep this strictly on the legalities and nuances related to it rather than going down the political rabbit hole. And yes, I know I have done that myself before, but it isn't necessary in this case.
What I would like to know is why this ruling, made in WA state, is to be considered limited to WA without being binding on anyone out side the state, when there were so many rulings against Trump and his administration from WA and CA that were imposed nationwide? What is the difference-were those rulings judicial overreach or can this ruling also be imposed outside WA if the other rulings were considered legitimate?
Thanks for thoughts from the attorneys on board here.......
Same as rulings against Biden and abortion by that one judge in Texas. His ruling, if upheld affects all 50 states. That’s the way it works if the Supreme Court upholds the ruling.
My opinion is that it is binding on the conference. As alleged in the complaint, the Pac-12 is an unincorporated association that does business in each of the states where a member is located. That means the conference is a Washington resident.
For Kliavkoff, I'm not certain the TRO is binding on him. But is seems like he has not appetite to fight it.
