Nov 14th. WSU/OSU vs. Pac thread
- Thread starter kougkurt
- Start date
just an observation, but it’s awesome how the pac12 lawyer sounds like a stoned surfer, the UW lawyer sounds like a drama Queen-acting his ass off douche, and the Oregon st guy just a normal dude.
So...I think it's UW's lawyer just said that meeting the bylaws is impractical because it means a member can't announce that they're leaving, even if the conference is in negotiations for a new media deal. He says that UW/UO/etc. were being nice and transparent in providing notice and shouldn't be punished for it.
He also argues that the fact that they took the hard line on USC, UCLA, and Colorado and didn't allow them to participate in the board is irrelevant...that just because they did it before doesn't mean they have to, or that they should.
In other words, their argument is that yes, that's what the bylaws say, and that's how they've been employed. But we don't like it anymore, so they don't matter.
He also argues that the fact that they took the hard line on USC, UCLA, and Colorado and didn't allow them to participate in the board is irrelevant...that just because they did it before doesn't mean they have to, or that they should.
In other words, their argument is that yes, that's what the bylaws say, and that's how they've been employed. But we don't like it anymore, so they don't matter.
WSU and OSU are the only governing members of the board.
"Conduct speaks louder than words".
--Judge Libey 11/14/23
"Conduct speaks louder than words".
--Judge Libey 11/14/23
D-Gib, would you mind spelling out what this means going forward for us slow-witted folks?
The court determined that WSU and OSU are the only members of the board, and only members entitled to vote.
Hell yes, we can, under the bylaws. We just can't be mean about it.
Yes, but…as I understand it, the appellate court will review the decision, the briefs, and the basis and determine whether an error was made. They won’t be re-hearing the case.
How blatantly liberal are they? A bunch of "everyone gets a gold star and a trophy and everyone is a winner gang"? Or are they likely to pay attention to the actual wording and intent of the bylaws?
No, I am NOT an attorney, and I didn't even sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but if I was/did I sure wouldn't want to be the ones having to make the twisted arguments that the uw attorneys had to make today.
It could settle before the COA actually hears it. Depends on how much financial pain the schools are willing to endure for an appeal to play out for 2-3 years. uw is regretting that half share a wee bit I imagine.
Division III is in Spokane. Pretty even handed in my experience.
I don't think Libey made any errors.
Would love to see the schools "agree in principle" to let them keep it and then WSU/OSU send a text message right after the appeal is filed and say they're taking it all.
To the non-legal mind, it seemed like most of the argument boiled down to "Yeah, this is the way it was but we really, really don't like it now because it hurts us".
"Your honor, we strenuously object!" A Few Good Men
Only if we supply orange slices and juice boxes at the reception.
UW crying about irreparable harm while OSU and WSU have their revenue completely gutted was obnoxious.
Yeah and what it does to the town of Pullman and the businesses in the area ….
The way the hearing went, it was obvious that WSU, OSU would win because WSU's, OSU's case boiled down to WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER.
The TEN were being HYPOCRITES. Their HYPOCRISY of ITS OK FOR US TO BOOT USC, UCLA, CU FROM THE BOARD IS OK BUT NOT OK FOR YOU.
The only way it would have been better is if WSU, OSU had literally used the words HYPOCRITES, HYPOCRISY.
Meanwhile the UW WRONGLY argued that INTENT was more important than TEXTUALISM, that if the Bylaws said the SKY is blue, while the intent was the sky is red, that the ruling ought to be that the sky is red according to intent, instead of the sky is blue according to textualism, what the words say, mean.
The UW also wrongly argued that just because they booted out USC, UCLA, CU, that that doesn't necessarily mean that WSU, OSU also get to do the same.
The PAC 12, Commish, etc, wrongly argued that doing the injunction would be wrong because WSU, OSU, didn't have a plan, to which WSU, OSU rightly countered that WSU, OSU didn't have a plan because they can't do a plan until they have control, etc.
Also UW sabotaged their case when they said that they think WSU, OSU should control the conference, but not using the methodology WSU, OSU was using, and not taking away their share of money for the next 6 month, but that after that WSU should get control of everything.
WSU, OSU countered that by saying that they wouldn't take UW's, or anyone else's money for the next 3-6 months, etc, and that after that they would only use the money for the PAC.
Basically UW, PAC 12, Commish, etc basically recognized said that WSU, OSU, should basically get what WSU, OSU ask for, even if they don't realize they said that.
And because of that and the Goose and Gander Hypocrisy, and because UW argued INTENT, while WSU, OSU correctly argued TEXTUALISM, it was a CORRECT, SLAM DUNK EASY ruling by the judge.
And because of that it should be a easy appeals win, especially if it doesnt go through the 4th, 9th circuit joke court of appeals
Also UW either won't draw it out for years, or the courts won't allow it to be dragged out for years because UW said that they did not want it to be dragged out for months and years, and would not drag it out for months and years, and that they would resolve it in 1,2 months, a few weeks, etc.
The TEN were being HYPOCRITES. Their HYPOCRISY of ITS OK FOR US TO BOOT USC, UCLA, CU FROM THE BOARD IS OK BUT NOT OK FOR YOU.
The only way it would have been better is if WSU, OSU had literally used the words HYPOCRITES, HYPOCRISY.
Meanwhile the UW WRONGLY argued that INTENT was more important than TEXTUALISM, that if the Bylaws said the SKY is blue, while the intent was the sky is red, that the ruling ought to be that the sky is red according to intent, instead of the sky is blue according to textualism, what the words say, mean.
The UW also wrongly argued that just because they booted out USC, UCLA, CU, that that doesn't necessarily mean that WSU, OSU also get to do the same.
The PAC 12, Commish, etc, wrongly argued that doing the injunction would be wrong because WSU, OSU, didn't have a plan, to which WSU, OSU rightly countered that WSU, OSU didn't have a plan because they can't do a plan until they have control, etc.
Also UW sabotaged their case when they said that they think WSU, OSU should control the conference, but not using the methodology WSU, OSU was using, and not taking away their share of money for the next 6 month, but that after that WSU should get control of everything.
WSU, OSU countered that by saying that they wouldn't take UW's, or anyone else's money for the next 3-6 months, etc, and that after that they would only use the money for the PAC.
Basically UW, PAC 12, Commish, etc basically recognized said that WSU, OSU, should basically get what WSU, OSU ask for, even if they don't realize they said that.
And because of that and the Goose and Gander Hypocrisy, and because UW argued INTENT, while WSU, OSU correctly argued TEXTUALISM, it was a CORRECT, SLAM DUNK EASY ruling by the judge.
And because of that it should be a easy appeals win, especially if it doesnt go through the 4th, 9th circuit joke court of appeals
Also UW either won't draw it out for years, or the courts won't allow it to be dragged out for years because UW said that they did not want it to be dragged out for months and years, and would not drag it out for months and years, and that they would resolve it in 1,2 months, a few weeks, etc.
I've never met Judge Libey, who is a Colfax native. Am I the only one who never got a speeding ticket in Colfax?
Funny though, as a local, his wife used to be my dental hygienist. She was a nice lady.
That’s actually pretty impressive. Pretty much everyone I know has gotten at least one at some point or another.
I got one once. Happens to us all at least that one time, usually on the road on the way out once you think you're through town. Nah, that's when they get ya, as the road widens out and the town fades away BUT THE LIMIT IS STILL 25
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Semi OT: Feel good story related to the upcoming Superb Owl Tomorrow
- Latest: KRUSTYtheCOUG
-
-
