Nov 14th. WSU/OSU vs. Pac thread
- Thread starter kougkurt
- Start date
Good lord. Who are you, John Milner?
Your auto insurance must be $$$. I’ve had 5 in 40 years of driving even though I’m Mario Andretti on the highway (but a little old lady in town): it’s a minor miracle that I don’t have more but if I did I’d dial it back.
Never had one in Colfax. I-90 outside Spokane is where I’ve gotten 3 of them.
I’ve gotten better the last 10 years but between driving 30-40k mikes per year and a lead foot it happens.
4 or 5 is my total also, 55+ years of driving. Never one in Colfax, airport bypass may have helped in that regard when coming from Puget Sound. After being clean for decades, WSP got me coming down from Spokane last spring, heading for the spring scrimmage, somewhere out north of the cutoff to St John. Bummer.
Getting back to the original intent of this thread and away from our Parnelli Jones driving habits, here is a link to Wilner's column about how things may/will shake out going forward. Very good, as is most of his stuff.
Pac-12 legal affairs: What the court victory for OSU and WSU means for the future of the conference and the outbound schools
Our six takeaways from the judge’s ruling that gave control of the Pac-12 board to the two remaining schools.
www.mercurynews.com
Me either. It’s a short enough distance to set it to 25 when the risk is so high.
Offer the departing ten $10 million each, paid right now. WSU and OSU get the rest and have to deal with all of the liabilities, wind down the conference, etc.Getting back to the original intent of this thread and away from our Parnelli Jones driving habits, here is a link to Wilner's column about how things may/will shake out going forward. Very good, as is most of his stuff.
Pac-12 legal affairs: What the court victory for OSU and WSU means for the future of the conference and the outbound schools
Our six takeaways from the judge’s ruling that gave control of the Pac-12 board to the two remaining schools.
I would hope that through the mediation, WSU and OSU got an idea of who are the hardliners, and who are not. Start picking off the easy targets, and isolate the hardliners.
We need to hope that come Monday the WA SC will not agree to hear their BS appeal. That should give the traitors some incentive to reach a settlement rather than relying on the largess of the WSU/OSU and oversight from Libey on "fair play". If we can go with your strategy then can go ahead, using the "majority rules in our democracy" argument.
Libey is a Spokane native. Dad was a cop. Recently inducted into the Rogers High School Hall of Fame.
It will take six months just for the Washington Supreme Court to decide whether to take a direct appeal or not. Assuming they do not, it will go to Division III of the Court of Appeals in Spokane. For shits and giggles, RAP 4.2(a) pasted in below sets forth what uw will have to demonstrate for the WA Supreme Court to accept review. I've never taken an appeal directly to the Supreme Court, so I haven't done this before. I have responded to petitions for review that are similar. (a)(4) is their only shot, and that is not easy to prove. Plus, the uw lawyer repeatedly referred to this as a contract matter, which is an inherently private dispute, undercutting any argument about an issue of broad public import.
(a) Type of Cases Reviewed Directly. A party may seek review in the Supreme Court of a
decision of a superior court which is subject to review as provided in Title 2 only in the
following types of cases:
(1) Authorized by Statute. A case in which a statute authorizes direct review in the
Supreme Court.
(2) Law Unconstitutional. A case in which the trial court has held invalid a statute,
ordinance, tax, impost, assessment, or toll, upon the ground that it is repugnant to the United
States Constitution, the Washington State Constitution, a statute of the United States, or a treaty.
(3) Conflicting Decisions. A case involving an issue in which there is a conflict among
decisions of the Court of Appeals or an inconsistency in decisions of the Supreme Court.
(4) Public Issues. A case involving a fundamental and urgent issue of broad public import
which requires prompt and ultimate determination.
(5) Action against State Officer. An action against a state officer in the nature of quo
warranto, prohibition, injunction, or mandamus.
(6) Death Penalty. A case in which the death penalty has been decreed.
Last edited:
I was in a car with my buddy who got a ticket....but I never got one. He committed the egregious error of starting to accelerate when he saw the 45 mph sign rather than after he passed it.
My concern is that Libey was a bit folksy about the whole thing. I haven't seen the written ruling yet, but his verbal ruling in court didn't cite a legal argument and didn't counter any of the (dubious) legal arguments forwarded by UW's attorney in particular.
WSU and OSU better hire an audit firm to baby sit the PAC accounting staff. Hate to see a big jump in “ordinary“ expenses. If they get a chance they’ll screw us as bad a PAC refs.
Yeah, he definitely had a folksy, small town bearing, but does that matter? I think he made clear that WSU/OSU were the ones with the rational argument, backed up by written fact and actions taken, so is there really any need to tear apart the opposition arguments point by point? Does that make it any better of a ruling, does that really give give any rational argument for reversal on appeal?
Yes, listening to that BS did make one want to vomit.....
Well I suppose I could come out of retirement. I sure as shit could come up with a financial statement. We used to do those every f-ing month. Although I prefer to focus, on my current endeavor of, well. we all know.
Not sure. Just seems like answering legal points with legal points would be stronger than “what you do matters more than what you say.” Even when that’s a lot of what’s relevant here.
I laughed out loud at the UW summation when he said (paraphrasing) ‘yes, that’s what the bylaws say…and yes, that’s what we did when USC, UCLA, and Colorado left. But that doesn’t mean it’s what we should do now.’
Yes! There were a few times when I thought "Really, that's your argument?" and "Is that the best that you could come up with?".
It was almost like they were just going through the motions, knowing they had a skunk of a case but realizing that they had to at least pretend that they were making the heroic effort.
Is anyone else anxious to find out which schools were hardliners (meaning total assholes) about reaching a settlement out of court? I am thinking usc#1, uw/uo tied for #2, with co being the show horse.
I vote ‘Zona. They wanted the Big 12 to take everyone but WSU and OSU.
I haven’t really heard much about USC/UCLA. I think they clearly were disingenuous for years ahead of their departure, but haven’t heard a lot since.
In the current events, I think UW, UA, and UO (in that order) are the leading assholes.
