re: Any Messages for the Court Where the SEC Suit is Pending?

quote:

---

What is there to settle on LSUs part?

---

Do NOT shoot the messenger.

The deal would be that LSU agrees to something that acknowledges the SEC’s power over it. The SEC needs this. It would likely have to be an admission of some wrongdoing.

The SEC would then dismiss.

Doubtful this happens. But it seems to me this is what the SEC wants.

Just one big pissin contest going on.

quote:

---

Honestly? I think it’s partly dick measuring at this point. Just being blunt.

---

thsi absolutely has become about ego at this point. there does not seem to be any lawful reasons for this to continue.

quote:

---

Sankey can’t come away with nothing. Liz can’t (and likely won’t) concede anything.

---

a politician should not give an inch, and I do not think she will...to a "sports guy". what power does the SEC (or school presidents) think they have over the state of LA, or any state?

quote:

---

We have forcefully called the SEC’s bluff. Whoever folds loses.

---

Sankey, probably at the behest of the presidents, started a fight, and they do not have a legal way out of it. i hope Sankey gets a pile of egg on his face. and I also hope this changes some of the inner workings of the SEC President's Executive Committee.

quote:

---

If Sankey loses, his path toward self governance gets pretty rocky.

---

Eh....the ncaa has fewer teeth than the SEC. time will tell.

quote:

---

Are we? The media rights deal is almost two years old and if I recall correctly ESPN refused to renegotiate based on the 9 game schedule.

---

Yeah. My mouth may have overloaded my arse on that one. I thought I read we got $6 million more per school but have never verified that.

Good point. Need to sort that out.

quote:

---

What am I missing?

---

LSU would not kiss the ring. Then they absolutely humiliated Sankey in the 19th.

Power and ego drive many things.

A motion to strike certain language from 'REPLY to Response to Motion re 27 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint' (re 33) and a 'RESPONSE in Opposition re 33 MOTION to Strike' (re 34) have been filed.

Can you get the text of the RESPONSE and provide some analysis on both of the above?

The RESPONSE (re 34) is not currently on courtlistener.

quote:

---

LSU would not kiss the ring. Then they absolutely humiliated Sankey in the 19th. Power and ego drive many things.

---

I agree. But this was a threat since LSU would not Bend over…..all while these other teams did the same thing.

Many schools have done some actual damage to the SEC brand and the conference stood behind them.

It’s still in my unsolved cases file.

LSUnKaty, here’s a repost of it.

quote:
Which cases? Can you post LSU's contention verbatim?


Short answer, the LSU "side" says these cases are the ones that negligently provided or hallucinated:

quote:
See, e.g., Great W. United Corp. v. Kidwell, 577 F.2d 1256, 1267–69 (5th Cir. 1978) (holding that a Texas court had personal jurisdiction over Idaho officials because of Idaho’s contacts with Texas), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Leroy v. Great W. United Corp., 443 U.S. 173 (1979); arse’n for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., 669 F. Supp. 2d 365, 394–96 & n.24 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (holding that the contacts of an official’s department are imputed to the official for purposes of personal jurisdiction), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 653 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 569 U.S. 576 (2013); PTI, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 1188–90 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (similarly analyzing the contacts of other states with the forum).


This is going to get pretty deep in the weeds, so strap in if you want to take the ride.

The LSU "side" response said of these cites:

quote:
key SEC citations (Opp.14 & n.2) appear to be negligently supplied or hallucinated because they reject the in-line proposition that “the relevant contacts ... are those of the government entity”7


The SEC filed a motion to strike that statement. The LSU side stuck by it.

The issue is personal jurisdiction. Remember that LSU is no longer a party to the federal lawsuit; it is the board members individually (as well as others). For the law nerds, that is the only way you can bring a 1983 without crossing the 11th amendment line. It is the Ex Parte Young issue.

The LSU individuals say the only way they can be haled to Alabama is if they individually have minimum contacts there. The SEC cited the footnote 2 cases to argue that if LSU has the contacts, the individuals do too.

LSU says those cases are wrong on that point.

quote:
There is no question that the SEC made a mistake. Defendants recognize that this Court must make its own determination regarding whether the mistake reflects simple negligence or hallucinations.


Then it goes to the specific cases.

quote:
The SEC’s motion digs its hole deeper. The SEC continues to insist that Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. PTO, 669 F. Supp. 2d 365 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), supports the SEC even though that case rejects the SEC’s position.


I think the LSU side is right here. That case referred to contacts by the individuals as representatives. The LSU folks are in the case as representatives, and it follows that you should look at their individual contacts.

quote:
The SEC’s handling of Great Western United Corp. v. Kidwell, 577 F.2d 1256 (5th Cir. 1978), pulls short quotations out of context.


This one is more convincing. I think they are right here. We cite the full passage rather than the cherry-picked quotes, and it supports to the LSU view.

quote:
Turning to PTI, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (C.D. Cal. 2000), the SEC gives up entirely.


Again, right, I think. The SEC was wrong here. The case just does not support what they said.

quote:
Defendants do not know the reason for the SEC’s error. All they know is that it reflects the SEC’s profound misapprehension of its own cases. As noted above, however, Defendants do not seek sanctions for the error. ECF No. 33-1 at 3.


The whole thing is deep, deep in the weeds. I don't think it ultimately matters much. This is going to look like dogs peeing on bushes.

LINK

quote:

---

He is not a judge. Just ask him. His name comes from a Cormac McCarthy novel, and Judge Holden is a character he likes from Blood Meridian.

---

True. But I can’t say I “like” the character. He was pure evil. I just happened to be reading the book when I chose the name, and to be candid, I was in a pretty dark place at the time.

I’d change it if Chicken would let me.

I get your point but Petitty and the B1G are already running circles around Stankey

-bullied into the 9G schedule
-strong armed into the 24T playoff

Im ready to just blow it all up and accelerate to the 60 team super league, just worry about baseball and how all that would work.