1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Any Messages for the Court Where the SEC Suit is Pending?
Posted on 10/28/26 at 10:39 pm to AaronDeTiger
Posted on 10/28/26 at 10:39 pm to AaronDeTiger
Soccer wasn't part of the SEC rule.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 7:26 am to pelicanpride
quote:
This part is horseshite.
Oh. I agree completely.
If this were ordinary civil litigation, a token like that might work to solve a problem. This litigation is far from ordinary and, some might say, a pretty good distance from civil.
Remember the “lawfare” from politics? This is more like that than it is the usual kind of lawsuit.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 7:28 am to LVag1997
quote:
Soccer wasn't part of the SEC rule.
Was that because of equity considerations for the LGBTQ community?
(Sorry. Real football fans have to occasionally take swipes at the world’s most popular sport from time to time!)
Posted on 10/29/26 at 8:04 am to JudgeHolden
quote:
From what I have seen, she is pretty independent.
There's a reason Sankey wanted her! It didn't just fall in her lap you can bet on that.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 8:10 am to Pedropatterstine
quote:
There's a reason Sankey wanted her! It didn't just fall in her lap you can bet on that.
Not sure about that. There are ways to forum shop. I did not see any signs of it here.
And federal cases are assigned randomly by CM/ECF. (That’s the electronic filing system; no one uses paper in federal court any longer, and only in a few state courts.)
Posted on 10/29/26 at 10:06 am to JudgeHolden
quote:
Remember the “lawfare” from politics? This is more like that than it is the usual kind of lawsuit.
But at some point, the rubber meets the road, right? They can’t even clearly define why they are suing us.
For the life of me, I cannot figure out why they didn’t exhibit their “conference authority” by waiting for someone to actually break a rule first. My hypothesis is that they got themselves so riled up about conference self-governance that they pulled the trigger too early. Now they don’t know how to walk it back without looking like idiots. That’s also a reason why I think LSU should not roster RJ Luis. As it is, we can clearly state that we’ve broken no rules. It would be dumb to surrender that position for this one player.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 10:17 am to JudgeHolden
Clown show is a waste of time and expense to taxpayers.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 11:16 am to JudgeHolden
quote:If the magistrate judge reasonably believes that no party will gain an advantage as a result of the message, it's not an ex parte communication.
(Just in case Andy Dotson or Seana Willing are reading, I am not really going to engage in ex parte communications on the topic. This is just a chance for fans to vent.)
So, you can probably tell her, "Sankey is stinky."
Posted on 10/29/26 at 11:29 am to mdomingue
quote:Surprisingly, yes it is.
If you are not affiliated with the legal team of either side or a party to the suit, is it really ex parte communication?
Most local rules describe ex parte communications as communications between the judge (and staff) and a party (or the party's lawyer).
But the rule is designed to prevent communications by the judge with anyone outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending or impending matter. The judge cannot even receive factual information from their own staff, or legal information from a disinterested expert without advance notice.
This post was edited on 10/29/26 at 11:53 am
Posted on 10/29/26 at 11:48 am to Salviati
quote:
Surprisingly, yet it is.
Can I just give the magistrate a “Geaux Tigers”?
Posted on 10/29/26 at 11:53 am to JudgeHolden
quote:If the magistrate judge reasonably believes that no party will gain an advantage as a result of the message, it's not an ex parte communication.quote:Can I just give the magistrate a “Geaux Tigers”?
Surprisingly, yes it is.
"Geaux Tigers!"
Posted on 10/29/26 at 11:57 am to JudgeHolden
Everything I have to say will get me kicked off & plus I text in all caps when I'm pissed??????
Posted on 10/29/26 at 2:55 pm to JudgeHolden
Sankey got a little Wankey.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 4:56 pm to Salviati
quote:quote:
If you are not affiliated with the legal team of either side or a party to the suit, is it really ex parte communication?
Surprisingly, yes it is.
Most local rules describe ex parte communications as communications between the judge (and staff) and a party (or the party's lawyer).
But the rule is designed to prevent communications by the judge with anyone outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending or impending matter. The judge cannot even receive factual information from their own staff, or legal information from a disinterested expert without advance notice.
Actually, I can see the point of that.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News