You may well be right. I don’t know Mars - except what I read about him. Just a very different approach to practicing law from what I think is appropriate if that’s the case. I’m sure there are many lawyers who believe they can do what they want and get away with it. But they usually can’t.
Could well be wrong here, but I’m a lawyer and I would never, ever issue a statement relating to a client without full approval by said client. I’m not sure it is unethical to do so, nor would it necessarily be malpractice, but it is a very bad move if you want your clients to trust you.
Higher ed lawyer here, again. Both letters are excellent and serve both distinct and overlapping interests. But for my money, the W&C/WM letter is the one that really will have the B1G legal crew fretting. It is written like an appellate brief with deep legal analysis about salient provisions in the B1G and operating documents - the sort of arguments that courts dig. B1G attorneys may view parts of the Mars letter as hyperbolic advocacy (based to some degree on media reporting), but they will have to analyze the U’s legal arguments one by one and advise the Commissioner that there is grave legal risk based on sound legal analysis persuasively provided in the W&C/WM letter. But a team approach representing both institutional and individual (personal + human) interests is incredibly effective. Impressive.
I’m a higher ed lawyer with 40 years of experience in trial and appellate work. Just read the letter in its entirety. Of course it seems obvious that it was written entirely by lawyers, despite being signed by WM (it even includes case citations and other legal references). And while I support the University and thus have inherent biases, I firmly believe that to any dispassionate reader the letter would be viewed as incredibly thorough, carefully reasoned, and highly persuasive. And I believe these arguments would be highly persuasive to any court hearing the matter if the Commissioner proceeds to act at this juncture. I have to read and evaluate these sorts of things all the time and give professional advice, despite my biases in favor of my clients. That is one of the two hats we lawyers wear - advocate, but also evaluator. Well done WM and legal team!
But what rules did we break to make this happen? Sorry - I’m just suffering from Spygate fatigue, like everyone else. This is truly wonderful news. Coach is doing a terrific job in every way. Leaders and Best.
Another lawyer here . . . A properly pleaded and filed Notice of Removal pretty much instantaneously removes the case to the federal court where the state court action was pending. A motion to remand can be filed - and those definitely take longer to resolve.
There are many things to love about this haiku. But to me, it is the juxtaposition of a classic naturalistic first stanza with seemingly unrelated, increasingly jarring, second and third stanzas, each being an independent, transcendent statement shattering the quietude of the pastoral first scene. And yet on further reflection, the connection between all three stanzas becomes apparent, emerging from the fog and racing straight at you.
To be fair, I stole the movie title idea from the RCMB message board.
There is an absolutely fantastic movie title thread, including:
”A Fistful of Dollars”
”Million Dollar Baby Batter”
”Mad Mel: Beyond the Thunderbone”
”Romancing the Bone” and
”Field of Creams”
I was surprised that “Glory Load” was not amongst them, so I’ll take credit for that one, and I like the sports angle. But the others are better, IMHO. Definitely the funniest thing I’ve ever read on that site and it gives me hope for humanity.
As another who has worked for decades with University administrators, and HR professionals, I can say with some certainty that each hiring scenario is relatively unique. There are norms and usual practices, to be sure, but involvement in hiring decisions varies. As a result, I see very little value in generalizing in an effort to assign responsibility (blame or credit). And yes, I realize that message boards like this exist in large part to allow those with limited information to opine on sports-related matters. But on this one, I’ll respectfully take a pass. And I think that’s just fine.
This. Our HS in St. Louis had a kid named Jairus Byrd who played QB (and several other positions). Went on to Oregon and then played free safety in the NFL with quite a bit of success. At smaller high schools (like Clayton High) the best athlete often gets the most touches - so is the QB by default. This young man could end up who knows where. But welcome to Michigan young man - and you can always get your law degree from Harvard!
My personal favorite is from Rumpole of the Bailey, about an ancient barrister. He referred to his wife as She Who Must Be Obeyed. In other words, SWMBO.
I drive a stick. Admittedly, it’s a 1963 Ford F100 named “Ed” after the farmer I bought if from. All original barn find I bought from the original owner. 4 on the floor - with 1st being the “granny gear” or “stump puller.” Top speed is 48 mph, down hill, with a tail wind. Sunday driver. Had a Honda S2000. Kind of a different experience.
Call me crazy, but I think there is a good chance that M blows out WI on Sunday. Confidence should be at a season high and the defensive effort last night was terrific. The game for Dug, in particular, has really seemed to slow down for him. Go Blue!
Don’t know how to fairly describe most of Oracle’s takes. Bad, perhaps? One of most consistently negative posters, even on threads explicitly denominated as “appreciation.”
“All our QBs since Rudock have regressed”? Gracious. Cade beat OSU, slaughtered Iowa in the Big Ten Championship game, and got us to the playoff. JJ is undefeated as a starter. We are 11-0. Again, no interceptions today. Perfect? No. But the idea of all QBs regressing is ridiculous, in my humble opinion.
“JJ was awful today”? Goodness. Did he throw any interceptions? In several key 4th down moments he was absolutely fearless. He is undefeated as a starter. Can he improve? Of course. Will he? That’s why we watch. With all due respect, I think your assessment is absurd.
Can’t some smart Wolverine engineer design an algorithm to weed out the insane negative comments? And if we can’t do it in-house, I heard there are several thousand very smart people in the field who are looking for employment.
Serious for a moment. The video of PSU and UM players walking next to each other - some talking to each other, some smiling together, one Michigan player patting a Penn State player, most just being appropriately quiet and simply walking near each other - was heart warming to me. We should not separate players. We should require that they walk together - win lose or draw. Put this in perspective for goodness sake: it is a game. Hence football “game.”
J. Redux: I represent numerous public universities. I have actually litigated (and I am currently litigating) 1st Am issues involving student social media speech. You are correct that the Constitution prohibits government bodies - like public universities - from retaliating against (or infringing upon) protected speech which generally refers to speech on matters of public concern. Political speech generally qualifies as protected speech, for instance. If the speech is materially disruptive (a very nuanced, fact intensive inquiry) then public entities can throttle the speech under limited circumstances. Broad “hate speech” policies at public universities have been repeatedly challenged - including the University of Michigan’s - and often successfully.
I assume that the negative reaction to your posts is that they are viewed as an endorsement of the retweet. But I did not read your posts as an endorsement. And to be crystal clear: I abhor the original tweet and retweet. But there is a difference between endorsement and discussing the limits of government power with regard to protected speech. Unfortunately, it is my experience that it is very rare for many folks to see the difference. It is understandable: 1st Am jurisprudence is a complex balancing of interests. The bottom line is that even abhorrent speech is often protected from government action depending on the context.
To paraphrase, I will disagree until my death what you say, but I will defend until my death your right to say it. Our constitutional framework creates numerous messy situations just like this. We can all rightly condemn the tweet and retweet, but it is entirely different matter whether a public University can constitutionally take action to discipline a student for having said the condemned speech.
Recent Comments
You may well be right. I don’t know Mars - except what I read about him. Just a very different approach to practicing law from what I think is appropriate if that’s the case. I’m sure there are many lawyers who believe they can do what they want and get away with it. But they usually can’t.
I have not laughed so hard in a long while. And I feel guilty because what the minivan driver did was very dangerous . . .
Could well be wrong here, but I’m a lawyer and I would never, ever issue a statement relating to a client without full approval by said client. I’m not sure it is unethical to do so, nor would it necessarily be malpractice, but it is a very bad move if you want your clients to trust you.
Rogaine Warde
Excellent stuff. I loved learning that FY played on three teams simultaneously during one year. Talk about a transfer portal!
Truly inspiring. Need to sew “65” onto the boys jerseys for the remainder of the year.
Without a doubt, biggest positive was the Corum TD right on the heals of the gutting Zinter injury.
Higher ed lawyer here, again. Both letters are excellent and serve both distinct and overlapping interests. But for my money, the W&C/WM letter is the one that really will have the B1G legal crew fretting. It is written like an appellate brief with deep legal analysis about salient provisions in the B1G and operating documents - the sort of arguments that courts dig. B1G attorneys may view parts of the Mars letter as hyperbolic advocacy (based to some degree on media reporting), but they will have to analyze the U’s legal arguments one by one and advise the Commissioner that there is grave legal risk based on sound legal analysis persuasively provided in the W&C/WM letter. But a team approach representing both institutional and individual (personal + human) interests is incredibly effective. Impressive.
I’m a higher ed lawyer with 40 years of experience in trial and appellate work. Just read the letter in its entirety. Of course it seems obvious that it was written entirely by lawyers, despite being signed by WM (it even includes case citations and other legal references). And while I support the University and thus have inherent biases, I firmly believe that to any dispassionate reader the letter would be viewed as incredibly thorough, carefully reasoned, and highly persuasive. And I believe these arguments would be highly persuasive to any court hearing the matter if the Commissioner proceeds to act at this juncture. I have to read and evaluate these sorts of things all the time and give professional advice, despite my biases in favor of my clients. That is one of the two hats we lawyers wear - advocate, but also evaluator. Well done WM and legal team!
But what rules did we break to make this happen? Sorry - I’m just suffering from Spygate fatigue, like everyone else. This is truly wonderful news. Coach is doing a terrific job in every way. Leaders and Best.
Another lawyer here . . . A properly pleaded and filed Notice of Removal pretty much instantaneously removes the case to the federal court where the state court action was pending. A motion to remand can be filed - and those definitely take longer to resolve.
There are many things to love about this haiku. But to me, it is the juxtaposition of a classic naturalistic first stanza with seemingly unrelated, increasingly jarring, second and third stanzas, each being an independent, transcendent statement shattering the quietude of the pastoral first scene. And yet on further reflection, the connection between all three stanzas becomes apparent, emerging from the fog and racing straight at you.
No offense, but I think it’s spelled “comladely.”
To be fair, I stole the movie title idea from the RCMB message board.
There is an absolutely fantastic movie title thread, including:
”A Fistful of Dollars”
”Million Dollar Baby Batter”
”Mad Mel: Beyond the Thunderbone”
”Romancing the Bone” and
”Field of Creams”
I was surprised that “Glory Load” was not amongst them, so I’ll take credit for that one, and I like the sports angle. But the others are better, IMHO. Definitely the funniest thing I’ve ever read on that site and it gives me hope for humanity.
About Head…
Making a movie
About Head Coach Mel Tucker
It’s called “Glory Load”
That’s…
“Gunnison Goodblood”
That’s a Rutger player’s name
I’m not shitting you
Wait, there’s a player named Gunnison Bloodgood? You have got to be kidding me.
I like “Introduction to Decision Makin” because I’m imagining that the Professor is a cross between Foghorn Leghorn and Colonel Angus.
Two thumbs up.
As another who has worked for decades with University administrators, and HR professionals, I can say with some certainty that each hiring scenario is relatively unique. There are norms and usual practices, to be sure, but involvement in hiring decisions varies. As a result, I see very little value in generalizing in an effort to assign responsibility (blame or credit). And yes, I realize that message boards like this exist in large part to allow those with limited information to opine on sports-related matters. But on this one, I’ll respectfully take a pass. And I think that’s just fine.
This. Our HS in St. Louis had a kid named Jairus Byrd who played QB (and several other positions). Went on to Oregon and then played free safety in the NFL with quite a bit of success. At smaller high schools (like Clayton High) the best athlete often gets the most touches - so is the QB by default. This young man could end up who knows where. But welcome to Michigan young man - and you can always get your law degree from Harvard!
OK, you got me to violate all of my work IT protocols by clicking on the link. But it was worth it.
I usually chuckle at the grammar police for overdoing it. But can we talk about commas for a minute?
Insert may have been poor word choice, amigo.
My personal favorite is from Rumpole of the Bailey, about an ancient barrister. He referred to his wife as She Who Must Be Obeyed. In other words, SWMBO.
I drive a stick. Admittedly, it’s a 1963 Ford F100 named “Ed” after the farmer I bought if from. All original barn find I bought from the original owner. 4 on the floor - with 1st being the “granny gear” or “stump puller.” Top speed is 48 mph, down hill, with a tail wind. Sunday driver. Had a Honda S2000. Kind of a different experience.
The Michigan Difference.
General observation gained from 63 years on the spinning blue marble: the people who try hardest to be “cool” usually aren’t.
Looking forward to a final 6 minutes of Hunter, Reed, Howard, Bufkin and McDaniel!
Call me crazy, but I think there is a good chance that M blows out WI on Sunday. Confidence should be at a season high and the defensive effort last night was terrific. The game for Dug, in particular, has really seemed to slow down for him. Go Blue!
Please get some help. Seriously.
Well, Mazi was certainly well armed for that reporter’s question.
Donkey Teeth
Nah.
This was excellent! Keep those hilarious posts coming. I mean, what are we going to do for four weeks?
Don’t know how to fairly describe most of Oracle’s takes. Bad, perhaps? One of most consistently negative posters, even on threads explicitly denominated as “appreciation.”
Just wanted to say I like the use of “load of crock.”
Not one I’ve heard before.
GO BLUE!
Happy…
Excellent post.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Go Blue!
Happy…
Excellent post.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Go Blue!
My money is on Bert.
“All our QBs since Rudock have regressed”? Gracious. Cade beat OSU, slaughtered Iowa in the Big Ten Championship game, and got us to the playoff. JJ is undefeated as a starter. We are 11-0. Again, no interceptions today. Perfect? No. But the idea of all QBs regressing is ridiculous, in my humble opinion.
“JJ was awful today”? Goodness. Did he throw any interceptions? In several key 4th down moments he was absolutely fearless. He is undefeated as a starter. Can he improve? Of course. Will he? That’s why we watch. With all due respect, I think your assessment is absurd.
Thank you sir. Seriously, some perspective. How refreshing.
Can’t some smart Wolverine engineer design an algorithm to weed out the insane negative comments? And if we can’t do it in-house, I heard there are several thousand very smart people in the field who are looking for employment.
Pain?
What, no Orji in the end zone?
Serious for a moment. The video of PSU and UM players walking next to each other - some talking to each other, some smiling together, one Michigan player patting a Penn State player, most just being appropriately quiet and simply walking near each other - was heart warming to me. We should not separate players. We should require that they walk together - win lose or draw. Put this in perspective for goodness sake: it is a game. Hence football “game.”
J. Redux: I represent numerous public universities. I have actually litigated (and I am currently litigating) 1st Am issues involving student social media speech. You are correct that the Constitution prohibits government bodies - like public universities - from retaliating against (or infringing upon) protected speech which generally refers to speech on matters of public concern. Political speech generally qualifies as protected speech, for instance. If the speech is materially disruptive (a very nuanced, fact intensive inquiry) then public entities can throttle the speech under limited circumstances. Broad “hate speech” policies at public universities have been repeatedly challenged - including the University of Michigan’s - and often successfully.
I assume that the negative reaction to your posts is that they are viewed as an endorsement of the retweet. But I did not read your posts as an endorsement. And to be crystal clear: I abhor the original tweet and retweet. But there is a difference between endorsement and discussing the limits of government power with regard to protected speech. Unfortunately, it is my experience that it is very rare for many folks to see the difference. It is understandable: 1st Am jurisprudence is a complex balancing of interests. The bottom line is that even abhorrent speech is often protected from government action depending on the context.
To paraphrase, I will disagree until my death what you say, but I will defend until my death your right to say it. Our constitutional framework creates numerous messy situations just like this. We can all rightly condemn the tweet and retweet, but it is entirely different matter whether a public University can constitutionally take action to discipline a student for having said the condemned speech.
This thread is absolutely beautiful. Thank you everyone!
I hope that only appears on Tucker’s ring. Otherwise how narcissistic would that be?