Exactly. Someone recognizes satire.
I'd recognize it if you could write it, shithead.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Exactly. Someone recognizes satire.
How's he giving updates...here?Barry is going. He has attended every meeting since the beginning of ‘12 and even before the Jerry Sandusky story broke. He will be giving updates from the meeting.
Thanks. Do you know his Twitter handle?I believe he typically tweets then and certainly afterwards here. I believe chi town also tries to inform most on Barry’s live updates as well.
Is anyone here going to today’s public meeting? I wonder if it will be a sell-out.
https://twitter.com/barryfenchakThanks. Do you know his Twitter handle?
According to Barry, I think he would say that it already was a "sell out."
According to Barry, I think he would say that it already was a "sell out."
rely on Bunny Funchuckles to tweet completely slanted opinions on what is happening during the meeting
That is what I meant.
PLAY. ON. WORDS.
rely on Bunny Funchuckles to tweet completely slanted opinions on what is happening during the meeting
If by completely slanted you mean anything and everything that is said by any trustee, administration official or a certain athletic director, good or bad, is automatically stupid and only Barry has all the answers, then yes... slanted.rely on Bunny Funchuckles to tweet completely slanted opinions on what is happening during the meeting
so are they having a meeting today or not?
Hypothetical questions:
If by completely slanted you mean anything and everything that is said by any trustee, administration official or a certain athletic director, good or bad, is automatically stupid and only Barry has all the answers, then yes... slanted.
I mean, if you can't talk because of a court order, then why have this thing to begin with?
Seems to me that everybody who gets access to information, like Lubrano and Demlion, trade that access in return for mandated total silence when it comes to real information, if it exists.
Hypothetical questions:
1) What would be the punishment for violating this court order and talking about the documents that they can't talk about? Are we talking about civil contempt of court? Realistically, what would that punishment look like? Isn't contempt of court usually used to get someone to DO something (e.g. if you refuse to produce documents under subpoena, you are in contempt until you produce them, so you might be jailed until that happens)? In this case if they release the documents, they can't "unring" that bell. So what, a fine? I'd happily chip in towards paying their fine.
2) I can't imagine it would be that hard to leak the documents anonymously. Maybe someone with more "dark web" ability than I have can chime in, but it seems like this could be done in a way that they courts would have no idea which trustee leaked it.
Yeah, I get that. But realistically what would the penalty be for violating the order? You can't jail them until the "un-release the documents." So probably a fine, yes?Not a lawyer, but court order is a court order.
.
Yeah, I get that. But realistically what would the penalty be for violating the order? You can't jail them until the "un-release the documents." So probably a fine, yes?
Honestly, I don’t know. I get your point that you can’t ‘undo’ a document release. I would guess a large fine and maybe some jail time depending on the mood of the judge?
I'm not a legal expert but is jail time a real remedy for violating a civil court order? It seems to me jail is only a possibility as the result of criminal charges. If the A9 says "screw it" and leaks the documents, I don't think any criminal laws would apply. But they shouldn't take my word for it.Honestly, I don’t know. I get your point that you can’t ‘undo’ a document release. I would guess a large fine and maybe some jail time depending on the mood of the judge?
Thanks -- you are probably in the ball park.
I'd love to hear other opinions on the ramifications of violating the court order as well if board attorneys are willing to share.
Can someone remind me what the rationale for the court order was in the first place? Wasn't this a result of the A9 suing PSU to get access to the documents and the courts ruling they could have access but only if they didn't share? Was that based on attorney work product? If the A9 are part of the BOT why isn't that "their work product" and they can do whatever they want with it, especially if they view disseminating it as part of their duty to the university?
Thanks -- you are probably in the ball park.
I'd love to hear other opinions on the ramifications of violating the court order as well if board attorneys are willing to share.
Can someone remind me what the rationale for the court order was in the first place? Wasn't this a result of the A9 suing PSU to get access to the documents and the courts ruling they could have access but only if they didn't share? Was that based on attorney work product? If the A9 are part of the BOT why isn't that "their work product" and they can do whatever they want with it, especially if they view disseminating it as part of their duty to the university?