I’m assuming you’re short - not due to your Napolianic demeanor, but because points sail so easily over your head.

The illustration with the lease served as an example where a party agrees to a contract (membership agreement) and rules (bylaws) and then those rules are changed in a manner that prevents the party from meeting the obligations under the contract. I’m assuming you could understand that, but maybe I’m giving too much credit. What can I say, I tend to be overly optimistic concerning others.

If the original bylaws did not contain the arbitration clause and Marshall did not agree to consent to arbitration because it is outside their legal ability to do so, they can not be bound to that change in the bylaws. You can not legally bind a party to what would be an illegal act under their governing law. The state of WV does not allow itself to be burdened with required arbitration and therefore Marshall, as an extension of the state also does not. Adding that requirement and claiming Marshall and the state are subject to the requirement because of a document they signed 18 years earlier is t going to cut it.

Like saying any lawsuit would be in Texas, you are similarly wrong this time. Marshall is not subject to, nor will they participate in forced arbitration regardless of the amended bylaws.

clt says let's talk "brands"

(03-07-2022 04:54 PM)banker Wrote:  I’m assuming you’re short - not due to your Napolianic demeanor, but because points sail so easily over your head.

The illustration with the lease served as an example where a party agrees to a contract (membership agreement) and rules (bylaws) and then those rules are changed in a manner that prevents the party from meeting the obligations under the contract. I’m assuming you could understand that, but maybe I’m giving too much credit. What can I say, I tend to be overly optimistic concerning others.

If the original bylaws did not contain the arbitration clause and Marshall did not agree to consent to arbitration because it is outside their legal ability to do so, they can not be bound to that change in the bylaws. You can not legally bind a party to what would be an illegal act under their governing law. The state of WV does not allow itself to be burdened with required arbitration and therefore Marshall, as an extension of the state also does not. Adding that requirement and claiming Marshall and the state are subject to the requirement because of a document they signed 18 years earlier is t going to cut it.

And, that is not what the Complaint says. Please make up some more ****.

Count 1 says: Marshall enjoys 11th amendment sovereignty. Period.

Count 2 says: Marshall says 'we are not covered by the arbitration clause' since the current bylaws were not executed by us. It makes zero reference to incorporating the illegality rationale as you claim above. As in zero. Nada. Nil. Null. Empty set.

Amazing that. Now on to your third explanation ---- hop hop hop.

Maybe once you will get some facts correct.

But, you simply ostensibly toss together **** to apparently fit your own perspective. Plus a healthy dose of ad hom. Yay. Arent we lucky....

(03-07-2022 04:54 PM)banker Wrote:  I’m assuming you’re short - not due to your Napolianic demeanor, but because points sail so easily over your head.

Perhaps when you can actually incorporate the facts in the complaint, instead of *your* rather broad attempts are denoting, well, stuff that that isnt either ther or in the Member Agreement, I might listen.

And, considering it is *you* that jumped into the ad hom pool at me at the outset, well, too bad that you get the short shrift from me at the outset, sparky. To the above, the points 'dont said over the head' -- yours simply are made up crap in the outline of the complaint, and its accompanying exhibits. But listen to Mr Sophisticated Banker launch yet another round of whiny ad hom **** all the while not realizing the previous sentence. (slow clap)

And it's "Napoleonic" there..... If you are doing an ad hom, at least have the brains to spell the ad hom correctly there..... Lolz.

Quote:The illustration with the lease served as an example where a party agrees to a contract (membership agreement) and rules (bylaws) and then those rules are changed in a manner that prevents the party from meeting the obligations under the contract. I’m assuming you could understand that, but maybe I’m giving too much credit. What can I say, I tend to be overly optimistic concerning others.

All the while ignoring the duality nature of bylaws, and using a dead stupid device of a unilateral action on a private contract. Kind of nonsensical in and of itself. But I am sure it is the height of sophistication for you. Bylaws are a tad different -- and to a tee you have screeched the maxim that they need to be executed. Which -- is dumb as **** on its surface.

Perhaps you should do a little self-reflection in light of your whiny comments. Or not. Or, perhaps, actually read the complaint, Or Member Agreement. None of which you have apparently done at this point since you consistently make stuff up that is in stark contradiction to those documents as offered by Marshall.

I'll be happy to have a less visceral conversation here sparky -- you are the one that started the ad homs straight out of the chute and haven't bothered to stop. I thought a sophisticated banker like you might notice that.

To repeat someone here: I’m assuming you could understand that, but maybe I’m giving too much credit. What can I say, I tend to be overly optimistic concerning others.

(03-07-2022 11:10 AM)banker Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 12:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 12:13 AM)banker Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 08:38 PM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 07:58 PM)banker Wrote:  As far as the contract thing, according to Marshall’s filing they never signed the revised bylaws requiring arbitration. So I can’t assume they are violating that provision under a ruling is made.

"The contract thing"- LOL! Conference membership is contingent upon signing the provisions of the conference bylaws. I guess we'll need you to return the proceeds from the conference membership that you "never agreed to" as well.

Did the dog eat your homework often as a grade-schooler?

The “you took the money” is a childish, uninformed understanding of contracts. If you can produce a signed copy of the current bylaws signed by all 14 members, I will concede your correctness on the point. If not, I will simply point out that the agreement I know was signed by Marshall in 2004 set forth revenue sharing, so they would have required payment under that executed document.

Bylaws for a corporation do not require signing -- nor do amendments to them.

In this particular case, marshall signed a "Membership Agreement", in which they state they will abide by the bylaws. Including the methodology to alter the bylaws by a vote of directors, of which they are one. And including to abide by amendments to them.

Your comment above is simply way off the mark in terms of corporate governance and the laws around them.

Quote:Grade school homework has little to nothing to do with anything being discussed here, so my dog’s appetite for it has no bearing. What has bearing is who is a party to an original contract, who is bound to any amendments to that document, and what affirmative action is required to bind a party to those amendments. As stated, I don’t remember any of that being covered in elementary school and I have seen no one post answers or any form of proof they definitively know those answers. All I have is a court filing with Marshall saying they did not offer affirmative confirmation to their obligation for arbitration, i.e. they didn’t sign that document.

If you read the complaint a little more thoroughly, the complaint states that Marshall is making the claim that they are too unsophisticated and too stupid to realize that the bylaws referred to in the Membership Agreement, that they signed, and that they agreed to abide by, were not the bylaws. And that the CUSA is a sophisticated party that hoodwinked them by that.

I wish the WV delegation would cut with the continued stance that corporate bylaws need execution to be effective. And with the stance that that is what the complaint states.

I have to admit, it’s fun watching you act like you have read all the board minutes, committee minutes, reviewed votes and all official documents and are able to render a qualified opinion. I’m not sure how you got access to all the discovery material, but it’s an impressive feat none the less.

Truth is you are just throwing out an ill informed opinion, based on speculation, clouded by personal bias. Aren’t you the same guy who said this would be litigated in Texas because that’s how corporate governance cases go?

For all you know, the complete discovery will show that Marshall argued the arbitration clause and noted that they believed it to be non-binding when it was added against their vote. Maybe they didn’t. Point is you act like you know things that you don’t. You offer up yourself as a subject matter expert when you are not. Maybe if you had access to everything and spent a few weeks with it you could offer a defensible, definitive opinion, but you don’t, so you can’t.

Same argument could be made about you...

(03-07-2022 04:55 PM)ghostofclt! Wrote:  


clt says let's talk "brands"

Any table that has UNT 2nd in Football success is rendered meaningless.

(03-07-2022 07:10 PM)FAU Connoisseur! Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 11:10 AM)banker Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 12:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 12:13 AM)banker Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 08:38 PM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  "The contract thing"- LOL! Conference membership is contingent upon signing the provisions of the conference bylaws. I guess we'll need you to return the proceeds from the conference membership that you "never agreed to" as well.

Did the dog eat your homework often as a grade-schooler?

The “you took the money” is a childish, uninformed understanding of contracts. If you can produce a signed copy of the current bylaws signed by all 14 members, I will concede your correctness on the point. If not, I will simply point out that the agreement I know was signed by Marshall in 2004 set forth revenue sharing, so they would have required payment under that executed document.

Bylaws for a corporation do not require signing -- nor do amendments to them.

In this particular case, marshall signed a "Membership Agreement", in which they state they will abide by the bylaws. Including the methodology to alter the bylaws by a vote of directors, of which they are one. And including to abide by amendments to them.

Your comment above is simply way off the mark in terms of corporate governance and the laws around them.

Quote:Grade school homework has little to nothing to do with anything being discussed here, so my dog’s appetite for it has no bearing. What has bearing is who is a party to an original contract, who is bound to any amendments to that document, and what affirmative action is required to bind a party to those amendments. As stated, I don’t remember any of that being covered in elementary school and I have seen no one post answers or any form of proof they definitively know those answers. All I have is a court filing with Marshall saying they did not offer affirmative confirmation to their obligation for arbitration, i.e. they didn’t sign that document.

If you read the complaint a little more thoroughly, the complaint states that Marshall is making the claim that they are too unsophisticated and too stupid to realize that the bylaws referred to in the Membership Agreement, that they signed, and that they agreed to abide by, were not the bylaws. And that the CUSA is a sophisticated party that hoodwinked them by that.

I wish the WV delegation would cut with the continued stance that corporate bylaws need execution to be effective. And with the stance that that is what the complaint states.

I have to admit, it’s fun watching you act like you have read all the board minutes, committee minutes, reviewed votes and all official documents and are able to render a qualified opinion. I’m not sure how you got access to all the discovery material, but it’s an impressive feat none the less.

Truth is you are just throwing out an ill informed opinion, based on speculation, clouded by personal bias. Aren’t you the same guy who said this would be litigated in Texas because that’s how corporate governance cases go?

For all you know, the complete discovery will show that Marshall argued the arbitration clause and noted that they believed it to be non-binding when it was added against their vote. Maybe they didn’t. Point is you act like you know things that you don’t. You offer up yourself as a subject matter expert when you are not. Maybe if you had access to everything and spent a few weeks with it you could offer a defensible, definitive opinion, but you don’t, so you can’t.

Same argument could be made about you...

Except I am not the one that has been expressing certainties and have consistently said neither of us has the complete picture. I don’t pretend that the filing is the end all, be all of discover and evidence that will be presented for any final ruling in the matter before the court.

I believe leaving early does put Marshall in breach, that part is straightforward. How that is resolved is far less clear no matter what some claim. I am certain that it won’t be decided by binding arbitration held in Texas.

(03-07-2022 07:16 PM)banker Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 04:55 PM)ghostofclt! Wrote:  


clt says let's talk "brands"

Any table that has UNT 2nd in Football success is rendered meaningless.

I chuckled

(03-07-2022 07:30 PM)banker Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 07:10 PM)FAU Connoisseur! Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 11:10 AM)banker Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 12:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 12:13 AM)banker Wrote:  The “you took the money” is a childish, uninformed understanding of contracts. If you can produce a signed copy of the current bylaws signed by all 14 members, I will concede your correctness on the point. If not, I will simply point out that the agreement I know was signed by Marshall in 2004 set forth revenue sharing, so they would have required payment under that executed document.

Bylaws for a corporation do not require signing -- nor do amendments to them.

In this particular case, marshall signed a "Membership Agreement", in which they state they will abide by the bylaws. Including the methodology to alter the bylaws by a vote of directors, of which they are one. And including to abide by amendments to them.

Your comment above is simply way off the mark in terms of corporate governance and the laws around them.

Quote:Grade school homework has little to nothing to do with anything being discussed here, so my dog’s appetite for it has no bearing. What has bearing is who is a party to an original contract, who is bound to any amendments to that document, and what affirmative action is required to bind a party to those amendments. As stated, I don’t remember any of that being covered in elementary school and I have seen no one post answers or any form of proof they definitively know those answers. All I have is a court filing with Marshall saying they did not offer affirmative confirmation to their obligation for arbitration, i.e. they didn’t sign that document.

If you read the complaint a little more thoroughly, the complaint states that Marshall is making the claim that they are too unsophisticated and too stupid to realize that the bylaws referred to in the Membership Agreement, that they signed, and that they agreed to abide by, were not the bylaws. And that the CUSA is a sophisticated party that hoodwinked them by that.

I wish the WV delegation would cut with the continued stance that corporate bylaws need execution to be effective. And with the stance that that is what the complaint states.

I have to admit, it’s fun watching you act like you have read all the board minutes, committee minutes, reviewed votes and all official documents and are able to render a qualified opinion. I’m not sure how you got access to all the discovery material, but it’s an impressive feat none the less.

Truth is you are just throwing out an ill informed opinion, based on speculation, clouded by personal bias. Aren’t you the same guy who said this would be litigated in Texas because that’s how corporate governance cases go?

For all you know, the complete discovery will show that Marshall argued the arbitration clause and noted that they believed it to be non-binding when it was added against their vote. Maybe they didn’t. Point is you act like you know things that you don’t. You offer up yourself as a subject matter expert when you are not. Maybe if you had access to everything and spent a few weeks with it you could offer a defensible, definitive opinion, but you don’t, so you can’t.

Same argument could be made about you...

Except I am not the one that has been expressing certainties and have consistently said neither of us has the complete picture.

You gloss over the things that you have asserted or implied that are nothing but falsehoods. Criminy, you have made the implication that 'bylaws have to be executed to be enforceable' ("If you can produce a signed copy of the current bylaws signed by all 14 members"); you go on a long spiel that confuses the issues of express, bilateral contracts with amendments ("need the same level of what affirmative action is required to bind a party to those amendments) with the most common form of corporate governance that doesnt need affirmative action; you throw out a unilateral amendment to a bilateral lease agreement as 'proof' of the need for affirmative action to be governed by bylaws; then you bring up some concept that 'Marshall couldnt consent because they were unable to legally' -- a point that is nowhere found at all in their complaint -- imagine that.

To a tee you have been pulling literally **** out of thin air and presenting it as noteworthy. Look, if you want to do that --- whatever blows your hair back.

I mean, youve presented at least 4 rationales here, none of which are in Marshall's complaint in the first place, and some that are just superfluously stupid.

And excuse the hell out of me for referencing specifically what *is* in the complaint. Krist on a cracker, marshall put it in the complaint -- it was important to them. And yet it is horrendous that I use it as a basis for commenting? Seriously?

All in all, if you want to be intentionally dense and throw **** at the wall -- go for it. My first comment to you was flat, and neutral. And you responded like an absolute prick.

Quote:I don’t pretend that the filing is the end all, be all of discover and evidence that will be presented for any final ruling in the matter before the court.

I can tell. You spout ideas that are supposedly in issue, and have zero basis in what we actually do know -- that is the complaint, the member agreement in exhibit, and the bylaws.

My points are derived from those documents themselves. But, apparently, nothing has precluded you from opining about various points that have zero basis in them.

Krist on a cracker.

hmmm....rice educated lawyer v usm educated banker....think iḿ going with the rice guy.

this is fun to read...yaĺl keep playing, please...itś enjoyable

(03-07-2022 07:30 PM)banker Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 07:10 PM)FAU Connoisseur! Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 11:10 AM)banker Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 12:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 12:13 AM)banker Wrote:  The “you took the money” is a childish, uninformed understanding of contracts. If you can produce a signed copy of the current bylaws signed by all 14 members, I will concede your correctness on the point. If not, I will simply point out that the agreement I know was signed by Marshall in 2004 set forth revenue sharing, so they would have required payment under that executed document.

Bylaws for a corporation do not require signing -- nor do amendments to them.

In this particular case, marshall signed a "Membership Agreement", in which they state they will abide by the bylaws. Including the methodology to alter the bylaws by a vote of directors, of which they are one. And including to abide by amendments to them.

Your comment above is simply way off the mark in terms of corporate governance and the laws around them.

Quote:Grade school homework has little to nothing to do with anything being discussed here, so my dog’s appetite for it has no bearing. What has bearing is who is a party to an original contract, who is bound to any amendments to that document, and what affirmative action is required to bind a party to those amendments. As stated, I don’t remember any of that being covered in elementary school and I have seen no one post answers or any form of proof they definitively know those answers. All I have is a court filing with Marshall saying they did not offer affirmative confirmation to their obligation for arbitration, i.e. they didn’t sign that document.

If you read the complaint a little more thoroughly, the complaint states that Marshall is making the claim that they are too unsophisticated and too stupid to realize that the bylaws referred to in the Membership Agreement, that they signed, and that they agreed to abide by, were not the bylaws. And that the CUSA is a sophisticated party that hoodwinked them by that.

I wish the WV delegation would cut with the continued stance that corporate bylaws need execution to be effective. And with the stance that that is what the complaint states.

I have to admit, it’s fun watching you act like you have read all the board minutes, committee minutes, reviewed votes and all official documents and are able to render a qualified opinion. I’m not sure how you got access to all the discovery material, but it’s an impressive feat none the less.

Truth is you are just throwing out an ill informed opinion, based on speculation, clouded by personal bias. Aren’t you the same guy who said this would be litigated in Texas because that’s how corporate governance cases go?

For all you know, the complete discovery will show that Marshall argued the arbitration clause and noted that they believed it to be non-binding when it was added against their vote. Maybe they didn’t. Point is you act like you know things that you don’t. You offer up yourself as a subject matter expert when you are not. Maybe if you had access to everything and spent a few weeks with it you could offer a defensible, definitive opinion, but you don’t, so you can’t.

Same argument could be made about you...

Except I am not the one that has been expressing certainties and have consistently said neither of us has the complete picture. I don’t pretend that the filing is the end all, be all of discover and evidence that will be presented for any final ruling in the matter before the court.

I believe leaving early does put Marshall in breach, that part is straightforward. How that is resolved is far less clear no matter what some claim. I am certain that it won’t be decided by binding arbitration held in Texas.

you should change your name from banker to teller...

(03-07-2022 08:32 PM)NTTHOR Wrote:  hmmm....rice educated lawyer v usm educated banker....think iḿ going with the rice guy.

this is fun to read...yaĺl keep playing, please...itś enjoyable

lol

(03-07-2022 08:32 PM)NTTHOR Wrote:  hmmm....rice educated lawyer v usm educated banker....think iḿ going with the rice guy.

this is fun to read...yaĺl keep playing, please...itś enjoyable

UNT poster can’t read. He’s a Marshall fan.

(03-07-2022 09:10 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 08:32 PM)NTTHOR Wrote:  hmmm....rice educated lawyer v usm educated banker....think iḿ going with the rice guy.

this is fun to read...yaĺl keep playing, please...itś enjoyable

UNT poster can’t read. He’s a Marshall fan.

Its past time dunn

Puerto Rican women HELL YEA

(03-07-2022 09:10 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 08:32 PM)NTTHOR Wrote:  hmmm....rice educated lawyer v usm educated banker....think iḿ going with the rice guy.

this is fun to read...yaĺl keep playing, please...itś enjoyable

UNT poster can’t read. He’s a Marshall fan.

sorry man...i have no idea why i thought usm...sorry marshall...need to give your boy credit

rice educated lawyer > marshall educated banker

(03-07-2022 08:32 PM)NTTHOR Wrote:  hmmm....rice educated lawyer v usm educated banker....think iḿ going with the rice guy.

this is fun to read...yaĺl keep playing, please...itś enjoyable

Dumbest college graduate I ever met got his degree from Harvard. Person with the least common sense (college grad) I know attended West Point.

Where you attended college has little bearing, actually close to zero, on your level of intelligence. There are plenty of people smarter than anyone who posts here that have no college degree. Ivy League schools don’t make people smart, smart people go to those schools and make the school look good.

Oh, and I didn’t attend USM (or Marshall). Where I attended college, and my field of study, will not ultimately determine if I am correct in my assumptions, or if the Rice gentleman will be in his. The only thing that we know for sure is that he has already been wrong once and I’m pretty certain that Judge Chiles is not going to end up ruling in favor of CUSA. Therefore there will be no arbitration in Texas over the matter. All the other discussion is just posturing around opinions, which is all either of us have offered in this discussion.

Really?

(03-07-2022 10:22 PM)WWDog Wrote:  Really?

Yes, really.

If a school has a student body that averaged a 32 ACT score as incoming freshmen and another score had an average of 22, wouldn’t you expect the first school to generally be more highly regarded?

It’s the chicken and egg argument. Is Alabama a great football school? Would they win national championships if they got all 2 star recruits instead of 4-5 star recruits? History determines a school’s ability to be selective. The ability to be selective ensures continuity of reputation. The schools maintain their status only as long as smart kids are convinced it is where they should go, and it’s where they should go as long as other smart kids keep going there. However, the kids were smart before they went there, were already motivated, and already destined for success.

If you took the Harvard freshman class and dumped them into a middle of the road public school they would still be successful adults. Connections would make the road a little faster with the Harvard degree, but it doesn’t materially change the outcome.

Every school has examples that confirm this. If you had to go to a top school to succeed because they made you smarter, you wouldn’t have so many instances of success among those that didn’t follow that path.

(03-07-2022 09:36 PM)banker Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 08:32 PM)NTTHOR Wrote:  hmmm....rice educated lawyer v usm educated banker....think iḿ going with the rice guy.

this is fun to read...yaĺl keep playing, please...itś enjoyable

Dumbest college graduate I ever met got his degree from Harvard. Person with the least common sense (college grad) I know attended West Point.

Where you attended college has little bearing, actually close to zero, on your level of intelligence. There are plenty of people smarter than anyone who posts here that have no college degree. Ivy League schools don’t make people smart, smart people go to those schools and make the school look good.

Oh, and I didn’t attend USM (or Marshall). Where I attended college, and my field of study, will not ultimately determine if I am correct in my assumptions, or if the Rice gentleman will be in his. The only thing that we know for sure is that he has already been wrong once and I’m pretty certain that Judge Chiles is not going to end up ruling in favor of CUSA. Therefore there will be no arbitration in Texas over the matter. All the other discussion is just posturing around opinions, which is all either of us have offered in this discussion.

Except he’s making you look like a fool but please continue because it is entertaining.

(03-07-2022 04:55 PM)ghostofclt! Wrote:  


clt says let's talk "brands"

This is... something