KSUFans Archives
Sports => Snyder's Electronic Cyber Space World => Topic started by: Ghost of Stan Parrish on May 20, 2009, 05:54:15 PM
-
Here's the lawsuit (http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/may09/lawsuit.pdf)
First off, this is not a hardball complaint at all. It's possible to win on the idea that there was no "owner of IPP" at the time Prince was terminated. That's the only possible winner I see here.
The complaint needs to be amended to include Bob Krause and Prince's agent/attorney as defendants. I would also add allegations of fraud, conversion (wrongly disposing of assets that don't belong to you) and civil conspiracy between Krause, Prince and Prince's attorney.
Krause is somehow still getting major favors if he's not included here. OR, and I'm not a conspiracy-theorist guy, the only other reason you wouldn't include those allegations is if this goes beyond just Krause... :blindfold: :yuck:
-
u a lawyer ?
-
The civil conspiracy thing sounds good. Should be easy to prove that an agreement like that was in no way reasonable considering the circumstances.
-
Objection.
-
It's pretty clear that either Krause was totally duped (unlikely) or that they (Krause and Prince, and probably Prince's agent) concocted a plan to make off with the money. Since it was deferred for so long and Prince knew he was going to get axed, I'm sure they all felt that the trail would be dead by then, with "IPP" never providing any radar blips in the future. I mean, it sounds good- if in 2014 the accountants were writing checks to Prince they would wonder why... But this way (besides the amounts involved), there would be no real reason to wonder what was up. Can't prove any wrongdoing on RP's part but this was definitely a fraudulent act by Krause.
Man what else can Weeps possible &@#% up between now and June? Someday KSU fans are going to be even more embarrassed than they are NOW when we look back and realize all the dumb (costly) moves that Weeps and Krause made in the last few years of their tenures.
-
If a court rules our school must pay this agreement...then,
it'll be the second biggest disspointment in Kstate sports history behind..
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_sZLmcf2vECQ/SViJP0SFOxI/AAAAAAAACwc/zV-Bo-V5xIA/s320/SirrParkerTD.jpg)
-
Here's the lawsuit (http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/may09/lawsuit.pdf)
First off, this is not a hardball complaint at all. It's possible to win on the idea that there was no "owner of IPP" at the time Prince was terminated. That's the only possible winner I see here.
The complaint needs to be amended to include Bob Krause and Prince's agent/attorney as defendants. I would also add allegations of fraud, conversion (wrongly disposing of assets that don't belong to you) and civil conspiracy between Krause, Prince and Prince's attorney.
Krause is somehow still getting major favors if he's not included here. OR, and I'm not a conspiracy-theorist guy, the only other reason you wouldn't include those allegations is if this goes beyond just Krause... :blindfold: :yuck:
It is not a hardball complaint at all. Kansas is a notice state but it is still kind of a shotgun complaint. I would bet it was hastily drafted because word of this contract was going to leak.
The lack of ownership of for a signee is interesting on its face. Obviously that will be a matter of law and ruled on by a judge so, provided there is Kansas law to support it, it might be a winner.
There is no viable claim for conversion as it has not taken place. The funds are still in IAC's possession Likewise, there is very rarely a claim in conversion for money. It is normally for chattel.
ABSOLUTELY, BK must be added to this lawsuit. He has to be. It is arguably malpractice to not add him and I suspect he will be added. He may have some strings to pull but short of paying Prince himself, he should be a defendant and I know the guys at this firm won't put their name to a lawsuit that doesn't add a necessary party simply because the former president of his client is buddies with the party.
I would bet anything this complaint is amended in the next 30 days. Which is their right under statute.
-
Man, you guys are smart. I got a degree from KSU too, but GOOD GOD - I can hardly tie my own shoes. :puppet:
-
Here's the lawsuit (http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/may09/lawsuit.pdf)
First off, this is not a hardball complaint at all. It's possible to win on the idea that there was no "owner of IPP" at the time Prince was terminated. That's the only possible winner I see here.
The complaint needs to be amended to include Bob Krause and Prince's agent/attorney as defendants. I would also add allegations of fraud, conversion (wrongly disposing of assets that don't belong to you) and civil conspiracy between Krause, Prince and Prince's attorney.
Krause is somehow still getting major favors if he's not included here. OR, and I'm not a conspiracy-theorist guy, the only other reason you wouldn't include those allegations is if this goes beyond just Krause... :blindfold: :yuck:
It is not a hardball complaint at all. Kansas is a notice state but it is still kind of a shotgun complaint. I would bet it was hastily drafted because word of this contract was going to leak.
The lack of ownership of for a signee is interesting on its face. Obviously that will be a matter of law and ruled on by a judge so, provided there is Kansas law to support it, it might be a winner.
There is no viable claim for conversion as it has not taken place. The funds are still in IAC's possession Likewise, there is very rarely a claim in conversion for money. It is normally for chattel.
ABSOLUTELY, BK must be added to this lawsuit. He has to be. It is arguably malpractice to not add him and I suspect he will be added. He may have some strings to pull but short of paying Prince himself, he should be a defendant and I know the guys at this firm won't put their name to a lawsuit that doesn't add a necessary party simply because the former president of his client is buddies with the party.
I would bet anything this complaint is amended in the next 30 days. Which is their right under statute.
Insert Wally Judge remark that I'm to tired to come up with right here -->
-
Here's the lawsuit (http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/may09/lawsuit.pdf)
First off, this is not a hardball complaint at all. It's possible to win on the idea that there was no "owner of IPP" at the time Prince was terminated. That's the only possible winner I see here.
The complaint needs to be amended to include Bob Krause and Prince's agent/attorney as defendants. I would also add allegations of fraud, conversion (wrongly disposing of assets that don't belong to you) and civil conspiracy between Krause, Prince and Prince's attorney.
Krause is somehow still getting major favors if he's not included here. OR, and I'm not a conspiracy-theorist guy, the only other reason you wouldn't include those allegations is if this goes beyond just Krause... :blindfold: :yuck:
It is not a hardball complaint at all. Kansas is a notice state but it is still kind of a shotgun complaint. I would bet it was hastily drafted because word of this contract was going to leak.
The lack of ownership of for a signee is interesting on its face. Obviously that will be a matter of law and ruled on by a judge so, provided there is Kansas law to support it, it might be a winner.
There is no viable claim for conversion as it has not taken place. The funds are still in IAC's possession Likewise, there is very rarely a claim in conversion for money. It is normally for chattel.
ABSOLUTELY, BK must be added to this lawsuit. He has to be. It is arguably malpractice to not add him and I suspect he will be added. He may have some strings to pull but short of paying Prince himself, he should be a defendant and I know the guys at this firm won't put their name to a lawsuit that doesn't add a necessary party simply because the former president of his client is buddies with the party.
I would bet anything this complaint is amended in the next 30 days. Which is their right under statute.
Insert Wally Judge remark that I'm to tired to come up with right here -->
I was just going to bold the word "judge" and do this -> :love:
-
Here's the lawsuit (http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/may09/lawsuit.pdf)
First off, this is not a hardball complaint at all. It's possible to win on the idea that there was no "owner of IPP" at the time Prince was terminated. That's the only possible winner I see here.
The complaint needs to be amended to include Bob Krause and Prince's agent/attorney as defendants. I would also add allegations of fraud, conversion (wrongly disposing of assets that don't belong to you) and civil conspiracy between Krause, Prince and Prince's attorney.
Krause is somehow still getting major favors if he's not included here. OR, and I'm not a conspiracy-theorist guy, the only other reason you wouldn't include those allegations is if this goes beyond just Krause... :blindfold: :yuck:
It is not a hardball complaint at all. Kansas is a notice state but it is still kind of a shotgun complaint. I would bet it was hastily drafted because word of this contract was going to leak.
The lack of ownership of for a signee is interesting on its face. Obviously that will be a matter of law and ruled on by a judge so, provided there is Kansas law to support it, it might be a winner.
There is no viable claim for conversion as it has not taken place. The funds are still in IAC's possession Likewise, there is very rarely a claim in conversion for money. It is normally for chattel.
ABSOLUTELY, BK must be added to this lawsuit. He has to be. It is arguably malpractice to not add him and I suspect he will be added. He may have some strings to pull but short of paying Prince himself, he should be a defendant and I know the guys at this firm won't put their name to a lawsuit that doesn't add a necessary party simply because the former president of his client is buddies with the party.
I would bet anything this complaint is amended in the next 30 days. Which is their right under statute.
:love:
limestone def one of top ten/fifteen smart people that i know. much, much smarter than me. will be fun to get upcoming opinion/fact from him regarding this.
-
Objection.
&@#%in-A. Let's put the SYSTEM on trial!
-
u a lawyer ?
No, but he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
-
Here's the lawsuit (http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/may09/lawsuit.pdf)
First off, this is not a hardball complaint at all. It's possible to win on the idea that there was no "owner of IPP" at the time Prince was terminated. That's the only possible winner I see here.
The complaint needs to be amended to include Bob Krause and Prince's agent/attorney as defendants. I would also add allegations of fraud, conversion (wrongly disposing of assets that don't belong to you) and civil conspiracy between Krause, Prince and Prince's attorney.
Krause is somehow still getting major favors if he's not included here. OR, and I'm not a conspiracy-theorist guy, the only other reason you wouldn't include those allegations is if this goes beyond just Krause... :blindfold: :yuck:
It is not a hardball complaint at all. Kansas is a notice state but it is still kind of a shotgun complaint. I would bet it was hastily drafted because word of this contract was going to leak.
The lack of ownership of for a signee is interesting on its face. Obviously that will be a matter of law and ruled on by a judge so, provided there is Kansas law to support it, it might be a winner.
There is no viable claim for conversion as it has not taken place. The funds are still in IAC's possession Likewise, there is very rarely a claim in conversion for money. It is normally for chattel.
ABSOLUTELY, BK must be added to this lawsuit. He has to be. It is arguably malpractice to not add him and I suspect he will be added. He may have some strings to pull but short of paying Prince himself, he should be a defendant and I know the guys at this firm won't put their name to a lawsuit that doesn't add a necessary party simply because the former president of his client is buddies with the party.
I would bet anything this complaint is amended in the next 30 days. Which is their right under statute.
:love:
limestone def one of top ten/fifteen smart people that i know. much, much smarter than me. will be fun to get upcoming opinion/fact from him regarding this.
Yes, very smart and great looking. Total package. Also, I have noticed we have an abnormal amount of attorneys on this board. Pretty good news for when I inevitably get in legal trouble.
-
Here's the lawsuit (http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/may09/lawsuit.pdf)
First off, this is not a hardball complaint at all. It's possible to win on the idea that there was no "owner of IPP" at the time Prince was terminated. That's the only possible winner I see here.
The complaint needs to be amended to include Bob Krause and Prince's agent/attorney as defendants. I would also add allegations of fraud, conversion (wrongly disposing of assets that don't belong to you) and civil conspiracy between Krause, Prince and Prince's attorney.
Krause is somehow still getting major favors if he's not included here. OR, and I'm not a conspiracy-theorist guy, the only other reason you wouldn't include those allegations is if this goes beyond just Krause... :blindfold: :yuck:
It is not a hardball complaint at all. Kansas is a notice state but it is still kind of a shotgun complaint. I would bet it was hastily drafted because word of this contract was going to leak.
The lack of ownership of for a signee is interesting on its face. Obviously that will be a matter of law and ruled on by a judge so, provided there is Kansas law to support it, it might be a winner.
There is no viable claim for conversion as it has not taken place. The funds are still in IAC's possession Likewise, there is very rarely a claim in conversion for money. It is normally for chattel.
ABSOLUTELY, BK must be added to this lawsuit. He has to be. It is arguably malpractice to not add him and I suspect he will be added. He may have some strings to pull but short of paying Prince himself, he should be a defendant and I know the guys at this firm won't put their name to a lawsuit that doesn't add a necessary party simply because the former president of his client is buddies with the party.
I would bet anything this complaint is amended in the next 30 days. Which is their right under statute.
:love:
limestone def one of top ten/fifteen smart people that i know. much, much smarter than me. will be fun to get upcoming opinion/fact from him regarding this.
Yes, very smart and great looking. Total package. Also, I have noticed we have an abnormal amount of attorneys on this board. Pretty good news for when I inevitably get in legal trouble.
Ironically, he doesn't do DUI or criminal.
-
Here's the lawsuit (http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/may09/lawsuit.pdf)
First off, this is not a hardball complaint at all. It's possible to win on the idea that there was no "owner of IPP" at the time Prince was terminated. That's the only possible winner I see here.
The complaint needs to be amended to include Bob Krause and Prince's agent/attorney as defendants. I would also add allegations of fraud, conversion (wrongly disposing of assets that don't belong to you) and civil conspiracy between Krause, Prince and Prince's attorney.
Krause is somehow still getting major favors if he's not included here. OR, and I'm not a conspiracy-theorist guy, the only other reason you wouldn't include those allegations is if this goes beyond just Krause... :blindfold: :yuck:
It is not a hardball complaint at all. Kansas is a notice state but it is still kind of a shotgun complaint. I would bet it was hastily drafted because word of this contract was going to leak.
The lack of ownership of for a signee is interesting on its face. Obviously that will be a matter of law and ruled on by a judge so, provided there is Kansas law to support it, it might be a winner.
There is no viable claim for conversion as it has not taken place. The funds are still in IAC's possession Likewise, there is very rarely a claim in conversion for money. It is normally for chattel.
ABSOLUTELY, BK must be added to this lawsuit. He has to be. It is arguably malpractice to not add him and I suspect he will be added. He may have some strings to pull but short of paying Prince himself, he should be a defendant and I know the guys at this firm won't put their name to a lawsuit that doesn't add a necessary party simply because the former president of his client is buddies with the party.
I would bet anything this complaint is amended in the next 30 days. Which is their right under statute.
:love:
limestone def one of top ten/fifteen smart people that i know. much, much smarter than me. will be fun to get upcoming opinion/fact from him regarding this.
Yes, very smart and great looking. Total package. Also, I have noticed we have an abnormal amount of attorneys on this board. Pretty good news for when I inevitably get in legal trouble.
Ironically, he doesn't do DUI or criminal.
Luckily, another frequent KatPak'er does
-
I'm not a lawyer, nor am I as good looking as Limestone, but RP's lawyer made a point to say the agreement was between Prince and Krause, the "CEO of IAS"...and if that's the title Krause had, then it would be appropriate for a third party to assume Krause, as the CEO of IAS, had authorization as an agent to make this contract on behalf of IAS.
-
I'm not a lawyer, nor am I as good looking as Limestone, but RP's lawyer made a point to say the agreement was between Prince and Krause, the "CEO of IAS"...and if that's the title Krause had, then it would be appropriate for a third party to assume Krause, as the CEO of IAS, had authorization as an agent to make this contract on behalf of IAS.
Fritz is reporting that Prince's corp, "Persuit of Perfection" didn't legally exist at the time the contract is being reported to have been signed. Seems like that is a fly in the ointment for Ron.
-
All in all, a lose-lose situation for K-State. Either we pay out big to Prince, or win but in doing so put our biggest doner's son in law on the chopping block.
We are screwed. Look for Currie to leave soon.
-
Here's the lawsuit (http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/may09/lawsuit.pdf)
First off, this is not a hardball complaint at all. It's possible to win on the idea that there was no "owner of IPP" at the time Prince was terminated. That's the only possible winner I see here.
The complaint needs to be amended to include Bob Krause and Prince's agent/attorney as defendants. I would also add allegations of fraud, conversion (wrongly disposing of assets that don't belong to you) and civil conspiracy between Krause, Prince and Prince's attorney.
Krause is somehow still getting major favors if he's not included here. OR, and I'm not a conspiracy-theorist guy, the only other reason you wouldn't include those allegations is if this goes beyond just Krause... :blindfold: :yuck:
This "defferred comp" arrangement sounds way too rediculous to be true. Isn't there a UCC provision for unconscionability that would trash this contract? It makes no sense.
If I was a KS judge I'd estop the case using my equity hat (which would have a powercat pin in it).
:kstatriot:
-
Here's the lawsuit (http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/may09/lawsuit.pdf)
First off, this is not a hardball complaint at all. It's possible to win on the idea that there was no "owner of IPP" at the time Prince was terminated. That's the only possible winner I see here.
The complaint needs to be amended to include Bob Krause and Prince's agent/attorney as defendants. I would also add allegations of fraud, conversion (wrongly disposing of assets that don't belong to you) and civil conspiracy between Krause, Prince and Prince's attorney.
Krause is somehow still getting major favors if he's not included here. OR, and I'm not a conspiracy-theorist guy, the only other reason you wouldn't include those allegations is if this goes beyond just Krause... :blindfold: :yuck:
This "defferred comp" arrangement sounds way too rediculous to be true. Isn't there a UCC provision for unconscionability that would trash this contract? It makes no sense.
If I was a KS judge I'd estop the case using my equity hat (which would have a powercat pin in it).
:kstatriot:
This dude did well in Contracts 1 AND 2, I can tell. UCC2 is not to be trifled with. Did you have Drahozal?
-
u a lawyer ?
We don't need any legal commentary on this board. We can get all the legal perspective we will ever need from our non-rivals to the east. I'm sure Jayhoax has already spoken to numerous high profile attorneys out of KC on this matter.
-
Did you have Drahozal?
"and what's your authority for that?"
-
Several problems are forefront with this matter. 1st, is the fact that Cornrich circumvented judicial ethics by contacting Krause instead of the University's attorney. Second, is the fact that the MOU doesn't list the owner of IPP. It does show a signature, that may or may not be Ron Prince's. It's rather odd that such a legal document would not list the representative of IPP. I do not see this MOU lasting beyond a hearing in District Court. If, in the remote chance it does, the Court of Appeals has de novo review of matters of contract. Should be fun, up until that time.
-
I have not read Prince's contract or the buyout clause it contained (the first one that was public) but I've heard that it stated it was the sole agreement for his employment at KSU. Now I'm not one of the lawyers on the board but I would think that fact alone would make this second agreement non binding.
-
Next person who posts a picture that references that game in that year with the nine and the eight, I will personally tie them to the back of my SUV, drag them down the road, throw acid on their shredded skin, beat them with a nail studded bat, remove their heart with a blunt knife, call them names, spit on them, and then delete their account on here.
Got it, Book?
-
Next person who posts a picture that references that game in that year with the nine and the eight, I will personally tie them to the back of my SUV, drag them down the road, throw acid on their shredded skin, beat them with a nail studded bat, remove their heart with a blunt knife, call them names, spit on them, and then delete their account on here.
Got it, Book?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_sZLmcf2vECQ/SViJP0SFOxI/AAAAAAAACwc/zV-Bo-V5xIA/s320/SirrParkerTD.jpg)
When you come to get me... bring me my cooler. :ksu:
-
Is Ron's estate still owed this money if he, oh I don't know, falls off a cliff or gets shot by katkid?
-
Is Ron's estate still owed this money if he, oh I don't know, falls off a cliff or gets shot by katkid?
:war: :gunsfiring: :war: :war: :gunsfiring: :war: :gunsfiring: :gunsfiring: :gunsfiring: :gunsfiring: :gunsfiring: :war:
-
Here's the lawsuit (http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/may09/lawsuit.pdf)
First off, this is not a hardball complaint at all. It's possible to win on the idea that there was no "owner of IPP" at the time Prince was terminated. That's the only possible winner I see here.
The complaint needs to be amended to include Bob Krause and Prince's agent/attorney as defendants. I would also add allegations of fraud, conversion (wrongly disposing of assets that don't belong to you) and civil conspiracy between Krause, Prince and Prince's attorney.
Krause is somehow still getting major favors if he's not included here. OR, and I'm not a conspiracy-theorist guy, the only other reason you wouldn't include those allegations is if this goes beyond just Krause... :blindfold: :yuck:
This "defferred comp" arrangement sounds way too rediculous to be true. Isn't there a UCC provision for unconscionability that would trash this contract? It makes no sense.
If I was a KS judge I'd estop the case using my equity hat (which would have a powercat pin in it).
:kstatriot:
This dude did well in Contracts 1 AND 2, I can tell. UCC2 is not to be trifled with. Did you have Drahozal?
haha UCC is for the sale of goods, not personal services. &@#%tard.
-
Anyone think that maybe the motivation was to prevent embarrassing things about the athletic department from coming out? Like, maybe why a school with a pretty good academic reputation is able to get so many academic disaster jucos passing right on through?
-
Sure K-State has a pretty good academic reputation . . . but like all Kansas Regents schools, it ain't that hard to get into, and there's plenty of fluff stuff to help you make it through.
-
Anyone think that maybe the motivation was to prevent embarrassing things about the athletic department from coming out? Like, maybe why a school with a pretty good academic reputation is able to get so many academic disaster jucos passing right on through?
Meh, if ku can "legitimately" get the Morris twins in we are fine
-
:flush:
-
Anyone think that maybe the motivation was to prevent embarrassing things about the athletic department from coming out? Like, maybe why a school with a pretty good academic reputation is able to get so many academic disaster jucos passing right on through?
Meh, if ku can "legitimately" get the Morris twins in we are fine
d00dz, getting them in is the easy part. Keeping them eligible is where our creativity f*cking shines.
:gocho:
-
Anyone think that maybe the motivation was to prevent embarrassing things about the athletic department from coming out? Like, maybe why a school with a pretty good academic reputation is able to get so many academic disaster jucos passing right on through?
Meh, if ku can "legitimately" get the Morris twins in we are fine
d00dz, getting them in is the easy part. Keeping them eligible is where our creativity f*cking shines.
:gocho:
Creative book keeping
-
Here's the lawsuit (http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/may09/lawsuit.pdf)
First off, this is not a hardball complaint at all. It's possible to win on the idea that there was no "owner of IPP" at the time Prince was terminated. That's the only possible winner I see here.
The complaint needs to be amended to include Bob Krause and Prince's agent/attorney as defendants. I would also add allegations of fraud, conversion (wrongly disposing of assets that don't belong to you) and civil conspiracy between Krause, Prince and Prince's attorney.
Krause is somehow still getting major favors if he's not included here. OR, and I'm not a conspiracy-theorist guy, the only other reason you wouldn't include those allegations is if this goes beyond just Krause... :blindfold: :yuck:
This "defferred comp" arrangement sounds way too rediculous to be true. Isn't there a UCC provision for unconscionability that would trash this contract? It makes no sense.
If I was a KS judge I'd estop the case using my equity hat (which would have a powercat pin in it).
:kstatriot:
This dude did well in Contracts 1 AND 2, I can tell. UCC2 is not to be trifled with. Did you have Drahozal?
haha UCC is for the sale of goods, not personal services. fracktard.
yeah, calling prince a good would be insanely racist
-
Did you have Drahozal?
"and what's your authority for that?"
Lean back against the blackboard. Hand on chin. Then wave hand in front of face while asking.
Contracts II, Law & Econ, and Payment Systems. Good times.
Lungstrum for Contracts I? Always see him next to $weet Lew on the Hocker games nowadays.
-
Did you have Drahozal?
"and what's your authority for that?"
Lungstrum for Contracts I? Always see him next to $weet Lew on the Hocker games nowadays.
He busted me sleeping less than a month in. :blank:
When J-Mart was looking for a lawyer commentator for today's story, I thought too late of giving him one of these guys... or Hecker.
-
Did you have Drahozal?
"and what's your authority for that?"
Lungstrum for Contracts I? Always see him next to $weet Lew on the Hocker games nowadays.
He busted me sleeping less than a month in. :blank:
When J-Mart was looking for a lawyer commentator for today's story, I thought too late of giving him one of these guys... or Hecker.
Why didn't you just do it? You could pretend to be an expert in all aspects of the law and drop subtle shout outs to humerous BBS topics.
-
Why didn't you just do it? You could pretend to be an expert in all aspects of the law and drop subtle shout outs to humerous BBS topics.
"KSU's got no problem in this case" commented prominent Wichita attorney Trim Reaper. "Even you, some east-coast newspaper guy in a Boston Red Sox hat can see that. The only thing KSU did wrong here is hire that FP in the first place." Mr. Reaper proceeded to proudly show off his weathered "Fire Prince" t-shirt displayed in his office.
-
Why didn't you just do it? You could pretend to be an expert in all aspects of the law and drop subtle shout outs to humerous BBS topics.
"KSU's got no problem in this case" commented prominent Wichita attorney Trim Reaper. "Even you, some east-coast newspaper guy in a Boston Red Sox hat can see that. The only thing KSU did wrong here is hire that FP in the first place." Mr. Reaper proceeded to proudly show off his weathered "Fire Prince" t-shirt displayed in his office.
JFC Trim :lol:
-
By contrast, the law provides owners of corporations and limited liability companies (LLCs) with what's called "limited personal liability" for business obligations. This means that, unlike sole proprietors and general partners, owners of corporations and LLCs can normally keep their house, investments, and other personal property even if their business fails. If you will be engaged in a risky business, you may want to consider forming a corporation or an LLC.
frack