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?
Quote from: LesMiserables on May 21, 2009, 11:08:56 AMAnyone 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
Quote from: steve dave on May 21, 2009, 11:22:16 AMQuote from: LesMiserables on May 21, 2009, 11:08:56 AMAnyone 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 fined00dz, getting them in is the easy part. Keeping them eligible is where our creativity f*cking shines.
Quote from: Pete on May 20, 2009, 10:19:07 PMQuote from: Dick Knewheizel on May 20, 2009, 09:58:26 PMQuote from: Ghost of Stan Parrish on May 20, 2009, 05:54:15 PMHere's the lawsuitFirst 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... 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). 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.
Quote from: Dick Knewheizel on May 20, 2009, 09:58:26 PMQuote from: Ghost of Stan Parrish on May 20, 2009, 05:54:15 PMHere's the lawsuitFirst 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... 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). This dude did well in Contracts 1 AND 2, I can tell. UCC2 is not to be trifled with. Did you have Drahozal?
Quote from: Ghost of Stan Parrish on May 20, 2009, 05:54:15 PMHere's the lawsuitFirst 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... 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).
Here's the lawsuitFirst 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...
Quote from: Pete on May 20, 2009, 10:19:07 PMDid you have Drahozal?"and what's your authority for that?"
Did you have Drahozal?
Quote from: Trim Reaper on May 20, 2009, 10:45:04 PMQuote from: Pete on May 20, 2009, 10:19:07 PMDid 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.
I don't like Currie.
props to Trim for sniffing out losers
Quote from: Dan Rydell on May 22, 2009, 12:16:34 AMQuote from: Trim Reaper on May 20, 2009, 10:45:04 PMQuote from: Pete on May 20, 2009, 10:19:07 PMDid 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. 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.
"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.
Quote from: steve dave on May 22, 2009, 09:03:12 AMWhy 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.Quote from: excerpt from J-Mart's story had Trim been the expert source"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.
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.
