Jump to content

Thanks for visiting BtownBanners.com!  We noticed you have AdBlock enabled.  While ads can be annoying, we utilize them to provide these forums free of charge to you!  Please consider removing your AdBlock for BtownBanners or consider signing up to donate and help BtownBanners stay alive!  Thank you!

swatford

Thomas Bryant and Emmitt Holt cited for illegal alcohol posession

Recommended Posts

True.

Emmitt Holt getting the same suspension last year as Hanner the year before is insanity.


Crean is fighting for his job. Discipline could cost him "W's".


Sent from my mobile device using Tapatalk v3.2.1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crean will do just well enough this season to get Glass' vote of confidence, e.g., another Sweet Sixteen, and for this one he'll probably want a banner. Then we'll suck hard for a couple more years. Makes me sick.


Deja vu all over again…


Sent from my mobile device using Tapatalk v3.2.1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe in curses...
but...
I do believe that this incidence is more than coincidence...
it's almost as if there are plans in place to accelerate Crean's removal...by use of alcohol...
it's the perfect storm...


Paranoid much? This program is in self-destruct mode. Has been for several years now.


Sent from my mobile device using Tapatalk v3.2.1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe in curses...
but...
I do believe that this incidence is more than coincidence...
it's almost as if there are plans in place to accelerate Crean's removal...by use of alcohol...
it's the perfect storm...


What I was thinking lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe in curses...
but...
I do believe that this incidence is more than coincidence...
it's almost as if there are plans in place to accelerate Crean's removal...by use of alcohol...
it's the perfect storm...


I believe this a silly unsensible idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Law students can't practice law, but law students can write motions, and Thomas Bryant and Emmitt Holt can file those motions on their own behalf as if they wrote them themselves. A law degree is not reqired to file a motion on your own behalf.


So, on top of the existing problem, you want them to misrepresent these documents as being written by them? Hardly seems to be a good path to seeking truth, honesty and justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, on top of the existing problem, you want them to misrepresent these documents as being written by them? Hardly seems to be a good path to seeking truth, honesty and justice.


Not really how it works. It isn't a misrepresentation that they wrote it, it's a matter of who has the legal authority to represent them in court including filing documents on their behalf. It's either them or a lawyer. The court doesn't care who actually wrote it, for most of the motions they see the author is Thompson Reuters or lexis nexis anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JeffRabjohns: Question: Did IU president Michael McRobbie read the riot act to the IU athletic department yesterday?
IU AD Fred Glass: "Yes."

I had to look up the Riot Act and I still don't see how this applies to the department...can someone explain that to me?

Makes you wonder where McRobbie was last year? Was he exercising patience? Allowing his "department" managers to do their jobs in hope that would be sufficient? Or just hoping it had all been a bad dream?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Albers, this is an excerpt of the McRobbie speech to the athletic department.
CNXG5EPVAAANzpW.jpg

Unless there is more to it, I don't think that makes the cut of "reading the riot act". My version of reading the riot act would be him saying if this happens again, your butts are out of here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really how it works. It isn't a misrepresentation that they wrote it, it's a matter of who has the legal authority to represent them in court including filing documents on their behalf. It's either them or a lawyer. The court doesn't care who actually wrote it, for most of the motions they see the author is Thompson Reuters or lexis nexis anyway.


No, you're wrong. A law student who prepares legal documents for someone other than a supervising attorney commits the crime of the unauthorized practice of law.

Fink v. Peden, 17 N.E.2d 95 (1938)
The practice of law is defined in 7 C.J.S., Attorney and Client, 703, Section 3(g), as follows: 'The general meaning of the term, 'practice law' or 'practice of law', is of common knowledge, although the boundaries of its definition may be indefinite as to some transactions. As generally understood, it is the doing or performing of services in a court of justice, in any matter depending therein, throughout its various stages, and in conformity with the adopted rules of procedure; but it is not confined to performing services in an action or proceeding pending in courts of justice, and, in a larger sense, it includes legal advice and counsel, and THE PREPARATION OF LEGAL INSTRUMENTS and contracts by which legal rights are secured, although such matter may or may not be pending in a court. To 'practice law' is to carry on the business of an attorney at law; to do or practice that which an attorney or counselor at law is authorized to do and practice; to exercise the calling or profession of the law; usually for the purpose of gaining a livelihood, or at least for gain; to make it one's business to act for, and by the warrant of, others in legal formalities, negotiations, or proceedings.' (Capitalization my own.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×