someone is fcked here....Beebe or BU.

quote:

---

What is so significant about September 8th, and why was it noted twice in the letter?

---

I asked this on an earlier thread. It seems rather exclamatory in its reiteration.
Almost as if certain parties actually knew that today would be the day to throw a wrench in the works. (my tinfoil theory)

This letter seems to be the smoking gun for a major lawsuit against Dan B. and the Big 12-3.

Agree with Sefton about the date. It was all just too pat, the way it all came down. I think it was planned.

[This message has been edited by Cannonball Craig III (edited 9/8/2011 9:42a).]

quote:

---

This letter seems to be the smoking gun for a major lawsuit against Dan B. and the Big 12-3.

---

I think we will sue the big12 before this is all said and done.

Once it is apparent, that they will not relent on their antics, I think our legal game starts.

[This message has been edited by Bilbo Aggins (edited 9/8/2011 9:55a).]

Beebe's subsequent "uh, didn't mean it!" statement would make me pause when negotiating anything with the Big 12-2-1. If I'm Fox, for example, I now require every institution in the Big 12-2-1 to vote on and sign a TV contract. No way I let commissioner represent the conference (as it should be). What a joke of an organization.

This letter would make a nice billboard.

quote:

---

Beebe's subsequent "uh, didn't mean it!" statement would make me pause when negotiating anything with the Big 12-2-1.

---

It's also going to make it impossible for them to replace us with a school of *any* value. I suspect UH would go because they have built a hell of a program. They still don't have any following or facilities though, so they don't add much to the conference. I am not sure that SMU would be willing to deal with Beebe after this fiasco.

[This message has been edited by dabo man (edited 9/8/2011 10:54a).]

aggiehawg notes this above:

quote:

---

A very simple and old legal theory refutes this---agency and principal.

---

A bit more about that, followed by a source that should be understandable to non-lawyers.

My best guess from what we know and can assume is that a reasonable court would find that Beebe's acts in writing that letter to the SEC and its members via Slive, knowing it would be shared with A&M, and the Big12 members' silence about the content of that letter (until the 11th hour when the SEC met and got the follow-up letter from Beebe disavowing the "and its members" content), actually and directly caused the SEC, Slive, the SEC members, and A&M all to rely detrimentally on its contents, and such detrimental reliance by each of them has already directly caused each of them to suffer actual damages in a significant amount that could be proved at trial.

Baylor and any other Big12 member attempting to argue the contrary would have to find a very friendly judge (and appellate courts) to prevail given the facts as they seem to be.

Law school exams and bar exams over the years have been littered with fact patterns that help to train lawyers how to "spot that legal concept." In this case, we don't know all the facts, but it seems likely that Beebe acted, in writing those words (and the Big12 members acted by omission by not timely correcting what they knew his words in that Sept. 2nd letter said, if any such member thought those words were not accurate), as agent for the Big12 in all or most of the following ways as lawyers define them:

... with "actual express authority"
... with "actual authority"
... with "actual implied authority"
... with "apparent authority"

See: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authority

quote:

---

actual authority
: the authority that a principal in reality has granted to an agent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
actual express authority
: the actual authority of an agent specifically stated or written by the principal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
actual implied authority
: the actual authority of an agent that the principal has not specified but has purposely or through negligence allowed the agent to believe has been granted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
apparent authority
: the authority that a principal purposely or through negligence allows a third party to believe that the principal's agent has although such authority has not in reality been granted called also authority by estoppel ostensible authority
NOTE: A principal is bound by the acts of an agent acting with apparent authority.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
express authority
: authority that is explicitly granted to an agent by a principal called also expressed authority stipulated authority
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
implied authority
: the authority to perform acts that are customary, necessary, and understood by an agent as authorized in performing acts for which the principal has given express authority
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ostensible authority
: APPARENT AUTHORITY in this entry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stipulated authority
: EXPRESS AUTHORITY in this entry
3 : a person in a position of power and esp. a public office —usually used in pl. authorities >
4 a : a government agency or corporation that administers a revenue-producing public enterprise authority > b : a government agency or public office responsible for an area of regulation authority

> Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

---

[This message has been edited by agulhas78 (edited 9/8/2011 11:20a).]

I know this letter is making the rounds, but where did it come from? If it's legit, I suggest sending that letter to the biased news outlets that are reporting the opposite, that the Big 12 members WERE NOT included in it and have the right to sue.