If you don’t have the law, you argue the facts; if you don’t have the facts, you argue the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law…

then you hand the witness your cellphone.

I get that the college presidents are stubborn, clueless, detached from reality and whatever other labels you might want to stick them with… but, damn, letting O’Bannon go on like this is simply self-destructive.

Of course, they’ve got their ace in the hole to play Thursday.  Right.


UPDATE:  Word.

It’s whether she has anything to say after Emmert’s testimony that’s more interesting, of course.


Filed under The NCAA

9 responses to “If you don’t have the law, you argue the facts; if you don’t have the facts, you argue the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law…

  1. How stupid a bunch of supposedly intelligent people called university presidents really are …


  2. Hogbody Spradlin

    A gag worthy of an ambulance chaser.


  3. Always Someone Else's Fault

    No better way to understand just how insular your bubble has become than to see it blown apart in court. No matter where this ends up, I think the “level playing field/cost control” crowd is finally beginning to understand that this is the end.


  4. Dog in Fla

    “I wonder if she ever gave him his phone back,” Hausfeld said.

    It’s okay, it was probably just a burner phone. In related news about how showtime is going, a perplexed Remy thought his outfit was paying top dollar to get a Jet Li, not a can you hear me now Li


  5. Dog in Fla

    “UPDATE: Word.”

    Sideshow Bob is expected to enter the Arena girded only by his own organist


  6. Mayor

    You know, aside from the cheap cellphone gambit Li’s cross examination undermining the witness’ credentials was a proper way to proceed. It was the judge who was out of line. The witness doesn’t get to make objections–lawyers do. The plaintiff attorneys didn’t object as there was no legitimate basis for an objection. Attacking an expert’s credentials is a time-honored legal tactic. The witness has no right to do anything but answer questions. What should have happened when the witness said what she said about relevance was that the judge should have told her to STFU and only answer questions that you are asked. The fact that the judge didn’t do that, but rather sided with the witness, shows bias and may come back to haunt the judge and the plaintiffs on appeal. The job of the judge is to listen to the evidence and decide the case. If an objection or motion is made, the judge rules on that. Otherwise the judge needs to just not say anything. I hate it when judges try to be an advocate. Stay out of the way of the trial Judge Wilkins or else run the risk of becoming the Lance Ito of the New Millennium.


    • The NCAA had already tried to have keep her from testifying, Mayor, and failed.

      Seth Rosenthal, the member of the plaintffs’ legal team who led Staurowsky’s testimony, noted that the NCAA had been rebuffed by Wilken in a pretrial bid to prevent Staurowsky from testifying, and he said: “Hey, look, she’s been doing this for 20 years. It’s not as though she is picking a blog entry here and some random post on Twitter there and forming an opinion. This is what she does for a living. She studies, she teaches, she writes about college sports. That’s her expertise. … The judge has already accepted her as an expert in the administration of college sport, and I suppose the NCAA is trying to do this to make a record for an appeal.”

      Her credentials are going to be appealed regardless of how Judge Wilken acts at trial.


      • 69Dawg

        This is a bench trial and the judge just got tired of the defense not getting on with it. The hearing on her qualifications as an expert can and will be reviewed on appeal. The NCAA’s attorney’s are just trying to make chicken salad out of chicken sh*t and justify their fees.


        • Mayor

          Sometimes all you can do is paper the record for appeal. That’s probably what Li was doing with his cross–getting his point across in the trial record. If he doesn’t do that some appellate judge may say he “waived” that argument. The judge allowing a witness to essentially start making objections from the stand and then siding with the witness does the witness, the parties, the court itself and the system of civil justice no good. If the judge rules against the NCAA I guarantee we will all see this exchange repeated in appellate briefs. Li (a pig I am sure) rooted up an acorn, IMHO. Sometimes judges make mistakes themselves. From what I have read about Judge Wilken (she’s smart and tries to be fair) I’d be willing to bet that, upon reflection and given the opportunity to do it all over again, Judge Wilken would not say a damn thing.