RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => Texas Topics => Topic started by: Etref on October 13, 2010, 08:37:25 AM
-
I just received word that UIL had moved the suit to Federal Ct. They appeared to be hoping to stall the hearing in State Ct. Federal Ct. has granted TASO an immediate hearing (today I think). Also in Federal Ct. UIL cannot plead sovereign immunity.
More to come I am sure.
-
^flag
Wonderful! Wonderful! But my question would be exactly what kind of a federal issue were we(TASO) able to come up with in order to get this thing elevated to the federal court system? Any of you officiating attorney's have any idea? I'd absolutely love to know! z^
-
I understood Rick's post to mean UIL had moved the case to fed court, not TASO. But the issue remainsm what Fed issue is at stake? Perhaps UIL was hoping this would further delay the legal proceedings and prevent us from doing anything to disrupt their Nov 1 "D-day".
-
^flag
Wonderful! Wonderful! But my question would be exactly what kind of a federal issue were we(TASO) able to come up with in order to get this thing elevated to the federal court system? Any of you officiating attorney's have any idea? I'd absolutely love to know! z^
Here is an excerpt of the email I received from the top.
"Long story short, the UIL had the case moved to Federal Court. An attempt to stall, you bet! But, guess what happened next. TASO requested and was granted an expedited hearing today in Federal Court.
TASO feels the move to Federal Court is very much a good thing. First of all, sovereign immunity does not apply in Federal Court. Also, some issues within the First Amendment are now in play."
-
If this tossed today, because of no fed issue, then where do we stand?
-
I would guess it would be back in State ct as planned.
Either way it may still come down to a decision at some point (hopefully years from now) whether you want to work for these guys. I do not think they will be ones who want to kiss and make up!
-
Here is an excerpt of the email I received from the top.
"Long story short, the UIL had the case moved to Federal Court. An attempt to stall, you bet! But, guess what happened next. TASO requested and was granted an expedited hearing today in Federal Court.
TASO feels the move to Federal Court is very much a good thing. First of all, sovereign immunity does not apply in Federal Court. Also, some issues within the First Amendment are now in play."
^flag
The only federal issue that I could even entertain would be a possible first amendment issue. But why on God's Green Earth would the UIL, of all people, want to elevate this thing out of the state court system, where they have only had some minor appellate success, into the federal court system, where their claim of "sovereign immunity" stands to get totally thrown out of the window!
All I can really offer is that either the UIL's lead attorney is holding some legal cards that TASO has no inherent knowledge of, or that they are showing signs of being somewhat of a legal buffoon! Mr. Schumann should, no doubt, have a lot of fun with this! z^
-
Or the UIL realizes no one is signing up and does not want to loose face with AD's and coaches so they will now be able to say, "it was the courts that made us push back the registration and let TASO officiate the games, not incompetence on our part".
I do agree it is puzzling on why go to Federal Court at this point.
-
UIL must feel they have a better chance in federal court. It tells me they were worried about the outcome of the Oct 19th hearing.
-
UIL must feel they have a better chance in federal court. It tells me they were worried about the outcome of the Oct 19th hearing.
^flag
At the expense of getting "sovereign immunity" thrown out by a federal judge? I don't know if I can really buy those apples! z^
-
yEs:I'm doing the happy dance no matter what. It's time for this to be answered and end the Nov. 1 deadline or set it in concrete once and for all.
-
I have a copy of the Amended Petition that was filed on Monday adding the Legislative Counsel as defendants. All sorts of federal questions. First Amendment issue on right to freedom of association, and due process claims regarding infringement of property rights and equal protection.
File is too big to attach. I will see what I can do to post it.