Which court?  Where is the courtroom located?  Can we attend?

I thought her case was a wrongful termination lawsuit.  Why is this a federal issue?  I am not knocking the merits of her case, simply wondering why this is not in state courts.  Is it because she was working for the state?

Whiting fan federal or not wrote:

---

They violated her constitutional rights - they did it in a tremendously stupid manner, it was the beginning of the Thames heydays that ended quickly but, yes, it immediately became federal because of how they handled this issue -- it continues to remain outrageous. Mississippi has a law against nepotism.

---

What constitutional right?  Free speech, right to bear arms, was a soldier quartered in her house?  I don’t remember seeing nepotism in the federal constitution (btw, what nepotism are you talking about, DT and SFT?  The AG already ruled on that one). Once again, I am not saying that she was not wronged; I’m just always leery when someone says constitutional rights were violated.  Is she claiming discrimination?

I believe that the tainted material will surely come out in court.

Herald:
HA April 9, 2002: Thames presidency could present conflict of interest with daughter.

Not AGs:
I am going on memory since I am not going to pay HA for an old article, but I am pretty sure the AG said this would not be an issue.  I agree that a court can overturn an opinion of the AG.  Once again, I cannot see how nepotism is a federal issue.  There must be something else to this case.

I am very sure that Chaze knows what he is doing (especially when it comes to USM).  I just want to know how he got this into federal court.  Nepotism is a state law, not a federal law (unless someone can tell me different).  You can only take something to federal court if you break federal law.  I'm just looking for an answer.

manova wrote:

---

 I just want to know how he got this into federal court.  Nepotism is a state law, not a federal law (unless someone can tell me different). looking for an answer.

---

What gave you the idea that constitutional issues like due process and equal protection cant be taken to Federal courts? I've been told that they can.
 
 

Invictus,

Good call. I'm familiar with the documents, everyone else should be too. Due process is at the heart of this lawsuit. As a fairly good friend and former colleague of hers, I know that she'd love to see everyone read the documents and come to their own conclusions. I also know that the defendants hope that no one bothers. In any event, the legal process is a slow one, but in due time, the whole story will be out in the open.

I wish someone who actually knew something would post on this case; as far as I know, which is information confirmed by the court filings, all the federal question claims were dismissed, and the plaintiff is appealing this dismissal to the 5th Circuit. This doesn't mean the state causes of action are gone, but that there is no subject matter jurisdiction for the federal court.  

Don't get too excited about an appeal; even though the actions of SFT may look terrible, it still has to be molded into a cause of action against the university.  I presume she could sue under Sec. 1983, which allows damages for individuals whose constitutional rights were violated by state actors. But, you have to get to some constitutional right that was violated.

Due process, in the sense that a state actor must respect, would mean that the plaintiff must have received both 1) notice that the state actor was going to deprive them of something to which they have some constitutional protection and 2) an opportunity to be heard prior to the deprivation, so as to limit the chances for erroneous deprivation. 

But, all that aside, asking the 5th circuit to expand the scope of federal protections in the area of employment law is awfully tough. Like one of my professors used to say, "any lawyer who tells their client they have a good chance on appeal should be disbarred."  

manova wrote:

---

Thanks Invictus, this is the kind of answer I was looking for.  Would you tell me this, I thought constitutional due process referred to being charged and convicted with a crime?  I did not know that it applied to losing your job.

---

Remember, INAL & somebody with "real" legal credentials may correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm reading the 5th Amendment below (emphasis added):

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings

No person shall be ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Would wrongful termination deprive a person of property? It depends on how one defines employment, expectation of income, etc. Moreover, the separation of the final "nor shall private property be taken..." from "no person shall be deprived of property" suggests to me that the intent is to clearly separate a person's right not to be deprived of property (which could include employment) & the obligation of the government to properly compensate citizens when private property is expropriated for public use.

Moreover, the inclusion of routine grievance procedures (i.e., definition of due process) in faculty/employee handbooks by a university seems to me to set employment, promotion & termination within the realm of the 5th Amendment.

What is the status of the case against IHL and some locals that was brought by former fundraiser Frank Pinkerton?  He alleged a conspiracy to get Fleming that involved him and that he was led on blindly and involved in a way that later caused him to lose his job when he crossed Thames. 

This is as good a place as any to ask my question. I heard a news report the other day that there is a move afoot at some law schools to cut the training time for a law degree back from three to two years. I couldn't believe my ears, but I did hear it. Do any of you legal types out there know anything about that?

Quickie Degree? wrote:

---

I heard a news report the other day that there is a move afoot at some law schools to cut the training time for a law degree back from three to two years....Do any of you legal types out there know anything about that?

---

Yes. The third year of law school as presently structured is a joke.  It typically consists of nothing other than elective courses which could be likened to legal basket weaving, most not even requiring regular attendance or exams. This year is typically devoted to student interviews and general screwing around.  Several well known law schools. UVA for one, are considering dropping the third year, but the "legal establishment" is against the change. Keep in mind that the first degree in law was, for many years, an LL.B., or Bachelor of Laws.  Awarding the Juris Doctor or Doctor of Jurisprudence is a relatively recent phenomena. Many suspect that the move to supplant the LLB with a more prestigious sounding credential stemmed from the desire of attorneys to be taken more seriously, or viewed on the same educational level as physicians and PhD's. There's no word yet as to the position of the prestigious Thomas Cooley School of Law on the proposed change.

Quickie Degree wrote:

---

I didn't expect such a prompt reply. Thank you. One comment: Much to their credit, the Juris Doctor or Doctor of Jurisprudence recipients don't insist on being called by the pompous title "Doctor." One question: If the Doctor of Jurisprudence degree is cut back from three to two years, will it still be called a Doctor of Jurisprudence?  

---

You'll find that many attorneys who teach in university business schools do use the "Doctor" title.  Those who practice law generally do not. At least I've never seen it. As to your last question, that's a dicey issue and I suspect one of the reasons for the resistance to eliminating the third year. The legal profession in general and certainly the better law schools (Yale, Harvard, Michigan, Duke et al) would have a hard time defending a two year degree plan as a bona fide doctoral program. The contra position being advanced by some top 10 schools is to dramatically revise the third year curriculum, making it rigorous and relevant.  I suspect that will be the direction taken.  For those desiring a fast track, there are a number of law schools presently offering year-round attendance, making it possible to complete the three year program in two years and three summers, sometimes even two years and two summers. There are also many states, including Texas and Mississippi, that still allow one to sit for the bar after serving a suitable "apprenticeship" with a licensed attorney, without ever entering a law school classroom.