Kennedy-Western lawsuit

Dearest Maris61,

I'm most pleased to welcome you to the forum. I think what is most obvious is that you've joined our forum after obtaining (or even selling?) substandard degrees. I really am pleased that you've joined us because I believe that it is important for intellectual honesty and interest that we hear your point of view.

Thanks,
Bill

 

I'm not a lawyer either. I've read DesElms previous posts on this subject and thought them marvelous and well done. I will try to explain them in a way that makes sense to me. (Apologies ahead of time to DesElms for anything that I mess up.)

The issue of prime concern is not that society is not allowed to protect itself against claims to substandard degrees. The concern has more to do with the due process in enforcement. If it is not done properly then the law can be declared unconstitutional. DesElms has eloquently argued this in the past. At least that is my understanding of his concerns regarding the Oregon law.

 

KWU is NOT State-Approved!

Tom Head raised a good point, KWU is not state approved or state accredited. Wyoming goes to great lengths to make that point on their website.

So KWU may not even have that leg to stand on.

 

So, now that everybody has apparently read the complaint, are there any predictions as to whether the matter will go to trial or be disposed of by motion?

 

(removed by moderator)

 

Not to go too far off topic, but I don't think there should be an * next to your name.

 

a request for maris61*

(removed by moderator)

 

Re: a request for maris61*

(removed by moderator)

 

Please be civil.

Please do not write those sorts of things into messages meant for me.

As far as this thread's subject is concerned, I find the discussions of states' decisions to license certain activities to be an interesting model for the accreditation controls in Oregon.

G

 

Re: Please be civil.

(removed by moderator)

 

we are making progress

I'm glad we've cleared that up.

So what do you think about the model of licensing as the legal grounds for state-imposed strictures on use of degrees as credentials?

G

 

How nice. You can't go to Online-College.info, so Online-College.info comes here.

 

This thread started out as a nice discussion on the limits, if any, on a state's ability to prescribe degree requirements. I admit that I rushed (foolishly) to judgment, but others have made better and more thoughtful contributions.

It would be a pity to lose this opportunity through the use of invective.

 

marsi61,

If you haven't already been banned for violating the TOS then, please be more careful. I really am interested in your opinion. I think that it might also do you good in learning to express your opinion in a more intellectual manner.

Take care,
Bill

 

I read the complaint and it didn't seem nearly as convincing to me as some previous posts made by DesElms arguing that there were constitutional issues with the Oregon law. Is that because

1. The initial complaint shouldn't make the best arguments and give the other side too much warning?
2. The KWU lawyers didn't do a good job?
3. DesElms is just super brilliant and they didn't get to see his posts before they wrote their complaint?
4. I'm wrong in my general assessments?
5. All or multiple of the above?

 

Initial complaints are often more vague than the plaintiff's case will ultimately be, but usually not because they're pulling their punches. Initial complaints only need to be good enough to get one's day in court -- which is mostly determined in pre-trial hearings anyway. It's sort of like the two guys being chased by the bear and the second guy says to the lead guy, "so you think we can out-run him," and the lead guy says, "I dunno... and I don't care... I only gotta' out-run you." With initial complaints, the minimum effort necessary to get the job done and not an ounce more is pretty much the coin of the realm. Anyway, there's not much point in the plaintiff holding things back thinking he's gonna' surprise someone like on TV. Through discovery, both sides have to disclose to each other pretty much everything they've got -- sans work product and rebuttal witnesses and stuff like that. Unlike the old Perry Mason shows, there really aren't very many surprises in most trials (with a few notable exceptions, of course).

There may very well be a bit of that going on, too... though the true proof of that is in the final result, isn't it? What might not seem like a good pre-verdict performance can still result, by hook or by crook, in a win... howsoever inelegant. What is it that pilot's say, "Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing?" A win is a win is a win... even if counsel just happened into it on the heels of a three-day drunk.

Well, okay, now we're really getting right to the heart of it, aren't we? (Kidding... I sweartogod I'm just kidding!)

I guarantee they read the threads here -- but not because of anything I wrote. They read the threads here because they contained the words of one of their intended named defendants (Alan Contreras) because he had posted here so extensively -- something, incidentally, I would now counsel him to stop doing until this case is resolved. It's a civil matter, after all, not a criminal one... so, despite protestations in limine, pretty much everything's admissable one way or another (or should at least be presumed so until and unless the judge rules otherwise). It's one of the few situations in life where a closed mouth is a smart mouth. If Alan's lawyer lets him post here any more until this matter is settled, then I'd say Alan needs new counsel... but that's just me. Beyond that, it's difficult to imagine that KWU's lawyers gleaned much from these threads other than conceptual broad-stokes... if even that. I'm sure we'll never know, one way or the other.

Complaints can be more powerfully loaded than they might appear at first blush. A single phrase, worded just so, and which incorporates a particular case or prior ruling, cited just so, can speak volumes because of what was concluded or precedented in said case or ruling. To the reader it just looks like an allegation, ending with the words "pursuant to" and then followed by an arcane case number. Big deal, right? But if one actually looks-up the cite, one may find a veritable law library's worth of scholarly legal thinking in support of, and giving teeth to, whatever came before the "pursuant to" in the complaint. Why do you think judges have law clerks? It can be very deceiving. It can also be a lotta' hooey, too, so... just depends.

It's always difficult to predict how these things will come out. We could sit here for days and predict what will or should happen, and with a single pre-trial motion going in a weird and unexpected way, it suddenly all becomes moot and everything goes in a new direction. I made some predictions earlier in this thread that I ended-up re-thinking several times while driving in the car, walking the dog, sitting on the toi... er... I mean... well... you know what I mean... and I'm almost sorry, now, that I jumped so quickly to any kind of judgement. Plus, remeber that we're not there and only have a tiny window into it through which we are seeing but a fraction of what's going on.

Let's also not forget that we've only seen one-half of the initial paperwork, thus far. Remember that the defendant has "x" number of days to respond to the complaint. Responses to complaints need only be as simple as "we deny count 1," and "we deny count 2," etc. But they can also contain some pretty clear-headed legal thinking intended to get a bit of a leg up by swaying the judge into a certain paradigm right out of the gate. When/if we ever get a chance to view that document we may all be whistling different tunes. (Ha! I started to type "toons" and then quickly corrected... then just as suddenly realized how weirdly appropriate it might have been if I'd just left it!)

Personally, I think it would be interesting for us all to further ponder Nosborne48's wholly appropriate question about whether it will go to trial or be disposed of by motion. Any takers?

 

I’d give it say, 60-40 odds of going to trial (if I were a betting man… which I’m not). The major variable would be if the suit were disposed by motion and not a settlement between parties… I don’t see a lot of incentive for either side to strike a pre-trial settlement.

Cheers,
Tony Maranto

P.S. I too would like to echo the calls to keep this discussion civil. One of the greatest strengths of this board is the fact that most posters respect the dignity of the board and of each other. Individuals may disagree on point and opinions (sometimes heatedly), but I think that everyone is responsible for making their arguments through civil discourse and not personal attacks. Besides being uncouth, it does nothing to bolster one’s argument. Indeed, it detracts from it.

 

I would hope that a judge would be very careful in considering potential backlash from dismissing a case like this brought against a branch of the government. I would think that if it is dismissed early then it will likely be for some clerical error that can be corrected like it needs to be filed in the Oregon court system instead of the Federal courts.

 

The plaintiff may be repugnant to some; however, it is immaterial and subjective to allude to the value, merit, or rigor of a KWU degree. This is not the issue. What is at issue is the right of someone to state a true fact. Oregon has the right to enforce its educational standards in the case of hiring state employees and state licensing. However, it cannot go so far as to stop a person from claiming a fact, nor can it criminalize someone for doing so.

In his defense, I expect the defendant (Mr. Contreras) to produce as much information as he can to discredit the plaintiff. I believe the court will nevertheless rule in favor of the plaintiff.

 

Actually the right of states to regulate universities and degrees has been upheld. The only real issue is that they do in a fair and unbiased manner. It seems clear to me that the ODA is doing both.