Judge Anderson Dissed

Date: May 3, 2004

Judge Anderson Dissed

Date: May 3, 2004

Sorry, I left the word "not" in my last sentence. It should be not living up to his reputation.

Date: May 3, 2004

As a Jackson attorney, he probably does not know about the Klumb performance on WLOX.

Date: May 3, 2004

Yeah, but this is really a strange circumstance. Judge Anderson retains that honorific out of respect. He ain't a judge no more. He was asked to conduct a hearing. He did. My guess is that he has no power to hold anyone in contempt or apply any other ready remedy.

Based on my very limited association with the Judge, I would be surprised if he was hasty or vocal in his response. If he feels he was personally insulted, he might very well just accept that with grace and go on. If he feels like the agreement he helped broker is not being honored, I expect he might speak a quiet, judicious word into a receptive ear when it will accomplish what he would like to accomplish. We will likely know nothing about it.

Date: May 3, 2004

Ram, I think your observations are likely correct. If this is the last of the transgressions against the wording and spirit of the agreement, I can see him ignoring it and letting it ride. Somehow, I do not think this will be the last, and future statements may become more outrageous. Since most successful people take pride in a hard earned reputation, I cannot see Judge Anderson ignoring these outbursts for long. In addition,I have not seen any version of the settlement that indicates that Glamser Stringer agreed not to sue SFT or anyone else involved in the campaign against them. I would think their lawyer would be hacked off enough to complain to the AG office and to Judge Anderson. While I am not one who sees plots driving events, a continuation of these intemperate outbursts would take on the appearence of a plot.

Date: May 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
"Yeah, but this is really a strange circumstance. Judge Anderson retains that honorific out of respect. He ain't a judge no more. He was asked to conduct a hearing. He did. My guess is that he has no power to hold anyone in contempt or apply any other ready remedy. Based on my very limited association with the Judge, I would be surprised if he was hasty or vocal in his response. If he feels he was personally insulted, he might very well just accept that with grace and go on. If he feels like the agreement he helped broker is not being honored, I expect he might speak a quiet, judicious word into a receptive ear when it will accomplish what he would like to accomplish. We will likely know nothing about it."

Always remember that Jim Keith was supposed to be the original MEDIATOR. Anderson turned out to be a much better one.

Date: May 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: educator
"Always remember that Jim Keith was supposed to be the original MEDIATOR. Anderson turned out to be a much better one. "

How do you know? I have a gut feeling that Anderson had already been told what would constitute an acceptable settlement. It wouldn't have mattered who brokered it.

And as we see, like an Indian treaty, it isn't worth the paper it was written on. I will be surprised if G&S actually receive 2 years' pay in the deal.

Date: May 3, 2004

Rest assured, they WILL be paid.

Make no mistake.

And, they will be receiving "consulting" fees.

Everybody glossed over that one,,,,,,,,,,,,,I know what that is, though not the specific deal they worked out. That will never be fully known.

Date: May 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: ForgotMyName
"Rest assured, they WILL be paid. Make no mistake. And, they will be receiving "consulting" fees. Everybody glossed over that one,,,,,,,,,,,,,I know what that is, though not the specific deal they worked out. That will never be fully known. "

Could you elaborate on this "consulting" fee remark? Is this something in addition to salary you are referring to?

Date: May 3, 2004

They aren't getting "consulting fees"--they're allowed to be "consultants." This means that they could go work for another university if they want, while being paid at USM (to not teach). At least this is the way I read it. I also think that it is another example of how Shelby doesn't understand what humanities profs do. Are English profs ever "consultants?" They're more likely to be visiting profs. or endowed chairs or something. I think certain kinds of sociologists could be consultants but I too far from my area. . . .

Date: May 4, 2004

Consulting is a little more common in Sociology than in English.

Robert Campbell