Soxbadger

Had the 92 Dream Team chosen Shaq over Laettner its arguable that they had a top 3 all time player at every position. I dont really think NBA players are better today, they may have more toned muscles, but muscles dont make shots.

Id say Weber is a careful what you wish for situation. I personally think in game Weber is a pretty solid coach (at least against Wisconsin). I just read the Deron Williams article and it seems that he believes in Weber when he easily could have said what everyone wanted to hear "Self did the recruiting." As a Wisconsin fan I think losing Weber would help Wisconsin recruit better in Illinois, so whatever happens the instability is good for me.

Eh Wisconsin played terrible, MSU played solid. They are versatile so always a hard out in the tourney but Im not thinking they are a real title contender.

Iwritecode, You need to have it established whether he is in need of a guardian or not. Can he take care of himself? If he can not, a guardian needs to be appointed, you do not need an attorney to do it, you just need time and effort. In terms of reclaiming the funds, there is a potential you could do it through a guardianship estate, otherwise youd need an attorney because no one else could represent him or speak for him to the judge (unless hes adjudicated disabled and then you could bring a cause of action on his behalf.) A few thousand probably is not worth it if you have to pay attorneys, the reality is that its unlikely the money is there and unless they have a job collections can be difficult at best.

If you are doing something in public there Im pretty sure you have little to no expectation of privacy. The secretaries dont have "the right" to expose him, but they also cant be sued if they decide to tell people a true fact, "I saw X at a gay club kissing a man."

OSU, Wisconsin, MSU, Indiana. Michigan after that could be 1 more could be 3 more. But id say 5 are basically locked.

Interesting survivor

I actually have done disabled guardianship in Illinois, so if it is IL a good place to start is: http://gac.state.il.us/guardfaq.html http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index.cfm?...;contentID=5099 If he is disabled and you can file for Disabled Guardianship, once someone was appointed Guardian, they could file a citation for the ward to try and discover assets taken by them. And even if you have a valid POA, it doesnt mean there wasnt a fraud perpetrated in getting the person to sign it.

Well there are a few different theories, depends on the actual mental capacity of the person. If he is considered disabled (and he would need to be adjudicated that way) you can potentially file something in the guardianship estate to say that they basically were hiding his disability and trying to collect on it without courts knowledge. If he is not disabled, then you could still try and sue on a regular fraud claim or conversion (they had no right to the money.) The first real step is a Dr needs to determine whether or not he can make decisions for himself or whether he needs a guardian.

And the thread was "You be the judge" and if I was the judge I would have denied summary judgment based on the fact that there is a chance that the Plaintiff could win based on the facts, nothing more.

And that part didnt even make sense to me. If its a motion for summary judgment, the only thing that should matter is if there is anyway for the Plaintiff to win. If there is, Summary Judgment is inappropriate. I dont know why the ruling would go further and even if it did, I would think the Judge would need to rely on some sort of case law that suggested what is private to be kept from guardians.

Shack, Its not about consent to have sex, its about the fact that minors are not adults and therefore they do not have the same rights as adults. Furthermore the invasion of privacy was telling the minors guardian. We already have rules that suggest a minors privacy can be invaded for the perceived benefit of the guardian.

Im not sure I agree. The first problem is fact based. Lawrence is "2 consenting adults", the case at hand is concerning an adult and a minor. The second issue, it is just a motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff should win if they can show any fact pattern where they could prevail. It seems that this is a pretty over reaching ruling for a Magistrate Judge. I just read the synopsis but it implies that he acknowledges there has never been a right given to students and then grants it. Based on that alone its likely going to be appealed, just because this ruling could potentially be used by any student to sue the school (the synopsis suggests that the ruling is that all sexual orientation is protected and thus a male/female could sue the school if its revealed to their parents they are in a relationship.)

Balta, I assumed he was referring to a Supreme Court case, but its unclear if this was filed in State or Federal Court. Which is why I wanted to be sure that he was referring to a Federal Case and not a State case, as I previously cited Texas State law under the assumption this case is in State Court (its unclear from article). I further was confused because the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas is about sodomy laws legality, which really wouldnt be applicable to a civil cause of action for invasion of privacy, unless Im missing something. Is the argument that because Lawrence said that sexual intercourse is private, any statement concerning it has to be per se invasion of privacy?

Its common courtesy and if its so damn common why not just tell me what the name of the case is so I can actually look it up and read it? Its kind of hard to make an informed argument when you dont even know the case the other side is referring to. And its not like Im asking him to cite it properly, Im just asking for the full name of the case to enlighten those of us who dont know what case that is.

Strangesox, If you are going to say Lawrence, at least give me a cite to the case so I can look at it. I dont know every case off the top of my head, especially ones that arent applicable to any cases Ive ever handled.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 01:00 PM) Ok, so if a teacher tells my parents he saw me kissing a girl in the hallway, I can sue because he's invaded my privacy of sexual orientation right? Jenks, An act done in public has no expectation of privacy.

Strangesox, As an aside, I am extremely pro gay rights (marriage, etc). So much so that I believe they should be treated the exact same way I would treat anyone else. Invasion of privacy is an extreme cause of action, it just seems like a misplaced application of law here. If you think they were going after her because she was a lesbian, sue them for discrimination. But invasion of privacy? No one has even suggested that the school would have any issue telling a parent that their child had a relationship with another student. Let alone the parent or student suing the school.

Iamshack, Here is some Texas law (im not a tx attorney and this was the first stuff I could find that seemed reasonable) http://www.gaddywells.com/TEXAS_CAUSES_OF_...ON.html#Privacy 19. INVASION OF PRIVACY A common law right to privacy exists under Texas law. Billings v. Atkinson, 489 S.W.2d 858, 860 (Tex.1973). The Texas Constitution guarantees the sanctity of the home and person from unreasonable intrusion. Texas State Employees Union v. Texas Department of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 746 S.W.2d 203, 205 (Tex.1987). The elements of a claim for invasion of privacy are (1) The defendant intentionally intruded on the plaintiff's solitude, seclusion, or private affairs; and (2) The intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Valenzuela v. Aquino, 853 S.W.2d 512, 513 (Tex.1993). When assessing the offensive nature of the invasion, courts have required that the intrusion be unreasonable, unjustified, or unwarranted. Billings v. Atkinson, 489 S.W.2d 858, 860 (Tex.1973). --------------------------------------- So it is important what other people think, because the standard is: (2) The intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. So if a reasonable person would not be offended by their sexual identity being revealed, there is no invasion of privacy. Thus in order to win, it will have to be determined that a reasonable person would be highly offended by a their sexual identity being revealed.

Jenks said it better than me.

Iamshack, Those are different causes of action. I have no problem with discrimination lawsuit, you would have to prove discrimination, damages etc. But this appears to be an action for invasion of privacy, that somehow merely revealing she was gay was actionable. Revealing someone is disabled would most likely not be actionable unless there was something more. Which is the exact same standard I would say in this case. There has to be something more.

As I was born post 1964 my obvious opinion is that separate but equal was a terrible policy.

It suggests there is something wrong with being gay. The idea would be that being gay is so secretive/personal that merely revealing someone's sexual identity is an actionable offense. If it truly is, than revealing anyones sexual identity should be actionable. Equality is equal, in all of its terribleness.

Shack, I guess the problem with the precedent is that we are de facto saying that there is something wrong with being gay. I doubt there would be any concern about a school calling to say that a boy and girl were having a relationship, I doubt that a school counselor gets sued if they say it in a meeting with the family. If the mother had some sort of negative reaction, that is on her. And therein lies the problem. Do we create rules that carve out special protections, which may be good intentioned but continue to create the idea that there is something different about gay people? Or do we strive to create rules/laws that treat them as equals, but may result in instances where people are emotionally/psychologically hurt? I dont know, I personally dont think teachers/administrators should treat kids that way, regardless of whether they are gay, straight, black, white, etc.

Its not, but that doesnt mean it shouldnt be a relevant consideration when asking if this lawsuit should have been filed in the first place. I get that if they told her mother and the mother kills herself, or does something crazy, that you want to be put back whole. But from what I can tell, nothing like that happened, it doesnt even appear the mother fainted or went into shock. You cant change bigotry through lawsuits, I think a more appropriate avenue would have been a formal complaint to the school asking for the teachers to be reprimanded.