« Medical Decisions, Parental Autonomy & the Criminal Law | Main | "Planet of Slums" »

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Gov't Retaliation Against Yale?

"Supremacy Claus" is one of our most devoted readers.  He sends our writers personal comments on nearly every post.  Some get ignored.  But for the first time, I feel that posting his correspondence is appropriate:

This is payback in lawyer gotcha for Rumsfeld
v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, et al.

No one on earth can withstand a review of time sheets.
These are talented, busy scientists. To have them
punch time cards is an outrage. The settlement will be
an amount similar to the legal costs Yale generated
for the government to defend the above case, and that
of the driver for Osama Bin Laden, a couple of
$million. Yale will also be silenced after getting the
message. Yale will be deterred. That has much greater
future value to the government. Yale faculty are like
naive children, biting the hand that fed them. I hope
the leadership is brighter than that. The point, I am
sure, will be driven home, in private, if they are

In addition, if the performance of a contract has been
done a certain way for 50 years, aren't the terms
modified by the conduct? Can you come back after 50
years and ask for a refund? Isn't the Federal
government bound by traditional contract doctrine?

I think Yale should be closed down for its damage to
our besieged nation by artillery fire from the
National Guard. However, in this case, Yale should
resist. They should attack the DOJ jack booted thugs
personally. Request an investigation of their
political agendas, that they be removed from office
untill completed. Make them live with uncertainty
about their futures. To deter.

Provocative thoughts.  The idea that Yale should be closed down strikes me as a bit off-the-wall.  And maybe this is paranoia of a high order.  But I'm glad SC brought the story to my attention -- and now to yours.

Posted by Ethan Leib on July 4, 2006 at 12:08 PM in Article Spotlight | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gov't Retaliation Against Yale? :


Professor Lieb, Why are you bothering with this guy?

Posted by: S.cotus | Jul 6, 2006 10:25:00 AM

SC responds as follows:

"Ad hominem attacks are not persuasive, and merely
show frustration in the traverse. I leave that to your

The lawyer is really off the wall that teaches
and sincerely believes that minds can be read, the
future forecast, 12 random strangers can detect truth
telling by using their gut feelings, the word,
"reasonable," is the central doctrine of the
profession, and means, "in accordance with the New
Testament." Meanwhile, this is a secular nation,
where the supernatural is not welcome in jurisprudence
nor policy. The lawyer profession is totally nuts.

It is not off the wall to find the investigation of
Yale is generic and trivial, without mention of
specific charges. It could have been done anytime in
the past 50 years of grant oversight, and at 100 other
universities. Until proven otherwise, it is lawyer
gotcha and payback.

After the verbiage, the test will be whether Yale
faculty file any more FAIR-style cases for the next 5
years, or any other research university faculty does."

Posted by: Ethan Leib | Jul 5, 2006 7:31:18 PM

...and then they came for the Yalies...

Posted by: Anon | Jul 5, 2006 1:46:07 AM

I don't find anything offensive, I just find it silly. By making such a claim he detracted from his credibility. But, I would never admit that he hit me on anything more than an intellectual level. Besides, asserting that schools "should be" shut down is nothing new. Usually Yale just has its alums available to stick up for it.

Posted by: S.cotus | Jul 5, 2006 12:16:37 AM

There is a separate -- and serious -- question here, though: To me, the suggestion that "Yale should be closed down for its damage to our besieged nation by artillery fire from the National Guard" is not just inflammatory; it's patently offensive. Say what you will about the merits of both the FAIR case and Hamdan, but the adversarial system works best when both sides are vigorously represented and defended. Whatever happened to professionalism and respect?

Posted by: Bean | Jul 4, 2006 5:39:17 PM

Well, for what it is worth, I just talked to someone who represents people in such (and similar) audits for a living, and it is pretty much a normal occurrence. While most lay people think that an tax audit is somehow a punishment or “retaliation” most tax lawyers see them as part of the normal course of business.

Posted by: S.cotus | Jul 4, 2006 5:24:59 PM

I suppose after receiving nearly a hundred e-mails from SC that were more off-the-wall than this, I thought this was a thought worthy of independence day. Isn't it entertaining, if nothing else? Paranoia can be fun. Enjoy the day of vacation.

Posted by: Ethan Leib | Jul 4, 2006 2:33:04 PM

First of all, SC is usually off the wall. Second of all, nothing about this investigation appears to be in the nature of retaliation. Perhaps if someone who normally represents people before HHS could comment on whether these things seem out of the ordinary it would make a difference. But, quite frankly, it doesn't see odd to me.

Posted by: S.cotus | Jul 4, 2006 2:23:00 PM

This post makes no sense. Although I suppose lots of things are "provocative" even if they are also baseless.

Posted by: Mrs. Claus | Jul 4, 2006 1:00:42 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.