Is that really “the right thing”? Are we implying that privilege is always inappropriate or never “right”? If so, why does it exist? If not, why is this case special? Would appreciate the perspective of mgolegal scholars...
Good questions Mitch. I got one for you.
What did the pearl necklace say to Mitch Cumstein? Check your white privilege.
You're comment is unequivocally stupid
Good lord! It's a joke (albeit maybe a really bad one), not a comment! Do you think Mitch CUMstein is a real name?
I'm sure more than a few negs are because people found what I wrote politically or morally offensive. Welcome to MgoBlog these days.
Oh, and by the way. If even one other person (other than myself) upvotes my post, then your comment (not mine) is technically "unequivocally stupid." Because that would mean someone likes my post, which would negate your opinion that my post is "unequivocally stupid" (as in, absolutely no one liked my post)
If your statement was simply a throw away attempt at humor, than I apologize. In context of this thread, perhaps I read in more than I should have.
I hope you and yours are doing well.
I'm sure more than a few negs are because people found what I wrote politically or morally offensive.
Or because it's just really really really really dumb in every way, and not at all as clever as you think it is.
Mr. Cumstein is a respected member of his local community.
Among other things, it was overtly racist.
RACIST? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
GOOD LORD TOO MANY PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY HAVE LOST THEIR MINDS!
The joke involved a pearl necklace (a white object) and a poster named "CUMstein." (a made-up name poking fun at a white substance). With the emergence of the term "white privilege" and how it relates to this discussion, it was meant to be a JOKE. Nothing about race whatsoever.
How can you possibly construe this as racist? If I prayed enough, I would save a prayer for you and all others of your faux morally outraged mindset.
Mitch Cumstein is a nod to the movie “Caddyshack” where Chevy Chase said Mitch was his college roommate and got expelled for night putting with the underaged daughter of the school dean, you moron.
Right. And because Caddyshack is a fictional comedy film, the characters have made up names that are meant to be funny, you dumb fuck. And considering what fictional Mitch was expelled for in the fictional movie, the name was meant to be funny.
My joke apparently was not funny to a lot of people. However, the interpretation of it being racist is the dumb shit moronic thing. How in the flying fuck is it racist? Is semen racist? Or am I being racist to white people?
This board is mgolive these days. You and "remdog" are wonderful contributors to it being that way.
You really need help.
Dafuq?
I hope UM does the right thing. I also don't have a problem with privilege.
Law is constructed on the adversarial parties arguing a point. My hope is that UM fully cooperates. Abandoning attorney-client privilege, however, is a dangerous precedent.
UM will collaborate but will never agree to a blanket waiver of privilege. The third parties will have a say in this. e.g., some talked to UM's lawyer on the advice of his/her own lawyer that everything said is privileged. UM cannot waive that.
I think it’s pretty bold for a state attorney generals to require a possible defendant to waive any later of legal protection.
Bold is one word. Audacious also fits. Asinine is another.
She knows the law and knows how absurd this request is; this is pure grandstanding and not actually productive or helpful in moving towards resolution.
Be glad Nessel is limited to the power she has as MIchigan AG...
I would agree to this the day after MSU agrees to it as to all subsequent investigations of alleged sexual misconduct, as well as agreeing to release all privileged documents as to the Nassar scandal. And, yes, I do understand the "Michigan difference"; but we should use this as leverage to get Staee to uncircle the wagons.
You are turning serious criminal situations into a competition. What the fuck is wrong with you?
The real question is what the fuck is wrong with the AG. She knows no one would agree to this and she is grandstanding. My thought is she doesn't want to investigate so she is asking for something that the U will never agree to.
Or she's trying to use the situation at MSU and other Universities to try and show Michigan why they should be as open as possible.
It's a tricky situation, but Michigan should definitely not act based on what happens with MSU or another school.
IMO, the lawyer team today was all about pointing out how Michigan can/should handle this better than MSU (mostly) and OSU and PSU with an occasional threat that his team knows how to get to the truth etc...... It was also typical lawyer grandstanding and posturing. John Manly, the LA attorney, aka the church suing lawyer, wandered off topic saying this isn't about money and that is up to the jury and judge. Ummm, why is compensation being discussed today anyway? It is listed in the suit...plantiff damages. We get it. It was a bizarre rant, mixed in with a Rose Bowl mention. Anyway, I am hoping for the best here for the survivors, and I want UM to be transparent AND expect UM will be represented, because they deserve to be.
My comment above notwithstanding, this will NEVER happen. Attorney-client privilege exists for a good reason -- to permit counsel to give unfettered advice to a client without fear of exposure. I can't see any institution giving up that protection.
The U should agree not to fight disclosure of any non-privileged documents, such as fighting FOIA requests. But giving up attorney-client privilege is insane. And, yes, I am an attorney.
I agree with this... Giving up all privilege would be insane - as would taking a view of privilege that includes everything. Blanket privilege protection is bullshit, and would signal nothing less than an MSU-like cover up. I hope UM 'does the right' by agree to cooperate fully while also respecting valid attorney-client privilege boundaries.
The AG is wrong to ask what she asked for, in the way she asked for it.
In all honestly, she might have been very wrong to release such a statement. If there is something to investigate, you investigate it. Law enforcement has been conducting investigations with that pesky attorney-client privilege in this country for over 200 years. Attorney-client privilege does not preclude law enforcement from getting answers to their questions, nor does something evidencing illegal conduct become privileged simply by way of giving it to an attorney.
This is really odd. Bordering on unprecedented.
Without getting political, the new AG in MI is not without controversy. She has had a couple of high profile cases filed which did not go her way.
I know she is an attorney, not sure of her judicial or legal expertise other than a BA from UM and JD from Wayne State.
M Ascending, I 100% agree that giving up privilege is insane.
Logic isn't in high demand on this sports blog. The negs you've received are appalling.
It is especially insane to agree to a blanket waiver of privilege. I could see waiving it with respect to narrowly defined areas, if appropriate, but a blanket waiver when you really have no idea what that may get into is nuts.
Since you're an attorney and reading between the lines here, do you think this is just a poorly worded response/warning to anyone at U-M who thinks it's possible to blanket slap "ACP " on any requested docs and get away with it (even though that's not what ACP is for)?
I ask because by way of comparison, the client engagement I'm working on right now, they put ACP on everything and anything -- every piece of paper, email, etc., by default. One can tell them until they are blue in the face that's not going to save their ass but they don't care. They do it anyway.
“Should MSU have have known Larry Nassar was a predator, yes. Was it ever definitively proved in house, no. But it was a U of M, and it was like let’s keep him away for the rich kids.....just stick him with the scholarship athletes because they just have to suck it up.”
“it was an extremely calculated and intentional act to take a known sex predator and put him with free reign over a bunch of young men”
"This is worse than Michigan State."
- Former Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox
https://twitter.com/kimberkoz/status/1235563086997676034?s=21
Here is what I am struggling with. I want Michigan to do “the right thing,” I just don’t know what that is because I’m not sure of the extent of the thing, and what exactly “the thing” is. Some are stating that Anderson was the Football doctor, but the kids he was trading sexual favors for deferments, I don’t think those were athletes. He was the “football doctor” but nearly all of the allegations are by hockey players and wrestlers? If people at Michigan knew it was happening, who were those people? What did Anderson do at Michigan? What was his job?
Is this something that is actually on a much smaller scale than people are discussing it because of the “Nassar effect” and the modern news proclivity toward sensationalism, or was this rampant shit that everybody knew about? There are presumably grads of the school with insider connections and former Michigan athletes on this Board. Had anybody heard of Robert Anderson before a month ago? Was this a poorly kept secret? It is hard to know what to want from the University because I just cannot get an idea of what the picture is.
Sounds to me like the Michigan AG thinks some of the people involved in this mess might've lawyered up, either now or in the past.
I don't know what to think here. On one hand suspected mass murderers are given attorney-client priviledge and nobody asks them to relinquish it. On the other it might be the only way to determine who knew what and when did they know it (looking at you famous Michigan head coaches during the time this monster was roaming free).
Quite the conundrum.
If the administration is guilty, accept guilt and deal with the consequences from the attorney general and victims. Don't unleash a team of attorneys for the sole purpose of protecting the $12B endowment. That's not leadership.
People who say things like this clearly have no idea how lawsuits work. I don't intend to be mean here, but that's an incredibly naive approach.
So you support the MSU approach. I'm sure your posting history will confirm.
I will waive privilege on my posting history for you to review.
"Some one doesn't support waiving 5th Amendment rights, therefore is MSU and supports assualt"
-- GoBlue 96
Give me a break, the discussion deserve better thought than this.
You're doing the Facebook arguing thing. Don't do that. There is room for nuance in everything.
YOU KNOW WHO ALSO REFUSED TO WAIVE PRIVILEGE???? HITLER!!!!!
Did I do that right?
Who waived more privileges? Hitler? Or Stalin?
Fully cooperating is one thing and Michigan definitely should. Waiving attorney client privilege seems like taking it pretty far though. How often does that happen?
There’s a large gap between how MSU acted and not allowing yourself legal representation in a legal issue.
Yeah I want Michigan to do the right thing but this is bullshit prosecutor grandstanding. Waiving constitutional rights is not a thing you should ever do. Always have a lawyer and always use your rights
And, for the lead Attorney for the State of Michigan to ask before even attempting to investigate is shameful.
What a dumb statement.
At the end of the day, the "right thing" is make things right - compensate victims fairly, improve internal processes to protect against this in the future, etc. But the problem with a privilege waiver is that the plaintiff's attorneys are not seeking to do the "right thing". They're trying to advocate as zealously for their clients as they possibly can. And that's fine. It's their job. But that tension absolutely creates an atmosphere where the University needs to do everything in its power to protect its own interests, to the extent the plaintiff's demands exceed what UofM's leadership deems proper.
Asking people to voluntarily give up their Constitutional Rights is not "doing the right thing." You would think an officer of the court and elected official would know this.
Few groups care less about the constitution than prosecutors. Which to be fair, its not technically their job though ethically they are supposed to follow the laws. The real problem is voters, the bar, and judges who were mostly former prosecutors don't hold them accountable. The New Orleans prosecutor office for example has multiple times in the last few years had cases overturned for flagrantly violating the rights of defendants with no lawyers being disbarred or punished
I think that is painting with way too broad of a brush.
I work in criminal justice. Its pretty accurate. And its not the fault of individual prosecutors it is the system we set up. In order for prosecutors to be effective they need law enforcement to support them which means not asking questions of procedure, they get elected and reward for conviction rates, not for whether they get the right person, etc.
Our justice system as constructed is predicated on efficiency, optics, and punishment and the prosecutors are trained and operate to reflect that.