RANDOLPH DUKE THE AGS LOVE YOU

[BBA]

I know who you are and you are more than welcome here.

Follow where the facts lead you and ask the same questions I am asking. Like I said, this isn't a case of "gotcha" or "my schools is better than your school." A false trademark application was intentionally filed by a public official and has been used to extort (my opinion) settlements from private parties. Is this proper behavior by public employees?

Gill had no events in 1921. His events were in 1922, but they caused no great stir. No one thought a thing about Gill and he wasn't recognized in any way, shape or fashion for what he did in 1922 until the 1939 radio play. Between 1921 and 1939, the university's 12th man tradition was indistinguishable from the 12th Man tradition of hundreds of other schools (including The University of Texas) in that it was comprised entirely of calling their fans in the stands the team's 12th Man. Ben Zimmer explained all this in his 2014 Wall Street Journal article.

Look at all the evidence of the school's attachment from between 1922 and 1942 and ask yourself if there is a single instance where E. King Gill is attached with the school's tradition. The school yearbooks are available online in searchable form. Look at the paucity of references to any 12th Man tradition from 1922 until about 1934. Look at Gill's 1924 senior yearbook picture. Look at any yearbook between 1922 and 1962 and find any example of E. King Gill attached to the school's 12th Man tradition. Yet he was supposedly a hero starting with the end of the game in 1922. Bullshit.

In federal court in November the school has its attorneys represent to the court "The 12TH MAN Mark was initially adopted in 1922 as a remembrance of a student at Texas A&M, E. King Gill, and his spirit of readiness to serve Texas A&M’s football team in time of need."

Yet the tradition from 1922 to 1939 had nothing to do with Gill. So why did the university intentionally lie to the federal court?

Even after the 1939 radio play, Gill wasn't truly attached to the school's 12th man usage. That was adopted later and this is explained by Gill in a 1964 interview.

The school administrators wanted the trademark in 1990 and they filed a fraudulent trademark application to obtain it.

And now they are about to be held accountable for their fraud.

The one thing the school can be thankful for is that the fraudulent filings in the federal court landed on the desk of a judge who is an aggy alumnus who can always be expected by university administrators to put his ethics as a federal judge subordinate to his status as an aggy alumnus and to just ignore the school's fraudulent filing. You know, "once an aggy, always an aggy."

Thank you for the explanation, Randolph. Do you have a copy of the TM filings in which it explains the story and how it specifically pertains to the claim of Gill? I tried to find a legal document in which this was addressed but only found other registrations and such. Appreciate it.

 

[telcoag]

In 1921, your use of the phrase was indistinguishable from how hundreds of other schools were using the phrase. At that time, the phrase was in the public domain. As it also was in 1922. And in 1939 when the radio play was written.

What the school needed to do when they filed the trademark application is explain how the phrase wasn't still in the public domain at that time. The school couldn't (because the phrase was still in the public domain in 1990), so the school administrators decided to file a fraudulent trademark application that represented the fictional 1939 McQuillen radio play fairy tale as fact.

I'm not arguing the school should have filed a trademark application with a first use date of 1921. If you had, you would have never been granted the trademark.

What I am arguing is the school now has to prove "The 12TH MAN Mark was initially adopted in 1922 as a remembrance of a student at Texas A&M, E. King Gill, and his spirit of readiness to serve Texas A&M’s football team in time of need."

If the school administrators can't prove that, they have a lot of explaining to do. And they should assume the audience for their explanation is the Attorney General.

This is about to get very ugly.

We always end up circling back to the same place, and there's no point in arguing because neither of us will concede without input from a bonafide trademark lawyer. First use doesn't require that it was used Gill, it merely requires that it was used as an identifier for the collective organization specified. You can even argue that using Gill weakens this claim over the 1921 Batt since Gill isn't what was ever being referenced by the use of "12th Man" in commerce, nor is relating to a player the same as relating to a sporting event.
Your argument that "12th Man" was "public domain" (pretty sure you mean "generic") in the 1980s is irrelevant, because it wasn't being used to identify club membership, nor in connection with the sales of goods and services prior to that. The word "Apple" is in the "public domain", and I'm pretty sure they can still sell computers under that mark.

You want to claim the statement "adopted in1922" isn't factual, I'm not going to argue. I've never seen verification of that, nor does it actually matter as much as first use in commerce - just ask Pat Riley.

Your last beef seems to be with Gill's story, even though your beef comes from whether or not he was the literal last man available - a claim which isn't being made in any filings, nor A&M own website. Tell me he didn't come down from the stands at all, prove it, and then it's relevant.

 

[BBA]

We always end up circling back to the same place, and there's no point in arguing because neither of us will concede without input from a bonafide trademark lawyer. First use doesn't require that it was used Gill, it merely requires that it was used as an identifier for the collective organization specified. You can even argue that using Gill weakens this claim over the 1921 Batt since Gill isn't what was ever being referenced by the use of "12th Man" in commerce, nor is relating to a player the same as relating to a sporting event.

Your argument that "12th Man" was "public domain" (pretty sure you mean "generic") in the 1980s is irrelevant, because it wasn't being used to identify club membership, nor in connection with the sales of goods and services prior to that. The word "Apple" is in the "public domain", and I'm pretty sure they can still sell computers under that mark.

You want to claim the statement "adopted in1922" isn't factual, I'm not going to argue. I've never seen verification of that, nor does it actually matter as much as first use in commerce - just ask Pat Riley.

Your last beef seems to be with Gill's story, even though your beef comes from whether or not he was the literal last man available - a claim which isn't being made in any filings, nor A&M own website. Tell me he didn't come down from the stands at all, prove it, and then it's relevant.

This is what I meant by attacthing the trademark with specifically Gill. The 12th man originated with Gill suiting up, but, in truth is about the student body standing ready. That's why I asked for a copy of the filing, as I don't know the terminology used. Maybe it was legally tied to just Gill, or worded as such. I can't begin to determine if that's any sort of fraud or not.

 

[Randolph Duke]

This is what I meant by attacthing the trademark with specifically Gill. The 12th man originated with Gill suiting up, but, in truth is about the student body standing ready. That's why I asked for a copy of the filing, as I don't know the terminology used. Maybe it was legally tied to just Gill, or worded as such. I can't begin to determine if that's any sort of fraud or not.

Look at the 2013 story that I gave the link for above. The trademark application is discussed there.

The reality is the TAMU 12th Man tradition didn't originate with Gill suiting up in 1922. Gill himself explains this and how he explains it is explained in the 2013 story.

The students at TAMU took a generic phrase from the public domain in 1921 and started calling their fans the team's 12th Man. This continued unchanged for decades. Gill's actions in the decade of the 1920s were less a part of the school's 12th Man tradition than the contributions of Oscar Buck, the individual who seems to have been named the school's first 12th Man. 

In 1939, E.E. McQuillen wrote a radio play about the 1922 Dixie Classic that wiped 9 players who were standing on the sideline along with Gill from the school's history and falsely made Gill a hero, claiming he had that status dating back to 1922. The school's 1922 year book speaks clearly of the Dixie Classic game and while it mentions "honors were high and many" none of those honors in reality were given to Gill.

Ask yourself for a moment why a player who left the team before the end of the season, and who came down to stand on the sideline along with a number of other substitutes but didn't play, would be hailed a a hero over the players who were part of the team the entire season or any of the players who made the winning touchdown, made the game saving tackle or who played and literally shed blood to contribute to the win. It makes no sense. Nothing Gill did that day in 1922 was more valuable than the contributions of the people who actually played.

It wasn't until McQuillen's fictionalized play that falsely made Gill to be the lone substitute that the year 1922 had any importance in the school's 12th Man tradition, because over the ensuing decades after the radio play, gullible alumni were lead to believe the fictionalized radio play was the true story of the school's 12th Man tradition.

How should the families of the players who were erased from the school's history feel about how the school and the alumni have treated the contributions of their ancestors who were actually part of the team the entire season, truly did stand ready to go to the aid of the team if needed, and who have been treated like shit because the alumni chose to embrace a fairy tale instead of the school's true history? The names of those players were Wilson, Wilson (there were two Wilsons), Carruthers, Wendt, McClelland, Shifflett, Crawford, Smith, Neely and Hanna. The school's alumni have shit on the memories of those individuals by ignoring their service to the team.

John Sharp had the school's attorneys fraudulently represent to the federal court that the school's 12th Man tradition started in 1922 when the school began celebrating E. King Gill's coming from the press box to the sideline and that since 1922 the school has continuously celebrated E. King Gill as the school's 12th Man. That is a lie. Nothing was told to the court about the fact the school's attachment to the phrase at least as early as 1921. Nothing was said to inform the court the tradition with respect to Gill truthfully originated in 1939.

The school intentionally perpetrated a fraud upon the federal court in the case against the Colts. The federal judge in that case was a TAMU alumnus who seemingly shit all over his ethical obligations as a jurist and placed his undergraduate affiliation above his personal integrity by allowing the university to get away with their fraud. And you don't think all this is a story that is going to made public?! Trust me. This is about to go very public, but first the school administrators get to go on the record and explain their actions. And when they do, they need to speak as if they were speaking to the state Attorney General, because that is ultimately who is going to consider what they say.

 

[BeardedTexan]

Was told if it doesn't happen by 9, it will probably be happening tomorrow instead of tonight.

Swing and a miss.

 

[Randolph Duke]

Swing and a miss.

 As soon as the university gives their response, things can move forward.

You may not believe this, but I have absolutely no control over the senior administration of Texas A&M University.

 

[BeardedTexan]

I believe that nothing was ever going to happen and you pulled the announcement out of your ass.

 

[Randolph Duke]

I believe that nothing was ever going to happen and you pulled the announcement out of your ass.

Well, you also believe E. King Gill stood on the sideline alone on Jan 2, 1922 and was hailed as a hero of the school starting with the end of the game that day, so your beliefs are you problem, not mine.

Feel free to call Jason Cook and have him update you on things as they develop.

 

[telcoag]

Do you have a copy of the 1939 radio broadcast? A transcript?

 

[BeardedTexan]

Well, you also believe E. King Gill stood on the sideline alone on Jan 2, 1922 and was hailed as a hero of the school starting with the end of the game that day, so your beliefs are you problem, not mine.

Feel free to call Jason Cook and have him update you on things as they develop.

I don't believe that at all. I believe the 12th Man as it pertains to A&M is the sum of many parts of the school's history. All I know is that the 12th Man trademark in regards to A&M has been held up in court several times and professional NFL teams have acknowledged A&M's trademark in public media and through monetary compensation for it's use. Further strengthening A&M's hold on that trademark. (Which A&M is required to defend if it wants to keep it)

You are an internet blogger that only hopes that a large word count makes yourself believable when it only makes you look like an obsessed lunatic.

 

[Randolph Duke]

I don't believe that at all. I believe the 12th Man as it pertains to A&M is the sum of many parts of the school's history. All I know is that the 12th Man trademark in regards to A&M has been held up in court several times and professional NFL teams have acknowledged A&M's trademark in public media and through monetary compensation for it's use. Further strengthening A&M's hold on that trademark. (Which A&M is required to defend if it wants to keep it)

You are an internet blogger that only hopes that a large word count makes yourself believable when it only makes you look like an obsessed lunatic.

If only you were correct.

In their federal court pleadings, the university represented "The 12TH MAN Mark was initially adopted in 1922 as a remembrance of a student at Texas A&M, E. King Gill, and his spirit of readiness to serve Texas A&M’s football team in time of need." This precise version of the schools "tradition" that has to be defended. Not a version that is "the sum of many parts of the school's history." The university administrators attested precise version as true and accurate when they filed their federal trademark application, under penalty of perjury. They also fraudulently offered this precise version of the "tradition" in their federal court pleadings.

The trademark has never been 'held up" in court. Never has a judge ruled on its validity. That the university has extracted judgments after filing infringement speaks of two things 1) the effectiveness of the university's fraudulent scheme and 2) that Sim Lake seemingly shit upon his ethical obligations as a federal jurist and looked askance to the fraudulent pleading in the case the school filed against the Colts, seemingly out of a greater sense of loyalty to the school than to his personal integrity. Shame on Sim Lake for doing so. That Texas A&M University filed a fraudulent trademark filing, filed fraudulent pleadings in a federal court in Texas and had the case heard before an alumnus of Texas A&M University who abides by the cult slogan "once an aggy, always an aggy" should be a federal crime. How can say any defendant faced with that form of jurisprudence got treated fairly is beyond me. It is a shame upon our nation that out federal courts work in such a fashion. Young men are fighting and dying to protect and defend the Constitution that an aggy federal judge callously shits upon to help his beloved alma mater extort a few dollars from gullible defendants or defendants who realize the system is rigged against them. What an utter waste of human life. Again, shame on Judge Lake.

Whether various NFL teams have chosen to settle for no money, or an amount less than the cost of litigation, isn't a validation of the school's trademark. In our society, NFL teams are not charged with adjudicating trademark law.

As for what I am, I am right. I'm certainly not a blogger, because I have no blog. I'm just an individual who has uncovered an instance of public corruption and who is bringing attention to a fraudulent scheme being perpetrated by the senior administrators of Texas A&M University.

As far as your "obsessed lunatic" comment, after all is said and done, those who have so desperately ignored the facts and clung to a fraudulent version of TAMU history will seem far more to be "obsessed lunatics" than anyone could ever consider me to be one.

 

[BeardedTexan]

As for what I am, I am right. I'm certainly not a blogger, because I have no blog. I'm just an individual who has uncovered an instance of public corruption and who is bringing attention to a fraudulent scheme being perpetrated by the senior administrators of Texas A&M University.

So you are a lone nutjob obsessing over something that doesn't affect you in any way and people generally don't really care about.

 

[J.B. TexasEx]

Well, you also believe E. King Gill stood on the sideline alone on Jan 2, 1922 and was hailed as a hero of the school starting with the end of the game that day, so your beliefs are you problem, not mine.

Feel free to call Jason Cook and have him update you on things as they develop.

I find it amusing that aggies will come to a UT board to defend a tradition that ain't really inspiring when you look at it objectively. I mean, what makes E. King Gill any more special than any other bench-warming scrub? I'm pretty sure every CFB walk-on at every university in the country is ready to take the field for his shining moment.

Or didn't any of you aggies see Rudy ? But, as RD pointed out "once an aggy, always an aggy".

 

[Randolph Duke]

So you are a lone nutjob obsessing over something that doesn't affect you in any way and people generally don't really care about.

Public employees involved in fraudulent activity is something every Texan should be outraged over. That people utterly devoid of honesty and personal integrity are serving as senior administrators of a major public university in Texas is something that should not be allowed.

I fully understand you have a greater loyalty to Texas A&M University than you do to principles of integrity and honesty and I understand you will subordinate your loyalty to our Constitution and to the rule of law to demonstrate your cult-like devotion to that which is "red-ass aggy."

But the shame for your misguided loyalty is your burden, not mine. Ad hominem attack is to be expected from the cult members when the cult teachings are under attack. As are threats of personal violence and even death threats. I get that your beliefs are being shattered and you have to begin to grasp that what you were taught in fish camp was, at least in part, well orchestrated lies.

I am thrilled to have you in on this conversation as I am thrilled more people every day are joining in this conversation. I am thrilled the university is being called to go on the record and explain their actions. And I am thrilled this will all soon be on the desk of the state Attorney General. This is all good.

This whole story is about public corruption and, tangentially, about the willingness of a slavish sub-group of Texans who have a horribly misguided cult-like loyalty to their own culture over a sense of personal integrity.

There are two stories here - one of long-running public corruption on the part of senior administrators at Texas A&M University and the other the cult-like worship of a culture that places a greater importance on a self-aggrandizing fairy tale than they do on the principles of honesty and integrity.

Thankfully, in due course, both stories will be told.

 

[BeardedTexan]

This will never go where you want it to go. I'm sorry you aren't able to see that.

I really, really hope you come to the realization that all of the time you have spent on this will ultimately be wasted and produce nothing before you die old and alone crying over your failed crusade.

 

[Randolph Duke]

I find it amusing that aggies will come to a UT board to defend a tradition that ain't really inspiring when you look at it objectively. I mean, what makes E. King Gill any more special than any other bench-warming scrub? I'm pretty sure every CFB walk-on at every university in the country is ready to take the field for his shining moment.

Or didn't any of you aggies see Rudy ? But, as RD pointed out "once an aggy, always an aggy".

How was what Gill did any more important than what the player did who had his leg broken? or the guy who scored the winning touchdown or made the game-saving tackle? If Gill was such a hero, who was nothing said of him that day in any newspaper account? Why was nothing of his contributions made in his senior yearbook. Why was his name not mentioned in connection with the sacred tradition in any school yearbook for forty years and then with his name being mangled? Why has the university never produced one scrap of paper that in any way ties Gill to the school's 12th Man tradition prior to the 1939 radio play? Why did Gill stand before the student and alumni on campus in 1964 and give a version of the origin of the schools tradition that differs from the version the school gave the federal court in the pleading sin the Colts case?

I could go on and on, but the answer to each question is the same. Because the version of the story that says "The 12TH MAN Mark was initially adopted in 1922 as a remembrance of a student at Texas A&M, E. King Gill, and his spirit of readiness to serve Texas A&M’s football team in time of need" is a fraud.

And the university administrators knew this when they filed the fraudulent trademark application and when they filed their fraudulent pleadings in the Colts case.

Public employees involved in a fraudulent scheme to unlawfully obtain money and, if necessary, to perpetuate their fraudulent scheme, they will ruin the lives of innocent individuals (Chuckie Sonntag).

The whole 12th Man story as it pertains to the trademark is disgusting and an embarrassment to the state of Texas. The people of Texas deserve better.

 

[Randolph Duke]

This will never go where you want it to go. I'm sorry you aren't able to see that.

I really, really hope you come to the realization that all of the time you have spent on this will ultimately be wasted and produce nothing before you die old and alone crying over your failed crusade.

A wise man once told me "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."

Even if nothing happens of this, I will know I have acted with integrity. Your misguided devotion to the teachings of the cult, at a cost of your integrity, is something you will have to live with.

You may be right in that when even a federal judge is willing to sacrifice his integrity to protect the cult, one lone voice may never be heard. But I have to do what I can. No one who died at the Alamo did so to protect any cult or to empower public employees to act corruptly.

What your senior university administrators are doing is an embarrassment to the state of Texas and anyone who defends their corrupt actions is as culpable as they are.

 

[BeardedTexan]

What the F@#K does the Alamo have to do with anything? That's at least the second time you've brought it up. The way you keep inserting it into your arguments doesn't make any sense.

 

[utparothed]

This will never go where you want it to go. I'm sorry you aren't able to see that.

I really, really hope you come to the realization that all of the time you have spent on this will ultimately be wasted and produce nothing before you die old and alone crying over your failed crusade.

Perfect description of aggy football.

 

[telcoag]

So I'm guess that's a 'no' to having a copy of McQuillen's broadcast, right Randy?