RANDOLPH DUKE THE AGS LOVE YOU

[drivebyag]

You think he should sua sponte enter sanctions?  

You seriously think he comprehends what that means without google?

 

[Randy]

Soldiers are dying to defend the Constitution. The same Constitution that was shit upon by the administrators of TAMU when they filed their fraudulent pleadings in Sim Lake's court and the same Constitution that was made secondary to a blind loyalty of Judge Lake to his "once an aggy, always an aggy" pledge instead of his obligations as a federal jurist.

Damn it, I have work to do but you keep one upping yourself . . .

Can you please elaborate on how the Constitution was violated in any of this?  How did TAMU's USPTO application (even if fraudulent) constitute constitutional violation?  How did Judge Lake make a mockery of the Constitution?  Specifically, which articles and sections were rendered meaningless.

Here's the thing, and it relates to your use of the word "fraud" as well: it's your constant hyperbole that so reeks of desparation and eliminates your credibility.  If you had done all of your research and simply presented it as the "true" story of the 12th man and E King Gill, you would have gotten a lot farther.  Hell, you may have had some aggies looking deeper into stuff.  Instead, you keep throwing out words like "fraud" and claiming that people are shitting on the constitution, and threatening bar cards and AG investigations.  Those delusions do nothing but take away whatever credibility and traction you could have otherwise received.

 

[Randolph Duke]

Dan/Duke: I contacted Kelly Coffey with JP Morgan Chase this afternoon and she will establish an escrow account of $200,000 split 50/50 between you and me if you can invalidate the TAMU 12th man trademark within two weeks. Put your research and money to the test. Kelly's number is 212-464-1909.

 

Unlike the TAMU senior administrators, I find it reprehensible to discuss profiting off the university's fraudulent scheme, even if the profit were to be derived from my exposing the scheme.

Some people don't look for ways to cash in on illegal activity.

In due course, the university will give their response on the record.

Besides, the invalidation of a trademark is a legal opinion and there is no way a legal opinion would be issued from a federal court a any appeals process could run its course within two weeks.

In due course, the Texas Attorney General will opine on the matter and we can go from there.

I'm not going to wait for Sim Lake to express his outrage over the fraudulent pleadings. I'm sure that will never happen.

 

[BeardedTexan]

In due course, the Texas Attorney General will opine on the matter and we can go from there.

Actually we can't, because his opinion will be to stop annoying him with this nonsense.

 

[BeardedTexan]

Unlike the TAMU senior administrators, I find it reprehensible to discuss profiting off the university's fraudulent scheme, even if the profit were to be derived from my exposing the scheme.

Dude, free money. If your research is half as good as you say it is, you'd win for sure.

Of course an actual bet with real people and real names would make this real. And you are perfectly happy spewing crap information with no repercussions.

 

[Randolph Duke]

Damn it, I have work to do but you keep one upping yourself . . .

Can you please elaborate on how the Constitution was violated in any of this?  How did TAMU's USPTO application (even if fraudulent) constitute constitutional violation?  How did Judge Lake make a mockery of the Constitution?  Specifically, which articles and sections were rendered meaningless.

Here's the thing, and it relates to your use of the word "fraud" as well: it's your constant hyperbole that so reeks of desparation and eliminates your credibility.  If you had done all of your research and simply presented it as the "true" story of the 12th man and E King Gill, you would have gotten a lot farther.  Hell, you may have had some aggies looking deeper into stuff.  Instead, you keep throwing out words like "fraud" and claiming that people are shitting on the constitution, and threatening bar cards and AG investigations.  Those delusions do nothing but take away whatever credibility and traction you could have otherwise received.

You somehow believe public officials intentionally perpetrating a fraud to deprive citizens of their private property (in this case money) is provided for in the state or federal Constitution?

You somehow believe a federal jurist subjugating due process to a misguided loyalty and allowing fraudulent pleadings in his court is consistent with the provisions of the federal Constitution?

Outside of the world of aggy, governmental officials have an absolute duty of honesty and fair dealing. Frauds by government employees are not considered within the scope of their official duties outside the world of aggy.

I am amazed that not one aggy has come forth and been concerned in the least that university administrators filed a fraudulent trademark application under penalty of perjury, let alone used the ill-gotten trademark to extort settlements from private parties. Are you truly so blinded by your loyalty to your school that you have no capacity to express outrage at unlawful activity on the part of public employees?

 

[MBHORNSFAN]

That is a deal. I will put up $100,000 in an escrow account of your choosing and you will match it. Within two weeks, if you can invalidate the TAMU 12th man trademark..... winner takes all? If you feel this strongly Dan, lets do it!

I actually love this idea. As the old saying goes put your money where you mouth is.  I might need more popcorn if the bet is taken. 

 

[Randolph Duke]

Dude, free money. If your research is half as good as you say it is, you'd win for sure.

Of course an actual bet with real people and real names would make this real. And you are perfectly happy spewing crap information with no repercussions.

If money was my objective, I wouldn't have put as much work into uncovering this scheme as I have. This is about public corruption and a fraud being perpetuated by senior administrators at TAMU.

This isn't a game of "gotcha" or about petty inter-school jealousies. This is about holding corrupt public employees accountable. Take your silly bets somewhere else.

If you want free money, bet John Sharp his 12th Man trademark fraud is going to be exposed within the next two weeks.

 

[Sirhornsalot]

Ok, please represent the University of Texas with class by your comments.

Dan is not a researcher but a troll with a mental illness. I know all of you think it is amusing regarding his admonishment of A&M but it is actually quite sad.

I think I have and did. BTW, his name is not Dan. I have met both he and his lovely wife.

No, I don't think what Randy has done is funny.

I think a dozen aggy showing up and repeating to each other "this means nothing!" is about as funny as it gets.

I'll make a not so bold prediction. You will not leave this thread. Face it, Duke has gotten WELL into that aggy head.

Anyone bring any popcorn? LOL

 

[shotime73]

We gonna need a marching band at the rate this is going

 

[Randy]

You somehow believe public officials intentionally perpetrating a fraud to deprive citizens of their private property (in this case money) is provided for in the state or federal Constitution?

You somehow believe a federal jurist subjugating due process to a misguided loyalty and allowing fraudulent pleadings in his court is consistent with the provisions of the federal Constitution?

Outside of the world of aggy, governmental officials have an absolute duty of honesty and fair dealing. Frauds by government employees are not considered within the scope of their official duties outside the world of aggy.

I am amazed that not one aggy has come forth and been concerned in the least that university administrators filed a fraudulent trademark application under penalty of perjury, let alone used the ill-gotten trademark to extort settlements from private parties. Are you truly so blinded by your loyalty to your school that you have no capacity to express outrage at unlawful activity on the part of public employees?

So the short answer to my first question is "no."

I tried to give you some friendly advice regarding ceasing the hyperbole so you can gain in the credibility department.  If you simply made the case that aggies didn't know their history or even were dumb for not knowing the details of E King Gill's story, you'd have more ground to stand on.  But your constant drumming of illegality, fraud, conspiracy, etc. is not the hill you should be dying on.

There's an old, well-known saying that seems to fit here.  While it has many versions, it is essentially "if the law is on your side, pound the law into the table.  If the facts are on your side, pound the facts into the table.  If neither is on your side, pound the table."  Point being, righteous indignation can only go so far. 

 

[Sirhornsalot]

Randy,

Please remind the board as to why you're so concerned with Duke's credibility again?  lol

I'm sorry, but the fact that a small army of aggy has come to fight with him or supposedly enlighten him is all the proof one would need to see credibility. 

 

[North Texas Golfer]

Please don't let this thread die.

It's providing much needed entertainment during the off-season 

 

[Randolph Duke]

So the short answer to my first question is "no."

I tried to give you some friendly advice regarding ceasing the hyperbole so you can gain in the credibility department.  If you simply made the case that aggies didn't know their history or even were dumb for not knowing the details of E King Gill's story, you'd have more ground to stand on.  But your constant drumming of illegality, fraud, conspiracy, etc. is not the hill you should be dying on.

There's an old, well-known saying that seems to fit here.  While it has many versions, it is essentially "if the law is on your side, pound the law into the table.  If the facts are on your side, pound the facts into the table.  If neither is on your side, pound the table."  Point being, righteous indignation can only go so far. 

How can we assume the ags didn't know the true history of their school when they constantly make it clear it is expected of every single aggy to know the history of their school?

Do you honestly believe John Sharp, Tony Buzbee and Sim lake are clueless as to the history of TAMU? Of course they know what E. King Gill made unequivocally clear in his 1964 San Jacinto Day speech on the university campus, that being the origin of the school's 12th man tradition as it pertained to Gill originated with the 1939 E.E. McQuillen radio play and not in 1922 as a remembrance of E. King Gill, as the school falsely represented in the federal pleadings Judge Lake intentionally ignored. We have reasonable basis to believe Judge Lake may have heard Gill himself personally explain the origin of the tradition. Stupidity isn't going to bail out the aggys this time.

This is about holding those who have long known the trademark filing was fraudulent accountable. There is no excuse of "I didn't know the history of TAMU or its traditions." They know, they have long known, and they have remained silent as the university falsely represented its 12th man tradition over the past 27 years.

Nice try to portray all this as an honest mistake of naive rubes, but that isn't going to fly this time.

 

[Randy]

How can we assume the ags didn't know the true history of their school when they constantly make it clear it is expected of every single aggy to know the history of their school?

Do you honestly believe John Sharp, Tony Buzbee and Sim lake are clueless as to the history of TAMU? Of course they know what E. King Gill made unequivocally clear in his 1964 San Jacinto Day speech on the university campus, that being the origin of the school's 12th man tradition as it pertained to Gill originated with the 1939 E.E. McQuillen radio play and not in 1922 as a remembrance of E. King Gill, as the school falsely represented in the federal pleadings Judge Lake intentionally ignored. We have reasonable basis to believe Judge Lake may have heard Gill himself personally explain the origin of the tradition. Stupidity isn't going to bail out the aggys this time.

This is about holding those who have long known the trademark filing was fraudulent accountable. There is no excuse of "I didn't know the history of TAMU or its traditions." They know, they have long known, and they have remained silent as the university falsely represented its 12th man tradition over the past 27 years.

Nice try to portray all this as an honest mistake of naive rubes, but that isn't going to fly this time.

So you are still going to ignore what is actually required to show fraud?

"How can we assume the ags didn't know the true history of their school when they constantly make it clear it is expected of every single aggy to know the history of their school?"

You can't assume that.  Problem is, that's not how the burden works.  As noted above, the burden is heavy and rests upon the challenger to show not only knowledge of the falsity, but also intent to deceive.  Good luck with that.

But regardless, let's assume everyone knew the story of Gill was false - it's not material, as also demonstrated above.  Let's assume it was all an evil aggie lie - still not fraud.  Again, if your crusade was simply to show how reprehensible such a lie would be, then you'd be on the right track.  But that's not what you are doing.  Instead, you are trying to make specific legal claims, and for that you have utterly failed.

Lastly, again to Judge Lake, a "reasonable basis to believe" won't get you anywhere in bringing any sort of complaint against a jurist.  You assume, just because he's an aggie, that he would know all of the intricacies of the E King Gill story (again, we're generously granting that everything you say is true).  And not only that he knows, but that he had some ability to do something regarding a case that went unchallenged.  Let's remember, no other pleadings were filed.  Judge Lake more than likely never even saw the complaint because there was no reason for him to review it.  Nonetheless, he is now a part of the grand conspiracy in your mind. 

 

[Randy]

Randy,

Please remind the board as to why you're so concerned with Duke's credibility again?  lol

I'm sorry, but the fact that a small army of aggy has come to fight with him or supposedly enlighten him is all the proof one would need to see credibility. 

I'm not at all concerned, as already explained in my second post.  I know that any effort to enlighten him is futile, and I wouldn't dare try to change Mr. Duke - I like him just the way he is.  Some other posters, however, seemed to ask genuine questions so I thought I'd give an actual answer.

No offense to you or Mr. Duke, but any "credibility" gained via anonymous posters on a fan site message board is not exactly the validation that I seek in my life, and I hope most people would agree with me on that.  I have no qualms if I have no credibility here (and don't really expect any), which is why I cited authorities in my first post. 

Anyways, you guys have a great rest of the day.  This afternoon was a nice break but back to the real world.

 

[Sirhornsalot]

I'm not at all concerned, as already explained in my second post.  

No offense to you or Mr. Duke, but any "credibility" gained via anonymous posters on a fan site message board is not exactly the validation that I seek in my life, and I hope most people would agree with me on that.  I have no qualms if I have no credibility here (and don't really expect any), which is why I cited authorities in my first post. 

Anyways, you guys have a great rest of the day.  This afternoon was a nice break but back to the real world.

1. Here, let me quote you in the post you made that I responded to. It's still there until you take it down. BTW, this was entirely unsolicited.

"I tried to give you some friendly advice regarding ceasing the hyperbole so you can gain in the credibility department."

2. Why else would you and so many others be here today? If it weren't legit, you'd be doing something more important or worthwhile. Instead, you're spending all day here telling everyone what a waste of time he is.

No, it's not preferred credibility. But it's not everyday when you have a dozen or so volunteers show up for an impromptu case study in "how to defeat your own argument in real time."

 

[BeardedTexan]

If money was my objective, I wouldn't have put as much work into uncovering this scheme as I have. This is about public corruption and a fraud being perpetuated by senior administrators at TAMU.

This isn't a game of "gotcha" or about petty inter-school jealousies. This is about holding corrupt public employees accountable. Take your silly bets somewhere else.

If you want free money, bet John Sharp his 12th Man trademark fraud is going to be exposed within the next two weeks.

2 Thursdays from now I will bump this and watch you eat your words. Trust me.

 

[Randolph Duke]

So you are still going to ignore what is actually required to show fraud?

"How can we assume the ags didn't know the true history of their school when they constantly make it clear it is expected of every single aggy to know the history of their school?"

You can't assume that.  Problem is, that's not how the burden works.  As noted above, the burden is heavy and rests upon the challenger to show not only knowledge of the falsity, but also intent to deceive.  Good luck with that.

But regardless, let's assume everyone knew the story of Gill was false - it's not material, as also demonstrated above.  Let's assume it was all an evil aggie lie - still not fraud.  Again, if your crusade was simply to show how reprehensible such a lie would be, then you'd be on the right track.  But that's not what you are doing.  Instead, you are trying to make specific legal claims, and for that you have utterly failed.

Lastly, again to Judge Lake, a "reasonable basis to believe" won't get you anywhere in bringing any sort of complaint against a jurist.  You assume, just because he's an aggie, that he would know all of the intricacies of the E King Gill story (again, we're generously granting that everything you say is true).  And not only that he knows, but that he had some ability to do something regarding a case that went unchallenged.  Let's remember, no other pleadings were filed.  Judge Lake more than likely never even saw the complaint because there was no reason for him to review it.  Nonetheless, he is now a part of the grand conspiracy in your mind. 

A determination of fraud is a legal finding and nothing that will ever get discussed in an adversarial internet thread will ever get an aggy to agree the cult leadership have ever done wrong. It isn't my job to "prove' fraud. It is my job to make the facts known and present them to a) the public and b ) competent authorities.

As far as your supposition that John Sharp, Sim Lake, Tony Buzbee and other "red-assed aggys" are clueless as to the school's traditions, you touch on the question that has been discussed behind the scenes whether they are culpable or clueless. In time we will know, but I dare say nether option is flattering to the aggys.

I disagree with your determination that the date of first use is not a material element to a trademark filing. There are few bits of information required to file a trademark application. Two of which are a) date of first use and b ) continuous use since.  Whether the intentional misrepresentation of either is a question of law is not something that a finding on an internet message board would be material.

As far as Judge Lake is concerned, I am not interested in bringing a complaint against him.

My intention is to see the facts are made public and to ensure the matter is brought before the state Attorney General for a determination of the legal ramifications of the actions of the TAMU senior administrators.

Personally, I find it reprehensible the university refuses to honestly discuss its traditions. I find it beyond reprehensible the university filed a false and misleading trademark filing in the first place, let alone the fact the university doubled down by filing materially false and misleading pleadings in the Colts case but hey, they had an aggy judge and they knew he would play along, so what the hell.

From the outside looking in, integrity and honesty matter. From the inside looking out, the aggys can't explain why they refuse to be honest and ethical in their dealings with the public about their school's history or traditions. The stain TAMU continues to place upon the reputation of the state of Texas is humiliating and reprehensible. The people of Texas deserve better.

I hope Judge Lake, at some time, removes the stain upon his reputation by expressing outrage that intentionally fraudulent pleadings were placed before his court. In all honesty, I'm not holding out much hope. I'm hoping the light that is about to shine on the whole fraudulent scheme will hold people accountable. I can say without any hesitation, that if almost any plaintiff intentionally filed fraudulent pleadings in Judge Lake's court, they would be sorry they did so. Sadly, when his beloved TAMU chose to do so, they were awarded with a favorable outcome.

Once an aggy, always an aggy.

I feel sorry for the defendants who come before Judge Lake. Based upon his either corrupt motives or naivete as a jurist I can't accept that he is a fair and honest jurist. And that saddens me. The parties who come before his court deserve better.

The corrupt motives of the TAMU administrators should not place such a stain on Judge Lake, but sadly, there is no other interpretation one can reasonably arrive at when fraudulent filings from his beloved alma mater result in a favorable outcome in his court.

What is it about the aggy culture that makes it so difficult for them to be honest with the public about their school's history and their school's traditions? From the outside looking in, it makes no sense.

 

[drgilbert]

Thanks guys it's been quite enjoyable reading all this. I don't know if Duke has a leg to stand on when it comes to the TM thing, but it does seem like he has brought some light to the actual story. If the story was falsified then I hope it will be retold appropriately to future TAMU fish. Of course it also brings up if this was a made up tradition, are there other traditions based off of made up info.