2c7c8608920f9eb169fd…

Lt. Col. Falvey is a Marine and is not in the Army.

In regard to your comments on the Falvey Report:

First, I don’t know how you define “unexperienced in administration,” but the author of the report has served in top level positions in the U.S. Army and was also the Dean of Students for the law school for roughly six years. Second, while he did prepare the report on short notice, it was prepared at the request of Tom Monaghan, who of course later dismissed it, though, there is no evidence that he actually read it.

Individual suits for breach of contract, etc., of course can be filed by any interested party.

2. If he wants to quite giving to the school and has not made any promises, that’s fine. It’s his Foundation, after all, which is not bound to support any particular charitable endeavor. I see from the Falvey Report via ttp://www.avewatch.org/files/archive-5.html that he *has* made concrete promises, ones that are perhaps even legally binding (apparently a law firm was hired to verify that the most important ones were).

3. This does raise an interesting way out for the directors. They might agree that a move to Florida will have a 90% chance of wrecking the Law School, but that if they don’t move, Mr. Monaghan will stop donating, which will have a 100% probability of wrecking it. In that case, the move is in the best interests of the Law School.

The Falvey Report (by a professor unexperienced in administration who did it without cooperation from the Law School and on short notice) seems to refute that scenarior, though. It makes a strong case that the School could survive even if it only received the legally binding commitments made by Mr. Monaghan up to 2009. This was what the ABA accreditation people said, essentially– that they would accredit only because they were convinced that the Law School could be self supporting.