ReportWire

Tag: Cannon

  • What do an axe, a bucket and a cannon have in common? Meet the rivalry trophies of college football

    What do an axe, a bucket and a cannon have in common? Meet the rivalry trophies of college football

    Welcome back to Oklahoma Chronicles. Now we want to take *** deeper look at NIL rules, the current state of college athletics, and the transfer portal, and all of it. Joining our panel today, *** couple of really good guests. We have State Senator Todd Gher here who authored NIL legislation this year in Oklahoma, very busy keeping your eyes on everything and the moving and shaking. Also Bobby Lepack, who teaches an NIL class at the University of Oklahoma, thanks so much. for being here. Thanks for having me. Well, let’s talk NIL and the transfer portal and everything as we were talking earlier, we just talked about how everything is changing so much. In fact, Bobby, you have this class on NIL it’s through the the business college there at OU, and you had to stop teaching it for *** while because everything’s changing it so so fast sometimes, correct it’s, it’s *** really dynamic landscape and between the Alston decision and then the new rules after that and how litigation. And now potentially the score act and all of that, you know, how about back us up and we start talking about the Alston decision and all of that. I mean, I should even say NIL when we say that name, image like this, this was something created so that college athletes, student athletes could receive compensation, get some money for signing autographs or doing endorsement deals, but it’s, it’s, it’s really grown. So I wanna come back to all the nitty gritty, but this has become such *** huge thing that even. Legislators now are having to watch very closely not just in Oklahoma but around the country. That’s right you know this, uh, the legislation we passed this year was, uh, basically, uh, the governor had done an executive order. This was taken that executive order, worked closely with the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University to uh get this bill through the, the Senate and over to the house, uh, did, you know, but it’s so dynamic in, in that, uh. It’s almost there’s 32 states already running NIL legislation they’re all different from each other or they’re some of them are and it’s very competitive and so we ran this legislation in order to uh keep that competitive edge that our universities need as well as to protect the student athletes, OK, and, and, and everybody’s doing this at the same time because of these changing dynamics, Bobby, and how everything’s happening from. The decision and the you know and lawsuits and everything, how many different factors are in play right now? How many things are colleges juggling and athletic departments? I think you got 3 big ones, right? So you have the name, image and likeness stuff, NIL, which I think is *** distinct concept from pay for play, which is what’s coming from the revenue share agreements that are coming out of the house settlement and then the last is the transfer portal which is really I think the one that’s actually. I would say the culprit in so much of the consternation around college sports is the the kind of open transfer rules that are going on. I think when you talk to most college football fans they can get behind the, you know, these universities they’re making so much money off off of their backs, especially these, these. You know, these very revenue making sports like football and basketball, they should get something but now it’s become, but I don’t like them leaving every single year where every single year we got *** new roster of players whether or not you had *** good team or *** bad team it’s *** whole new thing is is the portal become exploited because of NIL did one kind of create *** monster out of the other, do we think? I think the portal has, uh, you know, as far as the fans are concerned, has created an impatience that instead of, you know, the traditional way we’ve always done it, which is, uh, take *** young man and, and red shirt him and then build that team and, and, uh, build those skill sets, now it’s, uh, hey, you’ve got the money, go out there and just buy *** team for us we want to win next year so it’s created an impatient and the fan base, uh, but it’s also created. Uh, impatient with the coaches and the coaching staff and the different styles, right? is this difficult on these coaching staffs? Oh, absolutely. I, I, I have *** personal connection to. You have *** brother, my younger brother Brian, who played football and so I, I saw it from the side of the athlete that wasn’t allowed to get an IL, um, beforehand beforehand and now right back in the day and uh. And now as *** coach dealing with the dynamic of the portal you’re you’re not just recruiting high school players you’re recruiting at various times in the calendar year players from other rosters that have gone into the portal but you’re also trying to prevent your own guys from going into the portal and so it creates this dynamic where. The coaching calendar is just *** nightmare. They’re working nonstop year round on roster management issues and recruiting guys that play for them, play in high school and are now in the portal. It’s, it’s *** very difficult situation and it doesn’t stop. It never stops and it’s changing. Sometimes because from *** leadership perspective you’re trying to protect the interests of the state universities correct? is that when you’re doing these, these you know these bills is it coming from that standpoint to make sure that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and and other universities in the state. Are on at least *** competitive footing. That’s right, you know, in this state, you know, it applies to all the universities, but you know if you’re just talking about University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University, they’re actually in two different conferences and so it’s imperative that we actually evened out that landscape so that if the SEC did something early. And the Big 12 was late to catch up. There wouldn’t be *** political, I mean, ***, uh, *** disadvantage, *** competitive disadvantage between the two schools, much less, uh, uh, *** competitive disadvantage coming from other states and other universities, you know, they, they call it the wild wild west, but it’s more of an arms race at this point, right? And I remember the old arms. When it was about facilities and T. Boone Pickens was out there and they were dominating the arms race and now it’s something completely different but I think it’s, I think that’s actually *** really good point is you’re just changing the mix, right? Where are you allocating your resources in this and it’s this is something that’s coming up in the coaching world is how are you gonna manage your roster, how are you gonna manage your personnel. Uh, I think it’s gonna take *** new breed of coach, new breed of athletic director. I think you’ll see you’re seeing departments do that. Oklahoma’s done *** really, I think, outstanding job of changing how they manage the roster. They brought in *** GM with NFL experience, things like that. They actually have *** general manager for these programs, right? And, and I think you’ll see the people that that are creative and open to the chaos. And and willing to take that challenge on really succeed and blossom in this, and if you’re not willing to adapt to the new environment, then you’re gonna have *** hard time and there might be more adapting to come because there is federal legislation that that could be you know uh that could be changing things again with with the score Act for example which Bobby that would make *** big change as well or maybe would that bring. Us together perhaps because that the whole idea of that is it would create *** national system correct for state senators wouldn’t have to be every single year creating new NIL legislation. It’s interesting the SCOR Act, if if you look at it really closely, it’s basically saying we’re just gonna create what the NCAA used to be and give them the antitrust exemption and give them authority to enforce *** bunch of rules, right? and um. So it kind of harkens back, but then added in are the three components we talked about earlier. There’s got to be revenue share. There’s gotta be transfer portal options and then the NIL protections. Uh, it’ll be interesting to see what happens there. I’m not sure exactly where it’s gonna go, if it’s even gonna pass, you know what, what is your intuition and what are you hearing about this? Well, you know, I, I think it’s interesting that uh from the federal level to the to the state level that, you know, as we said we we were in it to keep the competitive. Uh, not, not wanting to be at *** competitive disadvantage and, and to protect our student athletes. When you listen to, uh, what’s coming out of the federal, federal side, they’re talking about stabilizing the system. And uh they’re talking about protecting them from uh antitrust lawsuits in NCAA and so it’s kind of *** different focus and in an individual state doesn’t want to be disadvantaged to another state or another university where the federal government’s trying to, you know, make that stability give uh give uh each uh. that ability to compete too. Bottom line, and we have less than 2 minutes here. Is this better than what it was when your brother was, was, was playing football? Bobby, what do you think? I think from an NIL perspective it’s absolutely better, right? My brother was *** very, he is still is *** very talented singer and I remember he’s *** walk-on player at Oklahoma. He couldn’t. Be somebody’s wedding singer and get paid the market rate for his services, that was wrong, right? That’s exploitation, all of those things, but I think the environment that’s created with the ongoing transfer portal, no rules or or very limited rules and *** lot of uncertainty on what’s going to happen with eligibility. We even see litigation over that. I think that’s worse, and I think that. Somebody’s gonna have to step up and and make *** change whether that’s *** federal solution or that’s the colleges themselves self regulating saying we’re not going to participate in this game this way anymore. I think somebody’s got to do something about that. Well, there’s always going to be billionaire donors, right, that are gonna be willing to step up and it’s just who has them and who’s willing to use it in less than *** minute, do you think, Senator, the current system is college athletics broken or. We’re moving towards *** better, *** better place or are we there now? I, I think, I think we’re moving towards *** better place and, uh, you know, the, the state and the state legislature and the governor are engaged in temporary solutions until we can figure this out nationally or uh however we’re gonna do it but I think we’re moving to *** better solution where we’re gonna have revenue sharing and we’re gonna have uh control. And and things over college athletics to ensure that you know the Olympic sports aren’t left behind to ensure that women’s sports aren’t left behind. I think that’s gonna take *** national solution on that. We’ll tell you what, we’re going to pause here. We’re gonna take *** break. You can find more. We’re gonna record *** little bit more. We’re gonna talk about those other sports and how we can protect them. You can find that on KOCO.com as well as our YouTube page.

    What do an axe, a bucket and a cannon have in common? Meet the rivalry trophies of college football

    Updated: 12:08 AM EST Nov 28, 2025

    Editorial Standards

    The most-played series in major college football history, the bitter border-state rivalry between Minnesota and Wisconsin, is punctuated each year with a postgame ritual by the winning team that could be described as jubilant yardwork.When time expires on Saturday in the 135th edition of the Gophers-Badgers grudge match, currently even at 63-63 with eight ties, the victors will sprint toward Paul Bunyan’s Axe, take turns hoisting the six-foot shaft above their heads as they parade it around the stadium, and aim the head at one of the goal posts in pretending to chop it down like it’s a giant tree in the north woods. The axe has been awarded annually since 1948.Video above: Taking a deeper dive in NIL rules and impact on college athleticsThere’s hardly a richer — or quirkier — tradition in college football than rivalry trophies, one of the few elements of the game that remains the same in the new era of revenue sharing and the transfer portal. From the small schools to the powerhouse programs, nothing captures a sports fan’s attention quite like a traveling trophy.”It’s a way for a community — certainly the students, alumni, fans and faculty, but even more casual fans — to get revved up for a football game,” said Christian Anderson, a University of South Carolina professor whose research focus is on the history of higher education. “There are a lot of people who may not pay attention the whole season, and then the rivalry game comes and they’re a passionate fan for one Saturday.”Longtime members of the Big Ten boast perhaps the richest history of these one-of-a-kind prizes. The Little Brown Jug, which is neither little nor brown, dates to the Michigan-Minnesota game in 1903. Wolverines coach Fielding Yost, out of fear the Gophers might tamper with their water, had a student manager buy a jug for the team. After a brutal struggle ended in a tie as Minnesota fans stormed the field, the container was left behind. The Gophers formally returned it after the Wolverines won the next meeting in 1909.Minnesota fared better at the beginning with Floyd of Rosedale, a 98-pound bronze pig named after the state’s governor in 1935 who suggested the trophy to his Iowa counterpart as a way to deescalate tension between two fan bases with deep roots in farming.Indiana will face Purdue on Friday for the Old Oaken Bucket, found in disrepair on a local farm in 1925 with the belief it might have been used by Confederate soldiers in the Civil War. Indiana and Michigan State have competed since 1950 for the Old Brass Spittoon, a relic from the trading post era purchased at an antique shop by an MSU student to add incentive to the game. Illinois and Ohio State have played for a century for the Illibuck Trophy, now a wooden turtle after an ill-fated attempt to award the real thing — a 16-pound snapper — to a student society on the campus of the winning team. Michigan and Michigan State have fought since 1953 for annual ownership of the Paul Bunyan Trophy, a four-foot wooden statue of the mythical lumberjack donated by the state’s governor to mark MSU’s entry into the conference.As football became the front-of-the-brochure image of a college campus, the power of visuals has helped make these trophies lasting legends.”It’s a tangible representation that we beat our rivals,” Anderson said. “Maybe we only keep it for a year because it’s a traveling trophy, but next time we’re going back to get it if we didn’t win it.”The NCAA certified the Territorial Cup played for by Arizona and Arizona State as the oldest known rivalry trophy, awarded after their first meeting in 1899. But there’s a gap in the history of the small, silver-plated pitcher. It was missing for decades until its rediscovery in a storage area of a church near the ASU campus in 1983. Traveling-trophy formality was finally reinstated in 2001.If there’s one recurring theme among rivalry trophies, it is relics from the pre-industrial age. Nevada and UNLV play for the Fremont Cannon, a 545-pound replica of the cannon the explorer of the same name abandoned in a snowstorm during his trek through the state in 1844. Notre Dame and USC have the Jewelled Shillelagh, a wooden symbol of a traditional Gaelic war club that was first presented in 1952. Oh, and there are all kinds of bells waiting to be rung by a winning team out there. Lots of bells.California and Stanford play for an axe, too, except theirs is just the head mounted on a plaque, an oft-stolen trophy annually awarded since 1933. Kentucky and Tennessee battle for a beer barrel. When Mississippi fans stormed Mississippi State’s field after a Rebels win in 1926, MSU supporters balked and brawls broke out. To help restore dignity to the rivalry the following year, the student bodies from both schools introduced the Golden Egg, a gold-plated football mounted on a pedestal. Fortunately, the egg never gets too close to the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex in Texas, where SMU and TCU have played for the Iron Skillet since 1946. The rivals from the defunct Southwest Conference have met 104 times in 110 years, but no future games have been scheduled.The Slab of Bacon is safely away from the skillet, too. That was the first version of the Minnesota-Wisconsin hardware, a wooden slab that went missing in 1943 after the planned exchange following a Gophers victory never took place, for reasons that depend on which school is telling the story. A summer storage cleanout project in Madison in 1994 turned up the trophy, which Wisconsin has since kept on display. Somehow, all the game scores through 1970 are inscribed on it even though it was supposedly unable to be found for all those years.

    The most-played series in major college football history, the bitter border-state rivalry between Minnesota and Wisconsin, is punctuated each year with a postgame ritual by the winning team that could be described as jubilant yardwork.

    When time expires on Saturday in the 135th edition of the Gophers-Badgers grudge match, currently even at 63-63 with eight ties, the victors will sprint toward Paul Bunyan’s Axe, take turns hoisting the six-foot shaft above their heads as they parade it around the stadium, and aim the head at one of the goal posts in pretending to chop it down like it’s a giant tree in the north woods. The axe has been awarded annually since 1948.

    Video above: Taking a deeper dive in NIL rules and impact on college athletics

    There’s hardly a richer — or quirkier — tradition in college football than rivalry trophies, one of the few elements of the game that remains the same in the new era of revenue sharing and the transfer portal. From the small schools to the powerhouse programs, nothing captures a sports fan’s attention quite like a traveling trophy.

    “It’s a way for a community — certainly the students, alumni, fans and faculty, but even more casual fans — to get revved up for a football game,” said Christian Anderson, a University of South Carolina professor whose research focus is on the history of higher education. “There are a lot of people who may not pay attention the whole season, and then the rivalry game comes and they’re a passionate fan for one Saturday.”

    Longtime members of the Big Ten boast perhaps the richest history of these one-of-a-kind prizes. The Little Brown Jug, which is neither little nor brown, dates to the Michigan-Minnesota game in 1903. Wolverines coach Fielding Yost, out of fear the Gophers might tamper with their water, had a student manager buy a jug for the team. After a brutal struggle ended in a tie as Minnesota fans stormed the field, the container was left behind. The Gophers formally returned it after the Wolverines won the next meeting in 1909.

    Minnesota fared better at the beginning with Floyd of Rosedale, a 98-pound bronze pig named after the state’s governor in 1935 who suggested the trophy to his Iowa counterpart as a way to deescalate tension between two fan bases with deep roots in farming.

    Indiana will face Purdue on Friday for the Old Oaken Bucket, found in disrepair on a local farm in 1925 with the belief it might have been used by Confederate soldiers in the Civil War. Indiana and Michigan State have competed since 1950 for the Old Brass Spittoon, a relic from the trading post era purchased at an antique shop by an MSU student to add incentive to the game.

    FILE - Indiana's Mike Katic celebrates with the Old Oaken Bucket after defeating Purdue in an NCAA college football game, Saturday, Nov. 30, 2024, in Bloomington, Ind.

    Darron Cummings

    FILE – Indiana’s Mike Katic celebrates with the Old Oaken Bucket after defeating Purdue in an NCAA college football game, Saturday, Nov. 30, 2024, in Bloomington, Ind.

    Illinois and Ohio State have played for a century for the Illibuck Trophy, now a wooden turtle after an ill-fated attempt to award the real thing — a 16-pound snapper — to a student society on the campus of the winning team. Michigan and Michigan State have fought since 1953 for annual ownership of the Paul Bunyan Trophy, a four-foot wooden statue of the mythical lumberjack donated by the state’s governor to mark MSU’s entry into the conference.

    As football became the front-of-the-brochure image of a college campus, the power of visuals has helped make these trophies lasting legends.

    “It’s a tangible representation that we beat our rivals,” Anderson said. “Maybe we only keep it for a year because it’s a traveling trophy, but next time we’re going back to get it if we didn’t win it.”

    The NCAA certified the Territorial Cup played for by Arizona and Arizona State as the oldest known rivalry trophy, awarded after their first meeting in 1899. But there’s a gap in the history of the small, silver-plated pitcher. It was missing for decades until its rediscovery in a storage area of a church near the ASU campus in 1983. Traveling-trophy formality was finally reinstated in 2001.

    If there’s one recurring theme among rivalry trophies, it is relics from the pre-industrial age. Nevada and UNLV play for the Fremont Cannon, a 545-pound replica of the cannon the explorer of the same name abandoned in a snowstorm during his trek through the state in 1844.

    Notre Dame and USC have the Jewelled Shillelagh, a wooden symbol of a traditional Gaelic war club that was first presented in 1952. Oh, and there are all kinds of bells waiting to be rung by a winning team out there. Lots of bells.

    California and Stanford play for an axe, too, except theirs is just the head mounted on a plaque, an oft-stolen trophy annually awarded since 1933. Kentucky and Tennessee battle for a beer barrel.

    When Mississippi fans stormed Mississippi State’s field after a Rebels win in 1926, MSU supporters balked and brawls broke out. To help restore dignity to the rivalry the following year, the student bodies from both schools introduced the Golden Egg, a gold-plated football mounted on a pedestal.

    FILE - UNLV pulls the Fremont Cannon trophy, awarded to the winner of the annual Battle of Nevada game, on the field after defeating Nevada in an NCAA college football game Saturday, Nov. 30, 2024, in Las Vegas.

    David Becker

    FILE – UNLV pulls the Fremont Cannon trophy, awarded to the winner of the annual Battle of Nevada game, on the field after defeating Nevada in an NCAA college football game Saturday, Nov. 30, 2024, in Las Vegas.

    Fortunately, the egg never gets too close to the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex in Texas, where SMU and TCU have played for the Iron Skillet since 1946. The rivals from the defunct Southwest Conference have met 104 times in 110 years, but no future games have been scheduled.

    The Slab of Bacon is safely away from the skillet, too.

    That was the first version of the Minnesota-Wisconsin hardware, a wooden slab that went missing in 1943 after the planned exchange following a Gophers victory never took place, for reasons that depend on which school is telling the story.

    A summer storage cleanout project in Madison in 1994 turned up the trophy, which Wisconsin has since kept on display. Somehow, all the game scores through 1970 are inscribed on it even though it was supposedly unable to be found for all those years.

    Source link

  • Battle of Bunker Hill reenactment includes sea operations

    While most people saw the action on land during the reenactment of the Battle of Bunker Hill in Gloucester, some took part aboard ships reenacting the Royal Navy off Half Moon Beach.

    The ability to recreate an amphibious assault was a major reason Stage Fort Park was an ideal spot for the battle event, according to Maritime Gloucester Executive Director Michael De Koster.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAmw6 DA6?E $2EFC52J >@C?:?8 @G6CD66:?8 E96 =2?5:?8 7C@> E96 G2?E286 @7 2 D>2== C@H3@2E H:E9 2? @FE3@2C5 >@E@C 😕 E96 ~FE6C w2C3@C]k^Am

    kAms6 z@DE6C D2:5 @? E96 5@46 v=@F46DE6C E92E E96 D>2== 3@2ED 76CCJ:?8 E96 qC:E:D9 EC@@AD E@ E96 36249 42>6 7C@> 2D 72C 2H2J 2D s6=2H2C6[ }6H y6CD6J 2?5 $@FE9 r2C@=:?2]k^Am

    kAmr92C=6DE@H? H2D 2 A6?:?DF=2 😕 `ffd 2?5 H96? p>6C:42? 7@C46D E@@< E96 9:89 8C@F?5 2?5 7@CE:7:65 E96> @G6C?:89E 5FC:?8 E96 $:686 @7 q@DE@?[ E96 qC:E:D9 2EE24<65 E@ E2<6 qF?<6C w:==] %96 qC:E:D9 FD65 =@?83@2ED E@ 76CCJ EC@@AD 7C@> q@DE@? E@ r92C=6DE@H? 2?5 :E H2D E92E =2?5:?8 E92E H2D C64C62E65 $2EFC52J 2E $E286 u@CE !2C<’D w2=7 |@@? q6249 2C@F?5 h 2]>]k^Am

    kAm“%96D6 2C6 A6C:@5 3@2ED 2?5 A6C:@5 C66?24E@CD[” s6 z@DE6C D2:5]k^Am

    kAmp3@FE dg C66?24E@C D@=5:6CD C64C62E65 E96 H2E6C =2?5:?8] w6 ?@E65 E92E 6249 3@2E 925 7@FC E@ 7:G6 C@H6CD 😕 E96> 2=@?8 H:E9 E96 qC:E:D9 EC@@AD]k^Am

    kAm|2C:E:>6 w6C:E286 r92CE6CD’ D49@@?6C pC56==6 DE@@5 😕 7@C E96 7=28D9:A w|$ {:G6=J[ D2:5 E@ 36 E96 7:CDE D9:A E@ D9@@E :ED 42??@? E@ DE2CE E96 q2EE=6 @7 qF?<6C w:==]k^Am

    kAmpC56==6 76CC:65 A2DD6?86CD @FE 7@C 2 =@@< 2E E96 qC:E:D9 =2?5:?8] xE H2D D<:AA6C65 3J :ED 3F:=56C[ r2AE] w2C@=5 p] qFC?92> @7 tDD6I[ E96 >2DE6C >2C:?6C[ 3@2E 56D:8?6C[ D2:= >2<6C 2?5 D9:AHC:89E] w6 5C6DD65 😕 2 A6C:@5 3=F6 F?:7@C> @7 2 #@J2= }2GJ @77:46C]k^Am

    kAm~E96C G6DD6=D E2<:?8 A2CE E92E H6C6 3F:=E 3J qFC?92> H6C6 E96 tDD6I $9:A3F:=5:?8 |FD6F>’D r963244@ 3@2E {6H:D w] $E@CJ[ |2C:E:>6 w6C:E286 r92CE6CD’ xD236==2[ 2?5 E96 AC:G2E6=J @H?65 D49@@?6C %9@>2D t] {2??@?] v=@F46DE6C’D 7=28D9:A[ E96 D49@@?6C p5G6?EFC6[ 2=D@ EFC?65 @FE E@ E2<6 A2CE 2?5 76CCJ A2DD6?86CD 7@C 2 =@@< 2E E96 24E:@?] %96 E2== D9:A {J?I[ 32D65 😕 }2?EF4<6E[ 925 2CC:G65 😕 v=@F46DE6C w2C3@C 😕 C646?E 52JD E@ E2<6 A2CE 2?5 7:C6 96C 42??@?D @? C636= 7@C46D]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D 😀 8C62E[ H92E 7F?[ C:89EP” D2:5 zs |@?E8@>6CJ[ 6I64FE:G6 5:C64E@C @7 E96 tDD6I w:DE@C:42= $@4:6EJ 2?5 $9:A3F:=5:?8 |FD6F> 2D D96 A:=@E65 E96 pC56==6 E@H2C5 :ED >@@C:?8 A@D:E:@? @77 w2=7 |@@? q6249]k^Am

    kAm“x E9:?< :E’D 8@@5 7@C v=@F46DE6C[” D2:5 y2J |4{2F49=2?[ 2 7@F?5:?8 >6>36C @7 |2C:E:>6 v=@F46DE6C] “%96C6 😀 8@:?8 E@ 36 2 EC6>6?5@FD 2>@F?E @7 4@G6C286 @? E9:D] (6== 5@?6] v@@5 DEF77] %96 9:DE@CJ[ :E’D C:G6E:?8]”k^Am

    kAm~? E96 EC:A E@ E96 >@@C:?8[ DA64E2E@CD H6C6 8:G6? 62C A=F8D E92E 42>6 😕 92?5J 2>:5 E96 C6A62E65 62CDA=:EE:?8 3=2DED 7C@> E96 D9:A’D EH@ D:8?2= 42??@?D]k^Am

    kAm%96 D9:A’D 42??@?66CD H@F=5 D9@FE “7:C6 😕 E96 9@=6P” 367@C6 D6EE:?8 @77 E96 56276?:?8 3=2DED]k^Am

    kAm“xE’D 2 8C62E 9@?@C[” qFC?92> D2:5 H96? 2D<65 H92E :E H2D =:<6 E@ 36 A2CE @7 E96 C66?24E>6?E] “%96 q2EE=6 @7 qF?<6C w:== H2D 2 C62==J :>A@CE2?E 32EE=6 @7 4@FCD6]” w:D 2?46DE@CD 7@F89E 2E E96 32EE=6]k^Am

    kAm“xE’D :?E6C6DE:?8 3642FD6 E92E H2D D@CE @7 E96 =2DE C62= H2C E92E H6 925 =@42= 96C6 😕 |2DD249FD6EED[” qFC?92> D2:5]k^Am

    kAmsFC:?8 E96 C66?24E>6?E @7 E96 qC:E:D9 =2?5:?8[ 42??@? 7:C6 42>6 7C@> E96 G6DD6=D 😕 E96 92C3@C H9:=6 E9C66 3@2ED C@H65 A2DE pC56==6 H:E9 qC:E:D9 vC6?25:6CD @? 3@2C5] %96J =6E E96 EC@@AD @77 @? E96 36249 2?5 C@H65 324< @FE :?E@ E96 92C3@C] $:?46 E96C6 H6C6 ?@E 6?@F89 D>2== 3@2ED E@ 3C:?8 2== E96 qC:E:D9 C66?24E@CD E@ w2=7 |@@? q6249[ >@DE DE2865 @77 E@ @?6 D:56 @7 E96 36249 2?5 7:==65 😕 E96 C2?FD<6ED 2E E96 qC:E:D9 H9:=6 42??@? 2?5 >FD<6E 7:C6 42>6 7C@> E96 42??@? 7@CE 2C62]k^Am

    kAm%96C6 H2D 2 3:E @7 9:DE@C:42= :?4@?8CF:EJ @? E96 H2E6C 2D r2A6 p?? w2C3@C %@FCD’ H2E6C D9FEE=6 A@?E@@? 3@2E {25J y:==:2?[ A:=@E65 3J @H?6C[ @A6C2E@C r2AE] $E6G6 s@F8=2DD[ 76CC:65 D@>6 qC:E:D9 EC@@AD E@ E96 D46?6 D@ E96J 4@F=5 E96? 3@2C5 E96 =@?83@2ED 367@C6 36:?8 C@H65 E@ D9@C6]k^Am

    kAmp7E6C =:?:?8 FA @? E96 D9@C6[ E96 qC:E:D9 EC@@AD >2C4965 FA E96 C2>A =625:?8 @77 E96 36249] |@C6 EC@@AD 2CC:G65 @? E96 362499625[ 2DD6>3=65[ E96? >2C4965 @77 E96 36249[ D6EE:?8 E96 DE286 7@C E96 C66?24E>6?E @7 E96 32EE=6D E@ 4@>6]k^Am

    kAmtE92? u@C>2? >2J 36 4@?E24E65 2E hfgefdaf`c[ @C 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i67@C>2?o?@CE9@73@DE@?]4@>Qm67@C>2?o?@CE9@73@DE@?]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    By Ethan Forman | Staff Writer

    Source link

  • NC’s Cannon textile family, Atrium Health feud over who gets millions in inheritance

    NC’s Cannon textile family, Atrium Health feud over who gets millions in inheritance

    One of North Carolina’s prominent families has filed a lawsuit against Charlotte’s largest hospital over millions of dollars in inheritance.

    Cannon textile mill descendants want to stop Atrium Health from receiving distributions from the family trust, according to a petition filed in N.C. business court. The trust was created in 1965 by Ruth Coltrane Cannon, wife of longtime Cannon Mills president Charles Albert Cannon, for her grandson Charles Albert Cannon III, who died Oct. 28.

    Textile magnate Charles Cannon founded Cannon Mills in Kannapolis. It was the world’s largest producer of towels and sheets for decades. The mill, bought by Pillowtex 1982, closed abruptly closed in 2003 wiping out 7,650 jobs. It was the largest one-day job loss in the history of North Carolina and the textile industry at that time. The mill was demolished in 2005 and is now the site of the 350-acre North Carolina Research Campus.

    Following Charles Cannon III’s death, Ruth Cannon said in her will that she wanted the trust to go to Cabarrus Memorial Hospital, according to the Feb. 7 petition. If the trust could not be paid “expressly” to the Cabarrus County-owned hospital, it would be distributed to “religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes,” the petition states.

    The filing does not specify the trust’s value.

    Cabarrus Memorial has not existed since the 1980s and became part of Atrium through a series of mergers in the 2000s, according to the petition. Atrium is now part of Advocate Health with revenue of more than $27 billion.

    Since Cabarrus Memorial does not exist, “the trustees have preliminary concluded that Atrium Health is not the proper remainder income beneficiary,” and trustees should proceed with alternative income distribution, according to the petition.

    “Atrium Health does not meet the trust’s express condition that remainder income be paid out for ‘charitable purposes,’” the petition states.

    On Jan. 24, Atrium objected to the trust’s interpretation of the will and laid claim to it, threatening legal action if income distributions did not begin on Feb. 15.

    The trust is represented by Kearns Davis, James C. Adams II and Agustin M. Martinez of Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard LLP.

    The petition requests a jury trial.

    Atrium Health officials and attorneys representing the trust did not respond by Friday afternoon for requests for comment.

    Law360 trade publication first reported the case.

    Related stories from Charlotte Observer

    Catherine Muccigrosso is a business reporter for The Charlotte Observer. An award-winning journalist, she has worked for multiple newspapers and McClatchy for more than a decade.

    Source link

  • ‘She’s Going to Be Famous for a Long Time’

    ‘She’s Going to Be Famous for a Long Time’

    For many judicial nominees, a Senate confirmation hearing is one of life’s most grueling experiences—an hours-long job interview led by lawmakers who are trying to get them to face-plant on national television.

    Not for Aileen Cannon. When the federal judge who will oversee former President Donald Trump’s criminal trial testified in 2020, the Senate Judiciary Committee didn’t go easy on her so much as they ignored her.

    Cannon, then a 39-year-old prosecutor, appeared on Zoom alongside four other nominees, her face framed by a wall of diplomas on one side and an American flag on the other. Her opening statement lasted all of three minutes and sounded like an Oscar winner’s speech—lots of thank-yous and little else. She didn’t say a word about her legal philosophy or how she would approach the job of a judge. The senators didn’t seem to mind: None of them addressed a question specifically to Cannon for the rest of the hearing. The committee’s chair at the time, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, skipped the proceeding entirely, as did each of the five most senior Republicans on the panel. The hearing was over after barely an hour. Three months later, while Trump was beginning his effort to overturn his defeat in the presidential election, a bipartisan Senate majority (including a dozen Democrats) voted to confirm Cannon’s nomination as a federal judge in the Southern District of Florida.

    For low-profile nominations like Cannon’s, perfunctory hearings aren’t unusual. But the scrutiny she was spared in the Senate is coming her way now. After just two and a half years as a judge, Cannon will soon preside over a trial with no precedent in American history. The defendant is the former president who appointed her, and her rulings during the investigation that led to Trump’s indictment have already prompted many legal experts to fear that she will tilt the trial in his favor.

    But some of the Democratic lawyers who have appeared in Cannon’s courtroom don’t share those worries. They say that she is a smarter, more deliberate, and more even-handed judge than the early criticism of her would suggest. “I think the government should be very happy that they have Judge Cannon,” says Richard Klugh, a longtime defense attorney in Miami who has dealt with Cannon both as a judge and when she served as a federal prosecutor there. Klugh, a lifelong Democrat, told me that aside from her “narrow” rulings on Trump’s case last summer, he had heard no complaints about Cannon from either prosecutors or defense attorneys. “She’s very confident, very honest … and very thorough,” he told me. “She’s confident enough to go through things independently.”

    That may be, but she’s extremely inexperienced. Since taking her seat on the bench, Cannon has worked mostly out of a courthouse in Fort Pierce, a two-hour drive from Miami and a town that one local lawyer described to me as “a backwater.” She has presided over just four trials as a judge, none of which covered crimes remotely similar to the willful retention of classified documents that the government has accused Trump of committing. (She is set to oversee a far more complex trial involving alleged Medicare fraud in the coming months.)

    Cannon was born in Colombia and is the daughter of Cuban refugees. In her brief statement to the Judiciary Committee, she described how her mother, at the age of 7, “had to flee the repressive Castro regime in search of freedom and security.” Cannon graduated from Duke University, and by the time she earned her law degree from the University of Michigan, she had already joined the conservative Federalist Society. After law school, she embarked on a fairly conventional legal career: She clerked for an appellate judge, spent several years at a large law firm, and then became an assistant U.S. attorney in Miami. In written responses to the Judiciary Committee, Cannon wrote that she considered herself both an “originalist” and a “textualist”—two approaches long identified with conservative judges—but that she would follow all precedents set by the Supreme Court and other appellate rulings.

    Two South Florida lawyers told me that they were struck by Cannon’s overt religiosity, which has seeped into her pronouncements in court. She routinely tells defendants “God bless you” after they enter guilty pleas, said Valentin Rodriguez, a lawyer who has appeared before Cannon. “In my entire 30-year career I’ve never had a judge mention God to a client ever,” Rodriguez told me. “She does that as a matter of course.”

    Although presidents formally nominate all federal judges, they frequently appoint district-court judges at the recommendation of home-state senators. Cannon told the Judiciary Committee that she was first approached about filling a judicial vacancy by the office of Senator Marco Rubio in 2019, nearly a year before Trump sent her nomination to the Senate. Her appointment came at a moment when Trump and then–Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell were trying to reshape the federal courts by filling as many open judgeships as possible with young conservatives in their 30s and 40s. Three previous nominations for judgeships in Florida’s Southern District had gone to men in their 40s. “It made sense that Trump would select a woman with good credentials who also happens to be Hispanic,” a South Florida defense lawyer who knows Cannon told me. (The lawyer requested anonymity to speak candidly about a judge in their jurisdiction.)

    At the time of her nomination, Cannon had virtually no public profile outside of the courtroom. On her Senate questionnaire, she said she had never given a speech, served on a panel discussion, or testified before a legislative body. She had never held public office and told the Senate she had never participated in a political campaign, although she and her husband each contributed $100 to Ron DeSantis’s bid for governor in 2018. The only interview Cannon said she had ever given for publication was for a photo feature on TheKnot.com about her wedding. Her relative anonymity has caused headaches for publications that have searched in vain for a public photo of Cannon that hasn’t already been used repeatedly; almost every story features the same Zoom screenshot from her Senate testimony in 2020.

    Like most Republican-appointed judges in Florida’s Southern District, Cannon is known as a tough sentencer. But there have been notable exceptions when she has handed down a shorter prison term than she could have, Rodriguez told me. He mentioned a case in which a 21-year-old defendant, Artavis Spivey, who had been incarcerated on and off since he was 11, pleaded guilty to armed carjacking. He and another defendant committed the crime just 18 days after Spivey had been released from prison. Cannon sentenced Spivey to 15 years, but Rodriguez said she could have added many more years to his term. “She could have thrown the book at him, and I think she saw redeeming qualities in the young man,” Rodriguez said. Spivey had grown up in a troubled home without a father, “kind of given up by his parents,” Rodriguez added. “That experience tended to make me appreciate the fact that she could look beyond just the retribution and vengeance of a sentence and look at the person.”

    Cannon also handed down a lighter-than-expected sentence to a 34-year-old man, Christopher Wilkins, who threw a chair at and threatened to kill a federal prosecutor after receiving a 17.5-year sentence on gun and witness-tampering charges. Cannon added six and a half years to his prison term, which was less than the sentencing guidelines called for. “I’ve heard stuff about tough sentencing. I can’t report that. I can report fair sentencing,” Wilkins’s lawyer, Jeffrey Garland, a Republican, told me.

    Yet none of the decisions that Cannon has made in her young judicial career have stirred as much controversy as her rulings in the lawsuit that Trump filed after the FBI searched his Mar-a-Lago estate for unreturned classified documents last summer. Cannon initially appointed a special master to review the documents that federal investigators had collected, and barred the government from accessing some of them. The rulings were a gift to Trump at the time and delayed the FBI’s investigation. But in a sharp rebuke of Cannon, the conservative Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals overruled her decisions and said she should not have even heard the case.

    Some legal experts have cited those rulings and the fact that Trump appointed Cannon as reasons for her to recuse herself or be taken off the case. A few of the Florida defense lawyers I interviewed—who, it should be noted, routinely argue against the government’s position—characterized Cannon’s orders as understandable considering how unprecedented the case was. The defense lawyer who spoke on the condition of anonymity, however, was more critical. “That ruling was totally out of bounds,” the lawyer told me.

    One of the most significant decisions Cannon now faces is whether to attempt to hold the trial in advance of the 2024 presidential election. Should Trump win the White House, he could quash the government’s prosecution of him. South Florida lawyers were dubious that Cannon could try the case before the election, noting the complexities surrounding classified documents that frequently slow down prosecutions at the federal level. Howard Srebnick, a Democratic defense lawyer on the Medicare-fraud case before Cannon, also praised her early performance on the bench. But he said that it still took 18 months for the Medicare case to get to trial even though it does not involve government secrets. “The notion that this case could go quickly? That’s absurd,” Klugh told me.

    Still, Cannon has already issued her first order—one that could indicate she wants to move swiftly. On Thursday, she instructed lawyers who want to take part in the case to get security clearances by next week. That was the first of many decisions Cannon will make that, in ways big and small, will shape the first-ever federal criminal prosecution of a former president. They will change Cannon’s life, creating a reputation for favoritism or fairness where none existed. A young judge whose photograph had never appeared in a newspaper until last year is set to become a household name. As Rodriguez observed with a slightly nervous laugh: “She’s going to be famous for a long time.”

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • Will Trump Get a Speedy Trial?

    Will Trump Get a Speedy Trial?

    Settle in, America: This could take a while.

    When Special Counsel Jack Smith announced last week that a federal grand jury had indicted former President Donald Trump, he made a point of saying that the government would “seek a speedy trial in this matter, consistent with the public interest.” Whether Trump gets one could determine whether he goes to prison for his alleged crimes.

    In just over 18 months, Trump could be serving as president again, at which point he’d be in a position to attempt to pardon himself or instruct the Department of Justice to dismiss its case against him. That might seem like a long way away, but for the nation’s tortoiselike federal-court system, it’s not. Complex, high-profile cases sometimes take years to get to trial, and former federal prosecutors told me that, even under the fastest scenarios, Trump’s trial won’t begin for several months and potentially for more than a year. Trump may well be waiting for a trial when voters cast their presidential ballots next fall. Although Smith will do all he can to hurry up the prosecution, the former president’s legal team could move to dismiss the charges—though that would almost certainly be futile—and file other pretrial motions in order to bog down the process.

    “There’s a pretty obvious incentive from [Trump’s] point of view for delaying this,” Kristy Parker, a lawyer at the advocacy group Protect Democracy who tried cases for 15 years at the Justice Department, told me. “That is especially true if he understands that the evidence against him is significant and that the chances of him being convicted of these offenses are pretty high.”

    Different federal courts operate at different speeds. The Eastern District of Virginia, for example, has long been known as “the rocket docket”; it’s raced through even high-profile cases such as the 2018 trial of Trump’s former campaign chair Paul Manafort. Trump’s trial will occur in the Southern District of Florida and will reportedly be overseen by one of his own appointees, Judge Aileen Cannon. “Federal judges have enormous control over their courtrooms and over the schedule and timing of their cases,” Chuck Rosenberg, a former U.S. attorney in Virginia and Texas, told me. “Some are very good at docket management, and some are not.” Having served as a judge for less than three years, Cannon hasn’t developed much of a reputation either way.

    Cannon presided over a lawsuit Trump filed last year after the FBI executed a search warrant at his Mar-a-Lago estate. She issued a series of rulings favorable to him. Representative Dan Goldman, a New York Democrat and a former federal prosecutor who served as a top counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment, told me it was “concerning” that Cannon would apparently run the former president’s trial. “It was pretty clear that her initial rulings did not follow the law but followed some preconceived personal and political viewpoints, and there’s no place for that in the judiciary,” Goldman said. Indeed, the conservative Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a pair of Cannon’s decisions, including one that barred the government from accessing some of the documents that the FBI recovered from Mar-a-Lago.

    Another former Democratic co-counsel during the Trump impeachment, Norm Eisen, has called for Cannon to recuse herself or be taken off the case.

    If Cannon stays on the case, she will have fairly wide latitude to set its tempo. She will be responsible for scheduling any pretrial motions and hearings, determining what evidence is admissible, and ruling on potentially time-intensive challenges that Trump’s lawyers could bring.

    In their indictment, the prosecutors estimated that a trial would take 21 days in court—not an especially long trial for a case of such magnitude. The timeline suggests the government believes it has a pretty “straightforward” argument, Parker said.

    The fact that this case centers on documents Trump had in his possession—illegally, the government argues—means that he may have already seen a significant portion of the evidence the Justice Department has on him. Theoretically, that could speed up the discovery process that occurs before any trial. But cases that involve classified documents tend to take longer, former prosecutors told me, because the court will have to determine who can access sensitive materials and how to protect government secrets before and during a trial. Most of the pretrial rulings that Cannon could make are subject to appeal, and those delays can quickly add up.

    Another scheduling complication is that Trump is facing another criminal trial, in New York, on charges that he falsified business records, and he could face yet another indictment and trial in Georgia related to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump’s Manhattan trial is scheduled for March, which would be about 10 months after his indictment in that case and right in the middle of the Republican primary season. (Although the cases are in different jurisdictions, the 10-month lag could be a rough guide for how long Trump’s federal trial will take to get under way.)

    One of the biggest questions Cannon may face is whether the election should factor into her decisions about how soon to schedule a trial and whether to agree to delays that Trump might seek. Parker argued that the election is a legitimate consideration. “We are in uncharted territory,” she said, “and quite frankly, I would think that a court would want to try to get this matter resolved ahead of that point.” Even if Trump’s trial concludes before the 2024 election, however, it’s unlikely that (if he’s convicted) his appeals will be exhausted by then.

    The former prosecutors I spoke with could only guess at what would happen if Trump were elected president while awaiting trial or sentencing. The case would likely proceed after the election, and the Constitution doesn’t explicitly bar convicted felons from taking office. Whether Trump could pardon himself is a matter of debate; no president has ever tried, but in 1974, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion stating that a presidential self-pardon would be unconstitutional. Even if Trump did not attempt to pardon himself, though, he could lean on or simply direct his appointees in the Justice Department to drop the case against him. He’d surely argue that, by electing him, voters had rendered a verdict more legitimate than any jury’s.

    For all the legal wrangling to come, Trump’s ultimate fate may yet rest with the voters. If he is the Republican nominee, they will have what amounts to the final word on his future, political and otherwise. “These cases are important, but they are not magic wands,” Parker said. “They will not relieve the voting public of its problems.”

    Russell Berman

    Source link