Twitter: Zeke lawyers file for stay on suspension

[Alexander]

 

[CowboyStar88]

Good read.

"The NFL seems to believe that if the criminal justice system fails an alleged victim, it needs to save the day. "
LOL basically called the league Captain Save-a-Hoe

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

Yeah, it's the message that's the problem. Right.

The decision is made and no amount of acting as if I am stupid is going to help you Brother. The whole carrying water thing was stupid to being with. You don't like the message so you shoot the messenger. It's not my fault that you don't like the results. It's not my fault that you didn't want to believe that this was a done deal from the get go. Me pointing out the obvious to you, and you not getting it or not wanting to get it is your problem, it's not mine. You think I don't understand what you are eluding to with the whole carrying water thing? Wake up man. I told you what would happen and it did. Who is carrying water here, the guy who saw the writing on the wall or the guy who is making excuses as to why they couldn't read the writing own their own?

See what I mean? Your entire thesis is I told you so. Its as ignorant as it is annoying. And you were literally accusing critics of the decision of libel. If that's not carrying water I don't know what is. But since one of six agreed with your interpretation you can have this one, no matter how tortured the road it took to get there.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

If we believe what we are told that isn't entirely true.

Jerry said on the fan that they did NOT know about article 46
It has been said that has been in place for 50 plus years
The reason why it's never come up is because they (players) assumed the commissioner would act in good faith, but Goodell obviously does not believe in that
The new DV policy was NOT Collectively Bargained and the NFLPA tried to take the NFL to court over it

I agree, and it is a crappy situation.

I understand this and honestly, that was probably the only hope that the NFLPA had but I don't believe that it was ever a real factor. I said this earlier but I will say it again. Nobody wants to get waist deep in this. The NFLPA doesn't want the Higher Federal Courts to really start looking at this. The Owners do not want the Feds involved in this. If the players are smart, they don't wont this either. Jerry sometimes says things out of optimism. I just don't believe that article 46 supports the players in this. Here is what article 46 says:

It specifically states that criteria is not about legal criminal findings but about Conduct and impact of same to the health of the League. This is why I just never felt as if 46 was very supportive of the NFLPA's position.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

This is an outstanding article.

Amazing article and bang on. nvm

 

[dogberry]

How is a charge of assault "conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football,"?

The event took place outside of professional football and is thus outside of the commissioner's writ.

Is there some magic in subsection b?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

See what I mean? Your entire thesis is I told you so. Its as ignorant as it is annoying. And you were literally accusing critics of the decision of libel. If that's not carrying water I don't know what is. But since one of six agreed with your interpretation you can have this one, no matter how tortured the road it took to get there.

This is your opinion and I get that but honestly, I did try to explain it months ago. I did try to discuss it, with out bias and it's also true that all of those who didn't want to listen, simply acted poorly and made many of the same claims as you, yourself are trying to make. "Carry the Water", really?

Nowhere in this discussion have I said that I thought the process was fair or unfair. I simply tried to explain that it is what it is and it was pretty much all there in black and white. Unless the NFL has somehow conducted proceedings incorrectly, according to standards all parties agreed upon, there was not much of a chance that the decision of the NFL would be overturned.

Now, you didn't want to hear that but what is it that you would have me say? Nothing, would that be better? The truth is that you didn't want to hear it then and you don't want to hear it now but you are going to because you won't simply accept that the ruling is what it is. Instead, you would rather behave as you are now. OK, if that's what you want to do, then go ahead and do that. I certainly will not stop you but don't start crying over it when it's explained to you that this was coming from the get go and you did not listen.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

How is a charge of assault "conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football,"?

The event took place outside of professional football and is thus outside of the commissioner's writ.

Is there some magic in subsection b?

Actually, the code of conduct stipulates that actions of players, on and off the field, is subject to the NFLs code of conduct. It's in the CBA.

 

[Nightman]

Because you went from a discussion of how the DV policy was not subject to the NFLPA approval you've claimed over and over to a post about Zeke's specific appeals.

You are 100% correct....... I was specifically talking about the League unilaterally adding the DV Policy with no say from the NFLPA...... ABC had repeatedly claimed they had agreed to it...... my only question was whether or not they challenged the changes in court back in 2015.... I thought I read that they had and lost but I can't find it anywhere

Now he is saying that because one judge sided with the NFL in the Elliott he is 100% right = not talking about the same thing

Thank for your help

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You are 100% correct....... I was specifically talking about the League unilaterally adding the DV Policy with no say from the NFLPA...... ABC had repeatedly claimed they had agreed to it...... my only question was whether or not they challenged the changes in court back in 2015.... I thought I read that they had and lost but I can't find it anywhere

Now he is saying that because one judge sided with the NFL in the Elliott he is 100% right = not talking about the same thing

Thank for your help

You left out the very important question of Jurisdiction. The opinions of the Judges you mention are over exactly what? The opinion of the Judge, who's ruling has decided this case is exactly what? There in, lies the answer.

 

[Nightman]

You left out the very important question of Jurisdiction. The opinions of the Judges you mention are over exactly what? The opinion of the Judge, who's ruling has decided this case is exactly what? There in, lies the answer.

You haven't listened to one word I have said .....you are so focused on yourself

But if you insist on ignoring my post I will play along...............Jurisdiction is the technical decider but several Federal judges have ruled against you before Jurisdiction was an issue and their rulings mattered......... Failia didn't even rule on the merits.....she simply went rogue on the TRO

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

This is your opinion and I get that but honestly, I did try to explain it months ago. I did try to discuss it, with out bias and it's also true that all of those who didn't want to listen, simply acted poorly and made many of the same claims as you, yourself are trying to make. "Carry the Water", really?

Nowhere in this discussion have I said that I thought the process was fair or unfair. I simply tried to explain that it is what it is and it was pretty much all there in black and white. Unless the NFL has somehow conducted proceedings incorrectly, according to standards all parties agreed upon, there was not much of a chance that the decision of the NFL would be overturned.

Now, you didn't want to hear that but what is it that you would have me say? Nothing, would that be better? The truth is that you didn't want to hear it then and you don't want to hear it now but you are going to because you won't simply accept that the ruling is what it is. Instead, you would rather behave as you are now. OK, if that's what you want to do, then go ahead and do that. I certainly will not stop you but don't start crying over it when it's explained to you that this was coming from the get go and you did not listen.

You literally accused someone of libel on behalf of the league. Now you're doing exactly what we predicted and using a single ruling as a battering ram and ignoring the substantial holes that led her there. You batting .100 is nothing to crow about and don't expect people with a firm grasp on the case to fall for such a weak defense of a travesty of a decision.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You haven't listened to one word I have said .....you are so focused on yourself

But if you insist on ignoring my post I will play along...............Jurisdiction is the technical decider but several Federal judges have ruled against you before Jurisdiction was an issue and their rulings mattered......... Failia didn't even rule on the merits.....she simply went rogue on the TRO

Interesting. So what is it, that I have said, that leads you to the statement I have bolded? I ask this because I don't believe that I have talked about anything, other then the subject at hand. Please explain.

I asked you a question earlier. What was there Jurisdiction and how are the relevant to this case? What was the Jurisdiction of the Judge who actually ruled on this?

 

[MeTed]

Good read.

Agreed. Good article.

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

I

I

I

I

I

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You literally accused someone of libel on behalf of the league. Now you're doing exactly what we predicted and using a single ruling as a battering ram and ignoring the substantial holes that led her there. You batting .100 is nothing to crow about and don't expect people with a firm grasp on the case to fall for such a weak defense of a travesty of a decision.

Where did I accuse you of Libel please. Who had the Jurisdiction in this case? You know, it's really pretty simple. A ruling stands unless it's overturned by a higher court. Who was the highest court on this? Were the decisions you refer to, of legal authority in this case or were they opinions?

Either way, until a higher court overrules, the only opinion on this case, that counts, is the one who upheld the NFL's position.

Do you disagree with that very basic statement of truth?

 

[Nightman]

Interesting. So what is it, that I have said, that leads you to the statement I have bolded? I ask this because I don't believe that I have talked about anything, other then the subject at hand. Please explain.

I asked you a question earlier. What was there Jurisdiction and how are the relevant to this case? What was the Jurisdiction of the Judge who actually ruled on this?

I have explained it several times

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Informative ActualCowboysFan.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I have explained it several times

Then it should be relatively easy for you to reiterate. Please, continue to explain.

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

Unfortunately, the only opinion that matters, in this case is the one you just committed libel on.

Check please