Criminal Prosecution by a Private Entity

[OldCoach]

https://www.amydash.com/single-post...zekiel-Elliott-–Will-The-2nd-Circuit-Allow-It

This is an excellent read and perfectly sums up what has been troubling me about this whole suspension/arbitration process.....Publicly convicting someone through a kangaroo court that will damage someone's reputation and change their life. That's why this smells like libel/slander.

 

[Verdict]

https://www.amydash.com/single-post...zekiel-Elliott-–Will-The-2nd-Circuit-Allow-It

This is an excellent read and perfectly sums up what has been troubling me about this whole suspension/arbitration process.....Publicly convicting someone through a kangaroo court that will damage someone's reputation and change their life. That's why this smells like libel/slander.

Yes. I haven't read the article but this sure creates some interesting issues. If i was the NFL I would sure want to avoid creating them if I were the NFL.

I doubt that the NFL is immune from defamation .

 

[OldCoach]

I heard this this morning- Goodell and the NFL front office, "The Shield," was meant to protect the owners from the public and criticism. Goodell is turning more into a magnet for controversy. Not really what I imagine owners wanting in a commish. With the way the NFL has handled the Anthem, domestic violence, and everything else, I wouldn't bet against Goodell getting non renewed.

 

[diefree666]

I heard this this morning- Goodell and the NFL front office, "The Shield," was meant to protect the owners from the public and criticism. Goodell is turning more into a magnet for controversy. Not really what I imagine owners wanting in a commish. With the way the NFL has handled the Anthem, domestic violence, and everything else, I wouldn't bet against Goodell getting non renewed.

24 owners have to approve an extension. I think his chances are steadily dwindling.

 

[Reality]

Yes. I haven't read the article but this sure creates some interesting issues. If i was the NFL I would sure want to avoid creating them if I were the NFL.

I doubt that the NFL is immune from defamation .

By the NFL convicting Elliott without clear evidence of a crime and either directly or indirectly publicly labeling him as a "woman beater", they have likely created a potential legal nightmare for themselves. With most players who are punished by the league, there is enough evidence against them that would make proving defamation very difficult. However, in this case, the NFL has publicly convicted Elliott of a crime (not just a rule violation) that the criminal court system declined to prosecute, specifically due to questionable and/or lack of evidence.

I have read a lot of comments from people outside of this forum who think Elliott was proven guilty of hitting/abusing women, and I'm not just talking Cowboys haters. That fact alone creates a huge potential financial problem for the NFL because Elliott was one of the top players in the league last year and would have had a significant amount of revenue potential through endorsements, advertising, etc. had the NFL not convicted and suspended him. While he may ultimately lose the current battle because it is being fought within the constraints defined in the CBA, there should be nothing stopping him from going after the NFL for defamation of character that will not have those constraints and limitations.

 

[Verdict]

By the NFL convicting Elliott without clear evidence of a crime and either directly or indirectly publicly labeling him as a "woman beater", they have likely created a potential legal nightmare for themselves. With most players who are punished by the league, there is enough evidence against them that would make proving defamation very difficult. However, in this case, the NFL has publicly convicted Elliott of a crime (not just a rule violation) that the criminal court system declined to prosecute, specifically due to questionable and/or lack of evidence.

I have read a lot of comments from people outside of this forum who think Elliott was proven guilty of hitting/abusing women, and I'm not just talking Cowboys haters. That fact alone creates a huge potential financial problem for the NFL because Elliott was one of the top players in the league last year and would have had a significant amount of revenue potential through endorsements, advertising, etc. had the NFL not convicted and suspended him. While he may ultimately lose the current battle because it is being fought within the constraints defined in the CBA, there should be nothing stopping him from going after the NFL for defamation of character that will not have those constraints and limitations.

I don't know why Zeke didn't sue Tiffany for defamation prior to the hearing before the NFL suspension, or at least immediately following his initial suspension.

He could have used the power and process of the court to gain evidence in his case. At some point it is worth pissing off the NFL if they are railroading you anyway.

 

[Reality]

I don't know why Zeke didn't sue Tiffany for defamation prior to the hearing before the NFL suspension, or at least immediately following his initial suspension.

He could have used the power and process of the court to gain evidence in his case. At some point it is worth pissing off the NFL if they are railroading you anyway.

The problem is this would create a much larger media and social media problem for him. Right now, it is mostly NFL fans who think he was proven guilty. Attacking the accuser would spur mainstream media to cover the story and ignite social media to get involved, which ultimately greatly expand the people who think he's guilty and expose this to a lot more people who normally do not follow the NFL. Not to mention, it could also damage or dilute his claim of defamation.

The smart move is for him to focus on the NFL battle for now and see it through. Regardless of the outcome, I would think he has to consider a legal complaint of defamation against the NFL at some point because the NFL has permanently damaged his name and brand which will ultimately cost him a considerable amount of money in the short term and possibly long term.

 

[Verdict]

The problem is this would create a much larger media and social media problem for him. Right now, it is mostly NFL fans who think he was proven guilty. Attacking the accuser would spur mainstream media to cover the story and ignite social media to get involved, which ultimately greatly expand the people who think he's guilty and expose this to a lot more people who normally do not follow the NFL. Not to mention, it could also damage or dilute his claim of defamation.

The smart move is for him to focus on the NFL battle for now and see it through. Regardless of the outcome, I would think he has to consider a legal complaint of defamation against the NFL at some point because the NFL has permanently damaged his name and brand which will ultimately cost him a considerable amount of money in the short term and possibly long term.

It's a balancing act. Defamation usually has a short statute of limitations. In some jurisdictions it is one year.

 

[robjay04]

I heard this this morning- Goodell and the NFL front office, "The Shield," was meant to protect the owners from the public and criticism. Goodell is turning more into a magnet for controversy. Not really what I imagine owners wanting in a commish. With the way the NFL has handled the Anthem, domestic violence, and everything else, I wouldn't bet against Goodell getting non renewed.

He has had no positive impact ln the league. The NFL would’ve seen similar revenue increases if a hamster was commissioner. It’s an exciting, modern sport compared to other slow pace sports that have 50+ meaningless games a season.

The only positive I can think of that has been added to the game during his tenure is increasing the length of extra points.

 

[Bohuntr97]

I don't know why Zeke didn't sue Tiffany for defamation prior to the hearing before the NFL suspension, or at least immediately following his initial suspension.

He could have used the power and process of the court to gain evidence in his case. At some point it is worth pissing off the NFL if they are railroading you anyway.

I somewhat agree and I think that is still on the table as (I'm not sure of the exact time) the statue of limitations lasts for a while to do so. He could even sue for $1 just to compell her to court.

 

[TWOK11]

https://www.amydash.com/single-post...zekiel-Elliott-–Will-The-2nd-Circuit-Allow-It

This is an excellent read and perfectly sums up what has been troubling me about this whole suspension/arbitration process.....Publicly convicting someone through a kangaroo court that will damage someone's reputation and change their life. That's why this smells like libel/slander.

It's unsettling to be sure, but perfectly legal based on the CBA the players agreed to.

And libel/slander requiring one to show by a preponderance of evidence that the entity or person in question made KNOWINGLY FALSE claims.

In other words, Zeke would have to show some evidence that the league KNEW he didn't hit her, ever. That's something he can't do.

 

[Reality]

It's a balancing act. Defamation usually has a short statute of limitations. In some jurisdictions it is one year.

True, but the clock would likely start either the moment he loses his final ruling or the moment he misses his first game, so he should have plenty of time to file if he chooses to do so.

 

[TWOK11]

True, but the clock would likely start either the moment he loses his final ruling or the moment he misses his first game, so he should have plenty of time to file if he chooses to do so.

But again, on what grounds does he submit a suit that carries any chance of success?

He cannot show the league knowingly made any false claims about him. The fact that he can show there isn't enough evidence to legally charge him with a crime is irrelevant.

 

[Verdict]

True, but the clock would likely start either the moment he loses his final ruling or the moment he misses his first game, so he should have plenty of time to file if he chooses to do so.

I don't think so. The cause of action arises when the defamation occurs.

 

[jrumann59]

I don't know why Zeke didn't sue Tiffany for defamation prior to the hearing before the NFL suspension, or at least immediately following his initial suspension.

He could have used the power and process of the court to gain evidence in his case. At some point it is worth pissing off the NFL if they are railroading you anyway.

It sucks but being tarred an feathered as a woman beater and then trying to use your millions to sue the woman you "allegedly" beat really does not endear you to the public and I am sure any future endorsement deals would shy even farther away. I know it is a double standard but that is the society we live in.

 

[Bohuntr97]

I don't think so. The cause of action arises when the defamation occurs.

Now we get into the fun (for kicks and giggles). In your opinion, what venue and what would be the staute of limitations be? Ohio where she first made the claim? NY?

 

[Verdict]

It sucks but being tarred an feathered as a woman beater and then trying to use your millions to sue the woman you "allegedly" beat really does not endear you to the public and I am sure any future endorsement deals would shy even farther away. I know it is a double standard but that is the society we live in.

It's a dangerous line to walk for sure. I have represented a lot of people in criminal cases and some are very serious cases involving crimes against persons like rape, etc.

When a lawyer examines a witness like that in front of a jury and you cross examine the accuser if you really go after them it can really enrage the jury at your client. My general feeling is that if they find my client guilty they are going to hammer him anyway so I am ruthless in my examination. I think going all out against them is usually the best option.

 

[Verdict]

Now we get into the fun (for kicks and giggles). In your opinion, what venue and what would be the staute of limitations be? Ohio where she first made the claim? NY?

Well certain things are generally not defamatory. For instance a report made to police is not defamatory. Testimony i court is not defamatory.

The statute of limitations runs from the date the untrue statement was made (with publication--meaning others heard it) and it damaged his reputation in some way. His claims against her initial defamation has likely already run (unless he filed suit and no one knows it because he didn't serve her).

If he has a defamation suit against the NFL which be novel (but speculative) it would be at the time the NFL published (made known to others) defamatory statements. So the statute of limitations probably commenced running the day the initial ruling was published (disclosed).

That would be a hard row to hoe against the NFL for many reasons. But if you could get it to a jury you you lay the wood to the NFL.

 

[jrumann59]

It's a dangerous line to walk for sure. I have represented a lot of people in criminal cases and some are very serious cases involving crimes against persons like rape, etc.

When a lawyer examines a witness like that in front of a jury and you cross examine the accuser if you really go after them it can really enrage the jury at your client. My general feeling is that if they find my client guilty they are going to hammer him anyway so I am ruthless in my examination. I think going all out against them is usually the best option.

In a civil trial it will be even tougher. Civil proceedings are full of emotion.

 

[Verdict]

In a civil trial it will be even tougher. Civil proceedings are full of emotion.

Both are.