News: It is official! Zeke suspended 6 games **merged**

[Nightman]

Bad example if you are attempting to show my unreasonableness. That post was VERY complimentary to Dallas. And I believe every word I said.

proves you are here trying to gloat

 

[beacamdim]

proves you are here trying to gloat

That literally makes no sense. I'm not here to gloat -- look at every post I made today and I defy you to find any gloating. The Giants beat Dallas twice last year WITH Zeke, I'd rather the Giants play them at full strength anyway, because if they win and Zeke is sidelined I will never hear the end of the excuses from my wife and stepson.

Besides, when it comes to football I have other things to worry about, starting with the Giants' crappy OL.

 

[Nightman]

Man, you just don't know when to stop.

First, that was an arbitration, not a court case.

Second, in that particular case -- largely due to the uproar that his minor discipline caused when the video subsequently came out -- Goodell voluntarily gave up his right to serve as arbitrator, and former Judge Barbara Jones was appointed.

That hasn't ever happened before or since, didn't happen in the Brady case, and won't happen here.

it means it was so bad it didn't even get to Federal Court and then Rice got all his salary back

Just like Hardy's reduction......that was another rebuke of his powers

 

[Yakuza Rich]

And the conspiracies continue. I'm sure he'd throw away his reputation and career to help his alleged favorite team win a football game. They all will ya know.

What I know about Harvey is that he admitted that Thompson lied to police and tried to get her friend to do the same.

He also stated in his own words that Thompson had a witness....it was Thompson.

I'm downright gobsmacked that a former Attorney General would say that. It's so ludicrous and downright stupid (and wrong).

I have to question competency when a statement like that is made.




YR

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I believe that you read it. I also believe you misunderstand it.

Thinking I am not an attorney does not make that the case, I'm afraid,

Again, peace.

Thinking I misunderstand it does not make the case either. Actually making a case would. You don't even try.

My case you your lack of legal acumen is as follows:

1) Your claim that venue does not matter when the reality is that the NFL fights tooth and nail to keep litigation out of Minnesota.
2) You did not recognize a deduction much less know how to make one. Not realizing that something being outside the rules was an exception to the rules was particularly damning.
3) Your claims that newspaper headlines were caselaw.
4) Your claim that private citizens can charge other citizens of crime.
5) A complete lack of anything resembling legal expertise.

You have no response to the issue of fundamental fairness as talked about in the Brady case other than to repeat yourself.

I have to say thank you for making me feel more confident in the weakness of the league's position.

 

[beacamdim]

it means it was so bad it didn't even get to Federal Court and then Rice got all his salary back

Just like Hardy's reduction......that was another rebuke of his powers

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Both of those matters happened before the NFL adopted the domestic violence policy in effect now -- the new policy gives a six game suspension for a first domestic violence offense and a lifetime suspension for a second.

So in fact, the six game EE suspension is entirely consistent with current policy, and therefore likelier to be upheld.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That literally makes no sense. I'm not here to gloat -- look at every post I made today and I defy you to find any gloating. The Giants beat Dallas twice last year WITH Zeke, I'd rather the Giants play them at full strength anyway, because if they win and Zeke is sidelined I will never hear the end of the excuses from my wife and stepson.

Besides, when it comes to football I have other things to worry about, starting with the Giants' crappy OL.

and yet you wrote:

In this context (i.e., whether it triggers the policy or not), absolutely, Read the Article 46 of the CBA. Read the Brady case. And then repent.

 

[SultanOfSix]

What I know about Harvey is that he admitted that Thompson lied to police and tried to get her friend to do the same.

He also stated in his own words that Thompson had a witness....it was Thompson.

I'm downright gobsmacked that a former Attorney General would say that. It's so ludicrous and downright stupid (and wrong).

I have to question competency when a statement like that is made.




YR

It's not only ludicrous and stupid, it's self-contradictory and immediately undermines what he's trying to say, if anything.

"Umm...yeah, we have a witness, it's the accuser, but we also admit she's a liar. The state rests."

This guy went to law school and learned advanced argumention and logic?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

it means it was so bad it didn't even get to Federal Court and then Rice got all his salary back

Just like Hardy's reduction......that was another rebuke of his powers

It also means that it has a good chance to not stand up in arbitration either.

 

[Doomsay]

Giants fan -- yes (albeit outnumbered in my own house by Dallas fans).

Troll, not so much.

I don't make the law here. I don't even necessarily agree that it is fair to Zeke. But I report it honestly.

You initially came here under false pretenses, there is nothing honest about you. Does your dislike of your own Dallas loving family drive you to make absurd statements on a Cowboys message board? You only seem to show up when the Cowboys lose or get screwed by the league, kind of a harpy.

 

[Nightman]

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Both of those matters happened before the NFL adopted the domestic violence policy in effect now -- the new policy gives a six game suspension for a first domestic violence offense and a lifetime suspension for a second.

So in fact, the six game EE suspension is entirely consistent with current policy, and therefore likelier to be upheld.

you left like 10x.....feel free to actually go

 

[beacamdim]

Thinking I misunderstand it does not make the case either. Actually making a case would. You don't even try.

My case you your lack of legal acumen is as follows:

1) Your claim that venue does not matter when the reality is that the NFL fights tooth and nail to keep litigation out of Minnesota.
2) You did not recognize a deduction much less know how to make one. Not realizing that something being outside the rules was an exception to the rules was particularly damning.
3) Your claims that newspaper headlines were caselaw.
4) Your claim that private citizens can charge other citizens of crime.
5) A complete lack of anything resembling legal expertise.

You have no response to the issue of fundamental fairness as talked about in the Brady case other than to repeat yourself.

I have to say thank you for making me feel more confident in the weakness of the league's position.

1. Um, I said that I did not believe that at the end of the day that jurisdiction would matter -- this is because even if a MN trial court ruled against the league it would be appealed, and would be decided by the regional circuit court that would apply law similarly to the Second Circuit. Go ask another lawyer -- they will know what I mean.

2. I am pretty sure I in fact do understand deductive reasoning. At least my professors at Harvard and Columbia thought so (no joke).

3. When did I claim newspaper headlines were case law? I was using your words as a joke -- that is why they were in quotes!

4. Never said that. I said that under the CBA Goodell had the authority to rule that the term "charge" under the CBA could mean an accusation by an alleged victim of domestic violence. I wouldn't necessarily say that, but that's not what matters -- Goodall's authority is what matters.

5. In all honesty, you don't have the experience, knowledge or judgment to make such a determination. (What IS your profession by the way?).

You are welcome. However, what either your or I THINK about the league's position will not make any difference when this gets litigated.

Peace.

 

[dogberry]

Ummm... Does Mara own a race horse?


Askin' for a ummm a friend.

 

[beacamdim]

You initially came here under false pretenses, there is nothing honest about you. Does your dislike of your own Dallas loving family drive you to make absurd statements on a Cowboys message board? You only seem to show up when the Cowboys lose or get screwed by the league, kind of a harpy.

Dude, keep attacking me, that's fine.. But that does nothing to make my analysis wrong.

 

[Nightman]

It also means that it has a good chance to not stand up in arbitration either.

at least he can present his case

 

[Yakuza Rich]

It's not only ludicrous and stupid, it's self-contradictory and immediately undermines what he's trying to say, if anything.

"Umm...yeah, we have a witness, it's the accuser, but we also admit she's a liar. The state rests."

This guy went to law school and learned advanced argumention and logic?

Again, I'm gobsmacked by his statement.

I don't know what to call it because it's such a blatantly horrendous statement you have to wonder how somebody that was a former Attorney General could make that statement.

If somebody can explain it to me, then I will stop thinking it was a conspiracy.




YR

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

1. Um, I said that I did not believe that at the end of the day that jurisdiction would matter -- this is because even if a MN trial court ruled against the league it would be appealed, and would be decided by the regional circuit court that would apply law similarly to the Second Circuit. Go ask another lawyer -- they will know what I mean.

2. I am pretty sure I in fact do understand deductive reasoning. At least my professors at Harvard and Columbia thought so (no joke).

3. When did I claim newspaper headlines were case law? I was using your words as a joke -- that is why they were in quotes!

4. Never said that. I said that under the CBA Goodell had the authority to rule that the term "charge" under the CBA could mean an accusation by an alleged victim of domestic violence. I wouldn't necessarily say that, but that's not what matters -- Goodall's authority is what matters.

5. In all honesty, you don't have the experience, knowledge or judgment to make such a determination. (What IS your profession by the way?).

You are welcome. However, what either your or I THINK about the league's position will make any difference when this gets litigated.

Peace.

Harvard.

I'd sooner believe you were from Mars.

 

[beacamdim]

Harvard.

I'd sooner believe you were from Mars.

Well, you'd definitely be wrong about Mars.

I lived in Canaday freshman year, then Winthrop House the last three years. I majored in History and Government (so Harvard to call PolySci "Government"). The zip code is 02138. Dorm phone numbers are 617-493-xxxx. Derek Bok was president the first three years while I was there. Then he was replaced by Neil Rudenstine. My graduation speaker was the Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Brundtland.

Need I go on? Or do you think I looked all of that up in 30 seconds? If you don't believe me, there is this site called Google that can confirm it all.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Dude, keep attacking me, that's fine.. But that does nothing to make my analysis wrong.

What analysis? Goodell is judge, jury, and executioner and other newspaper regurgitations?

You make assertions and then refuse to analyze them when scrutinized.

The one thing you did actually post from caselaw showed that there could be exceptions. You have no analysis regarding that same case bringing up fundamental fairness as a standard beyond a blanket dismissal. In fact when I rubbed your face in it you posted the aforementioned which is irrelevant beyond to bring up exceptions to what you were crowing about.

 

[Common Sense]

It's interesting that the same medical professionals in the Jaylon threads are now bonafide case law scholars.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
"In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein persons of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.[1]
As described by David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the cognitive bias of illusory superiority results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."[1] Hence, the corollary to the Dunning–Kruger effect indicates that persons of high ability tend to underestimate their relative competence, and erroneously presume that tasks that are easy for them to perform also are easy for other people to perform.[1]

Although the Dunning–Kruger effect was formulated in 1999, the cognitive bias of illusory superiority has been referred to in literature throughout history."