Oral Argument for Zeke's case 10/2

[Ghost12]

This is bad news. As per Wallach, they want to hear arguments on the matter of jurisdiction, which is my larger fear for this case.

 

[Ghost12]

Filed where? It's not primarily an appeal of the process of how Mazzant ruled, it's a jurisdiction hearing. The NFL will argue this case shouldn't even have been heard in Mazzant's court, should have waited until Henderson ruled, so then the NFL could have picked it's own court in NY.

Mazzant already laughed at them heartily for attempting this argument to him, the 5th Circuit is going to follow suit.

Mazzant may have laughed but the appeals court isn’t.

 

[drawandstrike]

This is bad news. As per Wallach, they want to hear arguments on the matter of jurisdiction, which is my larger fear for this case.

It's all going to boil down to the NFL's lawyer's arrogantly whining: "No case was to be filed anywhere until we got the tip off Henderson was about to make his ruling so we could get an early start and file in the court we wanted in NYC."

If people think that's a 'strong' argument, "Those OTHER guys beat us to the punch, waaah waaah!" well that can't be helped. Some people just want to panic.

This is a Hail Mary. And not a good one.

 

[Western]

 

[Corso]

Certainly does not appear that the 5th is feeling any urgency to provide relief to the NFL.

Sounds like the courts want to give the NFL some time, in the hope they can finally get their ish together. Because they clearly don't.
Won't happen, but I admire the effort.

 

[Sydla]

It's all going to boil down to the NFL's lawyer's arrogantly whining: "No case was to be filed anywhere until we got the tip off Henderson was about to make his ruling so we could get an early start and file in the court we wanted in NYC."

If people think that's a 'strong' argument, "Those OTHER guys beat us to the punch, waaah waaah!" well that can't be helped. Some people just want to panic.

This is a Hail Mary. And not a good one.

I mean just from a common sense perspective, anyone can see that the NFL controls the process so they can always file things in whatever court they deem favorable because the "independent" appeals officer is basically a league employee. So the league will always have a leg up because they'll likely know first when and how an appeals ruling will come down.

Now I don't know the legalities surround that but from a purely "fairness" debate, it would seem this would be a significant advantage for the NFL and unfair to any player.

 

[Ghost12]

It's all going to boil down to the NFL's lawyer's arrogantly whining: "No case was to be filed anywhere until we got the tip off Henderson was about to make his ruling so we could get an early start and file in the court we wanted in NYC."

If people think that's a 'strong' argument, "Those OTHER guys beat us to the punch, waaah waaah!" well that can't be helped. Some people just want to panic.

This is a Hail Mary. And not a good one.

You can call it arrogance and whining, but they have a very strong case. The whole *point* of arbitration is to keep the courts uninvolved. If a court allows people in arbitration to file suit even *before* a ruling, it defeats the very reason you have arbitration in the first place.

 

[ThreeandOut]

This is bad news. As per Wallach, they want to hear arguments on the matter of jurisdiction, which is my larger fear for this case.

I don't think it's necessarily good or bad news. The 5th CA probably wants to weigh in on the issue of jurisdiction because it sets a precedent for future cases. Either the NFL controls the jurisdiction as they have the ability to immediately file in the court of their choice once the arbitration decision is reached, or the player has some recourse to file in the jurisdiction of their choice. The 5th CA may very well agree with Mazzant and by specifically ruling on the matter would make the precedent stronger.

 

[drawandstrike]

You can call it arrogance and whining, but they have a very strong case. The whole *point* of arbitration is to keep the courts uninvolved. If a court allows people in arbitration to file suit even *before* a ruling, it defeats the very reason you have arbitration in the first place.

"strong case".

Yeah. Sure. Watch what happens. The league wasn't allowed to file first in the court of it's own choosing on getting notice from it's 'independent arbiter' [read: league employee] he was about to rule.

Mazzant didn't buy this and it's highly unlikely the 5th Circuit does.

 

[Ghost12]

"strong case".

Yeah. Sure. Watch what happens. The league wasn't allowed to file first in the court of it's own choosing on getting notice from it's 'independent arbiter' [read: league employee] he was about to rule.

Mazzant didn't buy this and it's highly unlikely the 5th Circuit does.

I am not saying they will win, I am saying they have a strong case. To arrogantly dismiss that statement is foolhardy.

 

[plasticman]

Ah, I see.....

The NFL wants to reverse the court's ruling that Elliot can't be suspended right now......which was a reversal of Goodell's ruling that he be suspended for six games........for which Elliott attempted to reverse with an appeal.........which didn't work ................

But that might take months............so........

Now, the NFL just wants to stop the court's ruling........by postponing the reversal of the reversal..........for which they can later try to reverse the the reversal's reversal.

Yes........I see that now.....very tricky......

 

[drawandstrike]

I am not saying they will win, I am saying they have a strong case. To arrogantly dismiss that statement is foolhardy.

You keep saying 'strong case'. You really need to stop doing that.

They lost overwhelmingly in Mazzant's courtroom making this argument. They are attempting to defend a process in which the league gets to always pick the venue for hearing these cases. It's highly likely the 5th Circuit wants to more closely examine this grossly unfair practice so they can set precedents that destroy it..

 

[ThreeandOut]

Ah, I see.....

The NFL wants to reverse the court's ruling that Elliot can't be suspended right now......which was a reversal of Goodell's ruling that he be suspended for six games........for which Elliott attempted to reverse with an appeal.........which didn't work ................

But that might take months............so........

Now, the NFL just wants to stop the court's ruling........by postponing the reversal of the reversal..........for which they can later try to reverse the the reversal's reversal.

Yes........I see that now.....very tricky......

The dreaded triple reverse!

 

[Ghost12]

You keep saying 'strong case'. You really need to stop doing that.

And you need to stop putting so much ignorance so clearly on display. Meanwhile, I use whatever terms I choose and if you don’t like it, too bad.

 

[Howboutdemcowboys31]

After Tim Robbins in Shawshank this is the next most ridiculous court case I've seen

 

[Corso]

After Tim Robbins in Shawshank this is the next most ridiculous court case I've seen

 

[JD_KaPow]

You keep saying 'strong case'. You really need to stop doing that.

They lost overwhelmingly in Mazzant's courtroom making this argument. They are attempting to defend a process in which the league gets to always pick the venue for hearing these cases. It's highly likely the 5th Circuit wants to more closely examine this grossly unfair practice so they can set precedents that destroy it..

The 5th Circuit is an extremely conservative, pro-business court. Experts have said from the beginning that the Texas district court was more favorable to the NFLPA (than a New York court), but the appeals court may be more favorable to the NFL. I think it's unlikely that the court is hearing this issue with an expectation that they will sweepingly relax exhaustion requirements. They may still rule in the NFLPA's favor, but it's certainly not clear.

The NFL is happy right now; the NFLPA is not.

 

[drawandstrike]

And you need to stop putting so much ignorance so clearly on display. Meanwhile, I use whatever terms I choose and if you don’t like it, too bad.

"Ignorance".

The NFL is attempting to defend a blatantly unfair process in which it always gets to pick the venue to hear it's discipline cases. It already resoundingly lost in one courtroom.

It's about to lose in another.


And when the Appeals courts rejects this argument, a precedent is going to be set. The NFL being able to pull this cute trick where it waits for it's own employee to tip them off he's about to rule so they can run to their hand picked court and file the case there will be ended forever. The playing field between league and player will be leveled, and the NFL is going to lose this blatantly unfair advantage.

You described this attempt to defend a blatantly unfair process as 'a strong case'. If you can't handle criticism of that, that can't be helped.

Looking at this from the angle "The only reason this hearing is happening is because the 5th Circuit is going to rule in the NFL's favor" I can see why some are getting this whole thing wrong.

 

[JD_KaPow]

"Ignorance".

The NFL is attempting to defend a blatantly unfair process in which it always gets to pick the venue to hear it's discipline cases. It already resoundingly lost in one courtroom.

It's about to lose in another.


And when the Appeals courts rejects this argument, a precedent is going to be set. The NFL being able to pull this cute trick where it waits for it's own employee to tip them off he's about to rule so they can run to their hand picked court and file the case there will be ended forever. The playing field between league and player will be leveled, and the NFL is going to lose this blatantly unfair advantage.

You described this attempt to defend a blatantly unfair process as 'a strong case'. If you can't handle criticism of that, that can't be helped.

I assume when Ghost12 talked about you "putting ignorance on display," the reference was to your persistent incorrect use of it's instead of its. But I could be wrong...

 

[Elziegreat83]

I wish I possessed the legal vernacular that a lot of the posters here have, but I don't. So I may need some need some translations.

This seems bad for Zeke, right? If it were just a cut and dry irreparable harm ruling, then there would be no need, imo, to have an oral argument. However, if this is all relating to jurisdiction, then how does that change the landscape for Zeke and the likely hood of a suspension being served this season?