Pacman suspended for 2007; Henry suspended 8 games

[Big Dakota]

That is a damned good question BD. I wish I knew the answer to that. I really do. This goes back to what Sacase said about me. They can argue a point they don't necessarily believe in. I believe they probably have to for the overall solidairty and good of their Union.

Some within that Union will never understand that, nor will some fans. But honestly, don't you just look at it and thank all that is good that there are protections like this?

I love this stuff.

iIve never been in a union, but i personally think they have been good for a lot of people.

 

[Big Dakota]

Hopefully, for those guys they will get at least 20% back? Really, in the whole scheme of things? The NFL can go on without them....but they need to learn...and it will all work out in the end...guaranteed! It always will...

The NFL is riding a high no sport ever has. I can't blame the players for wanting to protect that. Plus, can you imagine being a good guy who never gets in trouble and being lumped in with Pac and Henry? No wonder 80% want to ban these guys.

 

[Hostile]

iIve never been in a union, but i personally think they have been good for a lot of people.

And bad for a lot of people too. Example, my brother-in-law works at a sawmill. Several years ago they went on strike. One man who had 8 kids and one on the way, couldn't. He crossed the lines. Someone fired a 30-06 into his house and killed his 3 year old daughter. No one was ever charged.

Union themselves are good. Some who do not understand reality outside their own personal beliefs are fools.

 

[theogt]

What I dont like is the standards Goodell tried to use in the contracts. I mean he justifies doing this on the basis of ridicule?

i also think hes a bit premature on the basis that Jones hasnt even been convicted of a crime yet. if he is exonerated then the NFL is going to get the hammer big time. habeas corpus being violated is a pretty compelling argument.

I think you mean "due process" Fuzzy. Habeas corpus means "you have the body." It is a mandate by a judge ordering a prisoner to appear before him.

This is probably why people were confused.

It appears here as though you are suggesting that "due process" would be a "compelling argument" but "habeas corpus" is not. Neither, of course, is a compelling argument.

Of course it's retroactive and in a couple of cases before due process of law has been established. These are the two main reasons upon which their lawyers will fight this.

And here, you're claiming that it was "before due process of law." It wasn't before due process of law. There's no such thing as "due process of law" in this situation. There's no "due process" that is required. How can it be before a required action when there is no required action?

Uh, no I'm not. I'm talking about the fact that Pacman has not had his day in court on the Vegas incident. His lawyers (if they are good, and I assume they are) will seize upon that and say this is a rush to judgment and he has not been afforded due process. The NFL in this case has instituted this regardless of how that investigation has turned out and they will challenge them on that.

Clear now?

Again, you're suggesting that a good lawyer would make the claim. Why? There's no chance it will win. Why would a good lawyer make a claim that is obviously not applicable? There's absolutely zero percent chance he would win. Just like a habeas claim. So why would a good lawyer make the due process claim but not the habeas claim?

 

[Hostile]

This is probably why people were confused.

It appears here as though you are suggesting that "due process" would be a "compelling argument" but "habeas corpus" is not. Neither, of course, is a compelling argument.

And here, you're claiming that it was "before due process of law." It wasn't before due process of law. There's no such thing as "due process of law" in this situation. There's no "due process" that is required. How can it be before a required action when there is no required action?

Again, you're suggesting that a good lawyer would make the claim. Why? There's no chance it will win. Why would a good lawyer make a claim that is obviously not applicable? There's absolutely zero percent chance he would win. Just like a habeas claim. So why would a good lawyer make the due process claim but not the habeas claim?

Oh brother. I do not care for trips that go nowhere. Ride your carousel. I'm not interested.

 

[DallasEast]

I don't know why everyone's so upset over Jones' and Henry's suspension. I say we take off and nuke 'em both from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.



Just a little levity in this lawyer-crazied thread.

 

[theogt]

Oh brother. I do not care for trips that go nowhere. Ride your carousel. I'm not interested.

I'm just saying. There's no sense acting like you don't know why people were misunderstanding you when it was obvious you were suggesting it would be a valid claim.

 

[peplaw06]

This is probably why people were confused.

It appears here as though you are suggesting that "due process" would be a "compelling argument" but "habeas corpus" is not. Neither, of course, is a compelling argument.

And here, you're claiming that it was "before due process of law." It wasn't before due process of law. There's no such thing as "due process of law" in this situation. There's no "due process" that is required. How can it be before a required action when there is no required action?

Again, you're suggesting that a good lawyer would make the claim. Why? There's no chance it will win. Why would a good lawyer make a claim that is obviously not applicable? There's absolutely zero percent chance he would win. Just like a habeas claim. So why would a good lawyer make the due process claim but not the habeas claim?

What in the blue hell is going on here guys? How did we get into a full blown Theories of Constitutional Law debate?

I slept through ConLaw, so I'm not going to pretend to be some expert in the subject. What I will say though... theo, as I'm sure you know, there's ALWAYS an argument to be made in favor of your client. Whether that's Due Process, Equal Protection, the Dormant Commerce Clause, or the aforementioned laws of Kathmandu, a good lawyer zealously represents his client and his interests.

I wouldn't put anything past a court, especially an East Coast court, where even non-citizen enemy combatants have been given Constitutional rights. If they can get US Constitutional rights, surely there's an argument for NFL players somewhere, even if it's not a good one.

PS. Lawyers make motions and petitions to judges to get them to issue writs of habeas corpus, but they themselves can't issue the writ. Just wanted to make sure that was clear if there was any lingering confusion.

And I don't think Hos was saying "due process" was a "compelling argument." At first he was just correcting a misstatement from Fuzzy, and then he suggested a lawyer could argue it.

 

[ThreeSportStar80]

These players must understand they're representatives of the NFL across the globe. I would have thought Henry should have received a year suspension as well...

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Completely agree.

I'm glad Goodell is establishing himself and the league in that such actions have consequences inside the lines as well.

Henry and PacMan chose the wrong time to act a fool w/ Goodell trying to put his fingerprints on the league as the new commish, maybe these would have been just as strict if Tags was still commish, w/ all the public out-cry and all, I don't know, probably, most likely, but that doesn't matter, what does matter is that Goodell is stepping up to the plate, good for him, as a fan, I'm whole-heartedly, 100% behind the move

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Of course, this will be fought by the NFLPA. But I'm glad the hammer was brought down. The question is: Who's next?

I don't know about that, alot of the players were behind the league cracking down on troublesome players, as to them, they give the rest of them who are model citizens, a bad rep

 

[Hostile]

What in the blue hell is going on here guys? How did we get into a full blown Theories of Constitutional Law debate?

I slept through ConLaw, so I'm not going to pretend to be some expert in the subject. What I will say though... theo, as I'm sure you know, there's ALWAYS an argument to be made in favor of your client. Whether that's Due Process, Equal Protection, the Dormant Commerce Clause, or the aforementioned laws of Kathmandu, a good lawyer zealously represents his client and his interests.

I wouldn't put anything past a court, especially an East Coast court, where even non-citizen enemy combatants have been given Constitutional rights. If they can get US Constitutional rights, surely there's an argument for NFL players somewhere, even if it's not a good one.

PS. Lawyers make motions and petitions to judges to get them to issue writs of habeas corpus, but they themselves can't issue the writ. Just wanted to make sure that was clear if there was any lingering confusion.

And I don't think Hos was saying "due process" was a "compelling argument." At first he was just correcting a misstatement from Fuzzy, and then he suggested a lawyer could argue it.

Thank you. Any lawyer worth a flip is going to try every avenue he can to represent his client. I have no idea why that is so hard to comprehend, but I am done trying to explain it to him while he rides his carousel and tells the world it's the Kentucky Derby.

 

[theogt]

Thank you. Any lawyer worth a flip is going to try every avenue he can to represent his client. I have no idea why that is so hard to comprehend, but I am done trying to explain it to him while he rides his carousel and tells the world it's the Kentucky Derby.

So maybe a good lawyer should bring a habeas claim as well? I just wanted to know why you thought Fuzzy might have meant Due Process. Why bring a Due Process claim, but not a Habeas claim? I think you just misunderstood the term Due Process, and once it was explained to you, you backed into this, "I'm just saying his lawyers would assert it" claim. It's whatever, though.

 

[WoodysGirl]

I don't know about that, alot of the players were behind the league cracking down on troublesome players, as to them, they give the rest of them who are model citizens, a bad rep

Yeah I already know that the majority of the players were behind the suspensions. But as I stated in the beginning of the thread. If Pacman or Henry request their assistance, the NFLPA is duty-bound to represent them.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Yeah I already know that the majority of the players were behind the suspensions. But as I stated in the beginning of the thread. If Pacman or Henry request their assistance, the NFLPA is duty-bound to represent them.

maybe you're right

 

[Hostile]

So maybe a good lawyer should bring a habeas claim as well? I just wanted to know why you thought Fuzzy might have meant Due Process.

Been explained (by me) and a Lawyer (an actual one) ratified it. If you still don't understand it I can't help you.

 

[WoodysGirl]

maybe you're right

No maybes about it. If they ask, the NFLPA has to represent them.

 

[theogt]

Been explained (by me) and a Lawyer (an actual one) ratified it. If you still don't understand it I can't help you.

Sure it has.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

No maybes about it. If they ask, the NFLPA has to represent them.

 

[burmafrd]

Does not matter if the NFLPA represents them or not. They are going down. Just like they deserve to.