Pacman suspended for 2007; Henry suspended 8 games

[peplaw06]

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.

Well not to speak for Hos, but a habeas claim is obviously the wrong action. That typically applies when someone is imprisoned or detained, wrongly or otherwise. Clearly Pacman and Henry aren't being detained.

DPC may not be a great argument, but it's better than that. There's a point where you're trying to interpret what Fuzzy was saying, rather than making that point yourself. I thought at the time it was pretty clear that Fuzzy misstated and was saying DPC applied, because he stated it after saying Pacman hadn't been convicted yet.

 

[theogt]

Well not to speak for Hos, but a habeas claim is obviously the wrong action. That typically applies when someone is imprisoned or detained, wrongly or otherwise. Clearly Pacman and Henry aren't being detained.

DPC may not be a great argument, but it's better than that. There's a point where you're trying to interpret what Fuzzy was saying, rather than making that point yourself. I thought at the time it was pretty clear that Fuzzy misstated and was saying DPC applied, because he stated it after saying Pacman hadn't been convicted yet.

They're both obviously wrong actions. Neither is applicable. Pacman isn't in jail and the NFL isn't the government.

You might argue one is less not applicable than the other, but that seems silly. Neither claim is anything more than 0% applicable. If that makes sense...

It's not like you have a case where you could say "Well, this might work." It's simply not applicable.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Well not to speak for Hos, but a habeas claim is obviously the wrong action. That typically applies when someone is imprisoned or detained, wrongly or otherwise. Clearly Pacman and Henry aren't being detained.

DPC may not be a great argument, but it's better than that. There's a point where you're trying to interpret what Fuzzy was saying, rather than making that point yourself. I thought at the time it was pretty clear that Fuzzy misstated and was saying DPC applied, because he stated it after saying Pacman hadn't been convicted yet.

Habeas Corpus :laugh2:

c'mon guys, where did those years of history class go? remember the Writ of Habeas Corpus? the law passed in the 1860's because Lincoln was imprisoning suspected Souther sympathisers w/o trial?

 

[Hostile]

Well not to speak for Hos, but a habeas claim is obviously the wrong action. That typically applies when someone is imprisoned or detained, wrongly or otherwise. Clearly Pacman and Henry aren't being detained.

DPC may not be a great argument, but it's better than that. There's a point where you're trying to interpret what Fuzzy was saying, rather than making that point yourself. I thought at the time it was pretty clear that Fuzzy misstated and was saying DPC applied, because he stated it after saying Pacman hadn't been convicted yet.

Again thank you, and welcome to the carousel. It sure seemed obvious to me and I'm not a lawyer nor have I ever clerked for a Judge. All I did was correct a simple statement. Wow.

 

[Hostile]

Again thank you, and welcome to the carousel. It sure seemed obvious to me and I'm not a lawyer nor have I ever clerked for a Judge. All I did was correct a simple statement. Wow.

Man, did I ever call that.

 

[theogt]

Again thank you, and welcome to the carousel. It sure seemed obvious to me and I'm not a lawyer nor have I ever clerked for a Judge. All I did was correct a simple statement. Wow.

And all I did was correct a simple statement. Seems you're being a little hypocritical here.

 

[Hostile]

And all I did was correct a simple statement. Seems you're being a little hypocritical here.

If you say so. Someone with more legal oomph is correcting your correction. Perhaps my hypocrisy as you see it is more likely your tunnel vision. Careful, the giraffe will catch you on the next circuit.

 

[peplaw06]

They're both obviously wrong actions. Neither is applicable. Pacman isn't in jail and the NFL isn't the government.

You might argue one is less not applicable than the other, but that seems silly. Neither claim is anything more than 0% applicable. If that makes sense...

It's not like you have a case where you could say "Well, this might work." It's simply not applicable.

They may both be obviously wrong, I forget the difference between 5th and 14th A DPC...

Again, Fuzzy's statement though (which started this whole mess), that Pacman "hadn't been convicted" is pretty clearly putting forth a DPC claim. Do you think he was saying something else?

 

[theogt]

If you say so. Someone with more legal oomph is correcting your correction. Perhaps my hypocrisy as you see it is more likely your tunnel vision. Careful, the giraffe will catch you on the next circuit.

We both took the same Con Law course. They don't teach it any differently in California. Ok, well, maybe they do.

All pep's saying is that he can see a lawyer making the argument. I can see a lawyer making the argument as well. I've seen all sorts of silly claims in court. That doesn't make it a compelling argument. And it doesn't mean a smart lawyer would make it. It's a horrible claim and would laughed right out of court on the pleadings.

 

[superpunk]

habeus corpus?

More like lameus corpus.

hmph.

 

[Hostile]

We both took the same Con Law course. They don't teach it any differently in California. Ok, well, maybe they do.

All pep's saying is that he can see a lawyer making the argument. I can see a lawyer making the argument as well. I've seen all sorts of silly claims in court. That doesn't make it a compelling argument. And it doesn't mean a smart lawyer would make it. It's a horrible claim and would laughed right out of court on the pleadings.

And the carousel comes back around. Better go to the whip, you're not pulling away.

 

[theogt]

They may both be obviously wrong, I forget the difference between 5th and 14th A DPC...

For the purposes of this discussion they're the same, but the 5th applies to the federal gov't and the 14th applies to the states. Obviously, the 5th was never incorporated to the states like many other amendments, because there was no need. Normally, the protections provided by the 14th can be "incorporated up" to the federal gov't by the 5th. So, generally there shouldn't be much distinction, though there may be a few stray cases.

Again, Fuzzy's statement though (which started this whole mess), that Pacman "hadn't been convicted" is pretty clearly putting forth a DPC claim. Do you think he was saying something else?

Here's Fuzzy's post:

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.

Honestly, it doesn't make any sense at all, even if you inserted DPC in for HC. This is the trouble when people throw around legal jargon.

 

[peplaw06]

Here's Fuzzy's post:

Honestly, it doesn't make any sense at all, even if you inserted DPC in for HC. This is the trouble when people throw around legal jargon.

I'm definitely with you there. His girlfriend probably mentioned it in passing, and he just wanted to impress us.

Oh man, the client in our office today wanted to give us a lesson in the law... needless to say there was much rolling of the eyes for all.

 

[theogt]

I'm definitely with you there. His girlfriend probably mentioned it in passing, and he just wanted to impress us.

Oh man, the client in our office today wanted to give us a lesson in the law... needless to say there was much rolling of the eyes for all.

Fortunately (unfortunately?) most of my clients will be inside counsel...at least until I become one of them.

 

[peplaw06]

habeus corpus?

More like lameus corpus.

hmph.

Now you can see why I slept through ConLaw.

 

[Hostile]

habeus corpus?

More like lameus corpus.

hmph.

Yeah, tell me you think the Law is lame. I have proof it isn't right here.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Yeah, tell me you think the Law is lame. I have proof it isn't right here.

you actually watched that movie Hos, er, Nancy, I mean, Hos?

 

[Hostile]

you actually watched that movie Hos, er, Nancy, I mean, Hos?

What movie? I thought it was a Law School discussion.

 

[superpunk]

Now you can see why I slept through ConLaw.

Someday my area f expertise will be relevant to a topic on the forum. ray2:

I'm just waiting for someone to throw a fit about the stormwater management practices being employed on our new stadium. Then, I pounce.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Someday my area f expertise will be relevant to a topic on the forum. ray2:

I'm just waiting for someone to throw a fit about the stormwater management practices being employed on our new stadium. Then, I pounce.

http://img156.*************/img156/1406/artrk5.png

superpunk?