News: PFT: Ezekiel Elliott’s Texas lawsuit “not over” yet

[TheDude]

I've had decent luck in NYC courts. It's been Yankees come down to more rural Texas courts that things get a little messy.

 

[Kaiser]

He can easily prove that it damaged him financially. They made those statements clearly knowing that he had been cleared legally and that their own investigator didn't believe the accuser. Their statements were clearly intended to disparage him with no basis for saying it.

But Zeke's attorneys would have to prove intent. The NFL would first chair a female lawyer to say "Gosh, we are just so darned committed to stopping DV that we may have made some mistakes along the way".

I really think proving Intent is too high of a hurdle.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

That Belushi quote is from Animal House.

Even Better!

 

[DogFace]

Well, at the risk of having to hear everybody tell me, once again, that I'm don't know what I'm talking about..... It's over. I said this before Elliott's legal team filed the first time and I will say it again. This is only a matter of time. You can stall it but this thing is over IMO. It was over before they ever filed for the stay.

You can play for time and delay but what's the point? The later you wait, the worse it is for the team IMO.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?



Disclaimer: By law that must be referenced whenever someone asks if it’s over.


Well damn. Read the end of the thread and someone already fulfilled the law. I forgot. We have some sticklers for the rules around here.

 

[cowboy_ron]

Oh, I would not say that. I can't speak for you but I can for me. I don't do that, and not because I don't have opportunity but, because I wasn't raised that way. It's a choice and it's the choice I have made in my life. So tell me, who's lying here? The truth of the matter is that I would never be in that situation because it's not who I am. But I do agree with you on one thing, exaggerations aren't going to get you anywhere here Phil.

lol, that poster seems to have a chip on his shoulder in almost every reply I've read of his.

 

[pugilist]

So wait a week and file the appeal with the CA5 for an en banc hearing or whatever it is called....it was 2-1 on the appeal and it only speaks to ripeness and not the merits

That should buy another couple weeks

If that fails then re-file in Texas and get new TRO
If that fails then ask for TRO in NY
If that fails then emergency appeal to NY Fed District Court
If that fails then appeal to CA2 for injunction
If that fails then appeal for en banc hearing with full CA2

If that fails get drunk at St Pattys Day parade
Then draft Saquon Barkley

Then throw Hail Mary and appeal to SCOTUS
If that fails take suspension in 2018

Charlie Day would be proud of this post

 

[haleyrules]

But Zeke's attorneys would have to prove intent. The NFL would first chair a female lawyer to say "Gosh, we are just so darned committed to stopping DV that we may have made some mistakes along the way".

I really think proving Intent is too high of a hurdle.

There is no intent...what is the logic behind that. It can not even be argued by mature people.

 

[Sandyf]

Seems from a lawyer point of view it will go down something like this based on how the ruling came down, 1st the NFLPA and Zeke's attorneys will wait until Monday and file a stay on the suspension based on needing the full 14 days to file an appeal, then on the 14th day (Oct 26) they will file with the 5th Court of Appeals for a full hearing in front of the 3 judge panel that ruled to present all the facts of the case something you have to believe the NFL does not want.

 

[haleyrules]

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?



Disclaimer: By law that must be referenced whenever someone asks if it’s over.


Well damn. Read the end of the thread and someone already fulfilled the law. I forgot. We have some sticklers for the rules around here.

The Germans bombed Pearl Harbour??? When, call Trump...those nasty Koreans must have put Markel up to it.

 

[Philmonroe]

lol, that poster seems to have a chip on his shoulder in almost every reply I've read of his.

No true at all. I wish some of you wouldn't come on here looking for friends. You too @yimyammer . Its just a matter of if we've had "words" on here or not. If we haven't you say nothing and vice versa. Speak for yourselves and stop making it like I disagree with everybody on here cause I assure you that isn't the case

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

lol, that poster seems to have a chip on his shoulder in almost every reply I've read of his.

LOL... Maybe.

 

[Philmonroe]

LOL... Maybe.

Never a chip or angry or any other negative term. Its just disagreement that people want to spin to make themselves feel better. Once the thread is done its back to square one always

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

No true at all. I wish some of you wouldn't come on here looking for friends. You too @yimyammer . Its just a matter of if we've had "words" on here or not. If we haven't you say nothing and vice versa. Speak for yourselves and stop making it like I disagree with everybody on here cause I assure you that isn't the case

I think it's really about Legal vs NFL Authority. That's what most of it seems like it comes down to. I mean, I don't think there is any question that if this were a decision based on rule of law, Elliott would not be guilty. Unfortunately, it's about what the NFL has authority to do and I think the two are very different. That's what it seems like to me.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Never a chip or angry or any other negative term. Its just disagreement that people want to spin to make themselves feel better. Once the thread is done its back to square one always

Probably true.

 

[TheHerd]

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?



Disclaimer: By law that must be referenced whenever someone asks if it’s over.


Well damn. Read the end of the thread and someone already fulfilled the law. I forgot. We have some sticklers for the rules around here.

Federal and state laws are in play here. And some city ordinances as well, depending on jurisdication.

 

[xwalker]

But Zeke's attorneys would have to prove intent. The NFL would first chair a female lawyer to say "Gosh, we are just so darned committed to stopping DV that we may have made some mistakes along the way".

I really think proving Intent is too high of a hurdle.

As with most legal cases, it comes down to the specific judge/jury.

I've heard of some libel/slander cases being won on things that seemed very marginal to me.

The issue is that if he did win that type of case, it could open up a can of worms that the NFL would prefer to keep closed.

At some point Goodell is going to make a group of owners nervous about all of these court cases. Winning against a player is not making more money for the NFL but losing could end up costing them money. Money is always the owners top concern.

 

[cowboy_ron]

No true at all. I wish some of you wouldn't come on here looking for friends. You too @yimyammer . Its just a matter of if we've had "words" on here or not. If we haven't you say nothing and vice versa. Speak for yourselves and stop making it like I disagree with everybody on here cause I assure you that isn't the case

lol, ok

 

[yimyammer]

lol, ok

+1
I'm already in anticipation of what's coming next

 

[mahoneybill]

I think it's really about Legal vs NFL Authority. That's what most of it seems like it comes down to. I mean, I don't think there is any question that if this were a decision based on rule of law, Elliott would not be guilty. Unfortunately, it's about what the NFL has authority to do and I think the two are very different. That's what it seems like to me.

And therein lies the problem. Not guilty in the public system, but guilty due to the unilateral power to say so by the commissioner....

Someone wasn't thinking when they gave up that much in negotiations.

The number who are criminally charged and it sticks is small, so taking an approach we will let you have unilateral decision making if not criminally charged and found guilty is a travesty for an innocent person

 

[TheDude]

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?



Disclaimer: By law that must be referenced whenever someone asks if it’s over.


Well damn. Read the end of the thread and someone already fulfilled the law. I forgot. We have some sticklers for the rules around here.

This thread was chock full of laws. I tried to hit all I could