PFT: NFL declines to release Elliott investigative report, transcript of hearing

[RoboQB]

I vote for Risen to be the new commissioner

And waste his legendary scouting skills at the QB position? No way... lol

 

[Section446]

Shocking.

 

[Dhragon]

I'm no lawyer and have only taken a few business law classes but from what I recall on this topic, It not only has to be false, but the person who did the libeling/slandering had to have the intent to harm with the lies. That is very difficult to prove.

Yelling at him she will ruin his life/career in front of witnesses doesn't show intent ?

 

[Rogerthat12]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...t-investigative-report-transcript-of-hearing/

This thing looks worse and worse for the league all the time.

It really needs to go to court. Maybe then things will start to get fixed.

Something stinks in all this mess...

 

[Sage3030]

No, the Brady case had to do with whether the NFL could punish Brady according to its rules. The court said it could.

As I noted in a previous post, the league didn't say Zeke beat his ex. It said he exhibited conduct that didn't meet the league's policy. And it punished him according to that policy, which is much broader and, I would say, more nebulous.

Incorrect. They are saying it. From the NFL's official statement on Elliot:

In a letter to Elliott advising him of the decision, Todd Jones, the NFL's Special Counsel for Conduct, said these advisors "were of the view that there is substantial and persuasive evidence supporting a finding that [Elliott] engaged in physical violence against Ms. Thompson on multiple occasions during the week of July 16, 2016."

Followed by:

After reviewing the record, and having considered the views of the independent advisors, the commissioner determined that the credible evidence established that Elliott engaged in conduct that violated NFL policy.

What was the conduct? Oh yeah, physical violence against that woman that they mentioned in the previous paragraph.

 

[ConstantReboot]

The league is not obligated to show the public information about its investigation. The NFL is a private organization in terms of its governance, policies and rules. It is not under the Freedom of Information Act.

I do suspect that Elliott's team will release ALL the information it has to shame the NFL and Goodell.

LOL the reason why they aren't releasing they probably don't have any information about the investigation. The Panel, just like Goddell, probably already made up their minds on how to punish Elliiott and never even bothered to seek information from the Ohio prosecutors.

 

[ConstantReboot]

The League has ACTED as if they had legal standing. They have come to a verdict and convicted him with what looks to be tainted evidence at best.
The labled him a woman beater after the justice system refused to prosecute.

With all the federal laws and regulations a smart lawyer should be able to find the NFL did something wrong here.

Its called gross negligence. Yes its a crime that people can actually serve time for.

 

[LandryFan]

But the problem is they don't appear to have punished him under the nebulous conduct unbecoming............... they punished him under the DV policy.

I haven't read the entire thing closely, but from what I interpreted, they're punishing him for DV while saying they're punishing for conduct detrimental...I don't follow their logic.

 

[Sydla]

I haven't read the entire thing closely, but from what I interpreted, they're punishing him for DV while saying they're punishing for conduct detrimental...I don't follow their logic.

In the decision section, they state that the policy is clear on punishment - 6 games. That's the DV policy. The conduct detrimental doesn't have a set number of games.

 

[ConstantReboot]

The league issued its punishment based on its conduct clause. The clause itself is nebulous (unless there are specific examples of bad conduct) and a catch-all that can include criminal and non-criminal behavior. If so, I don't see where Zeke's team can argue he was branded a criminal when the league can counter that he merely exhibited conduct that gave the league a black eye.

Remember, the league has its lawyers too. They carefully weighed the decision with a legal perspective in mind.

I doubt the league weighed in in whatever decision they laid on Elliott.

I believe Florio has a point. That the commissioner decides first on the outcome. And then tries to justify it working backgrounds. That doesn't seem like someone caring whatever legal ramifications comes its way.

 

[LandryFan]

That's true to an extent, but depends on the defamation from my understanding.

This is from legalzoom.com:



For Elliott, he would have to prove that the statements made by the NFL that he "has committed a serious crime" are false for it to qualify as defamation, but it may not be necessary for him to prove the statements were "made with the knowledge that it was untrue or with reckless disregard for the truth." However, I'm not sure if the public figure exception would be in effect where it would be held to a higher standard.

When the news first broke, I was on board with the defamation angle, but after thinking about it, I just don't think Elliott can prove the first thing needed for a defamation suit, that the information is false. It may be false, there may be reasons to believe it is false, but I can't see how he would be able to prove it without witnesses or video evidence to substantiate his claims.

This is not saying he doesn't have an argument against the suspension. The league "convicted" him based on the testimony of one witness who had shown herself to be unreliable and out to get Elliott. Such a conviction likely would not stand up in a court, but again, we have to deal with the powers given to the commissioner to punish regardless of guilt being proven.

I think a court should limit those powers to the league only being able to punish players when there has been a clear violation of law (such as video evidence, a court conviction, etc.), but considering that this is an employer-employee relationship, I'm not sure how much authority the courts will have. Ultimately, it will likely be up to the NFLPA to negotiate this power down in the next CBA unless it wants to take drastic measures.

"Proving" any of this is the near impossible part. It's he-said/she-said, from what I can tell. yes, there are text messages and such that seemingly favor Zeke, but the "impartial" panel seemed to believe at least some of what the girl claimed.

 

[Doomsday101]

Right now I would love to hear the conversations Jerry is having with the NFL. I don't think Jerry will take this laying down.

 

[LandryFan]

Yelling at him she will ruin his life/career in front of witnesses doesn't show intent ?

The debate was whether Zeke could sue the league for defamation. The girl, on the other hand...that's a totally different argument. Just based on what little is available to the public, it seems to me that Zeke may very well have a case against her if what has been reported is accurate.

 

[gimmesix]

Yelling at him she will ruin his life/career in front of witnesses doesn't show intent ?

If you're talking about her, then certainly there was intent to harm. But first he'd have to prove that her claims are false, which I don't think he can do. Again, that's not because he necessarily did it, but only because it's his word against hers.

 

[LandryFan]

In the decision section, they state that the policy is clear on punishment - 6 games. That's the DV policy. The conduct detrimental doesn't have a set number of games.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well or I'm not understanding you correctly, but I think that we're in agreement. They are apparently punishing him under the DV rule, but they're claiming he's being suspended for "conduct detrimental to the league". Which is it?

 

[gimmesix]

"Proving" any of this is the near impossible part. It's he-said/she-said, from what I can tell. yes, there are text messages and such that seemingly favor Zeke, but the "impartial" panel seemed to believe at least some of what the girl claimed.

They favor Elliott only from the standpoint that she threatened to ruin his career and showed that she would lie to do it. (This is the only irrefutable evidence.) The problem is that they do not show that he didn't do what she's claiming. The NFL panel apparently believes that he did (despite those issues) and since they do not have to believe that beyond a shadow of a doubt and are not burden with proving it, Elliott's recourses would seem to be limited.

 

[ConstantReboot]

I'm no lawyer and have only taken a few business law classes but from what I recall on this topic, It not only has to be false, but the person who did the libeling/slandering had to have the intent to harm with the lies. That is very difficult to prove.

However, if it did go to court Goddell will be forced to answer the question on why they suspended Zeke for 6 games while there was overwhelming evidence to prove that he was innocent. What will his answer be to that?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Honestly, if you thought that you might have to take this to court, would you give any info that would help the opposition prepare for the case? I would not, until I had to.

 

[StarBoyz83]

If he gets suspended I'd rather it be this year and not next year. if they drag it out that's what could happen.

 

[casmith07]

Yep. This is similar to Article 134, or the "General Article" (aka the "catch-all" article) of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. That article basically states that if they can't charge you with any of the other articles, they can charge you with art. 134 and get you that way.

Paid attention in business law class and knows the UCMJ...good man.