News: PFT: Texas judge may still dismiss Elliott case

[Don Corleone]

The Federal Appeals court has already ruled(Brady case) that the league(Goodell) has the authority through collective bargaining between the NFLPA and the league to suspend players for violation of their code of conduct policy......Brady dropped it and served the 4 games because his lawyers knew the Supreme court wasn't going to waste their time on a collectively bargained policy......I'm afraid Zeke is going to serve 6 games, whether it's this year or next year.....the NFLPA gave the League that power(ability) and the league has found Zeke violated the code of conduct policy..

Then why did the judge in Texas distinguish this case from the Brady case. He must be dumb right?

 

[LandryFan]

Is there really a need for the judge to rule by today? Elliott is already cleared to play this weekend so the judge doesn't need to rush to confirm his status this weekend.

No real need, but he has already stated that he will rule today. Guess he didn't need more than a few days to sort this out.

 

[Cowboys22]

No real need, but he has already stated that he will rule today. Guess he didn't need more than a few days to sort this out.

He had already made his mind up during the hearing or he wouldn't have given a date to rule. He basically gave himself 3 days to put his decision and reasons on paper.

 

[LandryFan]

He had already made his mind up during the hearing or he wouldn't have given a date to rule. He basically gave himself 3 days to put his decision and reasons on paper.

Indeed!

 

[Fletch]

So do we have an ETA on the judge's decision?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The Federal Appeals court has already ruled(Brady case) that the league(Goodell) has the authority through collective bargaining between the NFLPA and the league to suspend players for violation of their code of conduct policy......Brady dropped it and served the 4 games because his lawyers knew the Supreme court wasn't going to waste their time on a collectively bargained policy......I'm afraid Zeke is going to serve 6 games, whether it's this year or next year.....the NFLPA gave the League that power(ability) and the league has found Zeke violated the code of conduct policy..

They do not have the right to have unequal punishment, unfair investigations, nor unilateral changed to precedent.

The judge already said this was different than the Brady case.

The article 46 trumps all has already been proven wrong. Time to come up with a new argument given new information.

 

[LandryFan]

This case will be in a different circuit without any similar precedent. Everyone agrees its most likely Elliot will serve the suspension at some point. At the same time, it's not hard to see a path in this case for a player to finally win his case against the NFL. There are things that the NFL did in this case that a judge or judges could agree went outside of the CBA and violated higher laws. I'm not saying it will happen but it looks like Zeke has the best case yet for it to happen.

My take, exactly...you just stated it better than I could.

 

[The Quest for Six]

If it gets to court, I think Zeke is going to get out of this.

The NFL made incomprehensibly unfair moves and decisions in this process. Kia Roberts ASKED to testify, and she's ready to roast the NFL in the courtroom. She's the superstar witness that none of the other cases had.

I hope you're right but I think Zeke has a long uphill battle....

 

[speedkilz88]

 

[The Quest for Six]

Then why did the judge in Texas distinguish this case from the Brady case. He must be dumb right?

lower courts are overturned all the time...

 

[Silver N Blue]

So do we have an ETA on the judge's decision?

No doubt a make or break a weekend decision....

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lower courts are overturned all the time...

wishcasting is not an argument. The opposite of your statement is also true.

 

[phildadon86]

I agree but based on the argument that Roberts who was the only to interview the young lady wasn't made available to the four panel members for questions, I'd be shocked if the TRO isn't granted in this case, Cowboy fans will rejoice but I'd be careful what Cowboy fans wish for because I'd hate to see an appeals court fast track this and come December or January that the court rules once again that under the CBA agreement Goodell has the right to suspend Zeke and he misses December or January playoff games....if you think Cowboy fans are mad now, just wait if that happens!

Ummm. Again. Article 46 has no bearing here. The judge has already said this isn't the Brady case. Why don't people get that?

 

[Beast_from_East]

So do we have an ETA on the judge's decision?

Sometime between now and 5PM

 

[Cowboys22]

Ummm. Again. Article 46 has no bearing here. The judge has already said this isn't the Brady case. Why don't people get that?

Of course it has bearing. The judge saying there are differences with the Brady case doesn't mean he is throwing article 46 out the window. He is just talking about the aspects of the case. It will still come down to whether everything the NFL did was okay in the courts eye with respect to article 46 or do they conclude that the league violated article 46 and/or other higher Federal and State laws.

 

[casmith07]

Well, as someone who slept at a holiday inn. I agree

+100 points for that reference

 

[Beast_from_East]

I guess he is waiting till straight up 5.

 

[Sydla]

I'll admit it........... while I think he likely will get the TRO, as each minute passes, I get more nervous we are going to get bad news today.

That just seems to be the way with the Cowboys nowadays.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Then why did the judge in Texas distinguish this case from the Brady case. He must be dumb right?

Saying this doesn't change the fact that the CBA does in fact say this and is binding by law. The judge can't just bypass a legal agreement without cause. If Elliot wants to win anything, he bares the weight of proving there is a reason outside of that stipulation for a judge to step in.

Lets be clear here. It's not the judges problem to distinguish what is proper punishment for what actions occurred. What he can do is make a determination if the NFL was fair in executing that that CBA stipulation based on events. (ie, the the NFL is issuing punishment regardless to whether the circumstance holds water.) Just understand, that CBA gives the NFL a very wide birth in determining what fits within their code of conduct policy.

This is why I said from the beginning and many others have too. Elliot's faces an uphill battle here because the NFLPA was stupid enough to agree to such a broadly worded stipulation. Based on the NFLPA recent actions. I have a feeling that is going to be a sticking point of discussion in the next CBA negotiations.

 

[Bizwah]

Saying this doesn't change the fact that the CBA does in fact say this and is binding by law. The judge can't just bypass a legal agreement without cause. If Elliot wants to win anything, he bares the weight of proving there is a reason outside of that stipulation for a judge to step in.

Lets be clear here. It's not the judges problem to distinguish what is proper punishment for what actions occurred. What he can do is make a determination if the NFL was fairly executing that that CBA stipulation based on events. (ie, the the NFL is issuing punishment regardless to whether the circumstance holds water.) Just understand, that CBA gives the NFL a very wide birth in determining what fits within their code of conduct policy.

This is why I said from the beginning and many others have too. Elliot's faces an uphill battle here because the NFLPA was stupid enough to agree to such a broadly worded stipulation. Based on the NFLPA recent actions. I have a feeling that is going to be a sticking point of discussion in the next CBA negotiations.

I'm not sure if it matters, but the NFLPA did not agree to the portion of the CBA that contains the DV stuff. That was added later by Goodell and the NFL owners after the Ray Rice scandal. The NFLPA wanted to negotiate, but they were denied.