SPS: Is there really a Conspiracy in the Zeke case?

[Shinaoi]

Well, thats the best $25 dollars I ever spent!

Cost me 50, because it was so good the first time, I had to read it again.

 

[ak47kaehu]

Wow......crazy stuff! I wonder what the ultimate reason is for railroading zeke. I wonder who is behind it (the name blanked out).

 

[Cas2800]

"Blue Knight: I don’t know what to tell you but between the Vegas connection, NFL and the Feds be careful how you move."

So what is the "Vegas connection"?

 

[TwoDeep3]

MARA

https://cowboyszone.com/threads/esp...tt-here-are-some-answers.389253/#post-7644397

In this thread a couple of days ago, I said this:

Referring to the article (above link) yesterday about this issue and the weak position the players union is taking, this looks inevitable Zeke will lose. Primarily because this is an arbitration and not a quasi-court thrown together by the league. But since this could be a precedent set wherein a corporation could then try and punish an employee, even though the employee never went to court or was convicted of a crime, the larger issue seems to be the most significant.

Isn't the fact the accused was essentially punished without the ability to face his accusers, be able to depose his accusers, or have the ability to see the information collected by the league (discovery) troublesome? So does this "arbitration" mean Elliott does not have the rights guaranteed in this country as far as being accused of a crime. Can a group, business, or organization form it's own laws and deal out punitive sanctions with no regard to the governing laws of this country?

While their appeal on fairness seems to be addressing this, I have to wonder if the player's association shouldn't press an injunction against the league management and all 32 owners, along with a class action suit wherein the league and it's owners are violating the Constitutional rights of each player by forcing them to adhere to an agreement which is disallowed under our governing documents.

Sounds real lawyerish, but it boils down to this.

Can an entity create rules it applies to people who are part of that entity, which dismiss the rights of the citizens, and apply an ad hoc set of rules which supersede federal governing?

This is from the article posted in the OP of this thread:

Just to be clear and although I am not a lawyer I have studied law and at one time thought was going to be a lawyer. Here’s what I can tell you, we all have fundamental rights that are protected by our great nation's Constitution. There is no piece of paper signed by any corporation going to ever supersede this. We are protected under federal law. What law? This law:


The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause

So why is the player's associate arguing fairness, when this is simply denying someone their Constitutional Rights, which would shut down this business pretty quick now?

Although NFL has a CBA in place, and although this is a labor case there is no way the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply.

 

[Seven]

Sigh..... like sands thru the hour Glass........we all know the rest.

 

[speedkilz88]

"Blue Knight: I don’t know what to tell you but between the Vegas connection, NFL and the Feds be careful how you move."

So what is the "Vegas connection"?

I would assume he meant the mob (or at least gambling).

 

[SSoup]

I certainly don't think there's a conspiracy in the court system if that's what you're saying. We've just, as a country, been obsessed with bending over backwards to show deference to businesses and corporations at the expense of labor and the workforce for decades (since at least the '80s, if not earlier)... so our courts tend to be packed with judges who are overly friendly to businesses that want to run roughshod over their employees. Even if there are individual cases where they probably shouldn't rule against the worker, they're hesitant to do the right thing just for fear of setting a precedent that will be used to hold businesses' feet to the fire in future rulings. So rulings that piss on the rights of workers are the rule, not the exception. No conspiring required.

It's possible there was a conspiracy in the league office at some point to achieve the desired outcome. Though I seriously doubt it.

I mean, it's a building full of people who mostly advanced to the job they're in specifically by demonstrating that they're unapologetic Company Men who are all about the league making money and averting risk. So conspiring usually isn't required when almost everyone in the building has a good idea what is expected of them (and what will be rewarded down the road). They tend to just take initiative as individuals to do whatever they think the bossman will like (and will reward).

It's just a bunch of craven suits individually taking it upon themselves to take steps that would lead to the outcome they assume the boss would prefer. In rare cases where an individual isn't being a team player and doing what everyone else wants, that person tends to get shut out of the decision-making process. And it usually is because somebody took initiative in shutting them out. It's usually not because anyone had to specifically tell them do to that, or specifically explains why. It's all unspoken.

I mean, I don't think Goodell is dumb enough to leave a paper trail of communication where he explicitly tells anyone, "I'm looking for a 6-game suspension, so everybody needs to work towards making that happen regardless of the facts. That's the outcome I want, so make it happen."

And I don't think anyone ever has to tell anyone else, "Hey, X, Y, and Z are all on our side, so definitely let them in the final meeting. But what's-her-name is recommending a different decision, so don't let her in. Cool? Thanks." Once word gets around the investigator wasn't being a team player on this, then somebody just makes the decision to not invite her without anyone having to tell them to do it. That's typically how it works.

Because, if somebody had the chance to not invite her and they didn't, then that person knows they'd start to get frozen out too. So whoever decided not to invite her made that call without anyone needing to come out and tell them to do it or explain what the ramifications of not doing it would be. They already know. It's all unspoken.

When you know what your boss's desired outcome is in a given situation, you don't necessarily need to talk with coworkers to verbalize or discuss that you're taking steps to try and force that outcome to materialize. You just take those steps and there's an understanding that's never spoken out loud that that's the move to make in any situation.

 

[jday]

https://www.sportsplusshow.com/conspiracy-against-zeke-elliott

Blue Knight: Tom, the judge is going to deny the Zeke motion

Tom Stokes: Why? What’s going on? I thought we said she was going to grant the motion.

Blue Knight: I thought so to but something has come up and the recusal was never a mitigating factor ( Visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_28_of_the_United_States_Code Title 28 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure)

Tom Stokes: Is this the tie with her husband being part of the firm that worked on the CBA?

Blue Knight: Yes! But don’t worry it’s going to go top 2nd Circuit I know the Judges there too.

Tom Stokes: Well, there’s no way this CBA passes the test and supersedes the federal law, what gives? Like why can’t the lower Court rule in Zeke’s favor and be done?

Blue Knight: Judge Failla was going to rule in Zeke’s favor and then she had a conference call.

Tom Stokes: Who was on the call?

Blue Knight: It was _____________________

Tom Stokes: Ahhh, now I get it! Makes sense.

Blue Knight: I thought that would help shed a little better light on it all

Tom Stokes: If I spin that out the NFL will be at my doorstep with black suburban’s (I laughed at this nervously)

Blue Knight: It’s really mess up and has a lot to do with __________________ he’s the one that’s really pushing it.

Okay...can someone fill in the blanks?

 

[DogFace]

This is the guy that correctly predicted Zeke would play vs the Chiefs, right?

 

[risco]

What the heck is this?

I know right! WTH!

 

[Thomas82]

This is the guy that correctly predicted Zeke would play vs the Chiefs, right?

Correct.

 

[Jake]

https://www.sportsplusshow.com/conspiracy-against-zeke-elliott

Blue Knight: Tom, the judge is going to deny the Zeke motion

Tom Stokes: Why? What’s going on? I thought we said she was going to grant the motion.

Blue Knight: I thought so to but something has come up and the recusal was never a mitigating factor ( Visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_28_of_the_United_States_Code Title 28 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure)

Tom Stokes: Is this the tie with her husband being part of the firm that worked on the CBA?

Blue Knight: Yes! But don’t worry it’s going to go top 2nd Circuit I know the Judges there too.

Tom Stokes: Well, there’s no way this CBA passes the test and supersedes the federal law, what gives? Like why can’t the lower Court rule in Zeke’s favor and be done?

Blue Knight: Judge Failla was going to rule in Zeke’s favor and then she had a conference call.

Tom Stokes: Who was on the call?

Blue Knight: It was _____________________

Tom Stokes: Ahhh, now I get it! Makes sense.

Blue Knight: I thought that would help shed a little better light on it all

Tom Stokes: If I spin that out the NFL will be at my doorstep with black suburban’s (I laughed at this nervously)

Blue Knight: It’s really mess up and has a lot to do with __________________ he’s the one that’s really pushing it.

 

[BotchedLobotomy]

I chose to fill in the blanks with: RUSSIA

 

[DogFace]

Correct.

Does anyone know who he is?
Did he get lucky or does he know something?

Can there really be some sort of high level conspiracy?

 

[Thomas82]

Does anyone know who he is?
Did he get lucky or does he know something?

Can there really be some sort of high level conspiracy?

He said in this writing that he knows people inside the court room.

 

[DogFace]

I certainly don't think there's a conspiracy in the court system if that's what you're saying. We've just, as a country, been obsessed with bending over backwards to show deference to businesses and corporations at the expense of labor and the workforce for decades (since at least the '80s, if not earlier)... so our courts tend to be packed with judges who are overly friendly to businesses that want to run roughshod over their employees. Even if there are individual cases where they probably shouldn't rule against the worker, they're hesitant to do the right thing just for fear of setting a precedent that will be used to hold businesses' feet to the fire in future rulings. So rulings that piss on the rights of workers are the rule, not the exception. No conspiring required.

It's possible there was a conspiracy in the league office at some point to achieve the desired outcome. Though I seriously doubt it.

I mean, it's a building full of people who mostly advanced to the job they're in specifically by demonstrating that they're unapologetic Company Men who are all about the league making money and averting risk. So conspiring usually isn't required when almost everyone in the building has a good idea what is expected of them (and what will be rewarded down the road). They tend to just take initiative as individuals to do whatever they think the bossman will like (and will reward).

It's just a bunch of craven suits individually taking it upon themselves to take steps that would lead to the outcome they assume the boss would prefer. In rare cases where an individual isn't being a team player and doing what everyone else wants, that person tends to get shut out of the decision-making process. And it usually is because somebody took initiative in shutting them out. It's usually not because anyone had to specifically tell them do to that, or specifically explains why. It's all unspoken.

I mean, I don't think Goodell is dumb enough to leave a paper trail of communication where he explicitly tells anyone, "I'm looking for a 6-game suspension, so everybody needs to work towards making that happen regardless of the facts. That's the outcome I want, so make it happen."

And I don't think anyone ever has to tell anyone else, "Hey, X, Y, and Z are all on our side, so definitely let them in the final meeting. But what's-her-name is recommending a different decision, so don't let her in. Cool? Thanks." Once word gets around the investigator wasn't being a team player on this, then somebody just makes the decision to not invite her without anyone having to tell them to do it. That's typically how it works.

Because, if somebody had the chance to not invite her and they didn't, then that person knows they'd start to get frozen out too. So whoever decided not to invite her made that call without anyone needing to come out and tell them to do it or explain what the ramifications of not doing it would be. They already know. It's all unspoken.

When you know what your boss's desired outcome is in a given situation, you don't necessarily need to talk with coworkers to verbalize or discuss that you're taking steps to try and force that outcome to materialize. You just take those steps and there's an understanding that's never spoken out loud that that's the move to make in any situation.

You make some good points.

Most wouldn’t think a man like Paul Manafort would leave a paper trail. He apparently did. Some of these seemingly “smart” powerful men think nothing bad will happen to them. They get sloppy.

I’m not saying there’s a conspiracy. However, this author seems damn confident there is and he’s been right when no one thought he would be. So I’m open to the possibility he could be right again.

 

[Bleedblue1111]

If so, how can those conspirators sleep at night?

This guy seems credible, and smart. When he roasted George Dunham, and Dale Hansen for some of their recent reports, I instantly became a fan. Two of the biggest hack reporters in the DFW market.

It was local loud mouthed hacks like these two, including Randy Galloway, in their crusade against Jones, ranted daily about what an idiot Jerry Jones would be, if he drafted Randy Moss.