Twitter: Zeke lawyers file for stay on suspension

[Thomas82]

Good read.

They already seem to be allowing it.

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

Why would you say that?

Because you went from a discussion of how the DV policy was not subject to the NFLPA approval you've claimed over and over to a post about Zeke's specific appeals.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Why can't the CBA, (when it is rewritten) state that the commissioner and the NFLPA must muutally agree on a punishment that benefits the PR interests of both organizations?

The NFLPA isn't going to let a player's criminal actions put a mark on the other players who act respectably. The commissioner then has a check and balance from the players perspective to let him know when he's acting 100% PC, ignoring facts of the case before him. The interests of all should be reflected in every punishment delivered. The commissioner is not acting in the best interests of the owners right now. All the NFL looks stupid for a number of reasons, bizarre punishments is just one example.

It's a negotiation, essentially. I mean, if the shoe were on the other foot and the Owners were asking for something, in the way of player salaries, you think they would give an inch? The answer here, I think, is a resounding no.

Who looks more stupid right now? The NFL for their unpopular rulings or the NFLPA and the players for negotiating themselves into a position where they have no power over the League? Good question.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Because you went from a discussion of how the DV policy was not subject to the NFLPA approval you've claimed over and over to a post about Zeke's specific appeals.

This was the question asked.

That is a stretch.......... it gives Goodell a lot of power but not unlimited....... they did protest the new DV policy but I'm not sure if it ever got to Court

Clearly, the question was if it had ever gone to court. The answer is yes. It has gone to court, through the Elliott case. Do you now understand why I respond the way I did? I did not switch the conversation. I simply answered the question posed.

So again, why would you say that I switched anything?

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Well, I can't help you here. This is not about interpretation. This is about what the players agreed to, in black and white.

you obviously do not understand contract law, it is all about interpretation. Hell, one judge said, there was reasonable interpretation which says you can do whatever you want even if not fair, another did.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

This was the question asked.



Clearly, the question was if it had ever gone to court. The answer is yes. It has gone to court, through the Elliott case. Do you now understand why I respond the way I did? I did not switch the conversation. I simply answered the question posed.

So again, why would you say that I switched anything?

Yet two judges interpreted the document completely differently (only one of which was not shrouded by a reasonable apprehension of bias). How can you claim the answer is black and white?

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

This was the question asked.



Clearly, the question was if it had ever gone to court. The answer is yes. It has gone to court, through the Elliott case. Do you now understand why I respond the way I did? I did not switch the conversation. I simply answered the question posed.

So again, why would you say that I switched anything?

No I don't. But I do understand how you feel like having one ruling that agrees with you gave you the appeal to authority you've been hoping for to argue that. I also understand that such a view requires one to ignore the significant discrepancies between this decision and the five previous judges who came to an opposite conclusion and as such is as poor of an argument as you could make. But none of that really helps your "I was right all along" thing you've got working so I can see why it would fail to factor into your spiel here.

 

[Direwolf63]

Good read.

This is an outstanding article.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

you obviously do not understand contract law, it is all about interpretation. Hell, one judge said, there was reasonable interpretation which says you can do whatever you want even if not fair, another did.

Well, I understand this. The Law has ruled, just as many of us said they would. The NFLPA and Zeke lost, just as many of us said they would. You, are not one of those who agreed with those statements, all those months ago. Maybe we don't understand contract law, as you say. However, all those months ago, we were right and you, with all the contract law knowledge, were not.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Well, I understand this. The Law has ruled, just as many of us said they would. The NFLPA and Zeke lost, just as many of us said they would. You, are not one of those who agreed with those statements, all those months ago. Maybe we don't understand contract law, as you say. However, all those months ago, we were right and you, with all the contract law knowledge, were not.

I don't recall you stating we were right when you lost. All you have is two judges giving two different views. Don't get all holier than thou and claim you were right. All you have is the clearly biased judge whose husband is paid by Goodell on your side.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yet two judges interpreted the document completely differently (only one of which was not shrouded by a reasonable apprehension of bias). How can you claim the answer is black and white?

And none of those opinions have jurisdiction. The only opinions that count here are the ones from the Presiding Bench.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

No I don't. But I do understand how you feel like having one ruling that agrees with you gave you the appeal to authority you've been hoping for to argue that. I also understand that such a view requires one to ignore the significant discrepancies between this decision and the five previous judges who came to an opposite conclusion and as such is as poor of an argument as you could make. But none of that really helps your "I was right all along" thing you've got working so I can see why it would fail to factor into your spiel here.

I don't think you understand at all. I am not arguing here. I am speaking of the facts, that have transpired. Those who disagree with those rulings are the arguing body. See how that works?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't recall you stating we were right when you lost. All you have is two judges giving two different views. Don't get all holier than thou and claim you were right. All you have is the clearly biased judge whose husband is paid by Goodell on your side.

Why, because you say so? You have zero credibility with me. Take your story and your crying elsewhere.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

And none of those opinions have jurisdiction. The only opinions that count here are the ones from the Presiding Bench.

A judicial opinion is a judicial opinion. The PA was negligent in filing early, almost like it wanted to lose, but don't let jurisdictional hocus pocus detract from the fact the document is not black and white. Only one judge has said that fairness is not required, the one in the NFL's pocket.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

A judicial opinion is a judicial opinion. The PA was negligent in filing early, almost like it wanted to lose, but don't let jurisdictional hocus pocus detract from the fact the document is not black and white. Only one judge has said that fairness is not required, the one in the NFL's pocket.

Wrong. A judicial opinion from a court that has no jurisdiction is nothing more then an opinion. One which holds as much weight as the average joe. Unfortunately, the only opinion that matters, in this case is the one you just committed libel on. This is all a bunch of crying over something that was long since decided. You don't like it and so you cry about it. Well, all the crying in the world isn't going to change this. This, is exactly what many tried to say months ago. I'm sorry your memory is failing you on this but that's what it comes down to.

Interestingly enough, this has never been about popular opinion, for me. What I believe is right and what actually happens in these kinds of proceedings are very different, most generally. However, it doesn't change the facts. The facts were presented to you and everybody and you didn't listen.

You are still not listening BTW.

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

is the one you just committed libel on.

Hey I got some pails if you need extra space to carry all that water.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Hey I got some pails if you need extra space to carry all that water.

No, from the looks of it, you are going to need every pail you got. Fortunately for me, when I get thirst, I just go to the fridge and fill my glass. You should give it a shot yourself.

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

No, from the looks of it, you are going to need every pail you got. Fortunately for me, when I get thirst, I just go to the fridge and fill my glass. You should give it a shot yourself.

This makes no sense. Go back and get someone who can read to let you in on the reference and get back to me.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

This makes no sense. Go back and get someone who can read to let you in on the reference and get back to me.

Yeah, it's the message that's the problem. Right.

The decision is made and no amount of acting as if I am stupid is going to help you Brother. The whole carrying water thing was stupid to being with. You don't like the message so you shoot the messenger. It's not my fault that you don't like the results. It's not my fault that you didn't want to believe that this was a done deal from the get go. Me pointing out the obvious to you, and you not getting it or not wanting to get it is your problem, it's not mine. You think I don't understand what you are eluding to with the whole carrying water thing? Wake up man. I told you what would happen and it did. Who is carrying water here, the guy who saw the writing on the wall or the guy who is making excuses as to why they couldn't read the writing own their own?

 

[CowboyStar88]

This is all well and good but I didn't do this to the NFL. The players did this to themselves for money. You can yell at the moon till cows come home but it's not going to change a thing. It's done.

If we believe what we are told that isn't entirely true.

Jerry said on the fan that they did NOT know about article 46
It has been said that has been in place for 50 plus years
The reason why it's never come up is because they (players) assumed the commissioner would act in good faith, but Goodell obviously does not believe in that
The new DV policy was NOT Collectively Bargained and the NFLPA tried to take the NFL to court over it

I agree, and it is a crappy situation.