Zekes accuser not required to be at hearing

[ksg811]

there has to be procedural fairness, and clearly there was not

Correct, but not with her. The NFL holds no subpoena power and arbitration is considered a civil proceeding, so there is not right if confrontation. The issue of fundamental fairness stems from the withholding of interview transcripts and notes.

 

[csirl]

However, Zeke's case and Brady's case are two different circumstances. Brady's case falls under the conduct policy - behaviors and actions which can harm the integrity of the league.

Zeke's case is Domestic Violence. Domestic violence does fall under the conduct policy if it harms the integrity of the league in anyway shape or form, whether its a guilty or not guilty verdict. Zeke's case, if he proves without a shadow of a doubt that the charges brought upon him are false, how then can the NFL then suspend him under the conduct policy?

So if Zeke didn't commit any of those crimes how could he be suspended? Does the NFL have the rights to falsely accuse their players of wrongdoing? This will be up to the courts to decide and I think it will favor Zeke.

NFL is not saying any crime was committed. Also this is a civil issue not a criminal one. Reasonable doubt does not exist. Its all on balance of probabilities. Experts say the woman was a DV victim. The probability it was more likely to be Zeke than someone else is all they need to show. They are not saying with certainty that Zeke is responsible. This is why, unlike a criminal case, this is difficult to for Zeke to defend.

 

[erod]

However, Zeke's case and Brady's case are two different circumstances. Brady's case falls under the conduct policy - behaviors and actions which can harm the integrity of the league.

Zeke's case is Domestic Violence. Domestic violence does fall under the conduct policy if it harms the integrity of the league in anyway shape or form, whether its a guilty or not guilty verdict. Zeke's case, if he proves without a shadow of a doubt that the charges brought upon him are false, how then can the NFL then suspend him under the conduct policy?

So if Zeke didn't commit any of those crimes how could he be suspended? Does the NFL have the rights to falsely accuse their players of wrongdoing? This will be up to the courts to decide and I think it will favor Zeke.

But that's not what the federal courts will decide. They'll decide if the NFL has the right to suspend him on this level of evidence, and the CBA says they do.

 

[bsbellomy]

there has to be procedural fairness, and clearly there was not

Where does it say that in the PA contract?

 

[bsbellomy]

A few grains of salt for the masses to sprinkle on all this red meat.

My Lawyer Thought: The NFL does not have subpoena power, so they cannot compel her to appear at the hearing.

My Personal Thought: she's already accomplished her goal of putting Zeke in a bind, so she got what she wanted. Why show up even if asked?

Why even come out and deny the PA meeting then? Why not just issue a statement that says they have no control over whether she shows up or not?

 

[haleyrules]

NFL is not saying any crime was committed. Also this is a civil issue not a criminal one. Reasonable doubt does not exist. Its all on balance of probabilities. Experts say the woman was a DV victim. The probability it was more likely to be Zeke than someone else is all they need to show. They are not saying with certainty that Zeke is responsible. This is why, unlike a criminal case, this is difficult to for Zeke to defend.

Thats the rub.

 

[csirl]

there has to be procedural fairness, and clearly there was not

there has to be procedural fairness, and clearly there was not

The procedural fairness in this type of hearing is that both parties get a chance to review and respond to the evidence presented. If the NFL has sent Zeke all the evidence being submitted to the arbitrator, they have complied.

 

[bsbellomy]

So is the NFL going to punish him for what? Just because they want to?

Therein lies the problem with the CBA and I think that's what you are missing. There is really nothing prohibited in there when it comes to the discipline of the player. And as you know the NFL has never had a problem with making it up as they go.

 

[ConstantReboot]

Correct, but not with her. The NFL holds no subpoena power and arbitration is considered a civil proceeding, so there is not right if confrontation. The issue of fundamental fairness stems from the withholding of interview transcripts and notes.

Here is a list conducts from the conduct policy:

If you are convicted of a crime or subject to a disposition of a criminal proceeding (as defined in
this Policy), you are subject to discipline. But even if your conduct does not result in a criminal
conviction, if the league finds that you have engaged in any of the following conduct, you will be subject
to discipline. Prohibited conduct includes but is not limited to the following:

- Actual or threatened physical violence against another person, including dating violence,
domestic violence, child abuse, and other forms of family violence;
- Assault and/or battery, including sexual assault or other sex offenses;
- Violent or threatening behavior toward another employee or a third party in any workplace
setting;
- Stalking, harassment, or similar forms of intimidation;
- Illegal possession of a gun or other weapon (such as explosives, toxic substances, and the
like), or possession of a gun or other weapon in any workplace setting;
- Illegal possession, use, or distribution of alcohol or drugs;
- Possession, use, or distribution of steroids or other performance enhancing substances;
- Crimes involving cruelty to animals as defined by state or federal law;
- Crimes of dishonesty such as blackmail, extortion, fraud, money laundering, or racketeering;
- Theft-related crimes such as burglary, robbery, or larceny;
- Disorderly conduct;
- Crimes against law enforcement, such as obstruction, resisting arrest, or harming a police
officer or other law enforcement officer;
- Conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person; and
- Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL
personnel

So if Zeke doesn't fall into one of these categories how then could the policy then be apply to him?

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Where does it say that in the PA contract?

if it isn't set out, then the courts will read it into it.

You assume that the courts will say, well Roger Robespierre can suspend you for stepping on ants without any evidence. Any time, you act in any kind of judicial capacity, you have to have procedural fairness

 

[ksg811]

Here is a list conducts from the conduct policy:

If you are convicted of a crime or subject to a disposition of a criminal proceeding (as defined in
this Policy), you are subject to discipline. But even if your conduct does not result in a criminal
conviction, if the league finds that you have engaged in any of the following conduct, you will be subject
to discipline. Prohibited conduct includes but is not limited to the following:

- Actual or threatened physical violence against another person, including dating violence,
domestic violence, child abuse, and other forms of family violence;
- Assault and/or battery, including sexual assault or other sex offenses;
- Violent or threatening behavior toward another employee or a third party in any workplace
setting;
- Stalking, harassment, or similar forms of intimidation;
- Illegal possession of a gun or other weapon (such as explosives, toxic substances, and the
like), or possession of a gun or other weapon in any workplace setting;
- Illegal possession, use, or distribution of alcohol or drugs;
- Possession, use, or distribution of steroids or other performance enhancing substances;
- Crimes involving cruelty to animals as defined by state or federal law;
- Crimes of dishonesty such as blackmail, extortion, fraud, money laundering, or racketeering;
- Theft-related crimes such as burglary, robbery, or larceny;
- Disorderly conduct;
- Crimes against law enforcement, such as obstruction, resisting arrest, or harming a police
officer or other law enforcement officer;
- Conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person; and
- Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL
personnel

So if Zeke doesn't fall into one of these categories how then could the policy then be apply to him?

Because Article 46 of the CBA gives Goodell the power to issue discipline as he sees fit. Unlike criminal proceedings which require evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt", the NFL only needs a "preponderance" of evidence (50.1%). She had bruises, she said he did it, they were together that week, he couldn't disprove her accusations, so that's all Goodell needed to issue discipline.

 

[ConstantReboot]

Therein lies the problem with the CBA and I think that's what you are missing. There is really nothing prohibited in there when it comes to the discipline of the player. And as you know the NFL has never had a problem with making it up as they go.

Here is what is required for the conduct policy to take into effect:

f you are convicted of a crime or subject to a disposition of a criminal proceeding (as defined in
this Policy), you are subject to discipline. But even if your conduct does not result in a criminal
conviction, if the league finds that you have engaged in any of the following conduct, you will be subject
to discipline. Prohibited conduct includes but is not limited to the following:

Zeke was never convicted or even prosecuted for any crime whatsoever. I'm just stating what the policy states - that they need to be convicted and subject to being prosecuted in the a court of law. Zeke never fulfilled those requirements. Thus I feel that the NFL's case is entirely moot.

Just my two cents. I'm not a lawyer so correct me if Im wrong on this.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Because Article 46 of the CBA gives Goodell the power to issue discipline as he sees fit. Unlike criminal proceedings which require evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt", the NFL only needs a "preponderance" of evidence (50.1%). She had bruises, she said he did it, they were together that week, he couldn't disprove her accusations, so that's all Goodell needed to issue discipline.

except the fact he says he didn't disprove the allegations goes against 1000 years of justice, the accused never has to disprove.

One cannot prove a negative

 

[ksg811]

Here is what is required for the conduct policy to take into effect:

f you are convicted of a crime or subject to a disposition of a criminal proceeding (as defined in
this Policy), you are subject to discipline. But even if your conduct does not result in a criminal conviction, if the league finds that you have engaged in any of the following conduct, you will be subject
to discipline. Prohibited conduct includes but is not limited to the following:

Zeke was never convicted or even prosecuted for any crime whatsoever. I'm just stating what the policy states - that they need to be convicted and subject to being prosecuted in the a court of law. Zeke never fulfilled those requirements. Thus I feel that the NFL's case is entirely moot.

Just my two cents. I'm not a lawyer so correct me if Im wrong on this.

You posted the policy and you're still wrong. Read the bold - a conviction is not necessary.

 

[ksg811]

except the fact he says he didn't disprove the allegations goes against 1000 years of justice, the accused never has to disprove.

One cannot prove a negative

Doesn't matter because of Article 46 of the CBA. The CBA was collectively bargained and agreed to by both parties. Blame the NFLPA for giving Goodel full authority.

 

[Bullet22]

My guess would be, that they are afraid of her breaking down and admitting that she lied and made the whole thing up, if she was telling the truth, why not have her there....

 

[ConstantReboot]

You posted the policy and you're still wrong. Read the bold - a conviction is not necessary.

Ok thanks for the clarification.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

The NFL's investigation was/is about finding a justification for a suspension, not about finding the truth.

Truer words have never been written.

 

[bsbellomy]

if it isn't set out, then the courts will read it into it.

You assume that the courts will say, well Roger Robespierre can suspend you for stepping on ants without any evidence. Any time, you act in any kind of judicial capacity, you have to have procedural fairness

Oh really? Do you also think if Aaron Donald took the Rams to court because he was grossly underpaid they would read into that as well? A contract is a thing agreed to by two parties. Why exactly do you Tom Brady ended up having to serve his suspension?

I gave a small chance to the CBA being thrown out entirely, but imo that's what it would take to overturn this decision.

 

[Bullet22]

Oh really? Do you also think if Aaron Donald took the Rams to court because he was grossly underpaid they would read into that as well? A contract is a thing agreed to by two parties. Why exactly do you Tom Brady ended up having to serve his suspension?

I gave a small chance to the CBA being thrown out entirely, but imo that's what it would take to overturn this decision.

Didn't Brady destroy his phone after the NFL requested it...