Zekes accuser not required to be at hearing

[haleyrules]

easy for us to say, we aren't stigmatized as an abuser like he is

He will always have a career as long as he can ball.

Not true. Plenty of careers have been ruined by politics...especially years ago. Elliott has certain propensities that make him vulnerable long and short term. He needs to be very careful.

 

[haleyrules]

easy for us to say, we aren't stigmatized as an abuser like he is

He will always have a career as long as he can ball.

Don't misunderstand. I am a big Elliott fan.

 

[Lutonio]

If I'm Zeke I make it a civil rights case.

Josh brown (white man) has a worse case yet get 1 game.

I know it's not really about that, but it does look bad.

Somebody might actually do that for him if it gets ugly enough. Some media sites are already posting about it.

 

[jday]

I'm really starting to believe that the NFL could careless if Zeke is guilty or not. To satisfy the various groups that have criticized the NFL's approach to domestic violence to date, the organization needed a high profile player to make an example. Zeke fit that bill to the T. Now that they have him, they will dig in come what may. I have no doubts whatsoever that this appeal will be denied.

So does anyone know how the injunction works. May as well discuss it now, because as far as I'm concerned the denial at this point is a foregone conclusion.

 

[bigbob]

They need the good PR from the far left media.

It's hard to say what their motivation for all this is or what they're trying to achieve I wish I knew but I don't think they're going to let us know what the real deal is.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Don't misunderstand. I am a big Elliott fan.

Oh I know, just easy for us to say take the punishment

 

[bsbellomy]

Seriously, you think a pay dispute is the same as branding a guy a sex offender

It doesn't have anything to do with the offense. It has to do with what is and what isn't a valid contract.

Seems like maybe you need to go back and read more Posts here for context instead of responding to one you don't like.

 

[bsbellomy]

Zeke should sue her for defamation, and see what she does to respond. If he won that case, then surely the NFL would have to repeal the suspension.

I know I'd love for this to happen but Zeke has yet to take any serious measures to make sure his name is distanced from this. So that actally still leaves doubt in my mind. But yes if he were innocent this imo would be something he should do if only to further profess his innocence.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

It doesn't have anything to do with the offense. It has to do with what is and what isn't a valid contract.

Seems like maybe you need to go back and read more Posts here for context instead of responding to one you don't like.

comparing this situation to a contract dispute is ridiculous

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I know I'd love for this to happen but Zeke has yet to take any serious measures to make sure his name is distanced from this. So that actally still leaves doubt in my mind. But yes if he were innocent this imo would be something he should do if only to further profess his innocence.

I can only assume his lawyers have told him not to do it while the appeal process is ongoing since it could be seen to be bullying the woman to get her to dump the complaint.

 

[Montanalo]

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?

Thanks for providing your insights. Indulge me a bit and explain why and how the NFL can unilaterally decide not to provide her sworn testimony? Serious question - I am not taking a shot at you or any other attorney on this board.

 

[WhizKid]

Soooooooooo what happens if they bring notes and records anyways? That would be fun to watch. As it looks to be going south, hit em with that Emeril BAM! then watch them justify ignoring information to the case to justify their ruling. PR nightmare???

 

[casmith07]

Thanks for providing your insights. Indulge me a bit and explain why and how the NFL can unilaterally decide not to provide her sworn testimony? Serious question - I am not taking a shot at you or any other attorney on this board.

I'm unsure about that one. They're going to have a tough time, in my opinion, trying to justify not honoring Zeke's reasonable discovery request.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I'm unsure about that one. They're going to have a tough time, in my opinion, trying to justify not honoring Zeke's reasonable discovery request.

conspiracy theory in me says, they want to lose in court because that way they can tell SJW's, women's groups etc, hey we did all we could but rape culture in the courts overruled us

 

[Bullflop]

Goodell and his cronies are setting the court hearing up so that there's virtually no chance Ms. Thompson can again contradict herself. There's definitely no way that could happen if she's not even there to stymie her case. It's pretty much of a kangaroo court type of setup for the league.

 

[casmith07]

conspiracy theory in me says, they want to lose in court because that way they can tell SJW's, women's groups etc, hey we did all we could but rape culture in the courts overruled us

I don't know. I feel like they already kind of screwed up.

 

[Kevinicus]

cue the "well the NFLPA gave him the right" but doesn't Goody Goodell actually have to have evidence that Zeke did something, not just her word, does he not have to seek some kind of corroboration (and a medical report which has no weight is not really corroboration) and stating that he didn't disprove he did means he did, even if as many internet lawyers in this thread like to say this is not criminal but civil, goes against all principles of natural justice. Even if a civil case, you do not have to disprove a claim brought against you.

Goody Goodell has decided that you have to disprove a claim against you. You cannot prove a negative so basically he has decided as long as he believes it, even if there is no evidence, he can do what he wants.

Nope. Not under this CBA. That's the difference between this and a case with an impartial jury. Here the NFL and specifically Goodell is the jury.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Nope. Not under this CBA. That's the difference between this and a case with an impartial jury. Here the NFL and specifically Goodell is the jury.

Juries are still bound by law. An extreme and admittedly absurd example is that another guy is convicted of a crime but Goodell decides it was an NFL guy who did it and suspends. Using the position you are taking, Goody could do that with impunity.

 

[Montanalo]

I'm unsure about that one. They're going to have a tough time, in my opinion, trying to justify not honoring Zeke's reasonable discovery request.

Thanks! Appreciate your comments.

 

[roughneck266]

The judges decision has already been written.

Yeah, that whole right to face your accuser thing, completely overrated.