Zeke Elliott TRO granted

[Forge]

1 minute ago, fretgod99 said:

That's not the standard used. I'm not claiming he will or won't get a TRO or temporary injunction, but the standard isn't "Is there a small chance you'll win on the merits". The standard is, can you show a likelihood (more likely than not) of winning on the merits and if the TRO and subsequent temporary injunction are not entered, will you be irreparably harmed. The second prong of that is pretty straight forward (missing games most likely would qualify as irreparably harmed). The first is the issue. There are actually a couple other considerations as well, but it probably isn't really worth diving into because the likelihood of winning on the merits would be the deciding factor most likely.

Sure, it requires a preponderance of evidence, so to speak. I don't think that you have to show a likelihood of winning the case though that's really the only difference. I think if he can show a solid case that has a chance to win, he'd get it. Doesn't necessarily need to be likely (and personally I think he'll lose any case). The question is, how much does Brady's case impact that (if at all)

[fretgod99]

1 hour ago, Nova said:

I'm pretty sure the NFL is finding guilt in domestic violence; hence the 6 game suspension.

I think that Elliott will lose this battle in the end because the NFL seems to have extremely broad powers under the CBA, but I'm starting to wonder if there are other avenues Zeke's representation can take.

Because while he has been sentenced to 6 games under the DV policy, the results of the investigation are not any more conclusive or satisfactory than other DV episodes that have resulted in the softer punishment of 'conduct detrimental to the league'.

 

"Guilt" is unfortunately a bit confusing in this context. People (generally) use it referring to guilt in a criminal sense, which is part of the reason they have trouble understanding what's going on (how can he not be criminally convicted but the NFL finds him guilty, etc.). The NFL didn't find him "guilty" in any criminal sense. They found that there was sufficient evidence to show he violated their Domestic Violence policy. Those two things are drastically different and I think if people would pay more attention to that level of nuance, it would make a world of difference in this sort of conversation.

[Forge]

4 hours ago, Broncofan said:

The history of unions getting concessions from ownership strongly suggests it always costs in some form or another.   You are absolutely correct from the outside the process clearly needs an overhaul.  The issue is how strongly the ownership and NFLPA feel it's a priority.  

There are so many issues they face impasses on and frankly there's a large contingent of players who likely look at Elliott / Rice / Josh Brown as undeserving of priority of negotiations (short sighted yes but it's human nature).  When the CBA negotiations really take center stage profit sharing of non-TV $, better pension, getting more guaranteed $ in deals (or reducing # years of min-wage before FA, better solution than the franchise tag for retaining star players), player safety, addressing the drug policy flaws (the whole approved supplement list, eliminating or keeping weed on list) affects far more players.   I don't see that this will be seen as high priority by the NFLPA membership  as the rest TBH unless we see more cases where ppl think they are threatened.  

 

Absolutely agree...I guess my hope is just that the owners are going to make it a priority and agree with me that it's best for everyone involved to make the changes

[fretgod99]

1 hour ago, Forge said:

Sure, it requires a preponderance of evidence, so to speak. I don't think that you have to show a likelihood of winning the case though that's really the only difference. I think if he can show a solid case that has a chance to win, he'd get it. Doesn't necessarily need to be likely (and personally I think he'll lose any case). The question is, how much does Brady's case impact that (if at all)

A preponderance of the evidence means more likely than not. The standard for temporary injunctions is that you have to demonstrate, based on the limited evidence available at the hearing on the injunction, that you are more likely than not to win on the merits* (and then some other things like irreparability of the harm, etc.). An injunction is viewed as a really severe legal remedy, so they are necessarily difficult to get. That's why the burden seems pretty stiff; it's designed that way.

 

* Again, not accurate. Lost my forest for the trees.

[Forge]

14 minutes ago, fretgod99 said:

A preponderance of the evidence means more likely than not. The standard for temporary injunctions is that you have to demonstrate, based on the limited evidence available at the hearing on the injunction, that you are more likely than not to win on the merits (and then some other things like irreparability of the harm, etc.). An injunction is viewed as a really severe legal remedy, so they are necessarily difficult to get. That's why the burden seems pretty stiff; it's designed that way.

Yes, I agree...I think the main point of contention here is "more likely to win". I think that's where we differ, but we are actually arguing the same thing. I don't think that a judge is only granting this if he believes Zeke only has a 51% chance or higher of winning, so to speak. I think that if the judge look at it and view a 33% chance of winning, he could easily grant it (obviously, nobody really thinks in direct percentages like that, but you get what I'm saying). Of course, judge are also subjective. This judge may not feel the same as I do, and another may. That part is hard to gauge. I just don't think that Zeke needs to be 51% or better to win his case to get the TRO, but I could absolutely be wrong with one judge and right with another. We don't even really know how damaging Brady's case is to Zeke in this instance, which makes it harder to gauge. Is the judge considering? Is he not? Are their differences in the process between Zeke and Brady's cases that make the latter not applicable to be precedent? 

[Broncofan]

22 minutes ago, Forge said:

Absolutely agree...I guess my hope is just that the owners are going to make it a priority and agree with me that it's best for everyone involved to make the changes

Not to derail the topic into another but while I agree with your premise in theory, it would have been in the best interest to play the MIA-TB game on a neutral site, and keep them from having to play 16 weeks in a row - but the owners didn't push because it only affects 1 guy's pocketbook, and no one wanted to help that guy out.  So I guess I'm more pessimistic on the owners acting for the collective good of all.

[Forge]

Just now, Broncofan said:

Not to derail the topic into another but while I agree with your premise in theory, it would have been in the best interest to play the MIA-TB game on a neutral site, and keep them from having to play 16 weeks in a row - but the owners didn't push because it only affects 1 guy's pocketbook, and no one wanted to help that guy out.  So I guess I'm more pessimistic on the owners acting for the collective good of all.

Can't disagree with that lol. I'm optimistic only because I'm hopeful that the change because I don't think it'd adversely affect the bottom line, and should present better optics  for the NFL moving forward. But who knows what will happen when you get that many billionaires into a room together. 

[fretgod99]

No, what I'm saying is the legal standard required is more likely than not. If a judge thinks Elliot is more likely than not to win on the merits (and all other requirements are met), the judge must grant the injunction.

Conversely, if the judge determines (however that particular judge makes their determination) that Elliot is less likely than not to win on the merits, the judge cannot grant the injunction.

But I do think the Brady decision has to be considered. It may not be mandatory precedent due to circuit, but it's relevant and would be considered.

[Dirk Gently]

4 hours ago, jebrick said:

This becomes labor law where the only things the judge should be looking at is if the NFL followed the CBA.  As someone else said earlier in the thread, negotiate a better CBA.

 

Also remember that the NFL is not finding guilt in the domestic violence.  They are saying Elliot had actions which make the NFL look bad.

 

I think Elliot can stretch this out but will lose in the end.

That is absolutely not true.  Their documents and testimony made it clear this was the DV issue and DV issue only, which is why the credible evidence standard is so important here and am important difference from the Brady case.

 

Apologies if someone else already answered this. Playing catch up.

[Dirk Gently]

1 hour ago, jebrick said:

But labor law is very well established for this.  The Union agreed to the arbitration.  If the arbiter followed the guidelines in the CBA then even a stupid ruling by the arbiter is held up.  Elliot may get a lower court judge that is sympathetic ( like with Brady) but precedence favors the NFL( if they followed the CBA). 

again, questions of Credible Evidence here... and THAT is explicitly in the CBA. Also, *this* judge has said that there is legitimate question whether the NFL's actions in this case were fundamentally fair. Remember that the Brady judge did NOt rule that fundamental fairness could be waived, only that the NFL had acted within fundamental fairness in Brady's case. Since I also question that statement, there is definitely the possibility Elliott loses. I do not mean to say it is a slam dunk... but that works both ways.

[Dirk Gently]

52 minutes ago, fretgod99 said:

 

This is what tends to make a TRO/Temporary Injunction less likely here (though again, I'm not going to claim which way this will turn out). Brady lost on the merits and the basic argument appears to be relatively similar. If the cases are legally viewed to be pretty similar, it's a hard argument for Elliot to make that he's more likely than not to win on the merits. Still, it's going to be interesting from a legal perspective to see how this all shakes out.

Again, the judge in this case has already noted differences vs the Brady case.

[incognito_man]

Thanks to fret for providing clear and informative knowledge for us again!

[Dirk Gently]

48 minutes ago, fretgod99 said:

"Guilt" is unfortunately a bit confusing in this context. People (generally) use it referring to guilt in a criminal sense, which is part of the reason they have trouble understanding what's going on (how can he not be criminally convicted but the NFL finds him guilty, etc.). The NFL didn't find him "guilty" in any criminal sense. They found that there was sufficient evidence to show he violated their Domestic Violence policy. Those two things are drastically different and I think if people would pay more attention to that level of nuance, it would make a world of difference in this sort of conversation.

Which is why Henderson's statement that there was no need to review the evidence was hogwash. "Credible Evidence" is required here and Kessler definitely showed that the evidence was anything but credible. To summarize, the NFL evidence was:

• Accuser's testimony
• Accuser's photographs, verified by medical experts
• Testimony of witnesses

against that Kessler pointed out:

• NFL removed own lead investigator's recommendation from the report to the disciplinary team
• Witnesses all refuted accuser's testimony
• NFL declined to view photographic and video evidence that accuser had a history of damaging herself
• One of the two medical experts said she had no reason to disagree with an expert testimony and 3 studies presented that said her identification of the times and dates of bruises was a fundamentally faulty analysis (to wit, that dating bruises from photographs was, in itself, an inaccurate and unreliable analysis) and that every single photograph had multiple possible other causes consistent with demonstrated behavior of the accuser
• The other medical witness literally malingered to avoid testifying
• Every investigator, both NFL and police (whom the NFL neglected to interview) that spoke to the accuser found her to not be credible

I think there's more than reasonable doubt as to whether the NFL met its own explicit standard of "credble evidence"

 

[Dirk Gently]

2 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Thanks to fret for providing clear and informative knowledge for us again!

Agreed. This has been a much better discussion of the case overall. Kudos all around.

[fretgod99]

1 minute ago, Dirk Gently said:

Again, the judge in this case has already noted differences vs the Brady case.

I never said they're the same, just that there are similarities. How similar they are deemed to be remains to be seen.