Ezekiel Elliot remains suspended

[mse326]

3 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

1%

He's basically hoping for a miracle. He needs to get insanely lucky with the panel and hope that they do something that's almost never done. It's not impossible, but the odds are extremely stacked against him.

I would a little higher only because the panel may decide to stay enforcement until they can rule lest it be mooted in the meantime. Essentially preserve status quo to preserve jurisdiction. But I more or less agree. It isn't likely.

[Phire]

Just now, lancerman said:

Ir-repairable damage. Elliot's reputation is smeared by being forced into taking punishment over something the legal system had not convicted him of because of a faulty arbitrary NFL process. Thus due process cleared Elliot but now he has to bear the stigma of a being punished for domestic assault because of a questionable investigation. 

Can you actually point to evidence that any of this is happening? 

[jrry32]

Just now, Phire said:

I didn't say change minds. I said influence. I've worked at three different courts, including an appellate court, and this is just the way things happen behind closed doors. I know it's nice to think there's this judge sitting in her chambers making her "independent" decision closed off from all outside influence, but in reality it's probably some law clerk scrambling around looking for any and all case law they can get their hands on.

The first two sentences aren't analysis. Mazzant's opinion isn't very good with regard to irreparable harm. He string cites then states his conclusion. Even if you include the prior two sentences, that's a grand total of four sentences talking about irreparable harm. There is no applying facts to the cited case law. He doesn't even discuss the case law and lay out the analogies. He just states they exist then makes his conclusion. Again, it's not the best written opinion on that point.

And that would be me . . . for a federal district court judge (so I am speaking from experience). However, in a borderline and prominent case like this, my job is going to be figuring out if the way the judge wants to go is legally permissible and then finding support for it.

The first two sentences are analysis. And the second sentence is analysis applying the fact to the case law. It's not a surprise that it all is a tad rushed considering the timetable he was on and the fact that it was a preliminary injunction.

[mse326]

2 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Ir-repairable damage. Elliot's reputation is smeared by being forced into taking punishment over something the legal system had not convicted him of because of a faulty arbitrary NFL process. Thus due process cleared Elliot but now he has to bear the stigma of a being punished for domestic assault because of a questionable investigation. 

There is just so much wrong with this post. Honestly just read the thread of discussions among jrry, Phire, and me. It will answer most of why this is wrong even if you think he should win on the merits.

[jrry32]

1 minute ago, mse326 said:

I would a little higher only because the panel may decide to stay enforcement until they can rule lest it be mooted in the meantime. Essentially preserve status quo to preserve jurisdiction. But I more or less agree. It isn't likely.

The reason I put it so low is that they'd have to essentially undermine the irreparable harm part of her opinion. The only way that happens imo is if they think they're likely going to reverse. And I think the Second Circuit isn't going that direction. Personally, even if she had ruled for Elliott, I felt there was a solid chance that the Second Circuit would have reversed on appeal.

[lancerman]

Just now, Phire said:

Can you actually point to evidence that any of this is happening? 

What evidence do you need. 

1. There was a criminal investigation into alleged domestic assault. 

2. Elliot was never charged with domestic assault. 

3. Elliot was never legally proven to have committed domestic assault. 

4. The NFL did a questionable investigation into the incident and determined their authority as investigators was superior to the actual legal process in determining guilt. 

5. They claimed Elliot likely committed domestic assault. 

6. They are making Elliot pay a sentence for their belief that he committed domestic assault. 

7. In the eyes of the world Elliot is being punished by the NFL for a domestic assault violation. 

[lancerman]

2 minutes ago, mse326 said:

There is just so much wrong with this post. Honestly just read the thread of discussions among jrry, Phire, and me. It will answer most of why this is wrong even if you think he should win on the merits.

You do realize that if he takes a punishment for domestic assault there will be some sponsors and groups that will never touch him over it.

[mse326]

5 minutes ago, lancerman said:

You do realize that if he takes a punishment for domestic assault there will be some sponsors and groups that will never touch him over it.

Has nothing to do with the myriad of issues with your original post.

And I don't take that as fact given how publicized this all is. If a sponsor thinks he did they won't touch him whether he is suspended or not. If they don't then they won't care that NFL does.

EDIT: I should have also mentioned what was mentioned below. That many won't necessarily care about their own opinion but the mention itself may be enough and what ever the result of this litigation is irrelevant to that.

[Phire]

2 minutes ago, lancerman said:

What evidence do you need. 

1. There was a criminal investigation into alleged domestic assault. 

2. Elliot was never charged with domestic assault. 

3. Elliot was never legally proven to have committed domestic assault. 

4. The NFL did a questionable investigation into the incident and determined their authority as investigators was superior to the actual legal process in determining guilt. 

5. They claimed Elliot likely committed domestic assault. 

6. They are making Elliot pay a sentence for their belief that he committed domestic assault. 

7. In the eyes of the world Elliot is being punished by the NFL for a domestic assault violation. 

That's not what I asked for. Show me evidence #7 is happening. And I don't mean some random fool on Twitter. I'll be waiting!

[Phire]

OK let's play that game. What endorsement has Zeke lost?

[Jakuvious]

1 minute ago, lancerman said:

You do realize that if he takes a punishment for domestic assault there will be some sponsors and groups that will never touch him over it.

That will happen anyways even if he wins his appeal. A sponsor isn't going to care about the details or nuance. The second his name was in an article with the words "domestic violence," that damage was already done. And that was quite some time ago.

[Phire]

7 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

And that would be me . . . for a federal district court judge (so I am speaking from experience). However, in a borderline and prominent case like this, my job is going to be figuring out if the way the judge wants to go is legally permissible and then finding support for it.

The first two sentences are analysis. And the second sentence is analysis applying the fact to the case law. It's not a surprise that it all is a tad rushed considering the timetable he was on and the fact that it was a preliminary injunction.

A tad rushed? It's four sentences. You don't apply fact to case law before you even bring up the case law. There are zero sentences between the string citation and the conclusion. That's more than a tad rushed. That's a badly written legal opinion. 

[fretgod99]

3 minutes ago, lancerman said:

You do realize that if he takes a punishment for domestic assault there will be some sponsors and groups that will never touch him over it.

You realize that the NFL isn't bound by the criminal burden of proof, right? The NFL is not obligated to demonstrate a fact's existence or event's occurrence beyond a reasonable doubt. There is unquestionably evidence that Elliott did what he is accused of. It is not sufficient to meet a criminal burden. For the NFL's purpose, the fact that the evidence is not sufficient to meet a criminal burden is 100% irrelevant.

[jrry32]

Just now, Phire said:

A tad rushed? It's four sentences. You don't apply fact to case law before you even bring up the case law. There are zero sentences between the string citation and the conclusion. That's more than a tad rushed. That's a badly written legal opinion. 

You can write opinions in a variety of ways. Generally, you introduce the arguments, cite the applicable case law, and then apply the facts to the case law. In this case, Mazzant combined the first and last step. There's nothing wrong with that, especially when you're working to get an opinion out quickly. It saves you from repeating yourself and is less formulaic. It's easy to see his reasoning behind it, and that reasoning is in line with the case law he cited.

In my eyes, that's no worse than citing no case law whatsoever.

[mse326]

3 minutes ago, fretgod99 said:

You realize that the NFL isn't bound by the criminal burden of proof, right? The NFL is not obligated to demonstrate a fact's existence or event's occurrence beyond a reasonable doubt. There is unquestionably evidence that Elliott did what he is accused of. It is not sufficient to meet a criminal burden. For the NFL's purpose, the fact that the evidence is not sufficient to meet a criminal burden is 100% irrelevant.

Exactly. Hell even our legal system allows for a lower burden in civil court. That is why OJ was found not guilty in a criminal trial but liable for wrongful death in the civil (I know you know this,  just educating him further)