Ezekiel Elliot remains suspended

[JAF-N72EX]

23 minutes ago, Phire said:

This is atypical. But when you're a millionaire you can afford to file suit in Texas one day then New York the next. Most ordinary people can't even afford an appeal. He'll take advantage of every avenue money can buy. And it's not his fault, the appeals system is just another form of checks and balances and your due process rights. He's fully within his rights to exhaust his potential judicial remedies.

With that being said, another appeal would be playing with fire. He'd risk being suspended for playoffs. And appeals courts typically give deference to lower court decisions as well, even when reviewing de novo (looking at the issues anew). He can appeal this decision but it's extremely unlikely he wins on appeal. It's even unlikely he files an appeal at all given the potential for suspension during playoffs, assuming Dallas gets there without him.

I don't think this has anything to do with money. if there is anything that differs at all from the normal person is the fact that he plays for the NFL and is a high profile player. Nothing else. ANY and all type of DV cases are the same as his and are all judged/weighed differently and individually. All of them are primarily based on 3 major factors; the defendants case related history, well-being of all accusers involved, and ultimately the judge's personal view on the claim(we all know judges are not objective in every case - I don't care what they say). 

DV cases are a very touchy case to begin with. Almost all of them have two-sides to a story that are mis-represented in some way, shape or form. 

[Phire]

Just now, JustAnotherFan said:

I don't think this has anything to do with money. if there is anything that differs at all from the normal person is the fact that he plays for the NFL and is a high profile player. Nothing else. ANY and all type of DV cases are the same as his and are all judged/weighed differently and individually. All of them are primarily based on 3 major factors; the defendants case related history, well-being of all accusers involved, and ultimately the judge's personal view on the claim(we all know judges are not objective in every case - I don't care what they say). 

DV cases are a very touchy case to begin with. Almost all of them have two-sides to a story that are mis-represented in some way, shape or form. 

I was responding to a specific post that was asking about the appeals process. I didn't comment on the domestic violence allegations. The more money you have at your disposal, the more you can afford to litigate. That's not a disputable point.

Furthermore, the NFL and Zeke aren't really litigating the domestic violence issue. They're litigating, essentially, the limits of Roger Goodell's powers. The Brady cases "left open" (in quotes because that's what the NFLPA lawyers argued) the possibility of attacking a player's suspension based on the process, or "fundamental unfairness" as the NFLPA lawyers argued. This wasn't a criminal trial over whether Zeke actually committed domestic violence.

The judge dissolved the TRO partly because she didn't find the arbitration process unfair (also held that the courts really aren't meant to overturn proper arbitration), but also because there's a public interest in holding people to their bargain: the NFLPA and NFL agreed to the CBA, you can't get around how expansive Goodell's powers are now that you don't like a certain outcome. Obviously I'm boiling these down to simple themes.

[RuskieTitan]

43 minutes ago, Phire said:

He's already a millionaire and players of his caliber make more money off endorsements and other sources than their game checks. A millionaire losing some money isn't the kind of "irreparable harm" a TRO is intended to prevent. TROs are an extraordinary remedy for unique situations. Someone losing money isn't a basis for a TRO, nor is losing imaginary statistics and wins in a sport.

It's still real to me dammit.

[Calvert28]

Meh I won't believe it until Sunday. I wasn't too thrilled about our season anyways. But it seems like we get a new ruling every half hour. 

[jonu62882]

1 hour ago, Matts4313 said:

Wrong word, but I am stupid tired right now and am drawing a blank. Civil rights? 

Essentially he is getting punished for a crime he didnt commit. Its crappy. Now Im off to bed. 

Sounds like he could use the A-Team? We know his lawyers were the B-Team...

Btw, I told this was coming sooner or later.  But keep on whining about Zeke being a victim lol.

[JAF-N72EX]

38 minutes ago, Phire said:

Furthermore, the NFL and Zeke aren't really litigating the domestic violence issue. They're litigating, essentially, the limits of Roger Goodell's powers. The Brady cases "left open" (in quotes because that's what the NFLPA lawyers argued) the possibility of attacking a player's suspension based on the process, or "fundamental unfairness" as the NFLPA lawyers argued. This wasn't a criminal trial over whether Zeke actually committed domestic violence.

The judge dissolved the TRO partly because she didn't find the arbitration process unfair (also held that the courts really aren't meant to overturn proper arbitration), but also because there's a public interest in holding people to their bargain: the NFLPA and NFL agreed to the CBA, you can't get around how expansive Goodell's powers are now that you don't like a certain outcome. Obviously I'm boiling these down to simple themes.

Yes, I admit, I didn't read the full post that you responded too. My bad.

39 minutes ago, Phire said:

I was responding to a specific post that was asking about the appeals process. I didn't comment on the domestic violence allegations. The more money you have at your disposal, the more you can afford to litigate. That's not a disputable point.

In most cases, I agree but not in DV cases. This is what I meant by each case being judged individually. But that's beside the point I guess because I read the initial post wrong.

[jonu62882]

1 hour ago, Phire said:

He's already a millionaire and players of his caliber make more money off endorsements and other sources than their game checks. A millionaire losing some money isn't the kind of "irreparable harm" a TRO is intended to prevent. TROs are an extraordinary remedy for unique situations. Someone losing money isn't a basis for a TRO, nor is losing imaginary statistics and wins in a sport.

There’s always quite a few armchair lawyers arguing legal theories when they don’t even understand what they’re arguing.  We say it every time...just ‘cause you watch all the different  Law & Order shows does not make you a legal expert.

[raiderrocker18]

2 hours ago, Phire said:

He's already a millionaire and players of his caliber make more money off endorsements and other sources than their game checks. A millionaire losing some money isn't the kind of "irreparable harm" a TRO is intended to prevent. TROs are an extraordinary remedy for unique situations. Someone losing money isn't a basis for a TRO, nor is losing imaginary statistics and wins in a sport.

and there is ample case law suggesting that athletes missing games DOES constitute exactly that type of irreparable harm

even judge failla said so in the order today. she just said the league's interest outweighed the harm

[Jakuvious]

4 hours ago, sp6488 said:

Six game checks would count as harm I imagine.

Game checks are harm, but not irreparable harm. Money is pretty easily rectified after the fact.

[Phire]

5 hours ago, raiderrocker18 said:

and there is ample case law suggesting that athletes missing games DOES constitute exactly that type of irreparable harm

even judge failla said so in the order today. she just said the league's interest outweighed the harm

Straight from her opinion:

"On the issue of irreparable harm, as noted in the preceding section, the harms identified by the NFLPA are either speculative, insufficient to warrant the extraordinary remedy of injunctive relief, and/or outweighed by the concerns identified by the NFLMC."

What you said is one part of the analysis. I understand you won't let your conclusion go, but I have the judge on my side here. Judge Failla puts the case law back on track where it should be—millionaire athletes taking a vacation isn't the type of "irreparable harm" a TRO is intended to protect.

The NFLPA should negotiate a better CBA if they want to avoid this type of situation. Sadly for us fans, they WILL negotiate hard the next time, and it may take a long, long time to reach a resolution.

[Phire]

3 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

Game checks are harm, but not irreparable harm. Money is pretty easily rectified after the fact.

Money damages are explicitly not the type of harm a TRO is intended to protect. People get money damages all the time through civil litigation. Thus, it isn't "irreparable." You can always make money.

[jebrick]

5 minutes ago, Phire said:

The NFLPA should negotiate a better CBA if they want to avoid this type of situation. Sadly for us fans, they WILL negotiate hard the next time, and it may take a long, long time to reach a resolution.

This needs repeated every time these cases come up.  This is Labor law not criminal law.

[mse326]

1 hour ago, Phire said:

Straight from her opinion:

"On the issue of irreparable harm, as noted in the preceding section, the harms identified by the NFLPA are either speculative, insufficient to warrant the extraordinary remedy of injunctive relief, and/or outweighed by the concerns identified by the NFLMC."

What you said is one part of the analysis. I understand you won't let your conclusion go, but I have the judge on my side here. Judge Failla puts the case law back on track where it should be—millionaire athletes taking a vacation isn't the type of "irreparable harm" a TRO is intended to protect.

The NFLPA should negotiate a better CBA if they want to avoid this type of situation. Sadly for us fans, they WILL negotiate hard the next time, and it may take a long, long time to reach a resolution.

I'm particularly happy with this as I have long thought that and believed that the few trial courts to decide have done so on some strange basis that athletes are different, which they aren't (a point the court tacitly says is happening in citing the article that basically says the same thing). Particularly of note is the court's clear denounciation of the ridiculous team succes argument for irreperable harm that other courts have used-as if that has anything to do with the plaintiff.

It's also noteworthy that the Judge says there isn't even a serious question on the merits let a lone a likelihood of success.

It also does a great job in saying why the deficiencies in the process being claimed are either not deficiencies or ones completely in the hands of the arbitrator's decision and not violating fundamental fairness.

Basically this decision is huge win all around for the NFL.

[bigbadbuff23835]

What I don’t get is suspending him under the DV stipulation. I get that under the CBA they can suspend him for just bringing a bad image to the league but to say he’s suspended for DV is wrong because he wasn’t criminally charged. Suspend him under a different name is I guess what I’m saying.

[Phire]

26 minutes ago, mse326 said:

I'm particularly happy with this as I have long thought that and believed that the few trial courts to decide have done so on some strange basis that athletes are different, which they aren't (a point the court tacitly says is happening in citing the article that basically says the same thing). Particularly of note is the court's clear denounciation of the ridiculous team succes argument for irreperable harm that other courts have used-as if that has anything to do with the plaintiff.

It's also noteworthy that the Judge says there isn't even a serious question on the merits let a lone a likelihood of success.

It also does a great job in saying why the deficiencies in the process being claimed are either not deficiencies or ones completely in the hands of the arbitrator's decision and not violating fundamental fairness.

Basically this decision is huge win all around for the NFL.

Well said, I wholeheartedly agree.