wakelawyer

Members
  • Content count

    207
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

55 Excellent

About wakelawyer

  • Rank
    Footballguy
  • Birthday March 17

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New Jersey

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Miami Dolphins

Recent Profile Visitors

2,486 profile views
  1. I'm not a fan of vetoing trades but I'd be pretty upset if I were in that league.
  2. In a vacuum you would have to think the Fleener side wins. But, as an Eifert owner in a few leagues, I could see wanting to move on from him. But, on the other hand, as a Fleener owner in several others, he's not the guy that I'd want to move to.
  3. Yeah, that would be grounds to vacate or to not confirm that award. But it shouldn't permit modification. There might be a court somewhere that permitted modification in this situation but it would be counter to the text and spirit of the FAA.
  4. Just to clarify on that prior point, the FAA encourages arbitration and pays great deference to decisions of arbitrators. As a result, it is in only the rarest of situations where a Court will ever intervene to vacate, modify, or challenge an arbitration award. In that regard, they are akin to an appellate court. The issue isn't whether the Court would have ruled differently if they had the case but whether the procedure employed was so fundamentally flawed that the party did not receive due process.
  5. I'd be interested in where you saw that. I have never had a situation where the issue was modification v. vacation of an award but the text of the FAA would seem to prohibit modification. Modification standard: Vacation standard:
  6. I'm not sure about the LMRA (NLRA?) but the FAA shouldn't permit the Court to modify the arbitration award. This isn't an issue like incorrectly adding up the judgment amount or ruling on an issue which should not have been addressed. If there is an issue with the process, the result should be vacation (negating) of the award which would put the parties back to where they were before the arbitration.
  7. Sorry, let me clarify. When I say merits of the case, I'm talking about the merits of the federal court litigation. This case revolves around the procedure and process employed rather than the ultimate outcome. And you are correct that this is why this case is different than Brady. The issue in the Brady case was the claim that there was an incorrect ruling or a penalty not consistent with prior penalties. And the court was not able to grant relief because it was bound to honor the prior ruling absent a finding of a procedural defect. However, here, the issue is the claim that the process was flawed and that would entitle Zeke to relief. Unfortunately for him that relief would likely be a rehearing.
  8. This is very very very unlikely. Courts have benchmarks for getting cases trial ready and that would be outside of the norm. Add in the publicity this case has and this case will get the rocket docket and be resolved quickly, albeit most likely not in time to reinstate the suspension this year.
  9. As for the merits, the trial court used some strong language attacking the NFL's procedure, due process, and fairness and found that Zeke had a reasonable probability of winning. But, remember, the Brady court had the same probability of winning determination. And we know how that ended. The key here is that, even if Zeke wins the whole case, the likely relief is that this goes back to the NFL process and Zeke gets a new hearing. And I would think that the NFL would clean up the procedural issues but come to the same ruling. And then the process could start all over again. Although not likely, it is not unheard of that Zeke could use the Court process to avoid missing time next year. But I think that, in that event, the Courts would expedite the process to get a ruling quickly. So, absent a settlement, I think that Zeke plays this year and ends up serving a 6-game suspension next year.
  10. My understanding is as follows: Zeke moved for a stay before the trial court which was granted. The NFL moved, before the trial court, to stay the injunction -- which was denied today. The NFL moved, before the 5th Circuit, to reinstate the suspension -- that has not been decided. It will likely be decided, and in Zeke's favor, in the next few days and possibly today. The Court's decision will almost certainly be grounded on the fact that the NFL cannot establish irreparable harm. The end result is that this matter will not be resolved this year. The trial court will not rule on the merits of the case for several months and, even if Zeke loses, he would file an appeal and seek a stay pending appeal. He would almost certainly get a stay pending appeal. The appeal would not be resolved until after the season.
  11. Definitely true but they are a bit different. He definitely drug his feet on Elliott but now wants to move quickly now that there is a stay in place -- it seems like a PR issue. As for Brown, he's retired so there was really no one to fight on that. I'd have to look deeper but my thought was that one of the investigators in the Elliott matter had made some comments about Brown. And maybe the increased suspension was to appease her. But that's based on some Pro Football Talk blurb so certainly take it for what it's worth. But both are consistent with wanting to bring down the hammer on players.
  12. Doh! That's gonna hurt in the morning. I'll take DJ even if he misses this year and next.
  13. I took him with the last pick in a redraft with short benches with the hopes that he might come back before bye weeks hit. Another owner dropped Moncrief and I moved on. I'd really like him to do well but Goodell has made it crystal clear that he's gonna punish players and that he's not going to act quickly in letting players back on the field. If Goodell has 60 days decide, you can count on him taking at least 53 of them and then ruling on the Friday afternoon in that last week.
  14. But the police didn't stick a gun in Bennett's face. The video certainly doesn't support that statement. And Bennett's words while being detained don't support that statement. It was only after the fact that he created the myth that a gun had been stuck in his face.
  15. For those that have watched the videos, has anyone seen a gun pointed at Bennett's head or heard a police officer say that he would kill Bennett? It seems that nearly all of the encounter was filmed in the video shown on TMZ. The TMZ video shows a fairly calm detention, especially given the surrounding circumstances, i.e. active shooter in a casino and people fleeing. So is all the outrage based solely on Bennett's statements or is there any corroborating evidence? Contrast that to the nearly 6 minutes of body-cam footage provided. It shows the police looking for an active shooter. The one thing that you'll notice is that, in the casino/nightclub, all of the patrons are laying on the ground, sitting still, or basically cooperating. And a lot of them are the same race as Bennett. And none of them are detained. Rather, it is when the police go into the casino for the second time that they see someone hiding behind a slot machine, get up, and then run to a door. The police then chase after him, asking if he has a gun. And they bring him down and detain him. There is no one that can watch that video and seriously claim that Bennett was detained or arrested for “doing nothing more than simply being a black man in the wrong place at the wrong time.”