Kdo5
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2005
- Messages
- 18,431
- Reaction score
- 15,458
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Ok, then you go find a press release where they announced this "new rule". At this point I'd say I have the preponderance of the evidence.
Ok, my proof's not watertight, but it's still more proof than the other side's offered.I never claimed it was a new rule, someone else did. It's probably an old one. I was just pointing out that you were offering "proof" that wasn't really proof at all. You said "clearly it's not a new rule in the past 13 years". But the links you presented as your research for that statement don't clearly point to any such thing.
Who's the doofus?? This has nothing to do with Goodell, an attorney would not have done anything differently. The commissioner's not going to avoid taking action against a team because it could cause some nutjob to file a completely frivilous lawsuit. You can be sure his decision was vetted by the NFL's legal counsel, and you can also be sure that no lawyer advised him against this because of third-party RICO liability.
If i was the lawyer for the pats i would file a "motion 7 article 6.73 to Limine". Hopefully this would disrupt litigation and help mitigate the preponderance of the evidence that the jets are so desperately seeking.
Then i would file an Article 3.09 motion to remove the other lawyer and try to re-acquaint my positive witness with the moot case.
Thus, the next (and most obvious) step would be to reconfigure the motion to dismiss based on the positive corroboration of the class action lawsuit witnesses and union delegates from the tri-state area.
then AND ONLY THEN, can the motion to withhold the cantankerous evidence be Proposed under the New Jersey and New England Statute 3.57
I hope i didn't confuse some of you. I know a lot about the law and maybe i should have worded this differently for you "amateurs"
Depositions under oath are a bad thing in this case. This case will be all over Court TV. BB and the Pats want this to go away and this helps ensure it will not.
If there was any doubt there isn't any now. The Jets fans are the bottom feeders of the NFL.
Jesus, do Jets fans not want to see their team beat New England ever again? Yeah, we really needed a competitive edge in 2005, didn't we?
Atorneys Mayer & Afran are a couple of "jokester" lawyers who have taken on numerous cases that serve only to tie up the court system and give them publicity.
Hopefully they'll both break their necks tripping over their ego's!
The saddest part of our system is that bottom-feeders like these leeches have nothing to lose. This is where '3 stikes and your out' for wasteful litigators would be useful.
There was never a doubt that trial lawyers are the bottom feeders of society.