Wetzel's report on today's (8/19) hearing.

[BTTA]

Dont worry....Hillary has them

Hey, Hillary probably had the only server with government email on it that hasn't been hacked. (Simply because the Chinese didn't know it was there).

 

[patfanken]

Yes...

Berman's made it pretty clear that he at least has arguments for all 3 you point to.

.....and if you stretch it just a bit, you could also include #1

"where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means,"

There is plenty of evidence that the NFL manipulated some pretty sketchy evidence to make their case. While I doubt it reached criminal proportions, what the NFL did certainly breached the "undue" portion of the bar.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

F'rinstance...

http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/bl...arbitrators-evident-partiality-under-u-s-law/

And that article helpfully delinates the CA2 standard:

...the law of the Second Circuit, under which a court “may only find evident partiality sufficient to vacate an award when a reasonable person, considering all of the circumstances, would have to conclude the arbitrator was partial to one side.” Ometto, 2013 WL 174259 at *4 (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in the original). The court noted that under the Second Circuit standard “the arbitrator is quite unlike a judge, who can be disqualified in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned.”

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

F'rinstance...

http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/bl...arbitrators-evident-partiality-under-u-s-law/

Good read.
Is it 'reasonable impression' or is it 'reasonable person would have to conclude'? Is there any great difference to these standards?
This, IMHO, goes back to Quantum Mechanic's comment about, essentially, gray area of wording. I mean do we think judges impressions of what a "reasonable person's" impression is will be the same from judge to judge? But when it comes down to it, wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) any reasonable person conclude the arbitrator was biased? Then again, does the CBA allow that?

I friggin headache now....

 

[BradyFTW!]

Good read.
Is it 'reasonable impression' or is it 'reasonable person would have to conclude'? Is there any great difference to these standards?
This, IMHO, goes back to Quantum Mechanic's comment about, essentially, gray area of wording. I mean do we think judges impressions of what a "reasonable person's" impression is will be the same from judge to judge? But when it comes down to it, wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) any reasonable person conclude the arbitrator was biased? Then again, does the CBA allow that?

I friggin headache now....

The CBA allows the commissioner to be arbitrator. It doesn't grant him the right to arbitrate in a way that violates federal law.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

The CBA allows the commissioner to be arbitrator. It doesn't grant him the right to arbitrate in a way that violates federal law.

Thanks for the clarity. I am not versed in law enough to know w t f is going on. However, I thought the NFL's argument was, basically, 'it doesn't matter what our bias is or was. We get to decide how we see it'. Essentially an argument that says this CBA article allows me to make any damn decision I want.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Thanks for the clarity. I am not versed in law enough to know w t f is going on. However, I thought the NFL's argument was, basically, 'it doesn't matter what our bias is or was. We get to decide how we see it'. Essentially an argument that says this CBA article allows me to make any damn decision I want.

I hear ya, I'm not a lawyer or anything either. Pretty much just interpreting the tons of information that's been put out there so far, as well as the arguments of both sides in court. The NFL is claiming that the CBA allows them to do whatever they want, end of story. But every time they've gone to court claiming that in Goodell's tenure they've lost. It's simply not true, but they'll keep maintaining it's true anyway in hopes that one of these days they get a sympathetic judge. Not to say that that can't/won't happen, but they're trying to present this as an open-and-shut, clear-cut case, and both the law and all precedent pretty clearly contradict that claim.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Hey, Hillary probably had the only server with government email on it that hasn't been hacked. (Simply because the Chinese didn't know it was there).

You have a great point....sadly.