Beerball Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Which is why the defense will ask, "Are you a football fan?" and if you say yes, you won't be a juror on this case. Non-football fans will have no idea about the suspension. My 15 year old daughter, no football fan, knows about the suspensions. You are being a bit too simplistic in your response. Add in the fact that (I believe) lawyers get a set number of challenges, and there is no way that everyone with knowledge of the suspensions would be excluded. Then there's prejudice...the lawyer asks you "Mr. Fez, Even though you are aware of the fact that Mr. Jones has been previously suspended by the NFL, do you think that you will be able to set that aside and consider only the facts of this case?" If you have a prejudice one way or the other about this situation how likely are you to admit to it? You'll say (or many people would say) "Heck no Mr. Lawyer, sir, I am going into this with an open mind." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 The focus was on anti trust laws not deprivation of livelihood. Maurice Clarett, plaintif against NFL, Defendant For not being a legal eagle, you're arguing legal minutae. Then let's play along. Yes, the original case takes on the NFL based on antitrust standing, yet only semantics would separate this passage "Clarett has standing to sue because his injury flows from a policy that excludes all players in his position from selling their services to the only viable buyer — the NFL." from what ordinary people would construe "deprivation of livelihood." Being no legal eagle myself, my guess is that "deprivation of livelihood" wasn't thrown into the action is that it would have been redundant to the plaintiff's antitrust case of preventing Clarett from making a living running with a ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 I would consider his 1 year ban to be deprivation of property: his job and salary. Look im not defending his actions but I will note that while he has been charged on 5 seperate occaisions he has yet to be found guilty in any of them. My criticism is of the NFL arbitrary interpretation of ineffective policy. The fifth and fourteenth amendments apply to state action, not the actions of private entities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewgetz Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 My 15 year old daughter, no football fan, knows about the suspensions. You are being a bit too simplistic in your response. Add in the fact that (I believe) lawyers get a set number of challenges, and there is no way that everyone with knowledge of the suspensions would be excluded. Then there's prejudice...the lawyer asks you "Mr. Fez, Even though you are aware of the fact that Mr. Jones has been previously suspended by the NFL, do you think that you will be able to set that aside and consider only the facts of this case?" If you have a prejudice one way or the other about this situation how likely are you to admit to it? You'll say (or many people would say) "Heck no Mr. Lawyer, sir, I am going into this with an open mind." This is no different then any other court case whether it's murder or a case in a small court in your hometown. If you claim this then you would have to argue the entire legal system (I agree the NFL is not bound by the national legal system) which is very easy to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarmanuscg07 Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 NFL is a seperate entity.. like any other job they dont need you to be found guilty of a crime to suspend/fire you.. it bring discredit to the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 There is no due process in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMIEBUF12 Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 I would consider his 1 year ban to be deprivation of property: his job and salary. Look im not defending his actions but I will note that while he has been charged on 5 seperate occaisions he has yet to be found guilty in any of them. My criticism is of the NFL arbitrary interpretation of ineffective policy. 1st off pacman "forgot to inform his team of 2 arrest's" second he has pleaded out of two of his arrest's.its in his contract to report his arrest's .he did not end of story he is suspended.if you have a written rule in place you do not need due process.when tank johnson gets out he will miss his season as well with a 1 year ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts