Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

JDaveG · 05-17-2012, 09:59 PM

(05-17-2012 08:52 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Note the name of the lawsuit.

Vilma v. Goodell

This is totally outside the realm of the league and the CBA.

This is an individual suit against another individual. This isn't against the league or any of the owners or any of their high priced lawyers. This is all on Goodell's head.

100%

The owners ain't touching this shit. Goodell is out there on his own. This very well could cost Goodell his job.

I know y'all hate the Saints so much that you want them persecuted, but realize, this could have been your franchise.

Let it play out.

You don't know anything. At all. You are talking straight out your ass.

The fact is, it COULD be a legitimate claim against Goodell personally. But since Goodell made the decision within the confines of the CBA and in his official capacity as NFL commissioner, the greater likelihood is it will be tossed.

If not, why wouldn't every union worker who is ever dissatisfied with a CBA decision just sue the person who wronged them personally?

Talk about something you know something about, because any lawyer or anyone familiar with labor law (like union workers, or employers in union shops, or really anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of how this works) is reading what you write and thinking you are a first class idiot.

JDaveG · 05-17-2012, 10:01 PM

(05-17-2012 09:59 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: And the drama builds, boys. The drama builds.

But, just curious. What if by chance the commissioner of ours was less than honest to help cover his claims of the past?

I know you want the Saints crucified, but, if it is as being claimed, an overboard persecution, what would you feel?

I'm talking if Goodell was busted over this. What would you feel?

IF Goodell stepped outside his authority under the CBA, then he will face the consequences.

It's not likely based on what we know now. But it certainly could be the case. Your triumphalistic bullshit, though, is not helpful to the discussion. You don't know a damn thing about the law, and you prove it with every post you make.

AsylumGuido · 05-17-2012, 10:01 PM

(05-17-2012 09:55 PM)JDaveG Wrote: Holy shit, are you serious?

Wow, I'm going to go hang a shingle and advertise that if you end up on the wrong end of a CBA dispute, just hire me and I'll sue the person who made the decision individually! Because that always works! But there's not any other lawyer in the country doing it! But it will still work! I'm gonna be rich!

Either that or you have no legal training or experience or knowledge and you are just full of shit. I guess the reader will have to figure out which it is.

So, i guess it gets thrown out immediately. But, if not, you might need to think about unhanging your shingle.

JDaveG · 05-17-2012, 10:04 PM

(05-17-2012 10:01 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: So, i guess it gets thrown out immediately. But, if not, you might need to think about unhanging your shingle.

No, if not it will be one of the EXTREMELY rare scenarios where someone purporting to act in their official capacity did not.

But that is highly doubtful. You wouldn't know that either way, though. So keep bleating whatever makes you feel better. The fact is judgment on the pleadings is a possibility, and summary judgment is a HUGE possibility, and if it goes to summary judgment, Vilma will be deposed under oath and under penalty of perjury about his involvement.

He's angling for leverage to reduce his suspension. I seriously doubt he wants to take this to trial.

AsylumGuido · 05-17-2012, 10:17 PM

(05-17-2012 10:01 PM)JDaveG Wrote: IF Goodell stepped outside his authority under the CBA, then he will face the consequences.

It's not likely based on what we know now. But it certainly could be the case. Your triumphalistic bullshit, though, is not helpful to the discussion. You don't know a damn thing about the law, and you prove it with every post you make.

I apologize, Dave. You have realized my point. The resignation of the lead investigator at the same time as the announcement of the punishments may have relevance.

Tell me, if the league's board is not comfortable with Goodell's findings based upon further study would they still support his actions?

Then again, would the league's board back Goodell if evidence is presented that he made decisions to ruin a player's reputation all upon his personal conviction?

***phocis850*** · 05-17-2012, 10:26 PM

A personal lawsuit comes out and you believe the tides have turned. Nothing has changed since yesterday.

AsylumGuido · 05-17-2012, 10:26 PM

(05-17-2012 10:04 PM)JDaveG Wrote: No, if not it will be one of the EXTREMELY rare scenarios where someone purporting to act in their official capacity did not.

But that is highly doubtful. You wouldn't know that either way, though. So keep bleating whatever makes you feel better. The fact is judgment on the pleadings is a possibility, and summary judgment is a HUGE possibility, and if it goes to summary judgment, Vilma will be deposed under oath and under penalty of perjury about his involvement.

He's angling for leverage to reduce his suspension. I seriously doubt he wants to take this to trial.

Why not? If he knows that Goodell publicly issued statements that were untrue as a statement of fact then he has grounds, correct? Goodell issued many statements as FACT when he levied the punishments of all of the supposedly guilty personnel. If he would have kept is silent it may not have been a problem. But, he chose to make it all public and share it with the worldwide press as to show that the league cared about the player's well being.

No, I am not a lawyer. But, I live and deal with these type cases through a very personal contact every day.

As I said, I know you want the Saints raped. But, if Goodell has greatly over stepped his bounds ...

AsylumGuido · 05-17-2012, 10:32 PM

(05-17-2012 10:26 PM)phocis850 Wrote: A personal lawsuit comes out and you believe the tides have turned. Nothing has changed since yesterday.

No, a tremendous change has happened since yesterday. A colossal change has happened since yesterday.

That supposed evidence that Goodell claimed was enough to severely punish and possibly cripple careers is going to have to be presented as proof to protect Goodell personally from slander and libel based upon his public statements.

Tell me, why would Vilma demand that evidence if it would support Goodell's case?

Explain, please.

***phocis850*** · 05-17-2012, 10:36 PM

ZERO NADA NOTHING

That is what has changed. Vilma said he was innocent before today. So he files a lawsuit because Goodell says he's not.

What of that has changed? You are getting excited over nothing.

pauliwood · 05-17-2012, 10:39 PM

(05-17-2012 06:36 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: No, just a friendly reminder of the site rules which I, for one, respect and always follow.

Anybody else remember Swift doing this?

Yeah, I thought so.