Showing posts with label Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Court. Show all posts

Saturday, August 1, 2015

Judge seeks Deflategate huddle

Attorneys for the NFL and Tom Brady want a federal judge to pick a winner in the ongoing Deflategate saga before the season begins in September — but that judge is urging both sides to come to a settlement.
Jeffrey Kessler, Brady’s union-appointed attorney, and lawyers for the NFL together asked U.S. District Court Judge Richard Berman yesterday to issue a “final resolution” in the case before Sept. 4. The New England Patriots’ superstar quarterback wants the New York judge to set aside the four-game suspension handed down by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell.
“(T)he parties met and conferred and have agreed that a final resolution of this matter prior to the commencement of the 2015 NFL regular season would be in everyone’s best interest,” Kessler wrote in a letter to Berman.
Berman, meanwhile, asked the two sides to work together and come to a settlement, according to an order he filed later. He scheduled a “status/settlement conference” for Aug. 12 and another for Aug. 19. If no settlement is reached by the 19th, there could be oral arguments that day.
He wants Brady and Goodell on hand for both days. The Patriots will likely not have a full practice on Aug. 12, with the Packers coming to town for the preseason opener the next day. On Aug. 19, the Patriots are scheduled to be in West Virginia for joint workouts with the Saints.
“I request that you all engage in comprehensive, good-faith settlement discussions prior to the conference on August 12,” he wrote.
In the earlier letter, Kessler said he won’t be looking for an injunction that would allow Brady to play while the litigation panned out. Instead, he wants the entire case resolved so no legal proceedings linger throughout the season.
Brady’s lawyers also filed an answer and counterclaim in the lawsuit yesterday and attempted to poke holes in Goodell’s Tuesday decision. Kessler wrote that the arbitration proceedings had a “circus-like atmosphere.”
He argued that Goodell was a biased arbitrator and effectively served as judge, jury and executioner in Brady’s case. Brady’s attorneys noted that they tried to get Goodell to recuse himself in favor of an independent arbitrator, but he declined.
“It is hard to imagine any person in Goodell’s position even attempting to serve as arbitrator under these circumstances, but that is exactly what he did,” Kessler wrote. “He denied the NFLPA’s Recusal Motion and simultaneously (and summarily) rejected the delegation argument — trying to pave his own path to stay on as arbitrator of Brady’s appeal.
“This conduct shows not merely evident partiality but actual bias, rendering Goodell unfit to serve as arbitrator under any standard.”

Saturday, January 18, 2014

Federal Appeals Court Rules Bloggers Have First Amendment Protections

BEST OF 2013 - President Obama Delivers Statement In White House Press Briefing Room
A federal appeals court ruled Friday that bloggers and the public have the same First Amendment protections as journalists when sued for defamation: If the issue is of public concern, plaintiffs have to prove negligence to win damages.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new trial in a defamation lawsuit brought by an Oregon bankruptcy trustee against a Montana blogger who wrote online that the court-appointed trustee criminally mishandled a bankruptcy case.
The appeals court ruled that the trustee was not a public figure, which could have invoked an even higher standard of showing the writer acted with malice, but the issue was of public concern, so the negligence standard applied.
Gregg Leslie of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press said the ruling affirms what many have long argued: Standards set by a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., apply to everyone, not just journalists.
"It's not a special right to the news media," he said. "So it's a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others."

Friday, November 1, 2013

Circuit Court Blocks NYPD Stop & Frisk Changes, Removes Manhattan Judge From Case

featured-imgA federal appellate court on Thursday granted a stay in the landmark police stop-and-frisk ruling in New York City, and removed the trial judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, from the case.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that Judge Scheindlin “ran afoul” of the judiciary’s code of conduct by showing an “appearance of partiality surrounding this litigation.” The panel criticized how she had steered the lawsuit to her courtroom when it was filed in early 2008.

The ruling effectively puts off a battery of changes that Judge Scheindlin, of Federal District Court in Manhattan, had ordered for the Police Department. Those changes include postponing the operations of the monitor who was given the task to oversee reforms to the department’s stop-and-frisk practices, which Judge Scheindlin found violated the Fourth and 14th Amendments of the Constitution.

In a two-page order, the panel of three judges also criticized Judge Scheindlin for granting media interviews and for making public statements while the case was pending before her.

The judges ordered that the stop-and-frisk lawsuit be reassigned to another judge. The Second Circuit ruling instructs the new judge to put off to “all proceedings and otherwise await further action” from the Second Circuit.

Judge Scheindlin’s decision, issued in August, found that the stop-and-frisk tactics violated the rights of minorities in the city. With that decision, which came at the conclusion of a lengthy trial that began in the spring, she repudiated a major element of the crime-fighting legacy of the administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.

But the panel, citing an article by The New York Times in a footnote in the ruling, found fault with how the judge improperly applied a “related-case rule” to bring the stop-and-frisk case under her purview.

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

GOP Inspectors Being Tossed from Philly Polling Stations


This morning, the GOP is sending along this message:
The Philadelphia GOP is reporting that court appointed Minority (read GOP) Inspectors are being thrown out of polling locations in several Wards.
The Philadelphia Inquirer is on it:  https://twitter.com/tomfitzgerald/status/265784062617206785
These Inspectors are election officials – again, court appointed — and are reportedly being thrown out by the Head Judges of Elections (these Judges are elected Democrats).
This has happened at the following locations:
Ward 32, Div 13
Ward 43, Div 14
Ward 56, Div 1
Ward 56, Div 22
Ward 32, Div 28
Ward 12, Div 17
Ward 39, Div 1
Ward 24, Div 9
Ward 18, Div 25
Ward 43, Div 14
Ward 29, Div 18
Ward 65, Div 19
Ward 20, Div 1
Ward 6, Div 11
It would be great to see an election year where everyone working elections knew the law, knew the rules, and obeyed them, huh?




Popular Posts