Ezekiel Elliott suspension on again and off again and on again and off again and finally over

[jrry32]

I work in criminal - we have to tick off the judge all the time. It's just part of it for us.

I hope it's unavoidable for you (or you don't need anything from the judge).

 

[12intheBox]

I hope it's unavoidable for you (or you don't need anything from the judge).

Unfortunately - many judges are second prosecutors in there. If I thought it would benefit my client, I'd kiss the ring - but it generally doesn't. Often, I'm talking to either the jury or the court of the appeals when I'm pissing off the judge - sometimes, I'm just pointing out as delicately as I can that they are out of bounds. Criminal isn't the same kind of popularity contest that civil often is - the judges like us but hate our clients. We have to bow up or else our clients go down even harder than they should.

One of the best lessons I ever learned was that judges respect you more when you bow up on them than they do when you bow down to them. I had a mean old coot on the bench once - former prosecutor - who tried to bail out the DA in a trial by basically taking over the questioning and leading an inept witness for the state. I objected to one of the judges questions - it was way out of bounds - and he cleared the jury and laid into me for like 20 minutes. Brutal. I kept my cool, pointed out his error and how it prejudiced my client and took away a jury argument. He ended up sustaining my objection to his question. Trial went on - we lost - but about a month after that I was in front of the same judge and he called me up to the bench and shook my hand in open court and announced that the state had their work cut out for them. The guy has loved me ever since because I fought for my client - and specifically because I fought him.

 

[jrry32]

Unfortunately - many judges are second prosecutors in there. If I thought it would benefit my client, I'd kiss the ring - but it generally doesn't. Often, I'm talking to either the jury or the court of the appeals when I'm pissing off the judge - sometimes, I'm just pointing out as delicately as I can that they are out of bounds. Criminal isn't the same kind of popularity contest that civil often is - the judges like us but hate our clients. We have to bow up or else our clients go down even harder than they should.

One of the best lessons I ever learned was that judges respect you more when you bow up on them than they do when you bow down to them. I had a mean old coot on the bench once - former prosecutor - who tried to bail out the DA in a trial by basically taking over the questioning and leading an inept witness for the state. I objected to one of the judges questions - it was way out of bounds - and he cleared the jury and laid into me for like 20 minutes. Brutal. I kept my cool, pointed out his error and how it prejudiced my client and took away a jury argument. He ended up sustaining my objection to his question. Trial went on - we lost - but about a month after that I was in front of the same judge and he called me up to the bench and shook my hand in open court and announced that the state had their work cut out for them. The guy has loved me ever since because I fought for my client - and specifically because I fought him.

That's good to hear. The system is definitely stacked against criminal defendants. And with some judges, you're not going to be able to win. It sounds like it's unavoidable for you. I'm always baffled by the lawyers who go into the courtroom and piss off a judge in a totally avoidable circumstance (because the lawyer is being a prick).

Then again, my experience colors my perspective a bit.

 

[12intheBox]

That's good to hear. The system is definitely stacked against criminal defendants. And with some judges, you're not going to be able to win. It sounds like it's unavoidable for you. I'm always baffled by the lawyers who go into the courtroom and tick off a judge in a totally avoidable circumstance (because the lawyer is being a prick).

Then again, my experience colors my perspective a bit.

What kind of law are you doing?

 

[jrry32]

What kind of law are you doing?

I'm currently clerking for a federal judge (which obviously colors my perspective). I think you'd enjoy practicing in front of him. Great guy and very fair.

 

[12intheBox]

I'm currently clerking for a federal judge (which obviously colors my perspective). I think you'd enjoy practicing in front of him. Great guy and very fair.

That's great experience. I'm almost exclusively in state court nowadays - much more of a lowbrow bench.

 

[dieterbrock]

You don't tell a judge no.

Unless it's in response to the question, did you do it?
Lol

 

[12intheBox]

Unless it's in response to the question, did you do it?
Lol

That question you do not answer. You don't want to lie to the judge, either.

 

[jrry32]

That's great experience. I'm almost exclusively in state court nowadays - much more of a lowbrow bench.

State court has its benefits. There aren't a lot of trials in federal court.

 

[dolphinlover123]

ugh. lawyers!

 

[Prime Time]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-back-and-suspends-josh-brown-six-more-games/

NFL circles back and suspends Josh Brown six more games
Posted by Darin Gantt on September 8, 2017

Getty Images

One of the recent criticisms of the NFL during its recent Ezekiel Elliott investigation/suspension was a lack of consistency, after the Cowboys running back got a six-game punishment the year after Giants kicker Josh Brown got one.

The NFL has taken a retroactive step to remedy that.

According to Adam Schefter of ESPN.com, the NFL has suspended the former Giants kicker six more games for violating its personal conduct policy, for domestic violence.

Of course, Brown’s career was probably over anyway, as he’s a kicker, and the Giants parted ways with him after last year’s one-game suspension. (Even though, you know, they signed him to a contract extension with knowledge of the allegations of abuse by his ex-wife.)

The league re-opened their investigation into Brown’s case, and will say that they found new information during that process that justified the longer suspension.

Of course, no one was going to touch a 38-year-old kicker with a domestic violence charge anyway (unless he was a really good kicker, I mean), but the more interesting question will be how it serves as any kind of factor in the Elliott case or future cases. Elliott’s waiting for a ruling from a Texas judge on a restraining order which would allow him to continue to play beyond this week.

 

[12intheBox]

The Josh Brown thing is not a good look for the NFL.

 

[Rynie]

lol... Cowboys fans.


View: https://twitter.com/jonmachota/status/905237852484763649

Fucking people in Sherman are retarded rednecks.

 

[12intheBox]

View: https://twitter.com/adamschefter/status/906284263720583168

 

[Prime Time]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...junction-blocking-ezekiel-elliott-suspension/

Judge issues injunction blocking Ezekiel Elliott suspension
Posted by Josh Alper on September 8, 2017

Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott will play against the Giants on Sunday night. It looks like he’ll be playing in the weeks that follow as well.

Judge Amos Mazzant granted the NFLPA’s request for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction barring the NFL from imposing a six-game suspension on Friday afternoon. Mazzant wrote that the court was asked to rule on whether Elliott received a “fundamentally fair arbitration hearing” and that he found Elliott had not received that when explaining his decision to grant the preliminary injunction.

Mazzant wrote that he came to that conclusion because arbitrator Harold Henderson’s refusal to allow Tiffany Thompson, who accused Elliott of abusing her, and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to testify at the arbitration hearing denied Elliott a fair hearing.

The issue will now head for other courtrooms and other hearings that will determine whether the suspension is put back into effect. For now, though, Elliott is free to play football for the Cowboys.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/09/08/judge-could-still-dismiss-ezekiel-elliott-case/

Judge could still dismiss Ezekiel Elliott case
Posted by Mike Florio on September 8, 2017

The good news for Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliottis that Judge Amos L. Mazzant III issued an order blocking Elliott’s suspension pending the outcome of the litigation filed by Elliott in Texas. The bad news is that the litigation filed by Elliott in Texas could in theory end sooner than later.

A footnote in the official ruling makes it clear that Judge Mazzant may still decide to dismiss the case entirely, based on the argument that it was filed prematurely. More paperwork in association with that specific effort by the league still needs to be filed. Once the argument is ripe for consideration, Judge Mazzant will issue a decision, and he could punt the case in deference to the lawsuit the NFL filed in New York.

But here’s the practical reality of the situation. With Judge Mazzant concluding that “[f]undamental unfairness is present throughout the entire arbitration process,” he’s more likely to be inclined to retain control of the case in order to ensure that the case is processed with the benefit of his conclusions, given that another judge may feel differently. This would result in a different type of justice being dispensed than that which Judge Mazzant believes is justified.

Still, if Judge Mazzant decides to dismiss the case, Elliott would need to move immediately in the New York case to get the injunction maintained so that he can still play pending the outcome of the case. That decision is therefore the next key step in this ongoing legal odyssey.

 

[jrry32]

Fantasy gods are showering me with love right now. I drafted Zeke with all of my teams and drafted Kareem Hunt to stand in for Zeke during his suspension. Hunt rewards me with 40 points, and Texas rewards me with a TRO lol.

 

[Memento]

Fantasy gods are showering me with love right now. I drafted Zeke with all of my teams and drafted Kareem Hunt to stand in for Zeke during his suspension. Hunt rewards me with 40 points, and Texas rewards me with a TRO lol.

And meanwhile, a battered woman gets no justice, like in most cases.

Sorry that I have to be contrarian to your view, but were it up to me - and the charges were legitimate - Elliot would be permabanned from the NFL.

 

[jrry32]

And meanwhile, a battered woman gets no justice, like in most cases.

Sorry that I have to be contrarian to your view, but were it up to me - and the charges were legitimate - Elliot would be permabanned from the NFL.

In my book, you're innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Memento]

In my book, you're innocent until proven guilty.

And in mine, Elliott obviously had something on him to make him get a suspension and get it upheld by the arbitrator who reduced Greg Hardy's suspension to four games. Even if the girl you hit is a total bitch and all that, to beat her multiple times in a week is unforgivable.

 

[jrry32]

And in mine, Elliott obviously had something on him to make him get a suspension and get it upheld by the arbitrator who reduced Greg Hardy's suspension to four games. Even if the girl you hit is a total bitch and all that, to beat her multiple times in a week is unforgivable.

In mine, a federal judge calling out that arbitrator for a fundamentally unfair process speaks volumes.(because judges are extremely reluctant to disturb the rulings of arbitrators)