Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Deflation-gate
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 466 (766952)
08-24-2015 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Percy
08-24-2015 12:10 PM


Re: deflation
I believe my definitions are clear, accurate enough and very useful for lay purposes.
Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia
quote:
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of factlike a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directlyi.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
That is the case with circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence may have the quality that a single piece of evidence does not establish a fact, but that does not characterize it. DNA evidence of paternity is circumstantial evidence. What characterizes circumstantial evidence is the need to draw an inference. That inference may been strong or quite weak.
And it is not like we have not discussed this definition before. Generally speaking, the only evidence that is non-circumstantual is eye witness testimony form someone observing the event in question. In fact circumstantial evidence is very often more reliable than direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence tells us that the sun is powered by fusion.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Percy, posted 08-24-2015 12:10 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 08-25-2015 7:22 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 242 of 466 (766963)
08-24-2015 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by NoNukes
08-24-2015 10:45 AM


Re: Best Legal Analysis I've Seen So Far
Sorry for the long quote, but I want to be clear about what I'm responding to:
NoNukes writes:
NoNukes writes:
Actually, you seem to be the one saying that an organization that agreed to let Goodell decide these cases is incompetent, not me.
Percy writes:
No, I'm not saying that. It's like you don't read much of what I post.
Really, Percy So who posted this? (Emphasis added by me)
Percy writes:
But I've looked through the CBA and cannot find where the NFLPA agreed that Goodell could arbitrate his own decisions. Could this be another case of the NFL holding up a document and claiming it says something that it does not? If you or someone can find it then it would be very bad for Brady, but it would also be exceptionally strange. No competent organization would agree to letting a "judge," in this case Goodell, arbitrate his own decisions. That would be crazy
And yet quite clearly the NFLPA did indeed agree to a process in which Goodell can be the final decider.
You've chosen an incorrect interpretation. I'll explain again, even though further on in your post you quote me explaining this in an earlier message. Because it would be crazy for a competent organization to agree to letting a "judge," in this case Goodell, arbitrate his own decisions, obviously that is not what they thought they were agreeing to. They relied upon an underlying presumption of fairness and impartiality, that presumption being obvious by all the places in the CBA that mention it, including in the very paragraph we're discussing where it's specifies that the NFL consult with the Executive Director of the NFLPA when choosing an arbiter.
If you have an argument that Section 46 does not allow the Commissioner to serve as hearing officer, you have yet to present it.
I've presented that argument (fairness and impartiality) about as many times as you've ignored it. It was even an argument that article you cited acknowledged.
What I did say is that the NFLPA does not believe the CBA permits Goodell to act as hearing officer in cases where it would be unfair and partisan.
Isn't that what they would claim about every case where section 46 was used? There is nothing to suggest that they are correct. Yeah, I do discount this as anything more than a briefing position. It's garbage.
That's succinct but not terribly enlightening. Do you have any rationale instead of just bald declaration?
But I like a great deal what he says about the Missouri case. That court seems to have the core issues well in mind, and their ruling even uses the term "unconscionable,"
He also pointed out the major distinction. The Missouri case was with regards to an employee who signed a contract of adhesion (take it or leave it). In this case, the players had substantial bargaining power and signed a negotiated contract. In short, the author understands exactly what the player's signed even if their lawyers now claim ignorance or to have a different understanding.
I can't find anywhere where the author says anything like this. You'll have to point me to it. From what I can see the only distinction he makes is that the Missouri case was about a non-player, rather than a player like Brady. Obviously there are contract differences between the two, but the author said nothing about which differences in particular he felt might be relevant, so unless you're reading his mind you can't know his thinking on this. Plus I think a player has no option about whether to accept the terms of the CBA and is in the same "take it or leave it" position as the non-player.
But you're making this way too complicated. It goes against all sense of what is fair and just to have judges hear appeals of their own rulings, and many sources, including even the one you cited, have said pretty much the same thing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by NoNukes, posted 08-24-2015 10:45 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2015 10:49 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 243 of 466 (767003)
08-25-2015 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by NoNukes
08-24-2015 1:42 PM


Re: deflation
Your definitions may help you understand lawyers in court (where I doubt the terms come up much anyway), but they won't help you understand use of these terms in lay articles like the ones we've been citing. I told you before, and I thought you agreed, that you can't assume the terms "circumstantial evidence" and "direct evidence" in a lay article are employing your definitions. I think my definitions are much closer to how people use the terms in normal, everyday conversation and writing.
It was you who tried to introduce these terms into the discussion. Personally, I prefer different terms. "Direct evidence" is when only deduction is employed, no matter the number of individual pieces of evidence involved. "Indirect evidence" is when at least some inference is employed, again, no matter the number of individual pieces of evidence involved. And "circumstantial evidence" is so variously interpreted that it should be avoided.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by NoNukes, posted 08-24-2015 1:42 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2015 10:29 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 244 of 466 (767068)
08-25-2015 8:22 PM


Kessler Speaks
Jeffrey Kessler, Brady's lawyer, today filed a letter with Judge Berman where he pretty much says what I've been saying:
quote:
In addition, the NFL's submission ignores how the denial of fundamental fairness in the arbitration at issue here so closely resembles the denials of fair process in the decisions we presented to the Court.
...
The Union may have agreed to Mr. Goodell serving as arbitrator under Article 46, but it did not agree he could abdicate his responsibility as an arbitrator under the LMRA (Labor Management Relations Act) and FAA (Federal Arbitration Act) and conduct fundamentally unfair proceedings in which he cast aside undisputed CBA requirements, adjudicated his own conduct, and issued an unprincipled arbitration award based on his unilateral notions of industrial policy.
...
This is exactly the type of ‘extreme’ case that even the NFL now concedes the Court has the power to vacate.
From the Federal Arbitration Act:
quote:
(a) In any of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award
was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the
arbitration--
...
(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them;
(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon
sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy;
or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or
(4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual,
final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.
This excerpt from the FAA reads almost like a list of Goodell's sins. He's guitly of partiality, misconduct, misbehavior, and grossly imperfect execution of his powers.
--Percy

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 245 of 466 (767084)
08-25-2015 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Percy
08-25-2015 7:22 AM


Re: deflation
. "Direct evidence" is when only deduction is employed, no matter the number of individual pieces of evidence involved.
What's amusing about this definition is that the judge actually used the phrase 'evidence directly linking', while the head line used the term direct evidence. The judge did not use the term 'direct evidence' (and would not have) because that term already has a legal meaning.
The only reason for changing the meaning of direct evidence in this way is to try to save the head line and perhaps your post. I see no point in doing that.
Let's be realistic. Would the judge really discount circumstantial evidence that required an inference? Would the judge really expect the lawyers to be chastened by the fact that their evidence was not direct? Is that really what you think the judges position was? Or was the problem something else other than the fact that an inference was required?
I don't believe your definitions are the least bit helpful even if they are how lay people use the terms. If the headline is going to be accurate, it should have reported what the judge actually meant. The judge is not a layperson and he was not speaking to laypeople.
ABE:
Illustrating example:
Let's say for example that some witness testified that he saw a QB let air out of footballs. Would you say that a deduction is required to interpret that evidence or an inference?
Let's say instead that one of the equipment managers texted a note to that same QB thanking him for the really nice payola for deflating the footballs. Would a deduction or an inference be required to interpret the evidence?
Well one of those is direct and the other indirect. But I sincerely doubt that the judge would have any reason to complain about either of them.
Edited by NoNukes, : add example

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 08-25-2015 7:22 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by xongsmith, posted 08-26-2015 12:29 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 250 by Percy, posted 08-26-2015 6:50 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 466 (767087)
08-25-2015 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Percy
08-24-2015 3:04 PM


Re: Best Legal Analysis I've Seen So Far
You've chosen an incorrect interpretation. I'll explain again, even though further on in your post you quote me explaining this in an earlier message. Because it would be crazy for a competent organization to agree to letting a "judge," in this case Goodell, arbitrate his own decisions, obviously that is not what they thought they were agreeing to.
I understand the argument. But the facts are that Article 46 says what it says, and the NFLPA signed on to it.
Section 46 is the process by which the league office punishes players. In exactly what situation did the NFLPA think it would be okay for the Commissioner to be a hearing officer? Why did they concede this kind of power to the commissioner in any circumstance?
I think section 46 means exactly what it says. If the player's position is that the clause was clearly unlawful, and thus they ignored it during negotiations, well, I have seen that tactic before. And it is extremely risky. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not.
But you're making this way too complicated. It goes against all sense of what is fair and just to have judges hear appeals of their own rulings,
Again, "against all sense of fair" may not be the legal threshold here. But first you have to get past that hurdle of Vincent actually making the initial ruling and Goodell doing the review.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Percy, posted 08-24-2015 3:04 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Percy, posted 08-26-2015 7:53 AM NoNukes has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 247 of 466 (767090)
08-26-2015 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by NoNukes
08-25-2015 10:29 PM


Re: deflation
Let's say for example that some witness testified that he saw a QB let air out of footballs. Would you say that a deduction is required to interpret that evidence or an inference?
Let's say instead that one of the equipment managers texted a note to that same QB thanking him for the really nice payola for deflating the footballs. Would a deduction or an inference be required to interpret the evidence?
but none of this has been established either way. you are taking this up to the hypothetical non-world of what we have here down on the real earth. Goodell obviously wanted to punish Brady because he was beleaguered by others to "get tough". Goodell is a piece of shit and should immediately resign and vacate all of his stupid decisions.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2015 10:29 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by NoNukes, posted 08-26-2015 12:35 AM xongsmith has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 466 (767091)
08-26-2015 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by xongsmith
08-26-2015 12:29 AM


Re: deflation
but none of this has been established either way. you are taking this up to the hypothetical non-world of what we have here down on the real earth.
Of course those things have not been established. They are examples intended to illustrate concepts such as direct evidence, indirect evidence, deduction and inference.
Wasn't that clear in my post?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by xongsmith, posted 08-26-2015 12:29 AM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by xongsmith, posted 08-26-2015 6:01 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 249 of 466 (767106)
08-26-2015 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by NoNukes
08-26-2015 12:35 AM


Re: deflation
glad you agree with me & Percy.
let's see what strangeness happens in the next thing on this.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by NoNukes, posted 08-26-2015 12:35 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 250 of 466 (767109)
08-26-2015 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by NoNukes
08-25-2015 10:29 PM


Re: deflation
I'm talking about the way lay people use the terms, and you're slicing things so fine that "evidence directly linking" and "direct evidence" have two different meanings. I don't believe anyone does that, not even lawyers and judges in the courtroom. You're being absurd.
Think about it. Let's say a lawyer in a courtroom could say one of two things:
  • "I have direct evidence linking the defendant to the murder."
  • "I have evidence directly linking the defendant to the murder."
In your bizarro world he's saying two different things. Get real.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2015 10:29 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by NoNukes, posted 08-26-2015 8:37 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 251 of 466 (767110)
08-26-2015 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by NoNukes
08-25-2015 10:49 PM


Re: Best Legal Analysis I've Seen So Far
Your only rebuttal seems to be, "Article 46 means what I think it says and not what you think it says." If you don't engage the substance of my arguments then there's nothing I can reply to.
You do ask one good question:
NoNukes writes:
In exactly what situation did the NFLPA think it would be okay for the Commissioner to be a hearing officer?
Obviously it was considered to be a very rare situation, because in scanning through the List of NFL Suspensions and examining those where there was an appeal, I can't find any where the commissioner served as the hearing officer. Over and over again they appoint a neutral arbitrator. Greg Hardy's appeal was heard by Harold Henderson, who also heard the Adrian Peterson appeal. Ndamukong Suh's appeal was heard by Oakland Raider coach Art Shell. Ray Rice's appeal was heard by former judge Barbara S. Jones. Dashon Goldson's appeal was heard by independent arbiter Matt Birk. Scott Fujita's appeal was heard by former commissioner Paul Tagliabue, as was Will Smith's. Anthony Hargrove's appeal was heard by a neutral appeals panel.
I don't have time to continue down the list looking for an instance where the commissioner himself has served as hearing officer, but it is apparently a rare event (I didn't get to the list of drug related suspensions, if it's different I don't know). Again and again they appoint a neutral arbitrator. That the arbitrator be neutral appears to be a very important consideration. Why not in this case?
The court system exists to provide justice, in this case to prevent a man from being railroaded with contrived evidence of something that didn't happen and a rigged process. Apparently it is more important to Roger Goodell that he win than to treat the players in his league justly and fairly. It's impossible to know which way the judge will rule, but the more I learn the weaker the NFL's case looks, primarily because the determination of the NFL (primarily Goodell) to operate in a manner absent of fairness and impartiality is so overt and blatant.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2015 10:49 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by NoNukes, posted 08-26-2015 9:00 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 252 of 466 (767116)
08-26-2015 8:36 AM


The NFL Knows Goodell Isn't Neutral
I'm still looking for a copy of the NFL filing rebutting the NFLPA's filing where they detail 19 arbitration cases that were overturned in court, but Rich Levine of Comcast SportsNet New England evidently found a copy and focused on one point in particular in his article Silly Deflategate has taken a serious turn:
quote:
Then yesterday afternoon the league filed another letter to Judge Berman. This one argued that the 19 cases presented by the NFLPA were irrelevant because they involved:
1) Cases where the arbitrator ignored an express term in the CBA, and in this case Goodell didn’t do that.
2) Cases where there were extraordinary circumstances, and in this case there are none.
3) Cases in which there was a neutral arbitrator, and in this case Roger Goodell is not a neutral arbitrator.
Please take a second and re-read that last one. I’ll even paste it below so your eyes don’t have to back track.
3) Cases in which there was a neutral arbitrator, and in this case Roger Goodell is not a neutral arbitrator.
This admission by the NFL that Goodell was not neutral should just about wrap things up for the Brady side. Just my opinion, of course.
Levine continues:
quote:
Again, the NFL has gone to federal court and argued that thanks to the CBA the Commissioner is allowed to quite literally do whatever he wants. He can make dangerous assumptions. He can use his unlimited financial resources to massage and manipulate evidence that supports those assumptions. He can then use that manipulated evidence to take drastic and harmful measures against teams and individual players. He can then deny said teams and players a fair appeal process. He can then go right back to federal court and claim that it doesn’t matter because in this case it won’t matter. If Judge Berman can’t find the legal precedent to overturn the NFL’s corruption then his ruling will become the precedent.
One side wants to interpret the CBA in a vacuum and pretend that no existing precedents or laws apply, and the other side notes that in American law arbitration processes operate under the presumption of fairness and neutrality.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Correction to first sentence.

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by NoNukes, posted 08-26-2015 8:53 AM Percy has replied
 Message 256 by NoNukes, posted 08-26-2015 9:02 AM Percy has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 253 of 466 (767117)
08-26-2015 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Percy
08-26-2015 6:50 AM


Re: deflation
have direct evidence linking the defendant to the murder."
"I have evidence directly linking the defendant to the murder."
Direct evidence for Y means witness testimony that Y occurred. Nothing else, not even a video tape of Y is not direct evidence that Y occurred. It really is that simple.
On the other hand, it is possible to have circumstantial evidence that directly links the defendant to the murder. Fingerprints, witnesses seeing the defendant running away from the scene after some load bang bangs, etc are all indirect evidence.
Let's also note that when asked about the evidence, that the NFL did not sit there with a thumbs up their butt, but instead gave an answer. It is pretty clear to me, and apparently to you, that the judge was motivating settlement and not telling the NFL he planned how to rule. What the judge cannot do is admit prejudging the case prior to the actual hearing. All of which indicates that there was far more going on than the headline admits.
I understand that Pats fans are hanging on every word they hear looking for hints that the case is over and Brady has won, but that has not happened yet. Don't make the mistake of reading only one side's briefs and assuming that you know how the case is going to go.
Further, it is not just my theory that the players association signed off on the current process. That seems to be what other lawyers seem to think the CBA says, and is the basis for articles saying that the NFL might win if review is limited to process. Even Brady's brief seems to acknowledge that such can be read from the agreement, which is why they cite to other law.
And small wonder. The agreement says the following:
quote:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commissioner may serve as hearing officer in any appeal under Section 1(a) of this Article at his discretion.
At his [the Commissioner's] discretion. Not in 'consultation with the players' and not when the player fails to perceive unfairness. Yeah, that does make the Commissioner pretty powerful but apparently that is exactly what the owners wanted with regard to player punishment. And the players let that happen. And just as Brady does not want to set a precedent of rolling over, the NFL does not want to give up the power to punish players for conduct detrimental to the league.
As for Article 43, the very first line of Article 46 says:
Section 1. League Discipline: Notwithstanding anything stated in Article 43:
So article 43 is simply not an issue.
You asked me about the situation where I got a bad review from my boss and whether an appeal process where the same boss reviewed it would be unfair. I don't believe you responded to my asking about my bosses boss instead doing the appeal. Isn't that the way corporations usually handle such things? Unless you are a member of the teamster's union and you've got a negotiated labor agreement, don't companies generally handle grievances internally? I've never gotten a bad review but I've written plenty of them for others but I've never been involved in an arbitration.
Is that fair? Is there really some applicable law that would make supervisors spend more time sitting in arbitration meetings than they do supervising engineering work?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Percy, posted 08-26-2015 6:50 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by xongsmith, posted 08-26-2015 3:40 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 466 (767119)
08-26-2015 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Percy
08-26-2015 8:36 AM


Re: The NFL Knows Goodell Isn't Neutral
Then yesterday afternoon the league filed another letter to Judge Berman. This one argued that the 19 cases presented by the NFLPA were irrelevant because they involved:
Cases in which there was a neutral arbitrator, and in this case Roger Goodell is not a neutral arbitrator.
The commissioner is not an arbitrator at all. There is simply no way to call the section 46 process an arbitration in the strictly legal sense, because it is not such a thing. The CBA does not require arbitration when the league punishes a player. It also does not require arbitration when the coach decides to bench a player or a team decides to cut a player.
You can call the process arbitration if you want, but it is not really any such thing.
One side wants to interpret the CBA in a vacuum and pretend that no existing precedents or laws apply, and the other side notes that in American law arbitration processes operate under the presumption of fairness and neutrality.
Or we might say that one side cannot admit that they signed a bad bargain that compromises the rights of the players to file a grievance and hopes that the court will bail them out. But, yeah, when you read the players' brief you read arguments for players that make the NFL look like ca-ca. Big woop.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Percy, posted 08-26-2015 8:36 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Percy, posted 08-26-2015 10:32 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 255 of 466 (767120)
08-26-2015 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Percy
08-26-2015 7:53 AM


Re: Best Legal Analysis I've Seen So Far
Obviously it was considered to be a very rare situation
Calling it obvious is not an argument, and you are ducking the question, which I will repeat:
In which situations, Percy? The agreement says that the Commissioner can be the hearing officer at his discretion in any appeal. Why would that be allowed at all? Why is that statement in the CBA at all? When would it be considered fair?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Percy, posted 08-26-2015 7:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Percy, posted 08-27-2015 7:23 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024