Jump to content

jvill 51

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jvill 51

  1. Do you practice criminal law? I don’t so not trying to be an a$$hole, genuinely curious. If so I’ll defer to your judgement here, but have a few questions probably better handled via PM so we don’t wind up boring everyone to tears.
  2. Fair enough. Looking into it some more the federal case would be tougher to bring I think. More ambiguity both in terms of what constitutes influencing and bribe, and very little case law to help clear that up. The Florida statute, if the allegations are true, is a pretty clear cut violation of the law as written. No idea if there’s caselaw to the contrary but I’d guess not. Whether they’d ever charge him would probably come down to prosecutor discretion (aka how much pull does Ross have locally)
  3. Sure, I agree with that. The NFL’s structure incentivizes losing in certain cases for sure. That doesn’t insulate him from the law though. And I think when you potentially run afoul of criminal laws in pursuing what’s best for your franchise the NFL is justified in punishing you for it, regardless of whether they have a specific rule in the books prohibiting it or not.
  4. No. Under the Florida law clearly not, because it specifies that there has to be intent to influence them to lose or reduce the margin of victory or otherwise “fix” the outcome. The federal law is more broad in that it only requires the intent to influence the outcome, so there’s some room in the margins to craft some sort of “aha!” argument that would likely fall on deaf ears. The main reason being that the coach was presumably already trying to win, and additional incentive to win doesn’t change the fact that your opponent is also trying to win. You could counter that by making an argument like “the bonus money would make him try harder to win, which is influencing!”. But once this ambiguity is introduced, then the next step is to start clearing up the ambiguity, which could include looking at the overall legislative scheme, the intent of the legislature, outside sources, etc. I think you would be hard pressed to find support for an argument that criminal “influence” would encompass bonus money for performing the job you were contracted to do. On the flip side, which is what I think you might be getting at, that ambiguity is much harder to introduce if you’re trying to make that argument that “any person” in the federal and/or state statutes should actually exempt the owner of the team. You’d have to overcome the plain meaning of the phrase, multiple methods of statutory interpretation, and find support beyond the text, such as in the legislative history. That’s not to say it couldn’t be done, and I have no idea how much if any precedent there is on this particular issue. But if there’s any truth in the allegations I’d imagine Ross’ lawyers are already digging deep into the issue, and would not be surprised if federal/state prosecutors have started researching as well.
  5. I explained above. It is relevant and is not limited to government officials.
  6. The chapter itself deals with the bribery crimes and the misuse of public office crimes, so it is directed at public officials only in the sense that most of the crimes listed relate to bribing a public official or policing public officials’ own behavior. It’s not directed at public officials in the sense that only public officials can commit these crimes, and the chapter also deals with crimes unrelated to public officials like bribery in athletic contests and commercial bribery.
  7. That’s his best case if all this is true and he does get charged. I’m sure the main purpose was mob/organized crime/gambling related. But like you said neither statute mentions gambling or any motive at all, and I can think of a few examples where gambling wouldn’t have to come into play and they’d prosecute. This isn’t an apples to apples to comparison to a typical commercial business, which have their own commercial bribery laws which do mention things like the employer/employee relationship. Sports, or more specifically sports events, are governed differently as it relates to bribery.
  8. And here’s the Florida law: Again, not seeing anything that would exempt Ross. Besides, ya know, billionaires going to prison not really being a thing we do too often.
  9. While I doubt there’s any cases that resolve it one way or another, I’m failing to see why there would or should be an exemption for the owner of the team. For one the statute is written broadly and makes no exceptions at all. And second what’s the practical or public policy reason for an exception? Should the head coach also be exempted if he offered the kicker 100 grand to miss a game winning kick? The GM? If the owners buddy put down 2 mill on the game the owner could offer the head coach cash to lose with no legal consequences? Or, like the exact situation here, where the owner also has a sizeable investment in a Sportsbook?
  10. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/224
  11. I mean if the allegations are true he committed a federal felony. Beyond that I’m guessing the NFL has a match fixing rule in the books but I’m not sure this would fit squarely. And I’m also sure there’s a catch all “integrity of the game” or some such provision. Plus there’s the tampering allegations which are squarely against the rules, and then the allegations that Flores refusing to accept a bribe or break tampering rules caused a hostile work environment and led to his ouster. So yeah… I don’t think the no punishment thing is gonna work here if all this stuff is true.
  12. For the Jets sake I hope there wouldn’t be a forced sale, but there probably would be. Beyond that anything less than 3 first round picks and an 8 figure fine seems too light. If there’s a path where he keeps ownership, he should absolutely be forced to divest from whatever gaming company it was he invested in. Oh and beyond the NFL’s punishment, he should be prosecuted and serve felony jail time if convicted.
  13. Stephen Ross offered Flores $100k to tutor his kids on the history of the Supreme Court. Please try to keep up.
  14. Lol what? No way. Up until this point every Supreme Court nomination has been given to the singular most qualified member of the legal profession completely irrespective of race, gender, creed, or political affiliation. Just so happens that 108 of those 115 times, the winner of that year’s lawyer skills competition was a white man whose politics lined up with the current presidents’. Luck of the draw.
  15. I’ve got the exact opposite view here. There’s simply no way the NFL could have actually determined that there’s no merit to the allegations mere hours after the lawsuit was filed. To me it’s pretty clear that they don’t want to know. A. The public will expect to see the results of any investigation and more importantly B. Anything they find will be discoverable if this lawsuit survives to the discovery phase, so there won’t be any sweeping this under the rug like they did with their trove of emails from the Snyder “investigation”. As for the law firm I saw mention that they’re among the best in the business at these types of cases, but there’s some sloppiness/grandstanding in the complaint that doesn’t come off well IMO.
  16. Taking the Rooney Rule stuff out of for a second: it is a bit, let’s say, interesting, that the NFL did not even feign like they will do any digging into allegations that the owner of a team tried to bribe the coach to throw games.
  17. I didn’t think he had much to stand on with the Giants interviewing Graham and Frazier as well but a second look at the Rooney Rule and the timing warrants a little further examination. To start, the Rooney Rule has different requirements for virtual and in person interviews, and in house candidates don’t count. You need two external diverse interviewees for the the first round of interviews and one for in person interviews. Second, Belichick sent those texts 1/24, the day the Giants started conducting in person interviews. At that time the public interview list/schedule was Quinn Daboll Flores Graham. Flores would have been the only candidate to satisfy the Rooney Rule requirement as Graham is in house. Only late the next night does Frazier get added to the list, when it was assumed by most reporting the day before that the Giants would make a decision after interviewing Graham. The obvious question that occurs to me there is was Frazier added to the list because word got back to the Giants about BB’s slip up? Or is there another explanation? Not looking to get into a discussion here about the merits of the Rooney Rule or if the Giants were actually discriminating in the hiring practices here, as I think there’s not enough to go on yet to make that determination. Just think that dismissing this out of hand because the Giants would have complied with the Rooney Rule with or without interviewing Flores, which is what I was initially thinking, isn’t exactly so straight forward if you dive in a little more.
  18. After a quick search I found this. Not as good as QT but might work: https://us21.chatzy.com/63001968830473 EDIT: eh maybe not. Says they limit you to 10 visitors unless you pay for the premium version but not sure if that’s at the same time or total.
  19. lol yeah it’s not really that much harder. But it does prevent you from using some process of elimination strategies, like using two completely different words to start or moving letters around if you already found them in the correct spot, etc.
  20. I have a decent chunk of change invested in crypto and a part of me hopes I lose it all solely because of all the memes and lingo
  • Create New...