Patty16
-
Posts
1,470 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Patty16
-
-
Go Samaritan laws protect you... that being said I witnessed one but guy was already dead of a heart attack, no blood, which caused accident, helped wife and kid who he pulled out in front of when foot accidently step on the gas during heart attack..
Yes to a degree, it's not absolute immunity though.
I agree with your second paragraph. There is no way J. Drury could have or should have dismissed the case.
I just don't think it is newsworthy.
True, and even if it was close, Drury wouldn't dismiss a P's PI case. Need to have a real slam dunk for Def to win on SJ in his room.
-
Wow, that article contained this gem:
Following his agent's statement Sunday, a return to Tampa Bay may be unlikely should the organization grant Drouin his request to move on and trade him.
Yea i think the timeline was he a requested a trade because he was sent down, not sent down bc of the request. http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/drouins-next-move-will-determine-how-messy-this-situation-becomes/
I've been to a ton of Lightning games and Druoin never really sticks out as a wow he's gonna be great some day kinda player. He's fast to be sure, but at this point he's more grigorenko than sure fire prospect.
He certainly hasnt' been earning more ice time, and that org isn't going ot hand ice time to players who haven't earned it. He's also not really good in his own end yet so he can't be trusted with top line minutes.
-
Your verbiage could use a little help, too.
Can anyone say with a straight face he or she knows what really happened with LaFontaine? So Bucky's description seems as valid as anyone's. As for a hockey president, I always liked the idea. Are you arguing for one to be named now? I don't see how that works with someone like Murray already in pla
My argument from practically day one was that there didn't need to be a learning curve at all. What did Golisano have to learn, besides the difference between a puck and a meatball? People may not like it, but he hired someone to run things for him and it almost produced a Cup or two. The Pegulas' ginormous egos will be their downfall. The "reason for existence" business was always a bunch of BS. The Sabres exist to be the team Terry wins a Cup with.
The only fault I find with Bucky's piece is it overstates the importance of the Pegulas to Buffalo's resurgence. "The" reason the city is thriving? A bit over the top, but I understand why he had to wash some balls.
You surely liked his puff piece on Disco Dan. He went out to Michigan and everything.
Golisano? are you kidding me? i see why you always get flamed on here.
Tommy boy just stayed out of the way and said dont spend too much. Who did he hire that made a difference? Darcy was in charge of all the player moves as he was for many years before Tommy.
-
I have to use TuneIn to listen to WGR so I get stuck hearing Flo from Progressive every 15 minutes. I liked the Mighty Taco commercials.
same here and that one is driving me nuts. That and i wonder if the commercial breaks are longer on that app.
-
Of course not.
As i reread the bolded part, i think my tone wasn't conveyed properly. I was trying to be more academic/professorial than insinuating those were your thoughts.
My bad eleven.
-
Complete stop? Probably not. But if you make the penalty enough the leaks will slow down. If the penalty for leaking is "hey, don't do it again" there will be more leaks than summary dismissal and some misdemeanor charge (something that sounds like "mishandling official information").
Yet to prove a case against that person you would need a smoking gun email text etc. Most reporters wont divulge their sources either since they are protected by a NY reporter's shield law. (it does have exceptions).
-
Sorry if these are dumb questions, but I've seen "No report has been filed at this time" on Twitter a couple times. I understand what "no charges at this time" means but what does "No report" mean? What has to be filed or done to start this investigation? And how does the report fit in?
The BPD was made aware of the situation by someone who came forward. This likely means it was not the victim, who would typically file a report/complaint. its been reported they have his vehicle in custody so likely the incident took place in there.
-
I have a problem with asymmetric disclosure, too. I mean, it's one thing if the paper says that Joe Smith is arrested for robbing the Tops on Niagara Street. We know the alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim.
Disclosing just one of the parties isn't fair.
It seems like BPD recognizes this, though, otherwise it wouldn't be a "leak," right?
True, but rape/sexual assault is different than robbery of a store. Many time people who are robbed aren't identified either. And it's my understanding that the BPD confirmed an investigation, it's not like they held a PC to announce it. Yes i kow they are the likely source of it anyway.....
Do you think mandatory disclosure of alleged rape victims names does more good than harm? Would it not then prevent rape victims from coming forward especially in high profile cases knowing they will become celebrities and endure tons of hate mail/social media backlash?
Those are the issues to be balanced, and there's def no perfect way to do that.
-
But the BPD has no obligation to keep the information confidential to begin with. It could have held a press conference and announced it, if it wanted to.
Exactly, and i'm not sure how to craft a rule prohibiting such things, since the exceptions would almost certainly swallow any new rule.
-
See! Look, there you are. You have no idea what the facts are, yet, somehow, E. Kane made a poor choice. It's already started. He may have done nothing wrong but, to you, his rep is already sullied due to this information being leaked.
No its not. I'm simply pointing out that he was in a riskier setting if it was at the harborcenter in a hotel room w a young girl. It doesn't make it wrong nor do i hold him to some other standard.
Other players choose differently, he doesn't. What i said is all young guys do dumb stuff, you did, i did, players do too. He was a less controllable setting, other players avoid those. It's not right or wrong.
I don't know the facts and neither do you, I am making reasonable inferences from what's been put out there. I do not take those facts as gospel during an investigation.
-
I'm not talking about the report of the leak, but the leak itself. The information about the investigation should be considered privileged and that prematurely disclosing that information should be subject to prosecution. I understand "defamation" itself is difficult to establish, but I don't believe the legal understanding of defamation covers situations like these and needs to be amended/reconsidered/redefined.
It's simply ridiculous to accept the current reality of the seriousness of the charge out-weighing the nature of the evidence and/or the facts. I thought we might have learned from Salem witch trials.
The leak itself could be grounds for charges, but it wouldn't be defamation, although it should be punished. On of the problems here is that it's actually true hes being investigated, so he can't recover for something that's true.
I agree the definition should be altered, but without getting into 1st Amend. jurisprudence here, it's just really hard to do constitutionally. People are by and large free to say dumb shhhhh without recourse.
It speaks larger volumes to player choices, guys like crosby and stamkos, do dumb stuff but they control the situation better and usually have private security etc. Kane and Kane were diff situations, not saying it's all their fault but it's worth noting.
-
Note that I did not say the leak itself was defamation, but rather instigated defamation.
I think someone creative might come up with a way to argue that information like this is privileged and the premature public disclosure of this type of information is extremely harmful.
It is virtually impossible to sue a news org for defamation. There is really no way to institute litigation based on whats out there now, even if the allegations turn out to be false.
Kane would have to show the news org knew it was false, and pub'd anyway w intent to cause harm. Easy defense for them is that they had credible source and reasonably relied on that source.
to sue a person, non-news, he needs to show quite a bit more. defaming a public figure is a very high hurdle to clear.
It's a pretty uphill battle, and one you dont' see taken very often since truth is a defense and the defendants would get to depose Kane. Does an athlete really want to testify on what he was doing late in a hotel (assuming he was there)???
-
Jonathan Quick is in favor of making GT equipment smaller.
"If you look around the league and you look at goalies — in their street clothes and then with their gear on — the difference in size, it's a little too much," Quick said. "So I'm on board with that…. The biggest difficulty with gear is body size and body type. It's so hard to get a standard on who can wear what and what size everyone is…. Once guys get gear, some guys make changes and try to make adjustments to make it look a little bigger."
Yea bc equipment is equalizing goaltending a bit too much. The big guns want a little more separation bc they know they are just better, and not bc the equipment covers the whole net.
Think about the thigh extenders, if those were reduced now goalies have to really protect the 5 hole, and thus can't cover as much ice in the butterfly.
-
I like that the league in finally coming around to smaller pads. Yea guys are taller, but they're still pretty skinny. Also those ridiculous thigh extender pads completely take away the 5 hole. They need to be shorter.
there's enough technology to make it safe, guys are blocking tons of shots with way less equipment and we're not seeing an increase in injuries.
There no legit reason for equipment to be that big, goalies wanted it to boost their numbers and get paid.
-
Hope Kane learns something from this little 'scare'. Mostly about how to carry himself in certain situations he puts himself in and how a true professional will go out of their way to avoid those situations. Kane has a lot to learn in that regard. Time to grow up Pat.
He's a 26 yr old pro athlete millionaire who brought a girl home from a bar? That happens in every US city every weekend. What exactly are you talking about?
-
The DA's statement is rather strong. Basically that's there no evidence to support her claims, and her account doesn't match evidence or other witnesses. Can be many explanations for this.
-
But these are simply questions of facts and evidence. For example, as others have pointed out, it's quite possible that he has a surveillance video (or home porn production equipment) that could, e.g., show that she was a willing participant and then got PO'd when he told her to get lost after he was finished. Or that she sent him text messages saying that she would accuse him of rape unless he paid her $1MM. Or a number of other possibilities.
So -- if she falsely accused him, and they both know it -- there could easily be a defamation suit.
As for "worth it" -- money isn't the issue. It's his reputation. If the above happened, Kane could easily conclude that exposing her as a fraud would clear his name and thus worth his time, legal bills and aggravation.
They are, of course. But the likely scenario is if he had those he would've turned them over, or let them be viewed, to shut down any investigation and not let it drag on.
The stuff we know now simply does not fit a defamation case. There's been no hint of wrongdoing on behalf of accuser to suggest that. Cases like this don't hang around if there's the kind of evidence you suggest might exist. It's likely that this encounter was in a grey area of the law.
I'm agreeing money isn't the issue, its that the process itself won't clear his name more than it will embarrass him. The stuff that would come out during the suit would not be worth the suit itself. Having no charges filed at all, not even a grand jury, is pretty strong.
Would a reasonable person say yea i know i wasn't charged but let's throw my partying and sex life out there for a civil suit? No. Even if it's not criminal it would kill his reputation.
-
11 beat me to it, but the point is that you said this:
...which is a far cry from saying that it wouldn't be in Kane's best interests to bring the case.
For that matter, I think it's entirely reasonable, if he knows she falsely accused him, for him to conclude that it would be in his best interests.
Again -- you are assuming she acted in good faith. It's quite possible that she did not.
There isn't a defamation suit AND it wouldn't be worth it if you could anyway. That's the point i was trying to show over multiple posts.
Lets assume she wasn't acting in good faith..... it would be difficult to show, and it seems unlikely given that the DA has held onto the case for a while. Kane is a public figure so he would need to show the accuser knew she was wrong and she made the statements to cause him harm.
AND
Lets assume all that's true.... she's 20ish and working a menial job, she has nothing to compensate you with, so the only real way to "win" is to go to trial. That means trial testimony by Kane about alll his sexual acts that night, etc.
-
Whether it's advisable (it's not) is a different question than whether it's possible.
True. I answered above that it's almost certainly not possible. She didn't publicly speak or "publish" anything. Statement to a third party constitute publishing but:
1) exceptions for statements to police - even if she's wrong that it was rape or not, that would be good faith.
2) he's a public figure so way higher standard.
So still pretty much impossible.
-
And what if it were an intentionally false statement?
Is the discovery that would come out in the defamation lawsuit worth the suit? NO it is most certainly not. I have handled a profile defamation suit, it's not fun and usually not worth the client's time, especially for an athlete with a huge guaranteed contract.
Would you adivse your client to bring suit, testify under oath about what he did that night? All the details??? For what? I've worked with Cambria, he's sharp and there's no way he would advise Kane to do that.
Hypothetically he would find a way to let the DA know it was false and let them do the work for him. avoid all the traps of civil litigation.
-
Fair deuce.
The ones I had in mind were to tie the compensation to an outside date and/or make it somehow contingent on the accused's level of annual income or work status. As to the latter, the idea being that if the charge goes away, the accused will still have his lucrative career. (The accuser's counsel would need to control for other stuff, though -- like a catastrophic injury, or death.)
Yes. Usually structured for lump payment after SOL has expired etc.
Bottom line is that if she doesn't want charges pressed, then its all over on both sides. If not, it would be highly unusual.
-
My point being: Lawyers being lawyers, they tend not to counsel in favour of agreements that would be unenforceable if push were to come to shove.
Right but the agreement wouldn't be unenforceable. Lots of ways to make it legit.
-
I believe the suggestion was that Kane should pursue a civil defamation suit against the accuser.
You're right that she's not obliged to talk to the police. Of course, she previously gave a sworn statement to the police subject to the penalties of perjury. And she could, in theory, be compelled to appear before a grand jury or plenary jury by lawful process (subpoena). But, I take your point: Notwithstanding what she said in her statement, she could suddenly and "inexplicably" become totally unhelpful to the People's case. And then there would be no case.
I'm not sure I follow your second point: If there were a settlement agreement between Kane and the accuser that provided that payment was given in consideration of her refusing to cooperate with the D.A., that would, in fact, be buying her silence. And it would most likely be illegal to enter into such an agreement (obstruction of justice, witness tampering), and, if that were the case, the agreement would be unenforceable.
Another thought: It's not that she would be committing a crime by agreeing to accept money in exchange for certain conduct; it's that Kane would potentially be committing a crime by making such a payment in order to obstruct the orderly administration of justice by the D.A.
See below, its not defamation to report to police. Now Kane could still sue, but then truth is the accuser's defense. So the civil suit would explore everything that happened that night. So Kane really has no incentive to do that. Plus, if there was a settlement, it probably had a clause prohibiting such a suit.
As for witness tampering, it could be but it NEVER is charged. In theory you are right, but again the DA really doesn't want to go there and most never ever do.
What is the basis for this?
Well she spoke to police, and it's not defamation to make a good faith statement to the police.
******** I haven't been on lately, but i'm not taking any position on the underlying issue. Just telling you the analysis of what happens next from a practical sense.
-
I think your logic is backwards. The crowds at games are chanting "no means no" to him. He HAS to pursue a defamation suit if he can to help clear his name.
As this thread illustrates, just having the case dismissed won't be enough PR for Kane or the Blackhawks.
Defamation against who? There's absolutely no defamation case against the accuser. None. Zero.
Plus, truth is an absolute defense to defamation.... do you really think PK wants to sit for a deposition about this????
And it would be virtually impossible to win a defamation case against DA's office as well,.
I don't think you're making a distinction with a difference. The affidavit is tantamount to a refusal to cooperate, a refusal to testify.
The idea is that it'd be unlawful for an accused to purchase the non-cooperation of an accuser. Because it obstructs justice, tampers with a witness, and generally denies the People's interest in having have a criminal matter investigated and prosecuted.
I think there'd also be ethical issues for any attorney involved in drafting that sort of agreement.
I think there are clever ways around the prohibition (such as tying the compensation paid to future earnings, or making the payments in installments), but I don't think Kane's camp would be doing that here. Not yet, anyway.
Well there's nothing compelling her to talk to police. It's not a crime to simply refuse to cooperate. Now, there are procedural remedies for that but DA's don't use them against an alleged victim typically.
There is no case if she doesn;t want to go forward, and they aren't going to go forward without her. So it's not buying a witness' silence per se
Trade ideas and speculation
in The Aud Club
Posted
Yea he prob needs another year in american league, but i don't think he's willing to do that right now. It's a tough spot for him and any team that has his rights. He kinda got screwed by the rules a lot like Grigo, too good for Quebec league but couldn't go to AHL after being drafted so was forced to go back to Q where he reinforced his no defense habits.
Even this year with lots of guys underachieving, as opposed to last year's TBL, he can't climb the roster. He's also been hurt too which has impacted that of course.
I guess the real question is what do you give up for him,