Cascade Youth
-
Posts
882 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Cascade Youth
-
-
I’m just really glad Kevyn Adams is a good guy who Terry can trust.  Honestly that’s all that matters.
-
1
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, JoeSchmoe said:
Friend of mine works for Rich's. Creamer apparently is a very, very small part of their overall business.
They're a food services company. They have factories all over North America making anything and everything food related. Their customers are grocery stores, restaurants, gas stations, etc...
You buy "fresh" bread at the conglomerate grocery store... there's a good chance it came from Rich's frozen bread dough.
You buy pizza from the gas station... Rich's made it.
You eat the pulled pork from the chain restaurant... there's a good chance it came from Rich's factory sized smokehouse and packaged up to the restaurant spec.Â
Other than good ma and pa restaurants, nobody makes anything from scratch anymore. It's all stuff from food service customers like Rich's. That's why my friend won't eat out anymore unless it's a better non-chain place.
Now you wait just a minute.
Are you telling me that Appleby's isn't smoking its own hog in-house?
You just can't trust anyone or anything anymore.
-
1
-
-
This is happening.
-
Ok that is awesome.
-
15 hours ago, Broken Ankles said:
Patrick Cowley
name the movie. Â
Had no idea he was from Buffalo - guy had a very interesting life and was super influential.
-
10 minutes ago, mudberry said:
King Buffalo is a good Rochester band with a Buffalo name. On a side note, I've noticed a lot of kids at the school I work at wearing Cannibal Corpse shirts. Doubting many of them have actually heard them though.
King Buffalo is really good. Â
-
1
-
-
Just looking at those chairs is inflaming my sciatica.
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:
I think you're speaking past each other here a bit.
@PASabreFan may have his finger on a somewhat nuanced legal issue. Trotter is in a position to testify, under oath and in admissible form, that an unnamed media colleague said something in a meeting that was attributed to Pegula. He can probably (?) testify to that not for the truth of the matter asserted -- that Pegula said it -- but for the purpose of establishing that, in that meeting, a colleague related that (alleged) quote to other NFL brass and that, thereafter, NFL brass swept the matter under the rug. There are principles of hearsay here that I'm a little fuzzy on. But I think I have it substantially correct.
See how that works? It's a clever bit of lawyering, tbh.
You generally have it right, but where hearsay evidence is being offered not for its truth but for something else (like the fact of a report made by Trotter and the NFL’s response), the judge will need to weigh its probative value against the potential for prejudice.  Here, it’s impossible to predict how that will come out: the potential for prejudice is high (because the NFL will argue that jurors will be confused about a hearsay instruction and will unfairly assume the truth of the statement and it hold against the NFL, i.e., deem it to be racist).  What I’ve often seen judges do in this scenario is rule that the statement can come in with some verbal redactions - i.e., Trotter may be permitted to testify that he heard from a colleague that an unnamed (to the jury) owner made a comment that could be construed as racist.  The problem here of course is that it’s too late for Terry, his name has already been smeared publicly.
-
2
-
-
13 minutes ago, nfreeman said:
That's the primary issue of the lawsuit, sure -- but the pursuit of that objective doesn't make it OK for Trotter to recklessly smear TP or anyone else with a major character assassinationÂ
YMMV, of course.
It does not.  You’re correct.  But this is the same law firm that represents Brian Flores in his suit against the NFL and, despite him having a binding arbitration clause, filed a public Complaint which casually included an allegation of tanking against the Dolphins’ owner.  Which was not at all necessary for Flores’ claims - but got plenty of clicks.  This is just what they do.-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:
Hmm. Interesting.
Fair deuce.
It’s still a well-drafted pleading.
No doubt, they’re great at what they do, which is branding themselves as a firm and using the media to litigate (starting with well-written but sensationalized pleadings). Â
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, That Aud Smell said:
As stated upthread, the issue appears to be equally if not more about what the league did and didn’t do in response to the alleged statement being raised. The facts alleged on that issue are pretty specific.
Trotter has big boy lawyers. Wigdor is a small shop, but they are Chambers rated. You only get that rating when the bench and bar agree that your firm is top notch. That complaint appears to be excellent work product. I’m assuming that the lawyers performed due diligence on what they view as the relevant facts.
Don’t assume those things.
Chambers is an elite list but it’s not a badge of ethical behavior.  You can get on the Chambers list by getting high-profile results and a few key referrals/references.  And Widgor is known for pushing ethical boundaries, again, check out Leon Black’s lawsuit against the firm and it isn’t the first of its kind.  I have dealt with the Wigdor firm and let me just say I have serious concerns about their diligence.  They draft Complaints for the media not for the court and they’re really good at that but that’s what they’re doing, sometimes at the expense of their own clients’ interest.  The moment the Complaint is filed it has its own webpage, think about that.  Media hit jobs are their MO.
-
1
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:
Yes, I’m familiar. I think in either instance, you’d need to prove malice. And I think those frothing for such a lawsuit harbour the suspicion that these claims are maliciously made.
Leon Black is trying to do it. Â But those missions are rare and expensive. -
7 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:
If the statements are demonstrably false and it can be shown that the plaintiff knew as much when he caused his complaint to be filed, then the lawsuit could be dismissed as frivolous. That could undo the privilege generally afforded to judicial statements.
Just taking a break. Hard times, actually.
That is correct but good luck proving it. Â Getting a lawsuit dismissed as frivolous (as opposed to unable to state a cause of action) is probably an even higher bar than proving defamation.
-
1 hour ago, Mango said:
The statement around Pegula is that it was reported to the league and the league didn’t do their due diligence and instead did not extend the employees (Trotter) despite previous promises otherwise.
ÂThere is no defamation suit to be had because Trotter will say, “I don’t know if he said it. Neither does the league because they swept my official complaint under the rug rather than doing their due diligence. And when I tried to follow up I was blown off and then lost the contract I was promised”.Â
I addressed this earlier. Â The public figure standard is irrelevant because the speech - an allegation contained in a lawsuit pleading - is immune from liability under defamation law.-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
I think you are misreading the qualified privilege. The privilege discusses opinions made in a lawsuit, such as I believe it was Mr. X who stole my watch. This is a lawsuit against the NFL, not TP. In his complaint, the plaintiff states that TP said X. That is a different matter. I was not placed in the lawsuit as a matter of opinion. He better have firm evidence that TP made that statement.
Â
Â
I know this area of law well. Â You are conflating a few different things. Â Statements of opinion (generally) are not actionable under defamation law, only statements of fact. Â That has nothing to do with the qualified litigation privilege. -
51 minutes ago, nfreeman said:
Interesting. I did not know that. Thanks.
Does the privilege continue even if the pleadings are made public?
Yes. Â But it's a qualified privilege, not an absolute privilege. Â You *might* be able to challenge it if you can show that it was superfluous to the lawsuit and was put into the pleading in an effort to shield it from a defamation claim. Â But that's a tough showing (and won't work here since it's related to the core claims).
58 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:I do not believe so. Protected speech is from government action not private. This is the publication by a private person of a very nasty quote attributed to another private person. I don't believe the law cares how the publication of the information is made.
Â
Sorry but you're just wrong about that. Â Statements contained in a pleading in a lawsuit are protected speech afforded a qualified privilege which is a defense to a defamation claim. Â Extremely hard (but not impossible) to pierce that privilege.
-
12 minutes ago, nfreeman said:
If it’s false TP should sue for defamation. Â
He can't, statements in a Complaint are protected speech.
-
When they injured Rhett Warrener and it killed our playoff hopes.
-
He was 205th on my list.
-
Isaak Rosen's mother has entered the chat.
-
2
-
-
Wonder who Adams was trying to move up for - if it was Michkov, Adams’ board was the same as mine.  Benson is an amazing consolation prize.
-
He makes Rosen immediately expendable, not Savoie.
Always use the draft stockpile talent, not to fill needs. Â Wanted a trade up for Michkov but this is the second best outcome.
-
1
-
-
At some point in his tenure, Adams HAS to do something bold, no?  Is it really just “fly the plane straight” every day, every year?
-
17 hours ago, Quint said:
More like Vile Leino. Hall is of course on the Sabres Master List of Villains. Does Eichel belong there? Ultimately I don't think so. He actually produced results. Hasek left on bad terms but is ultimately a hero. Drury and Briere also were guilty of mutiny. But it was a reaction to mismanagement and they produced while here. I think Lehner belongs on the villain list. Any other villains that we're missing? We may have hit a rich topic that deserves its own thread here.
I had a nightmare the other night that I was still paying Christian Erhoff.-
2
-
GDT: Sabres @ Islanders - October 14, 2023 - 7:30PM, MSG-B/MSGSN/ESPN+đź“şWGRđź“»
in The Aud Club
Posted
You have to trust the process. Â Draft, then slowly acclimate into a culture of losing, then when they finally start to peak as a player you publicly alienate them so that they force their way onto a contender. Â You use the return on that trade to draft, then repeat. Â This is the way.