I'm not an attorney but if I was, I would once again be embarrassed by this jackball.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080216/NEWS0103/802160390

 

I am, and I am.

They might actually have a case.

 

If they can prove that the Patriots illegally videotaped the Rams Practices and in turn won the game b/c of it, there is a financial loss that the Rams players incurred b.c of it.

 

It's a huge long shot, but I'll bet it doesn't get thrown out.

 

I feel the same way. I don't know how strong it is but I think they have a case.

 

And if Deters can prove the cheating is a continuing course of conduct that the NFL has been covering up then look out...

I was going to add my thoughts and feelings with regards to one Eric Deters but to be perfectly honest I believe everyone else has pretty much covered it. Thanks everyone, glad to see I'm not the only one who things he's a clown..

They might actually have a case.

 

If they can prove that the Patriots illegally videotaped the Rams Practices and in turn won the game b/c of it, there is a financial loss that the Rams players incurred b.c of it.

 

It's a huge long shot, but I'll bet it doesn't get thrown out.

 

At first blush, I would guess that there are serious problems with the players' collective bargaining agreement. There are certainly limitations on a player's ability to bring a lawsuit against an opposing party (coach or player) or an official. If he could bring this lawsuit, for example, what's to prevent all the players that were involved in NBA games that the dirty official officiated? Or, for that matter, if an official blows a call that costs a game, why wouldn't a player sue the official for costing him the game and whatever financial benefits a win would have led to?

 

Anyone that is still in law school out there, I remember a case involving Boobie Clark - I think he kicked someone in the head intentionally, and the "kickee" sued him for an intentional tort. I think there was a question about the limitation to sue, kind of along the lines of a professional boxing match - it's part of the contest, and your right to sue is limited by the rules of the contest, but the remedy is also limited. That is, my bet would be that the way to redress any form of "cheating" is probably governed by the rules of the NFL - probably through arbitration - and not through a civil lawsuit.

 

I might research it further and give a better answer later.

I have no clue who Hugh Campbell is. He must be desperate if he links himself to E.D.

 

I actually do know him and am real good friends with his next door neighbor. This is the kind of stunt I could she Hugh pulling. :lol:

 

And from what I know about Hugh, far from desperate...

I wonder how much of this is just Eric Deters trying to get his name known nationally.

I wonder how much of this is just Eric Deters trying to get his name known nationally.

 

Thats what i was thinking:thumb:

People like to throw stones at Deters but he does more than his share of winning (like in the jail suit) so maybe he is a lot smarter than most people give him credit for.

 

There's no doubt that he is smart. It's the moral character to bring this suit that I question.

At first blush, I would guess that there are serious problems with the players' collective bargaining agreement. There are certainly limitations on a player's ability to bring a lawsuit against an opposing party (coach or player) or an official. If he could bring this lawsuit, for example, what's to prevent all the players that were involved in NBA games that the dirty official officiated? Or, for that matter, if an official blows a call that costs a game, why wouldn't a player sue the official for costing him the game and whatever financial benefits a win would have led to?

 

Anyone that is still in law school out there, I remember a case involving Boobie Clark - I think he kicked someone in the head intentionally, and the "kickee" sued him for an intentional tort. I think there was a question about the limitation to sue, kind of along the lines of a professional boxing match - it's part of the contest, and your right to sue is limited by the rules of the contest, but the remedy is also limited. That is, my bet would be that the way to redress any form of "cheating" is probably governed by the rules of the NFL - probably through arbitration - and not through a civil lawsuit.

 

I might research it further and give a better answer later.

 

I remember this case from last year's Torts class. I wish all cases involved ex-Bengals. I would have done a lot better.

Please tell me this is a joke.

 

Most in NKY have considered him to be one for a while....:lol:

I sometimes think Eric is the type of guy that doesn't discuss any of his "ideas" with anyone, if he does, I'd really like to se that crew...:creepy:

For the lawyers on here, isn't there some kind of statute of limitations? Or does it not start until the accusation is made? What if there were rumors immediately but no action is taken for 6 years?

Is there some sort of implied contract when you buy a ticket? Doesn't there have to be in order to sue over cheating?

For the lawyers on here, isn't there some kind of statute of limitations? Or does it not start until the accusation is made? What if there were rumors immediately but no action is taken for 6 years?

 

There are statutes of limitation, obviously, but it depends on "where" the cause of action accrued and "what" it is. For example, on "breach of contract" claims, which is what I am guessing the claim that the fans could make (i.e. their ticket is a "contract" between them and the NFL that they are going to see a fairly contested game), the statute of limitation varies from state to state - might be 4 years, might be 15 years. Presumably the statute in Louisiana applies (refresh my memory - New Orleans is where it was played in 02, isn't it?).

 

Other claims, intentional and negligent torts, generally have a shorter (1-2 years) statute of limitations, from when the harm "is or should reasonably be discovered".

 

Six years would be a pretty tough argument to make - my guess would be that the plaintiffs will argue that they were unaware of Belichick's conduct until he got caught last year.

 

If this case makes it, I think I am going to contact Henry Aaron and the families of Babe Ruth and Roger Maris and see if I can represent them against Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire, since the value of their records and memorabilia have been so greatly diminished by their steroid inflated bats.

For the lawyers on here, isn't there some kind of statute of limitations? Or does it not start until the accusation is made? What if there were rumors immediately but no action is taken for 6 years?

 

There are statutes of limitation, obviously, but it depends on "where" the cause of action accrued and "what" it is. For example, on "breach of contract" claims, which is what I am guessing the claim that the fans could make (i.e. their ticket is a "contract" between them and the NFL that they are going to see a fairly contested game), the statute of limitation varies from state to state - might be 4 years, might be 15 years. Presumably the statute in Louisiana applies (refresh my memory - New Orleans is where it was played in 02, isn't it?).

 

Other claims, intentional and negligent torts, generally have a shorter (1-2 years) statute of limitations, from when the harm "is or should reasonably be discovered".

 

Six years would be a pretty tough argument to make - my guess would be that the plaintiffs will argue that they were unaware of Belichick's conduct until he got caught last year.

 

If this case makes it, I think I am going to contact Henry Aaron and the families of Babe Ruth and Roger Maris and see if I can represent them against Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire, since the value of their records and memorabilia have been so greatly diminished by their steroid inflated bats (the connection being cheating within a sport should not create a legal cause of action - here's another example in 1998 when Michael Jordan hits the final shot to win the title after shoving the defensive player out of the way - wasn't he "cheating" and wasn't the result that he got another NBA championship ring that John Stockton and Karl Malone would have had otherwise? Why couldn't Stockton sue Jordan for "cheating" and "stealing" his NBA title? The reason is because you have to let professional sports govern their contests BY THEIR RULES, not by the justice system getting involved and determining when someone is "cheating".