Quick Hits 4 U

Mushing in to work this morning I had three quick hits in mind, but I'm recalling only two now.  Maybe the third one will come to me.  Wait, just thought of it.

(1) For all the effort they put into the prank, I guess they had to burn some segments, but the Corby/Killer prank on Blake the Apprentice Engineer was a colossal flop.  Two segments -- the setup and the calls with Blake.

Blake's reaction -- none.   While he claimed it was 50-50 in his mind as to whether it was a prank, I don't believe he thought it was legit for a second.  And he didn't bite.

So the story became Killer's acting, which Danny jubilated over at great length.  I had a different thought when I heard Killer's calls.  I thought I would know this is a setup in 13 seconds.

No matter.  Sometimes pranks -- not my favorite Ticket things anyway -- succeed wildly, sometimes they crater.  This one was hard to listen to as Blake repeatedly shrugged it off.


(2)  This site is a long-time critic of Fight Night.  I don't like it.  I don't like the idea, I don't like the execution.  And I'm not an anti-boxing guy.

They're doing Fight Night again, of course, but it seems to me that they're really downplaying it this year.  Maybe it's because I have been away and not able to listen as much as usual, could be way wrong here. The shows are soliciting fighters, but they're not making that search into bits.   Just seems like the usual enthusiasm is missing this time around.



(3) The Brady hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Richard Berman:

I'm not familiar with the collective bargaining agreement or the rules by which discipline is handed out in the Niffle.  I'm thinking that there must be a written, bargained-for procedure for things like this, with standards of review and whatnot.

So why are we in federal court?

While the U.S. and the state legal systems strongly favor the bargained-for private dispute resolution procedures, those procedures are not unlimited in what they can do.  For example, Roger Goodell or an arbitrator could not have imposed a death sentence on Brady.  So a party who is disappointed in a private dispute resolution can always ask a court to review it.

However, because the courts tend to defer to bargained-for procedures, the standard the courts use to review these decisions is strict.  Again, perhaps there is a different standard in this case, but usually the decision appealed from must be shown to be "arbitrary and capricious."  In other words, the courts will usually not substitute their judgment for those of the fact-finder/judge in the private proceeding.  There must have been something seriously unjust or procedurally outrageous with the private proceeding for a court to intervene.

It's my understanding that Goodell's decision was mainly based on Brady's lack of credibility under all of the facts and circumstances -- Brady says he wasn't guilty, but he acted very guilty.  Goodell says -- taking all of that into account, balancing the facts we have before us, you're guilty.  Four games.

But the news accounts today suggest that Judge Berman, instead of deferring to the fact-finder's determination of credibility, which always receives great deference by a reviewing court, is substituting his judgment for Goodell's and crediting Brady's denial over the circumstantial evidence of guilt. 

I dislike Roger Goodell a lot.  But it seems to me that the federal court here is overstepping its bounds unless, contrary to usual practice, an appeal from the private disciplinary process is reviewed on a take-a-fresh-look-at-the-evidence standard.

Gut:  I think Brady is lying and I think the Patriots are exceptional cheaters in a league where there are a lot of them.  I thought four games was lenient.  So there's my dog in the hunt.

If anyone knows the actual standards for court review of a Commissioner's decisions in these cases, I would be very grateful if you would fill us in.  If the standard isn't "arbitrary and capricious," then -- surprise! -- I'm wrong.

Accumulated Quick Hits

[Comments to this site are moderated.  Before posting, please read Rules of the Confessional.  Thank you.]

*     *     *

(1)  Why is the phrase "Keep doin' whajja doin', playboy, and chase that money" a Ticket drop?  I read on a Reddit thread that it came from an interview with Quentin Ross on K104 conducted by DJ Bay Bay, but how did it end up on The Ticket?  Was it featured in a Norm bit or something?

(2)  Is Mike Rhyner aware that his "good friend" Rodney Anderson of Supreme Lending is now a competitor of The Norm Hitzges Program with his show from 11 AM - Noon on KRLD 1080 AM?

CORRECTION:  Thanks to readers for pointing out that Anderson is not on KRLD weekdays.  His 11-noon show weekdays is on 1190 News Talk Radio.  His KRLD show is on 9-10am Saturdays.

(3)  Favorite Super Bowl Ads:

       --  Chevy Colorado Pickup, the one with the fake TV malfunction.  I'd never heard of the Chevy Colorado, now I'll never forget it.

       --  The Coke-in-the-computer ad.  A great concept, and visually arresting.

       --  BMW i3 with Katie Couric and Bryant Gumbel, neither of whom I like.  But a great plot and punch line.

(4)  Roger Goodell looked awful after the Super Bowl.  Still think the guy is a juicer.

(5)  It wouldn't surprise me if Brady didn't have anything to do with deflating the balls in that single game against the Colts.  Reason:  I think he's been dirty for a long time, that there was a plan in place stretching back for quite some time to treat the balls when the conditions were adverse and maybe all the time.  Then I saw this article:

Patriots' Unbelievable Fumble/Bad-Weather Stats

And this one:

Bet on Pats in Bad Weather, sez NY Times

The evidence is circumstantial, but murderers can be convicted on circumstantial evidence.  The Pats have been doing something to change the odds for a long, long time.   Deflating the ball is consistent with both anomalous trends, although not proven thereby. 

(6)   An email correspondent notes that before The Hardline hit drydock before Christmas, Mino replayed Mike's musings from the campout a couple years back on the uncertainty of his future at The Ticket.  Those musings were possibly, just possibly, alcohol-fueled. But interesting that Mino would play it and that Mike would allow it.

Having said that, I think Mike is in for at least the medium haul.  He's not going to depart with The Ticket on a downswing -- he'll do whatever he can to right the ship (if the next book or two indicates the need for righting) and get the ratings back where they were.  (I'm still not convinced we won't see a bounceback now that football season is over.)

Are we in agreement that Mike has been more energized, active, participatory in the show over the past several months?   But even that is a two-edged sword.  While it makes the show noticeably better (my view), by contrast it more or less proves what many listeners have been saying for a long time, that Checkout Mike put on those headphones too often for too long.

*     *     *

[Comments to this site are moderated.  Before posting, please read Rules of the Confessional.  Thank you.]

Oo, Oo, Weckerly Woman -- PART 2

[[PRIOR RELATED POSTS:

        Oo, Oo, Weckerly Woman, She Got the Moon in Her Eyes

        Speculation AND a Rant]]

*     *     *

We learn today that Jana Weckerly has amended her complaint to allege that -- well, we're not entirely sure how it's amended because the Court has sealed the new complaint and imposed a gag order on the parties and counsel.

But the reports are that the amendment alleges that she was "coerced" not to disclose the events giving rise to the pathetic Jerry photographs by the forced deposit of money into her account.

Thots:

(1) While the Musers thought that if the Cowboys' payment to Weckerly could be proven through bank records it would be bad for Jerry's case -- with which I agree -- I'm guessing that this may have more to do with attempting to beat back Jerry's statute of limitations defense.  Remember my account of this from the prior post.  She's got statute of limitations problems with her case unless she can show that she was somehow "unnaturally" prevented from acting -- subjected to "duress" -- during a time that the statute was running (or, as she alleged, Jerry was out of the state during a long-enough period of time that would get added to the end of the limitations period).  This would account for the odd locution that the money was "forced" on her to buy her silence.
.
(2) There's something else that no one is focusing on, which is that the first complaint alleged that the Cowboys forced her to sign a document, not described in her original complaint.  What was it?  Was it a document where she agreed either not to disclose the events, or possibly even not to file a claim, in return for the payments (i.e., a release)?  If so, that's bad news for a "duress" defense against the statute of limitations argument, unless, as her first complaint alleged, she was also unnaturally pressured to sign the agreement, which would be hard to prove if she accepted handsome cash for it. 

One way or the other, she has got to get around the Cowboys' facially appealing statute of limitations argument, although she doesn't need to show an extremely long period of time either of "duress" or Jerry being out of the state, in order to extend it past a period that would postdate the filing of her lawsuit.

If that document was a release, then it also could be a good defense by the Cowboys/Jerry to the substantive claim of assault and the other torts alleged.  But if it was only a nondisclosure agreement, then it would not preclude the civil liability claim (although the claim itself might breach a promise of nondisclosure -- will be interesting to see if the Cowboys file a counterclaim for breach of either a release or nondisclosure agreement).

(3) What effect will the sealing of this amended complaint and the gag order have on Roger Goodell's no-doubt energetic and fearless investigation of Jerry's misconduct?  Will he say to the Cowboys, "uh, what about these payments and the records she says she has?"  And will the Cowboys say to him, "Geez, sorry Rog, court says we can't talk about it"?  And would that be a good argument for stonewalling an NFL investigation?  I don't know how far a gag order extends, but I don't think it would trump an independent obligation of an NFL owner to cooperate with an internal investigation.  Don't know.

(4) OK, Roger Goodell, you pusillanimous pretender.  You're probably going see evidence pretty soon that Jerry paid off a stripper/hooker either to keep her quiet about something worth keeping quiet, possibly even the sexual assault of a drunken or drugged woman.  Wachoo gonna do about it?

(5) OK, Gene Jones, you laughingstock to some and object of pity and derision to most of the rest of us, wachoo gonna do about it?

"I read me some MTC 'cause I loooove me some redheads."

(6) OK, Dallas sports and news media (finally, an MTC connection), wachoo gonna do about it?  Gag order doesn't extend to investigative reporting.  Who will be the first to understand the potential dynamite this case represents and investigate and report it accordingly -- starting, perhaps, with what reporters "know" about similar Jerry behavior with other women?   

Who will be the first to ask Roger Goodell how he is investigating the sexual assault claim against one of his biggest supporters?

Who will be the first to ask the new "consultant group" of women whether they've been asked to consult on the Jerry Jones charges?

Who will be the first news organization to petition the court to unseal the record, and to appeal it if it is denied?  (Picture the Dallas and Fort Worth papers and every local TV and radio outlet and ESPN seeking this, and what effect this might have on how the judge -- who is elected -- rules on it.)

And who will be the first to ask  -- even if only theoretically at this point -- whether an ongoing drumbeat of unsavory details of Jerry's underground activities could affect the management or ownership of the Cowboys?

Waiting for the next pictures, the next hooker, the next lawsuit.

Or, more likely, the next payoff and interment of another sordid Niffle scandal.

Jason Garrett's Personality is 8-8

That phrase occurred to me the other day.  Just thought I would share it with you.

Other quick hits:

(1)  I said it about Wade Phillips;  I said it about Jerry Jones:  Why should we think that they talk to their underlings any differently than they talk to the public -- i.e., incoherently and ineffectually?

Same question about Garrett.  What evidence do we have that what he says to his players evidences any more creativity, emotion, accountability, or interest than what he says to us?

(2)  I try to keep ad hominem reasoning out of these pages.  However, I am going to grant myself a dispensation this occasion to say that from the moment of his hiring I have loathed Roger Goodell because I didn't like his smug, thuggish, privileged, self-regarding face.  I'd never heard of him and knew nothing about him, but I've disliked him ever since.

Everything I've heard about him since confirms my unfair first impression, even before the recent evidence of his unsuitability for running anything.  The Ticket guys have from time to time described encounters with him, to the extent one can have an encounter with someone as cocooned by his entourage as this grossly-overpaid monarch.

(3)  I have only spoken with one person about the Goodell interview with Norah O'Donnell, the one were he looked stupid, inarticulate, and truthless.   She said to me exactly what I was thinking myself:  This guy's a big, hard drinker.

Small-eyed, red-faced, blotchy, trouble forming sentences. However, I just googled "roger goodell alcohol" and the only thing I come up with is "drunk with power."

(4) I've been punching out on the Central Market "are you really into  .  .  .  ?" commercials for quite some time now.  They show no sign of abating.  I'm sure I've missed me some good Ticket lately.

I'm missing more.  I'm now punching out on the Evil Cat telling her owner about Dropcam.

The first reason I'm punching out on it is that the accent is stupid.  Can't decide whether to be British or East Coast Patrician, really inept.  There have to be better voice actresses around.  Maybe one of the no doubt thousands who really have an accent?

The second reason I'm punching out is that the narrative is stupid.  The end of the commercial forgets what's in the beginning of the commercial.

     --   The Evil Cat says "you're not here right now" -- meaning not present in the house, or else the whole Dropcam premise is nonsense -- at the beginning of the ad, and finishes by ordering the owner "now get in here and pet me."

     --   The Evil Cat says it "hates" Dropcam because it shows all of the naughty things she is doing, but then it says there's a "bright side" because the cat "can't wait" for the owner to view "what I'm doing to your sweaters."  The "bright side" is exactly what the Evil Cat claims to "hate" about Dropcam.  

Listening too hard again.

Apologies for all of today's negativity.

I do like The Ticket.  There.

ThePlainsman1310@gmail.com

@Plainsman1310

Oo, Oo, Weckerly Woman, She Got the Moon in Her Eyes

A couple of posts back I threw out the thought that those photos could, under certain circumstances, affect the ownership, control, or management of the Cowboys.  Or, at the very least, this possibility should be considered by the commentariat (other than Your Plainsman).  It did not get much traction.

I would now like to revisit that topic in view of Weckerly v. Jones, et al., Civ. No. 14-10061, District Court for Dallas County, Texas.

Just some random thoughts upon reading the complaint.  Bearing in mind that your simple Man of the Plains is no expert in sexual assault lawsuits, statutes of limitations, and the like.  But I think there are some things an observer can take away from this with a little effort.  (Since I haven't heard these thoughts elsewhere, it tends to suggest to me that, um, I may be missing something.)

First, it's interesting that this was filed in Texas state court.  If Weckerly is presently a resident of Oklahoma, she could have filed it in U.S. District Court here.  Maybe she no longer lives in the Ardmore metro and has moved to Texas.  But if she does still live in OK and she could have filed in federal court, I wonder how her lawyer decided to file in state court.  One possibility is that a state court judge would be more likely to be sympathetic to the local team.  But the local team ain't making too many locals happy lately, so maybe the calculation is t'other way around -- a state court judge would be inclined to hammer Jerry to please his restless constituents.  Also, if it gets to trial, a state court jury might be more plaintiff-oriented.  The law the two courts would apply would be the same -- state law, because they are state law claims.  But, fairly or not, the bar widely believes that the federal bench (unelected) is more learned and more likely to apply the law somewhat more expertly than a state court judge (elected).  Would that favor one side or the other?  DNK.  (Also, some state-court plaintiff practitioners are less comfortable with the federal procedural rules.)   Don't have a strong conclusion on this -- just an interesting strategy move.

Second, I just heard Intentional Grounding read from some motions filed by Jerry's team earlier today, asking for a temporary restraining order and dismissal on the grounds that the lawsuit is unbelievable and scandalous and a money grab.  In the absence of any factual record whatsoever, and in the presence (in the judge's mind, if not the record) of those pathetic photographs, the dismissal ploy is unlikely to work.    (I thought Texas didn't have a strict motion to dismiss, but rather an archaic form of pleading called "special exceptions."  I need to track down those filings.)

Third, at present it does appear that the technical issue is going to be the statute of limitations.

The lawsuit has several claims, each a tort:  (1) Sexual Assault; (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (3) Negligence; and (4) Conspiracy to Cover Up Sexual Assault.  The complaint alleges criminal conduct, but violation of the Criminal Code does not give rise to a civil claim beyond the torts described by the alleged conduct (I think; not sure about that).  The statute of limitations for tort claims in Texas for personal injuries caused by torts is two years UNLESS the conduct involves violation of the Penal Code in certain respects, in which case it is five years.  I understand that the encounter in question took place more than five years from the filing of the suit.  But, if the conduct took place in 2009, not a whole lot longer than five years.  Hold that thought.

So, is Weckerly sunk?

Her lawyer has thought about this, and alleges that the statute has been "suspended" pursuant to "TCPRC sec. 16.063."  (That's "Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.")  Well, let's Google that and take a look.  It states:  "The absence from this state of a person against whom a cause of action may be maintained suspends the running of the applicable statute of limitations for the period of the person's absence."  In other words, the limitations clock stops while the defendant is out of the state, starts up again when he gets back.  Well, that would not work against the Cowboys, the other defendant, which hasn't left the state as a corporate entity.   But Jerry?  The incident was alleged to have taken place in "May or June of 2009," so the deficiency is not going to be more than about four months.  Could she show that Jerry was out of the state in the aggregate longer than that since the incident?  A month per year?  Dunno.  But if I were the court I think I might at least let her proceed with discovery on Jerry's whereabouts at all times between the assault and the filing of suit.  Maybe there are some technical interpretations of that statute that make this all more complicated than I'm making it seem, but they haven't jumped out at me in my Internet reading.  So -- maybe not a bad argument for Weckerly.  Maybe.

But there's something else that really, really intrigues me that I haven't heard mentioned anywhere, at least as far as this limitations issue is concerned:

       --  Paragraph 26 states that Jerry and the Cowboys "threatened Plaintiff so that she would not tell the police." 

       --  Paragraph 27 states that they "intimidated Plaintiff and told her to keep quiet and not tell anyone else 'or else.'"

       --  Paragraph 28 states that they "bullied Plaintiff into believing that she would somehow be in trouble if she told anyone about the sexual assault." 

       --  And most intriguingly, she drops this nugget:  Paragraph 29 states that they "intimidated her into signing documents against her will, without giving her a copies (sic) or access to legal counsel."

       --  Finally, she concludes in Paragraph 30 that those actions "placed Plaintiff in imminent fear of her life, safety and well being."  

I only know what I read in Google search results.  But I am pretty sure that statutes of limitations clock gets stopped or delayed, or "tolled," as it is called, if the plaintiff has been subject to "duress" during that period that tends to discourage her from filing suit within the proper period of time.  

These four paragraphs describe situations where plaintiff was pressured not to take legal action, and may have been pressured under threat or fraud to sign a release (guessing at what the "legal documents" might have been, if they exist at all), all of which would have served artificially to have caused her to refrain from filing suit while the statute was ticking away.

However -- Weckerly has not alleged duress as a ground for delaying the operation of the statute of limitations.  An oversight?  Or something that her attorney thinks he cannot prove?   I think I might say more about that "document," if there was one, even if she doesn't have a copy.   DNK.  But if he's smart, he'll find some other ground for tolling the statute, and based on what he's alleged, that ground should be duress.  Which is something that itself would be subject to "discovery" before a court would rule on whether it were a factually supportable theory for beating back the limitations defense.  At the every least, I would think it would serve to keep the lawsuit alive.

The point I wish to make is that no matter what you think of Weckerly, her motives, or her truthfulness, the wisdom of Google suggests that there may well be enough in this complaint to survive the initial technical challenges.  Again, the complaint is very, very unlikely to be dismissed just because it seems crazy, as seems to be Jerry's initial legal position.  (Really -- does it seem all that crazy?  Or, in light of those photos, does it ring highly possible?)

Fourth: What if it doesn't go away?   The suit could go on and depositions would be taken and it would devolve into the classic he said-she said, and maybe these "legal documents" surface, and maybe more pictures, and lurid accounts of Jerry's misconduct.  Maybe it gets settled; maybe the court grants summary judgment against Weckerly based on the discovery in the case (i.e., her case turns out to be factually deficient based on the sworn record in discovery); or maybe it goes to trial.

A whole lot more interesting is what Roger Goodell -- or his successor -- will do.  If Jerry is accused of sexually assaulting a drunken young woman, with photographic evidence that something happened, and that case lingers with her allegations potentially subject to a jury's decision, his hand may be forced.  Irsay.  Rice.  Rampant NFL thuggery.  A tsunami of disgust over the Niffle's handling of criminal conduct of its constituents has got to have them running scared in the executive suite.

All kinds of other things could happen aside from NFL discipline (or worse).  Gene cannot be happy that a jury will be asked to decide if her husband f-f'd a young woman and got fellated while requiring -- or even inviting -- Weckerly to admire the performance.  What's her level of tolerance for thoroughgoing mortification?  Fans could vote with their season tickets (as they're already starting to do). 

"So, set 'em up, Joe  .  .  .  . "

Again, my sports-radio-related point in suggesting that the complaint may not be as cartoonish as it seems is that at some level this is a sports story because, now more than ever, it could impact the operation, if not the ownership, of the Cowboys.  That it happened five years ago is irrelevant.  The Niffle consumer (and his spouse) are in an ugly mood, and Jerry looks, acts, and sounds like the corrupt face of big-time American sports -- and incompetent in the bargain.  He'll probably survive, but if this story turns out to be her word against his -- that is, if this case not thrown out on limitations or other technical grounds and is headed to trial, whether it gets settled or not -- it's hard to see how Jerry can continue to be the ubiquitous public face of his team and influential in the inner sanctum of the NFL.  And that would be a big change for the Cowboys even if he doesn't sell the team or move out of management.

And, finally -- what if this isn't the only time something like this has happened?

Even that insufferable jocksniff Papa John might stop calling.