Around the NHL 11 - 2023/24

[10Ducky10]

 

[nobody imp0rtant]

Ooh, quick... start a poll to see if we can guess the Filthy Five.

 

[Joe Hallenback]

Where not discussing that case here and if you are defending what happened after it was ruled that she was gang raped then I will delete your posts.

You don't get someone drunk then have sex with them and then invite your friends to do the same for hours and not let them leave at any time so much so that you cause physical harm to that person.

If you don't know what rape is and can't understand why that is rape then I am sure there are other places you can post

Thank you

 

[tbcwpg]

Ooh, quick... start a poll to see if we can guess the Filthy Five.

I think there are a couple of players ruled out. Cale Makar wasn't in the city when it happened. I'm only really sure about one player based on the conjecture from the media and the way the last couple of years has gone at this point but I'm not going to name him in case it's incorrect.

We'll find out tomorrow late afternoon to avoid the news cycle going into the long weekend, as that's what the NHL likes to do with embarrassing news.

 

[Buffdog]

Where not discussing that case here and if you are defending what happened after it was ruled that she was gang raped then I will delete your posts.

You don't get someone drunk then have sex with them and then invite your friends to do the same for hours and not let them leave at any time so much so that you cause physical harm to that person.

If you don't know what rape is and can't understand why that is rape then I am sure there are other places you can post

Thank you

I think there needs to be a balance between this viewpoint and the fact that nobody involved was charged or convicted with any crime

"Innocent until proven guilty" is one of the bedrocks of our society for good reason. That said, cases like this are notoriously hard to investigate and prosecute

For the record, I say this as a father of both a young adult son and teenage daughters. I try to put myself in the position of the father of both the victim and the alleged perpetrators. In both cases, I'd want due process to be carried out

 

[Joe Hallenback]

I think there needs to be a balance between this viewpoint and the fact that nobody involved was charged or convicted with any crime

"Innocent until proven guilty" is one of the bedrocks of our society for good reason. That said, cases like this are notoriously hard to investigate and prosecute

For the record, I say this as a father of both a young adult son and teenage daughters. I try to put myself in the position of the father of both the victim and the alleged perpetrators. In both cases, I'd want due process to be carried out

They settled in Civil court already. You don't settle if there was nothing wrong. Part of the settlement is to drop the criminal case. There are 5 players that will likely not be playing in the NHL anytime soon. There is not question that something wrong took place. I don't want Hockey Canada to be spending my fees to defend these guys in court and try to settle out of court and hush it up. They should have come forward with a criminal investigation right away.

The documents are out there what happened and its easy to see that yes rape happened and then they tried to hush it up anyway they could

 

[Buffdog]

They settled in Civil court already. You don't settle if there was nothing wrong. Part of the settlement is to drop the criminal case. There are 5 players that will likely not be playing in the NHL anytime soon. There is not question that something wrong took place. I don't want Hockey Canada to be spending my fees to defend these guys in court and try to settle out of court and hush it up. They should have come forward with a criminal investigation right away.

The documents are out there what happened and its easy to see that yes rape happened and then they tried to hush it up anyway they could

The burden of proof in a civil court is much lower than in criminal court

 

[Joe Hallenback]

The burden of proof in a civil court is much lower than in criminal court

Yes because it switches to the plaintiff side. Who happened to have a lot of proof that a judge awarded them 3.55 million dollars which Hockey Canada pays out from everyone's fees that they keep in a secret slush fund because this thing is happening a lot.

And anyone who ever had to deal with sexual assault cases knows that if the defendant has money to make it go away in civil court that is what happens because the victims are forced to live through it again and have to listen to idiots say things like "WELL YOU SHOULDN"T PUT YOURSELF IN THAT SITUATION HURR DURRR". So you take the money and try to move on with your life because your lawyers tell you that is the best thing you can do

 

[ERYX]

They settled in Civil court already. You don't settle if there was nothing wrong. Part of the settlement is to drop the criminal case. There are 5 players that will likely not be playing in the NHL anytime soon. There is not question that something wrong took place. I don't want Hockey Canada to be spending my fees to defend these guys in court and try to settle out of court and hush it up. They should have come forward with a criminal investigation right away.

The documents are out there what happened and its easy to see that yes rape happened and then they tried to hush it up anyway they could

This goes both ways. Hockey Canada could have settled in Civil Court knowing that the test is "balance of probabilities" in other words 50/50. Especially if dropping criminal charges in on the table, a lawyer is going to recommend that their client take that deal ten times out of ten, even if 100% innocent, just to guarantee the criminal charges go away. I should know, I'm a criminal lawyer and I advise clients to make deals like that all the time because it involves no admission of criminal wrongdoing while making the criminal charges go away. Essentially, a civil court settlement tells us nothing about whether someone is guilty. All it says is that the settlement was preferable to litigations for all parties involved.

Criminal trials are no cakewalk for accused persons either. As your follow-up post demonstrates, in the Court of Public Opinion it is always guilty until proven innocent in sex assault cases. Win, lose, or draw, your reputation will be destroyed even if you are innocent. The stress on an innocent person knowing they could be wrongfully convicted is immense. There are so many rules of evidence and procedures unique to sex assault cases that stack the deck against accused that this adds to the stress and uncertainty. Being innocent by no means ensures acquittal, nor does being guilty ensure conviction. So many factors involved for both sides that, again, settlement in civil court means nothing.

I coud easily say "you don't settle if you were actually raped" -- argument goes both ways. You just don't know what happened from a settlement in civil court.

P.S./EDIT: I wasn't there, wasn't in the room, haven't seen the actual evidence so I am not taking a side here. I'd be VERY cautious about making assumptions based on media and the fact of an out-of-court settlement is all. Media is very unreliable ... I have never been involved in a case where the media rendition of it bore more than passing resemblance to what the actual evidence was in my career.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

Well, it's past late afternoon. I guess they aren't going to reveal the 5 names?

 

[SUX2BU]

 

[ps241]

This goes both ways. Hockey Canada could have settled in Civil Court knowing that the test is "balance of probabilities" in other words 50/50. Especially if dropping criminal charges in on the table, a lawyer is going to recommend that their client take that deal ten times out of ten, even if 100% innocent, just to guarantee the criminal charges go away. I should know, I'm a criminal lawyer and I advise clients to make deals like that all the time because it involves no admission of criminal wrongdoing while making the criminal charges go away. Essentially, a civil court settlement tells us nothing about whether someone is guilty. All it says is that the settlement was preferable to litigations for all parties involved.

Criminal trials are no cakewalk for accused persons either. As your follow-up post demonstrates, in the Court of Public Opinion it is always guilty until proven innocent in sex assault cases. Win, lose, or draw, your reputation will be destroyed even if you are innocent. The stress on an innocent person knowing they could be wrongfully convicted is immense. There are so many rules of evidence and procedures unique to sex assault cases that stack the deck against accused that this adds to the stress and uncertainty. Being innocent by no means ensures acquittal, nor does being guilty ensure conviction. So many factors involved for both sides that, again, settlement in civil court means nothing.

I coud easily say "you don't settle if you were actually raped" -- argument goes both ways. You just don't know what happened from a settlement in civil court.

P.S./EDIT: I wasn't there, wasn't in the room, haven't seen the actual evidence so I am not taking a side here. I'd be VERY cautious about making assumptions based on media and the fact of an out-of-court settlement is all. Media is very unreliable ... I have never been involved in a case where the media rendition of it bore more than passing resemblance to what the actual evidence was in my career.

It’s interesting to hear your take from an insiders perspective on the subject at large outside the scope of this specific situation.

 

[RustyCat]

This goes both ways. Hockey Canada could have settled in Civil Court knowing that the test is "balance of probabilities" in other words 50/50. Especially if dropping criminal charges in on the table, a lawyer is going to recommend that their client take that deal ten times out of ten, even if 100% innocent, just to guarantee the criminal charges go away. I should know, I'm a criminal lawyer and I advise clients to make deals like that all the time because it involves no admission of criminal wrongdoing while making the criminal charges go away. Essentially, a civil court settlement tells us nothing about whether someone is guilty. All it says is that the settlement was preferable to litigations for all parties involved.

Criminal trials are no cakewalk for accused persons either. As your follow-up post demonstrates, in the Court of Public Opinion it is always guilty until proven innocent in sex assault cases. Win, lose, or draw, your reputation will be destroyed even if you are innocent. The stress on an innocent person knowing they could be wrongfully convicted is immense. There are so many rules of evidence and procedures unique to sex assault cases that stack the deck against accused that this adds to the stress and uncertainty. Being innocent by no means ensures acquittal, nor does being guilty ensure conviction. So many factors involved for both sides that, again, settlement in civil court means nothing.

I coud easily say "you don't settle if you were actually raped" -- argument goes both ways. You just don't know what happened from a settlement in civil court.

P.S./EDIT: I wasn't there, wasn't in the room, haven't seen the actual evidence so I am not taking a side here. I'd be VERY cautious about making assumptions based on media and the fact of an out-of-court settlement is all. Media is very unreliable ... I have never been involved in a case where the media rendition of it bore more than passing resemblance to what the actual evidence was in my career.

Overall excellent synopsis. As someone who also works in Law, the bolded is especially true.

 

[ps241]

This goes both ways. Hockey Canada could have settled in Civil Court knowing that the test is "balance of probabilities" in other words 50/50. Especially if dropping criminal charges in on the table, a lawyer is going to recommend that their client take that deal ten times out of ten, even if 100% innocent, just to guarantee the criminal charges go away. I should know, I'm a criminal lawyer and I advise clients to make deals like that all the time because it involves no admission of criminal wrongdoing while making the criminal charges go away. Essentially, a civil court settlement tells us nothing about whether someone is guilty. All it says is that the settlement was preferable to litigations for all parties involved.

Criminal trials are no cakewalk for accused persons either. As your follow-up post demonstrates, in the Court of Public Opinion it is always guilty until proven innocent in sex assault cases. Win, lose, or draw, your reputation will be destroyed even if you are innocent. The stress on an innocent person knowing they could be wrongfully convicted is immense. There are so many rules of evidence and procedures unique to sex assault cases that stack the deck against accused that this adds to the stress and uncertainty. Being innocent by no means ensures acquittal, nor does being guilty ensure conviction. So many factors involved for both sides that, again, settlement in civil court means nothing.

I coud easily say "you don't settle if you were actually raped" -- argument goes both ways. You just don't know what happened from a settlement in civil court.

P.S./EDIT: I wasn't there, wasn't in the room, haven't seen the actual evidence so I am not taking a side here. I'd be VERY cautious about making assumptions based on media and the fact of an out-of-court settlement is all. Media is very unreliable ... I have never been involved in a case where the media rendition of it bore more than passing resemblance to what the actual evidence was in my career.

Overall excellent synopsis. As someone who also works in Law, the bolded is especially true.

From a purely legal perspective any opinions on clients employment liability post settlement like this? If a settlement is not an admission of guilt? Have you had to deal with clients whose employment was impacted. Once again I am speaking from legal perspective and not necessarily this case.

 

[Cnile]

Overall excellent synopsis. As someone who also works in Law, the bolded is especially true.

A sign of the times is the rush to judgment based on MSM and social media.
Facts be damned GUILTY
Very few are interested in facts they just want a pound of flesh.

 

[nobody imp0rtant]

A sign of the times is the rush to judgment based on MSM and social media.
Facts be damned GUILTY
Very few are interested in facts they just want a pound of flesh.

I think it was the pound of flesh that started this whole mess.

 

[raideralex99]

A sign of the times is the rush to judgment based on MSM and social media.
Facts be damned GUILTY
Very few are interested in facts they just want a pound of flesh.

When all the facts are not reported on MSM or get deleted on social media this is what happens ... only one side of the story gets heard.
Still on page 20 ... the mods must be busy deleting lol.

 

[surixon]

Well the Pens get Karalson. They should have a potent top 6 and top 4 but I am very interested in seeing how their depth and goaltending holds up.

 

[ERYX]

From a purely legal perspective any opinions on clients employment liability post settlement like this? If a settlement is not an admission of guilt? Have you had to deal with clients whose employment was impacted. Once again I am speaking from legal perspective and not necessarily this case.

I myself have never had a client have their employment impacted by an out-of-court settlement. However, I have also never represented anyone in a case even remotely as high profile as this one. Of course, from a legal perspective, profile shouldn't matter, but practically it just doesn't come up unless it's plastered all over the news.

 

[SUX2BU]

Dumba with Coyotes

 

[bustamente]

Rejected by Tempe, Coyotes look to Mesa

 

[macmaroon]

Rejected by Tempe, Coyotes look to Mesa

Then Tucson, then Gila Bend, then Oatman...

 

[10Ducky10]

The Jets left Winnipeg because we didn't have an arena big enough to make the owners money and they are now playing in an arena that seats 5000 people. What a joke.

 

[Buffdog]

The Jets left Winnipeg because we didn't have an arena big enough to make the owners money and they are now playing in an arena that seats 5000 people. What a joke.

I think it had to do more with the agreement between the ownership group and WEC who owned and ran the arena. It was essentially impossible for the team to be profitable

 

[Cypruss]

I think it had to do more with the agreement between the ownership group and WEC who owned and ran the arena. It was essentially impossible for the team to be profitable

And there were no locals that could raise the money to purchase the team - knowing that they would be operating at a loss. People need to realize that the current conditions in Winnipeg killed the Jets in the 90's, not Bettman.

Lots of people don't like to hear this, but I know two people who were in those board rooms high above Portage and Main in the Richardson building as the NHL was here trying to find a solution. Bettman considered, explored and tried every avenue to keep the Jets in Winnipeg. At the end of the day, with nobody willing to purchase the team and commit to the city, the only solution was to let them leave.

I hope this is not considered "speculation". I will not post the names of the people that I know who were there in this forum, but would give that info to a moderator if they asked me and could verify the names and do with this posting of mine as they so choose.