Toggle sidebar

Mike Richards VIII Kings vs NHLPA

Reaper45 said:
But didn't they just delay his next appearance until the DA supplies them with all of the info? They obviously don't have all of the facts then and these comments are posturing if that is the case. I really haven't been keeping up with it all.
Click to expand...

I don't think Humphrey is the type that would 'posture', he's a top notch defense attorney and very well respected. And unlike you , me or anybody else posting here, he knows the facts behind the arrest. I don't think he'd use the term'vigorously defend' if he wasn't sure of their position.
 
deeshamrock said:
I don't think Humphrey is the type that would 'posture', he's a top notch defense attorney and very well respected. And unlike you , me or anybody else posting here, he knows the facts behind the arrest. I don't think he'd use the term'vigorously defend' if he wasn't sure of their position.
Click to expand...

That being said. Lawyers are **** talkers. Only a lawyer is a going to use a word like vigorously in 2015.
 
I hope this case gets resolved rather quickly...
There are certain Ducks users that could have "medical issues" over this case. :laugh:

There are some that only post in the Richards thread... :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Boba Fettuccine said:
That being said. Lawyers are **** talkers. Only a lawyer is a going to use a word like vigorously in 2015.
Click to expand...

What's he gonna say-we don't have a case and my client is ****? Win or lose this guy gets paid, you have to be very careful when you listen to lawyers cause they win no matter what.
 
Well, I mean there are like two accepted contract terminations in the history of professional unionized sports, so...

I think everyone should lower their expectations here.
 
Richie10 said:
Well, I mean there are like two accepted contract terminations in the history of professional unionized sports, so...

I think everyone should lower their expectations here.
Click to expand...

Only 3 teams had come back from 3-0 deficits in the playoffs until 2014....

We like to exceed people's expectations.
 
Have faith in Dean Lombardi.

If that isn't enough, read this part of the Immigration and Nationality Act:


§212(a)(2)(A)

(A) Conviction of certain crimes.-

(i) In general.-Except as provided in clause (ii), any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of-

(I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime, or

(II) a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), is inadmissible.

http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/general/ineligibilities.html#Ineligibilities


There are a number of general statements about drugs and US law in these articles.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-turned-Heathrow-trying-board-L-A-flight.html

http://www.usvisasolutions.co.uk/criminal-issues/kate-moss-us-visa-problems/


The visa revocation statute also is worded similarly.
 
Last edited:
Stimpythecat said:
Have faith in Dean Lombardi.

If that isn't enough, read this part of the Immigration and Nationality Act:


§212(a)(2)(A)

(A) Conviction of certain crimes.-

(i) In general.-Except as provided in clause (ii), any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of-

(I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime, or

(II) a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), is inadmissible.

http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/general/ineligibilities.html#Ineligibilities


There are a number of general statements about drugs and US law in these articles.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-turned-Heathrow-trying-board-L-A-flight.html

http://www.usvisasolutions.co.uk/criminal-issues/kate-moss-us-visa-problems/


The visa revocation statute also is worded similarly.
Click to expand...

No, no, no as the many legal experts on the main board will tell you the NHL CBA drug clauses trump everything in this case, even U.S. law and immigration policy.

Even if it doesn't, how does Mike Richards not being able to show up for work for a few months, or maybe even more due to his legal problems, constitute a material breach of his contract? I don't know about the rest of you, because I am a pretty good employee, and I also own the company, but if you are not a good employee and don't show up for work for even a few weeks, I probably fire your ass.
 
While I did not agree at the time, in retrospect it seems like it would have been good to use our amnesty buyout on Mike Richards.
 
KINGS17 said:
No, no, no as the many legal experts on the main board will tell you the NHL CBA drug clauses trump everything in this case, even U.S. law and immigration policy.

Even if it doesn't, how does Mike Richards not being able to show up for work for a few months, or maybe even more due to his legal problems, constitute a material breach of his contract? I don't know about the rest of you, because I am a pretty good employee, and I also own the company, but if you are not a good employee and don't show up for work for even a few weeks, I probably fire your ass.
Click to expand...

Damn man, you're generous!
 
scryan said:
While I did not agree at the time, in retrospect it seems like it would have been good to use our amnesty buyout on Mike Richards.
Click to expand...

Glad you're finally coming around. You and Dean are only 12 months late. :laugh:
 
scryan said:
While I did not agree at the time, in retrospect it seems like it would have been good to use our amnesty buyout on Mike Richards.
Click to expand...

What do you mean? Mike Richards the 8th and counting. This has bee well worth it.

At this point if the termination is over turned I wonder if it even makes sense to buy him out, if the Kings are allowed to. With the team not having a 3c and in need of a second pairing, it might be a better idea to burn 2 years off the buyout by playing him another year. Then we get to watch Sutter make those faces behind the bench and we'll be on "Mike Richards 100: The final chapter... part 10":laugh:

Really if this team was competing for a championship, then go all in. Kings weren't a playoff team last year, and it's hard to say they're better this year.
 
If this thread gets to a part 10 without any new significant happenings, I resign.

Edit: I will be deleting any OT, count-padding posts that exist just to remove me ;)
 
Brad Doty said:
If this thread gets to a part 10 without any new significant happenings, I resign.

Edit: I will be deleting any OT, count-padding posts that exist just to remove me ;)
Click to expand...
We will not let you resign.

We will hunt you down and stick the mouse back in your warm live hands
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom