30
|
|
Post by tincup on Jul 10, 2021 8:29:17 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Jul 10, 2021 8:59:44 GMT -6
Up n MN and can’t find the article I saw yesterday but it said Miami is looking into more allegations against the guy. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear of a settlement or two in the pending law suites soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Jul 10, 2021 12:56:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Jul 10, 2021 21:12:05 GMT -6
Would be interesting to read what grounds the 'hawks have for a dismissal--or are they just beating their proverbial chest and trying to scare the plaintiffs. |
|
|
|
Post by mikeveisor on Jul 10, 2021 23:25:24 GMT -6
Would be interesting to read what grounds the 'hawks have for a dismissal--or are they just beating their proverbial chest and trying to scare the plaintiffs. I would guess no proximate cause can be shown by plaintiff between letter of recommendation from Hawks to Aldrich and the sexual assault - was it a cause? Sure - no later, no new job. But can it be the/THE cause. I’d argue no way if the club retained me. Also, you could argue that the Hawks no duty of care to the plaintiff thus the club could not be negligent as to the plaintiff personally. These are guessed but likely the club’s present defense is somewhere in this area. |
|
|
|
Post by T-man2010 on Jul 11, 2021 3:52:48 GMT -6
Would be interesting to read what grounds the 'hawks have for a dismissal--or are they just beating their proverbial chest and trying to scare the plaintiffs. I would guess no proximate cause can be shown by plaintiff between letter of recommendation from Hawks to Aldrich and the sexual assault - was it a cause? Sure - no later, no new job. But can it be the/THE cause. I’d argue no way if the club retained me. Also, you could argue that the Hawks no duty of care to the plaintiff thus the club could not be negligent as to the plaintiff personally. These are guessed but likely the club’s present defense is somewhere in this area. One of the articles posted above states the Hawks request for dismissal in both suits. In the former Hawk player suit Hawks say they had no obligation to call the police since he was an adult and should/could have done that himself. Or had his agent, parents call. Hawks were not his guardian or custodian. |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Jul 11, 2021 7:17:50 GMT -6
I would guess no proximate cause can be shown by plaintiff between letter of recommendation from Hawks to Aldrich and the sexual assault - was it a cause? Sure - no later, no new job. But can it be the/THE cause. I’d argue no way if the club retained me. Also, you could argue that the Hawks no duty of care to the plaintiff thus the club could not be negligent as to the plaintiff personally. These are guessed but likely the club’s present defense is somewhere in this area. One of the articles posted above states the Hawks request for dismissal in both suits. In the former Hawk player suit Hawks say they had no obligation to call the police since he was an adult and should/could have done that himself. Or had his agent, parents call. Hawks were not his guardian or custodian. I think one of the only ways out is if this didn’t happen at “work”. If they hung out all the time, the Hawks can simply say it’s between the two of them. On the other hand. I don’t know Illinois law, but I’d have to think that a company can be held liable if said allegations were brought to their attention. This is a team atmosphere and they have to interact all the time. So I could see the Hawks being held liable due to not doing anything or even providing counsel for them to take the right avenues. So far it seems the Hawks and the NHLPA didn’t offer anything in the way of help. Which is perplexing considering the size of the organization. So, I don’t think it’ll be dismissed. The Hawks also have a letter of recommendation and he went on to do it again and again. A judge today is a lot different from ten plus years ago. All it takes is an overly liberal minded judge to want to make an example of a huge organization. Regardless, Scam and co dropped the ball, they should be held accountable even if it gets dismissed. Winning on a technicality is a win, but still doesn’t justify the horrible situation the people went through. One last thing. Let’s say for shits and giggles the Hawks win and it’s thrown out before their investigation is through. Do they finish the investigation? I doubt they would, and they should to see what vermin are lurking around their team!!! |
|
|
|
Post by T-man2010 on Jul 11, 2021 9:02:16 GMT -6
One of the articles posted above states the Hawks request for dismissal in both suits. In the former Hawk player suit Hawks say they had no obligation to call the police since he was an adult and should/could have done that himself. Or had his agent, parents call. Hawks were not his guardian or custodian. I think one of the only ways out is if this didn’t happen at “work”. If they hung out all the time, the Hawks can simply say it’s between the two of them. On the other hand. I don’t know Illinois law, but I’d have to think that a company can be held liable if said allegations were brought to their attention. This is a team atmosphere and they have to interact all the time. So I could see the Hawks being held liable due to not doing anything or even providing counsel for them to take the right avenues. So far it seems the Hawks and the NHLPA didn’t offer anything in the way of help. Which is perplexing considering the size of the organization. So, I don’t think it’ll be dismissed. The Hawks also have a letter of recommendation and he went on to do it again and again. A judge today is a lot different from ten plus years ago. All it takes is an overly liberal minded judge to want to make an example of a huge organization. Regardless, Scam and co dropped the ball, they should be held accountable even if it gets dismissed. Winning on a technicality is a win, but still doesn’t justify the horrible situation the people went through. One last thing. Let’s say for shits and giggles the Hawks win and it’s thrown out before their investigation is through. Do they finish the investigation? I doubt they would, and they should to see what vermin are lurking around their team!!! Laws regarding liability of letters of recommendations are so muddy, they vary State to State. Laws protect both the employer and some laws protect the employee. Example being the employer to protect themselves won't divulge any info other than the person worked there. That also protects an employee incase they quit due to a personal clash with the boss. Now this guy also worked in Florida as well as Michigan, so your dealing with 3 different States laws. Hence why also Uni. of Miami is also running an investigation. There were 2 allegations from there before he went to Michigan high school. We'll just let the courts and lawyers decide what to do. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Jul 11, 2021 19:02:28 GMT -6
Would be interesting to read what grounds the 'hawks have for a dismissal--or are they just beating their proverbial chest and trying to scare the plaintiffs. I would guess no proximate cause can be shown by plaintiff between letter of recommendation from Hawks to Aldrich and the sexual assault - was it a cause? Sure - no later, no new job. But can it be the/THE cause. I’d argue no way if the club retained me. Also, you could argue that the Hawks no duty of care to the plaintiff thus the club could not be negligent as to the plaintiff personally. These are guessed but likely the club’s present defense is somewhere in this area. I have no standing to debate the legalities but juries are unforgiving in many of these cases. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Jul 11, 2021 19:05:41 GMT -6
One of the articles posted above states the Hawks request for dismissal in both suits. In the former Hawk player suit Hawks say they had no obligation to call the police since he was an adult and should/could have done that himself. Or had his agent, parents call. Hawks were not his guardian or custodian. I think one of the only ways out is if this didn’t happen at “work”. If they hung out all the time, the Hawks can simply say it’s between the two of them. On the other hand. I don’t know Illinois law, but I’d have to think that a company can be held liable if said allegations were brought to their attention. This is a team atmosphere and they have to interact all the time. So I could see the Hawks being held liable due to not doing anything or even providing counsel for them to take the right avenues. So far it seems the Hawks and the NHLPA didn’t offer anything in the way of help. Which is perplexing considering the size of the organization. So, I don’t think it’ll be dismissed. The Hawks also have a letter of recommendation and he went on to do it again and again. A judge today is a lot different from ten plus years ago. All it takes is an overly liberal minded judge to want to make an example of a huge organization. Regardless, Scam and co dropped the ball, they should be held accountable even if it gets dismissed. Winning on a technicality is a win, but still doesn’t justify the horrible situation the people went through. One last thing. Let’s say for shits and giggles the Hawks win and it’s thrown out before their investigation is through. Do they finish the investigation? I doubt they would, and they should to see what vermin are lurking around their team!!! And what would an overly conservative minded judge do? Let ANOTHER big corporation get away with awful things? |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Jul 11, 2021 19:35:39 GMT -6
One of the articles posted above states the Hawks request for dismissal in both suits. In the former Hawk player suit Hawks say they had no obligation to call the police since he was an adult and should/could have done that himself. Or had his agent, parents call. Hawks were not his guardian or custodian. I think one of the only ways out is if this didn’t happen at “work”. If they hung out all the time, the Hawks can simply say it’s between the two of them. On the other hand. I don’t know Illinois law, but I’d have to think that a company can be held liable if said allegations were brought to their attention. This is a team atmosphere and they have to interact all the time. So I could see the Hawks being held liable due to not doing anything or even providing counsel for them to take the right avenues. So far it seems the Hawks and the NHLPA didn’t offer anything in the way of help. Which is perplexing considering the size of the organization. So, I don’t think it’ll be dismissed. The Hawks also have a letter of recommendation and he went on to do it again and again. A judge today is a lot different from ten plus years ago. All it takes is an overly liberal minded judge to want to make an example of a huge organization. Regardless, Scam and co dropped the ball, they should be held accountable even if it gets dismissed. Winning on a technicality is a win, but still doesn’t justify the horrible situation the people went through. One last thing. Let’s say for shits and giggles the Hawks win and it’s thrown out before their investigation is through. Do they finish the investigation? I doubt they would, and they should to see what vermin are lurking around their team!!! While I can't get a clear answer about the law in Illinois, here in Oregon employers have an obligation and are liable if sexual harassment or other misconduct does occur in the workplace (or between employees outside of work which would generate a hostile work environment) and they take little action, no action, or Catholic Church action (which is what the hawks allegedly did--tell the victim to shut up and ship the alleged offender somewhere else). While they are not the plaintiffs' guardian, they are obligated to provide a non-hostile work environment--which they failed to do based on what I know about the case. Thus it's going to matter what Illinois law actually states on the matter for the 'hawks civil and criminal culpabilities. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Jul 11, 2021 19:38:55 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Jul 11, 2021 20:09:11 GMT -6
I'm waited with baited breath as to how all of that turns out. Again, I'm not knowledgeable about Illinois law about the culpability of employers when it comes to their requirements on sexual misconduct, but the article was spot-on--They're trying to wriggle through the legal loopholes but are completely ignoring the court of public opinion. My fascination with misery and suffering does want to see a 5-6000 attendance at 'hawks games if the 'hawks get out of this on a legal loophole, which ends up hitting the 'hawks in the pocketbooks and they end up being actively boycotted by sexual assault advocacy groups. I also will be chomping on the popcorn when Stan gets in front of the mic next...It would not surprise me if he is boo'ed more than Bettman. |
|
|
|
Post by T-man2010 on Jul 12, 2021 7:44:43 GMT -6
I would guess no proximate cause can be shown by plaintiff between letter of recommendation from Hawks to Aldrich and the sexual assault - was it a cause? Sure - no later, no new job. But can it be the/THE cause. I’d argue no way if the club retained me. Also, you could argue that the Hawks no duty of care to the plaintiff thus the club could not be negligent as to the plaintiff personally. These are guessed but likely the club’s present defense is somewhere in this area. I have no standing to debate the legalities but juries are unforgiving in many of these cases. It's not a criminal case, there is no jury involved. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Jul 12, 2021 8:01:36 GMT -6
I have no standing to debate the legalities but juries are unforgiving in many of these cases. It's not a criminal case, there is no jury involved. Juries hear civil cases all the time,the judge makes pre-trial rulings but if it goes to trial.....it goes to a jury as a rule. |
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Jul 12, 2021 8:05:46 GMT -6
It's not a criminal case, there is no jury involved. Juries hear civil cases all the time,the judge makes pre-trial rulings but if it goes to trial.....it goes to a jury as a rule. let's be honest here..... this case will never go to trial... |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Jul 12, 2021 8:07:53 GMT -6
I have no standing to debate the legalities but juries are unforgiving in many of these cases. It's not a criminal case, there is no jury involved. This is where the Hawks could be in heaps of trouble. The problem is if they get a very “non conservative” judge. Some one who wants to make it a point to big corps to not allow this type of thing at all. So this could be real ugly if it gets to this. I don’t think it’ll be thrown out as Doe 1’s lawyer has stated many times. She went through the legalities in one of the many many articles posted. The longer it takes them to rule judgement on throwing it out, the worse it probably is. If it’s that clear and cut, the defense shows their proof and it’s irrevocable, so, it’s done. Again I know nothing about Illinois law, except the basic laws and rules of the land. I just heard what the lawyer had said and she pretty much said the law for these things!!! |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Jul 12, 2021 8:16:33 GMT -6
Juries hear civil cases all the time,the judge makes pre-trial rulings but if it goes to trial.....it goes to a jury as a rule. let's be honest here..... this case will never go to trial... If the pretrial motions to dismiss are turned down as I expect,I too doubt it goes to trial. I was just saying juries can and do hear civil cases all the time when those cases go to trial. One of my buds I fish with every August is a retired circuit court judge and he said what he's seen in the media is problematic for the team. |
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Jul 12, 2021 8:20:43 GMT -6
let's be honest here..... this case will never go to trial... If the pretrial motions to dismiss are turned down as I expect,I too doubt it goes to trial. I was just saying juries can and do hear civil cases all the time when those cases go to trial. One of my buds I fish with every August is a retired circuit court judge and he said what he's seen in the media is problematic for the team. I gotcha. wasn't disagreeing that it would if it moved that far down the line, just stating that I doubt it is allowed to. the team will do their internal investigation and if the motions to dismiss are denied, I am sure the investigation will show some wrong doing by management and the team will settle out of court while jettisoning the members of management that are implicated. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Jul 12, 2021 8:28:27 GMT -6
It's not a criminal case, there is no jury involved. This is where the Hawks could be in heaps of trouble. The problem is if they get a very “non conservative” judge. Some one who wants to make it a point to big corps to not allow this type of thing at all. So this could be real ugly if it gets to this. I don’t think it’ll be thrown out as Doe 1’s lawyer has stated many times. She went through the legalities in one of the many many articles posted. The longer it takes them to rule judgement on throwing it out, the worse it probably is. If it’s that clear and cut, the defense shows their proof and it’s irrevocable, so, it’s done. Again I know nothing about Illinois law, except the basic laws and rules of the land. I just heard what the lawyer had said and she pretty much said the law for these things!!! I really don't know how a judge's ideological leanings figure into this with all the settled case law on the books,this isn't an unsettled precedent making topic. I doubt the motions to dismiss go anywhere and if it gets to a jury,the team has huge problems......it's the juries that award the massive punitive amounts we always hear of. I believe Vincent's outspokenness,his recollection of the issue AND his professed willingness to testify would seal the deal at trial unless the team can prove some sort of ax to grind on his part but it seems their are other collaborators. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Jul 12, 2021 8:36:51 GMT -6
If the pretrial motions to dismiss are turned down as I expect,I too doubt it goes to trial. I was just saying juries can and do hear civil cases all the time when those cases go to trial. One of my buds I fish with every August is a retired circuit court judge and he said what he's seen in the media is problematic for the team. I gotcha. wasn't disagreeing that it would if it moved that far down the line, just stating that I doubt it is allowed to. the team will do their internal investigation and if the motions to dismiss are denied, I am sure the investigation will show some wrong doing by management and the team will settle out of court while jettisoning the members of management that are implicated. I read that neither one of the victims plan on cooperating with the team's investigation and that investigation will take months,the civil process has already started in this case and I doubt the plaintiffs have any interest in waiting for the outcome of an investigation they won't even take part in. The ball's already rollin' on this and it's in the press so I'd look for a settlement if the motions to dismiss are thrown out..........a trial would be a terrible decision on the team's part |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Jul 12, 2021 8:38:42 GMT -6
This is where the Hawks could be in heaps of trouble. The problem is if they get a very “non conservative” judge. Some one who wants to make it a point to big corps to not allow this type of thing at all. So this could be real ugly if it gets to this. I don’t think it’ll be thrown out as Doe 1’s lawyer has stated many times. She went through the legalities in one of the many many articles posted. The longer it takes them to rule judgement on throwing it out, the worse it probably is. If it’s that clear and cut, the defense shows their proof and it’s irrevocable, so, it’s done. Again I know nothing about Illinois law, except the basic laws and rules of the land. I just heard what the lawyer had said and she pretty much said the law for these things!!! I really don't know how a judge's ideological leanings figure into this with all the settled case law on the books,this isn't an unsettled precedent making topic. I doubt the motions to dismiss go anywhere and if it gets to a jury,the team has huge problems......it's the juries that award the massive punitive amounts we always hear of. I believe Vincent's outspokenness,his recollection of the issue AND his professed willingness to testify would seal the deal at trial unless the team can prove some sort of ax to grind on his part but it seems their are other collaborators. Like I said, I don’t know the law there and or if a Jury will see this case. In Ontario, a jury would not see this case. If it was a criminal case and not a lawsuit, a Judge and jury would be involved. So if a jury does not see this case, a judge can make it really bad. I’d have to think millions would have to be involved for the plaintiffs to walk away!!! |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Jul 12, 2021 9:40:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Jul 12, 2021 10:30:03 GMT -6
This is where the Hawks could be in heaps of trouble. The problem is if they get a very “non conservative” judge. Some one who wants to make it a point to big corps to not allow this type of thing at all. So this could be real ugly if it gets to this. I don’t think it’ll be thrown out as Doe 1’s lawyer has stated many times. She went through the legalities in one of the many many articles posted. The longer it takes them to rule judgement on throwing it out, the worse it probably is. If it’s that clear and cut, the defense shows their proof and it’s irrevocable, so, it’s done. Again I know nothing about Illinois law, except the basic laws and rules of the land. I just heard what the lawyer had said and she pretty much said the law for these things!!! I doubt the motions to dismiss go anywhere and if it gets to a jury,the team has huge problems......it's the juries that award the massive punitive amounts we always hear of. I believe Vincent's outspokenness,his recollection of the issue AND his professed willingness to testify would seal the deal at trial unless the team can prove some sort of ax to grind on his part but it seems their are other collaborators. It kinda is. While the concept of this case: sexual misconduct at a place of employment with shades of person of power issues. That's not really that new or novel...but the fact that it happened to a male, and a sports figure at that, is somewhat of a novelty. It's possible that a SJW judge throws a book the size of War and Peace at the 'hawks if this gets to trial--I wouldn't be surprised in this case if a SJW judge takes an approach similar to that of Donald Sterling. On the other hand if the judge is hyper-conservative, they could take the stance a lot of crusty old dustfarts have taken on social media and throw it out because, "they were hockey players and they could have beat the snot out of Alrich." On both sides we unfortunately have judges who try to pass their ideology off as legislation from the bench. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Jul 12, 2021 10:40:17 GMT -6
I really don't know how a judge's ideological leanings figure into this with all the settled case law on the books,this isn't an unsettled precedent making topic. I doubt the motions to dismiss go anywhere and if it gets to a jury,the team has huge problems......it's the juries that award the massive punitive amounts we always hear of. I believe Vincent's outspokenness,his recollection of the issue AND his professed willingness to testify would seal the deal at trial unless the team can prove some sort of ax to grind on his part but it seems their are other collaborators. It kinda is. While the concept of this case: sexual misconduct at a place of employment with shades of person of power issues. That's not really that new or novel...but the fact that it happened to a male, and a sports figure at that, is somewhat of a novelty. It's possible that a SJW judge throws a book the size of War and Peace at the 'hawks if this gets to trial--I wouldn't be surprised in this case if a SJW judge takes an approach similar to that of Donald Sterling. On the other hand if the judge is hyper-conservative, they could take the stance a lot of crusty old dustfarts have taken on social media and throw it out because, "they were hockey players and they could have beat the snot out of Alrich." On both sides we unfortunately have judges who try to pass their ideology off as legislation from the bench. I don't want to come across as being familiar with something I'm not such as legalities but precedent has been set in sex assault cases so there are scores of already settled cases. This could also end up in the hands of a jury as many civil cases do and that jury will hear from a coach with damming testimony and other players who'll claim 'everybody knew' about the abuse. If they lose the motion to dismiss......I assume a settlement will follow. |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Jul 12, 2021 11:07:21 GMT -6
Thanks Bob. That clears things up. I don’t know American or State laws very well. I know how things work in Canada, and Ontario. I don’t know them perfectly, but I get the gist of it here. And here, if the same thing happened to the Leaves or Sens, a single judge would end up seeing this exact case, the judges here are overly liberal and would love to make an example out of a team!!! |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Jul 12, 2021 13:14:57 GMT -6
It kinda is. While the concept of this case: sexual misconduct at a place of employment with shades of person of power issues. That's not really that new or novel...but the fact that it happened to a male, and a sports figure at that, is somewhat of a novelty. It's possible that a SJW judge throws a book the size of War and Peace at the 'hawks if this gets to trial--I wouldn't be surprised in this case if a SJW judge takes an approach similar to that of Donald Sterling. On the other hand if the judge is hyper-conservative, they could take the stance a lot of crusty old dustfarts have taken on social media and throw it out because, "they were hockey players and they could have beat the snot out of Alrich." On both sides we unfortunately have judges who try to pass their ideology off as legislation from the bench. I don't want to come across as being familiar with something I'm not such as legalities but precedent has been set in sex assault cases so there are scores of already settled cases. This could also end up in the hands of a jury as many civil cases do and that jury will hear from a coach with damming testimony and other players who'll claim 'everybody knew' about the abuse. If they lose the motion to dismiss......I assume a settlement will follow. I fully agree with your premise: If they lose the motion to dismiss they will most likely settle if they have a single functioning synapse. While there are tons of cases which involve sex assault for case law, there aren't nearly as many that involve the victim to be a male and above the age of majority. |
|
|
|
Post by galaxytrash on Jul 13, 2021 17:29:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Jul 13, 2021 17:57:14 GMT -6
interesting..... I thought everyone knew? |
|
|
|
Post by galaxytrash on Jul 13, 2021 18:08:31 GMT -6
interesting..... I thought everyone knew? i find it strange that torchetti would know but Q wouldn't. i suppose it's not impossible but it's definitely questionable. |
|
