Fisix

Members
  • Content count

    1,477
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

405 Excellent

1 Follower

About Fisix

  • Rank
    True Ducks Fan

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

941 profile views
  1. Agreed. This is probably aimed at Crosby for that season ending slash he hit that one guy with, that left his hand all bloody... If only Toronto would levy rational review-based suspensions, it wouldn't be a problem. Referees have enough to do without loading them up with graduated response stuff during game.
  2. Very surprising.
  3. Time to start riding a motorcycle...
  4. Oof. Isn't that a little premature?
  5. Just drove past the new arena this past weekend. Looks pretty nice, from the outside. All curvey.
  6. Peonage - I think the general idea is that there is no actual bargained-for agreement in real-life situations, or, to put a finer point on it, that the ratio of actual bargained-for agreements to pretext agreements that were really forced signatures on contracts that exchanged minor debts for much larger services obligations, approached zero (at least in the US). That's why it was included in the 13th AM, was so that slavery costumed within another common name (indentured servitude, or peonage) wasn't going to pass muster. But, we can agree to disagree. They ARE different words, after all. There's just no difference in how the law treats them. Can you enter into such contracts, such as a contract to "work off a debt?" Yes, but a court can't force you to complete the contract, it can only assign debt and/or identify and punish fraud. Hockey player contracts: The sole point I was hoping to convey was that a court can't compel a player to play for a team, and that the reason why a court can't do so is because to do so would be acting in contravention of the 13th AM. I'm expressly saying that not only are the hockey players NOT slaves, they CANNOT be slaves, regardless of the contract terms, at least in the US. Someone above said something like the court could force a player under contract to not agree to join an Olympic team. That's not the case. A court can force a player to decide between getting paid under the contract and agreeing to join an Olympic team (and possibly paying liquidated damages identified in the contract, or losing the contract entirely), but the court can't force the player to play... otherwise the court would be breaching the 13th AM. And, here's the thing. For most of us, deciding between getting paid $8M in a year and not is pretty much a non-decision. We wouldn't even begin to think of jeopardizing such a contract, regardless of what we'd have to give up. But, for at least some of these players, they already have so much money, and so many NHL awards, that they clearly could be willing to risk the contract to go to the Olympics. That's what makes this conversation interesting... there's a non-zero chance they CAN and WILL decide to give the finger to the league and join an Oly team. My understanding of the player contracts and employment law is that the best a court could do is end the player's contract (without a breach by the league or the team) and levy fines up to the value of the played portion of this seasons's salary. All prior year's payments would be untouchable. And, the team and the league would have to do their best to mitigate forward-looking damages (if they tried to argue such) by replacing the player (which might include attempting to negotiate a new contract with the player).
  7. There's a great twitter conversation going on with the guys who have commentated on MotoGP for a decade or more - they think all their numbers as riders. So, if their ATM pin is 4627, in their head they think Valentino (46) Stoner (27). For us, 4727 would be Hampus Niedermayer.
  8. The hockey part was at the end. Did you click on the google books link?
  9. I see your point. But, I think it's a dangerous distinction. See, for example: http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/peonage/ http://wikidiff.com/slavery/peonage https://books.google.com/books?id=iSTMCNVXNB8C&pg=PA226&lpg=PA226&dq=difference+between+slave+and+peonage&source=bl&ots=D4LIOGLC2d&sig=AjpRZMPV3TV1JwwVrlSYXhLFtWA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP7KPuu7TVAhWLqVQKHVPjBAoQ6AEISDAG#v=onepage&q=difference between slave and peonage&f=false (read the middle to the end of that inset paragraph, hopefully the link works) So, while there may be some connotative difference between the terms, even by simple dictionary definition they overlap quite a bit, and for legal definition purposes, particularly as it pertains to the 13th amendment, I'd argue that they're synonymous. As a lawyer, it's difficult to see two different words and even two slightly different concepts and not want to accentuate the differences; it's what lawyers do, we distinguish. But, as legal terms, they're at least effectively synonymous - the legal restrictions and obligations are exactly the same. Personally, I would lean heavily towards the argument that they are plainly synonymous... there's no legal distinction between how the legal system deals with them. What puts it over the edge for me is the historical context, particularly in the US, where indentured servitude and/or peonage were used as... pretext? to continue all the same practices that were performed when slavery wasn't barred. Do any of these terms seem like the right words to use when discussing whether or not a $60M player should perform his duties under his $60M contract? Not really. I get that. But, it's the correct descriptive AND legal term to use when someone thinks a court can force someone to perform under a services contract. We don't allow that because, even at $60M, you can't use the government to compel someone that way. I know you know this, but I just wanted to bring that point home again - I was trying to use the term clinically, not as hyperbole. Won't it be interesting if Ovi is the only one who goes? I could see both Getz and Perry deciding to sit it out if the team is rolling, but not so sure about the Swedes. If any of the owners are permissive... I can't see too many of the other owners bucking the trend, and least likely our owners.
  10. I think they'll always default to LA over Disneyland.
  11. This is the one thing that might save the NHL... but the problem is that no other league is doing the same, the and NHL is going to hit the Canadian and US teams pretty badly. I don't know, but my guess is that Sweden will be hit pretty hard too. Does anyone know what the effect will be on the Russians? This could be a walk in the park for them. As above, I don't see any team firing anyone, unless it's a bad contract they've been wanting to get rid of for a long time, and they can arguably fire for cause (dereliction?). I don't think players like that will be asked to play for their Olympic team....
  12. It's not an analogy, it's a legal definition. Narrowing the definition of slavery to only mean what you've seen in Amistad would be a very, very bad thing. CBA - it is a tenant of contract law that if there is a history of not enforcing a particular provision in a contract, that history can be argued to obviate what would otherwise be a breach of the contract as to that provision, or it can be argued to reduce damages awarded for the breach. Also, the teams don't have to terminate the contracts. I don't know the specific terms, but I think the teams can levy fines against the player's salary, as a disciplinary measure (which brings up an interesting thought about McDavid's contract terms and how his salary and signing bonus were split - I don't think the signing bonus can be reduced in such a manner).
  13. This is where I think many would disagree. A child's birth is not necessarily an emergency - it's a life event that traditionally we have all agreed is important enough to protect through statutory law. Some say it is a moral thing, others point to scientific research that shows familial bonds are important to child development and how they become productive members of society. Regardless, it's by tacit agreement that we all agreed it was important enough to protect, not because of any emergency associated with the event, but just because we all agreed we thought it was important. The parallel I see here is that just like a child's birth, an invite to play in the Olympics, let alone to be successful at the Olympics, is generally seen as an important AND LIMITED life event. You only have a chance to see your kids born a few times in your life, and the same is true for participating the Olympics. There may not be a particular law that protects your right to choose to participate in the Olympics (though, I wonder if there's a jury-duty-like law that does), but there's a fairly large population segment that would agree it's pretty damn important, particularly to people who have dedicated their lives to athletic competitions. Maybe we can at least agree that participating in the Olympics is of greater importance than most other life events, personally, if not career wise. Also, maybe we can agree that the tradition of the NHL and other sports leagues is to allow players to participate if they're invited. The tradition aspect is a minor but possibly sufficient legal foothold to bar the league from enforcing a previously unenforced clause to keep NHL players out of the Olympics, without the CBA being amended AND each individual player being asked to sign and ratify the amendment as to themselves. It's weak, but it's not zero.
  14. Those two things are not the same thing. You cannot use a contract to force someone to provide services to you. That would be slavery. You can sue on the contract for damages, but the damages cannot include the court compelling a person to, for example, play for your hockey team. You CAN sue to force someone to sell you something they contracted to sell you, but that's a purchase contract, not a services contract. The player contracts are services contracts. Not sure how much clearer I can make this. The 13th Amendment is not a figment of my imagination.
  15. I should have remembered that. Dammit.