http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7680283/nfl-league-sends-signal-penalties-dallas-cowboys-washington-redskins
I agree with the decision by the Management council here.... Haynesworth really is the gift that keeps giving to the Redskins
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Friday, March 2, 2012
Friday, February 17, 2012
College Football ProDays This Spring 2012
From NFL.com
Pro days by date:
March 1: Missouri
March 2: Cincinnati
March 5: Alabama-Birmingham, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, McNeese State
March 6: Alabama A&M, Arkansas, Auburn, California Lutheran, Clark, Eastern Kentucky, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Liberty, Rhode Island, Sacramento State, Tarleton State, UCLA, Valdosta State
March 7: Alabama, California, California-Davis, Colgate, Eastern Washington, Fordham, Fort Valley, Kent State, Kentucky, Louisville, Northern Colorado, Oklahoma State, Southern California, Texas A&M, UTEP, Wisconsin, Weber State
March 8: Alabama State, Buffalo, Clemson, Colorado, Miami (Fla.), Mississippi State, Nebraska, North Alabama, Northwestern, Ohio, Syracuse, Texas Tech, Tulsa, Utah State, Washington, West Texas, Western Kentucky, Wofford, Wyoming, Youngstown State
March 9: Florida International, Furman, Mississippi, Montana, Northern Illinois, Ohio State, Oklahoma State, Presbyterian, Purdue, TCU, Troy, Washington State
March 12: Air Force, Arkansas-Monticello, Central Michigan, Central Washington, Pittsburgh, Tulsa
March 13: Ball State, California (Pa.), Florida, Kansas State, Louisiana-Lafayette, Marshall, Maryland, North Texas, Slippery Rock, Toledo, Western Michigan
March 14: Bowling Green, California, Central Arkansas, Central Oklahoma, Eastern Michigan, Florida State, Grambling, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisiana-Monroe, Maryland, Michigan State, Mount Union, Oklahoma, Old Dominion, Penn State, Portland State, Tennessee Tech
March 15: Delaware State, Louisiana Tech, Michigan, UNLV, Nicholls State, Oregon, Southern Illinois, Townson, Tusculum, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wayne State (Mich.), William & Mary
March 16: Arizona State, James Madison, Missouri State, Oregon State, Richmond, Temple, Tennessee, West Virginia
March 19: Appalachian State, Arizona, Florida Atlantic, Iowa, LSU, Montana State, Rice, Southern, Wake Forest
March 20: Brown, Fresno State, Idaho, Iowa State, Louisiana-Lafayette, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Carolina A&T, South Florida, Texas, Tulane
March 21: Boston College, Houston, Nevada, North Carolina State, North Dakota State, Rutgers, San Diego State, San Jose State, Tulane, Western Kentucky
March 22: Baylor, Boise State, East Carolina, Maine, Memphis, Middle Tennessee State, South Dakota, South Dakota State, Stanford, Tennessee-Chattanooga
March 23: Cornell, Jackson State, Missouri Western, N.C. Central, Southern Mississippi, Stonybrook, Vanderbilt
March 24: Arizona State
March 26: Indiana State
March 27: Arkansas State, Coastal Carolina, Stephen F. Austin, Washburn
March 28: Central Florida, Connecticut, Newberry, Northern Iowa, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Carolina State
March 29: Brigham Young, Georgia Southern
March 30: Bethune-Cookman, Dartmouth
April 3: Abilene Christian, Notre Dame
April 4: SMU
April 6: McNeese State
Pro days by date:
March 1: Missouri
March 2: Cincinnati
March 5: Alabama-Birmingham, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, McNeese State
March 6: Alabama A&M, Arkansas, Auburn, California Lutheran, Clark, Eastern Kentucky, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Liberty, Rhode Island, Sacramento State, Tarleton State, UCLA, Valdosta State
March 7: Alabama, California, California-Davis, Colgate, Eastern Washington, Fordham, Fort Valley, Kent State, Kentucky, Louisville, Northern Colorado, Oklahoma State, Southern California, Texas A&M, UTEP, Wisconsin, Weber State
March 8: Alabama State, Buffalo, Clemson, Colorado, Miami (Fla.), Mississippi State, Nebraska, North Alabama, Northwestern, Ohio, Syracuse, Texas Tech, Tulsa, Utah State, Washington, West Texas, Western Kentucky, Wofford, Wyoming, Youngstown State
March 9: Florida International, Furman, Mississippi, Montana, Northern Illinois, Ohio State, Oklahoma State, Presbyterian, Purdue, TCU, Troy, Washington State
March 12: Air Force, Arkansas-Monticello, Central Michigan, Central Washington, Pittsburgh, Tulsa
March 13: Ball State, California (Pa.), Florida, Kansas State, Louisiana-Lafayette, Marshall, Maryland, North Texas, Slippery Rock, Toledo, Western Michigan
March 14: Bowling Green, California, Central Arkansas, Central Oklahoma, Eastern Michigan, Florida State, Grambling, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisiana-Monroe, Maryland, Michigan State, Mount Union, Oklahoma, Old Dominion, Penn State, Portland State, Tennessee Tech
March 15: Delaware State, Louisiana Tech, Michigan, UNLV, Nicholls State, Oregon, Southern Illinois, Townson, Tusculum, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wayne State (Mich.), William & Mary
March 16: Arizona State, James Madison, Missouri State, Oregon State, Richmond, Temple, Tennessee, West Virginia
March 19: Appalachian State, Arizona, Florida Atlantic, Iowa, LSU, Montana State, Rice, Southern, Wake Forest
March 20: Brown, Fresno State, Idaho, Iowa State, Louisiana-Lafayette, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Carolina A&T, South Florida, Texas, Tulane
March 21: Boston College, Houston, Nevada, North Carolina State, North Dakota State, Rutgers, San Diego State, San Jose State, Tulane, Western Kentucky
March 22: Baylor, Boise State, East Carolina, Maine, Memphis, Middle Tennessee State, South Dakota, South Dakota State, Stanford, Tennessee-Chattanooga
March 23: Cornell, Jackson State, Missouri Western, N.C. Central, Southern Mississippi, Stonybrook, Vanderbilt
March 24: Arizona State
March 26: Indiana State
March 27: Arkansas State, Coastal Carolina, Stephen F. Austin, Washburn
March 28: Central Florida, Connecticut, Newberry, Northern Iowa, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Carolina State
March 29: Brigham Young, Georgia Southern
March 30: Bethune-Cookman, Dartmouth
April 3: Abilene Christian, Notre Dame
April 4: SMU
April 6: McNeese State
Jeremy Lin's Agent
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46374209
Good read on LINSANITY's Agent, who stuck with him through the ups and downs....
Good read on LINSANITY's Agent, who stuck with him through the ups and downs....
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Ready, Willing, Able
Pesa v. Yoma Development Group, Inc.
2/9/2012
Court of Appeals
REAL PROPERTY LAW. CONTRACTS. REPUDIATION BY SELLER. DAMAGES. BUYER’S BURDEN OF PROOF. “READY, WILLING AND ABLE” TO CLOSE STANDARD. APPLICABILITY. RECONCILIATION OF CONFLICT BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS. Plaintiffs (buyers) brought an action for specific performance and to recover down payments on three mortgage contingency contracts after the seller: (1) failed to build houses on the properties and provide certificates of occupancy, as required by the contracts; and (2) allegedly repudiated the contracts by assigning them to an affiliated company (defendant). After plaintiffs’ cause of action for specific performance was dismissed, both parties moved summary judgment. The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion, but granted partial summary judgment on liability in favor of the plaintiffs, without regard to whether they were “ready, willing and able” to close title, on the ground that the seller had anticipatorily breached the contracts by transferring title to its affiliate (defendant). The Second Department affirmed, holding that “a purchaser seeking damages for the seller’s anticipatory breach of a contract for the sale of real property is not required to establish, as an element of the claim, that it was ready, willing and able to close, though such a showing would be required if the buyers were seeking specific performance.” The Court of Appeals modifies by denying the plaintiffs’ motion as well. The issue of whether a buyer must prove having been “ready, willing and able” where the claim is for legal damages, in contrast to specific performance, has divided the departments; the Second Department has held, as here, that such proof is not required, while the Third and Fourth Departments have held that it is. The Court of Appeals reconciles the conflict by holding that the rule followed by the Third and Fourth Departments is the correct one. Although the plaintiffs in this instance submitted evidence of their financial condition, it was insufficient to eliminate as an issue of fact whether they were “ready, willing and able” to close. Further, a transfer between affiliated companies, as here, does not, in and of itself, constitute a repudiation, thus leaving as a question of fact whether the defendant’s termination of the contracts of sale constituted an anticipatory breach or repudiation. Pesa v. Yoma Development Group, Inc. Decided 2/9/12.
2/9/2012
Court of Appeals
REAL PROPERTY LAW. CONTRACTS. REPUDIATION BY SELLER. DAMAGES. BUYER’S BURDEN OF PROOF. “READY, WILLING AND ABLE” TO CLOSE STANDARD. APPLICABILITY. RECONCILIATION OF CONFLICT BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS. Plaintiffs (buyers) brought an action for specific performance and to recover down payments on three mortgage contingency contracts after the seller: (1) failed to build houses on the properties and provide certificates of occupancy, as required by the contracts; and (2) allegedly repudiated the contracts by assigning them to an affiliated company (defendant). After plaintiffs’ cause of action for specific performance was dismissed, both parties moved summary judgment. The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion, but granted partial summary judgment on liability in favor of the plaintiffs, without regard to whether they were “ready, willing and able” to close title, on the ground that the seller had anticipatorily breached the contracts by transferring title to its affiliate (defendant). The Second Department affirmed, holding that “a purchaser seeking damages for the seller’s anticipatory breach of a contract for the sale of real property is not required to establish, as an element of the claim, that it was ready, willing and able to close, though such a showing would be required if the buyers were seeking specific performance.” The Court of Appeals modifies by denying the plaintiffs’ motion as well. The issue of whether a buyer must prove having been “ready, willing and able” where the claim is for legal damages, in contrast to specific performance, has divided the departments; the Second Department has held, as here, that such proof is not required, while the Third and Fourth Departments have held that it is. The Court of Appeals reconciles the conflict by holding that the rule followed by the Third and Fourth Departments is the correct one. Although the plaintiffs in this instance submitted evidence of their financial condition, it was insufficient to eliminate as an issue of fact whether they were “ready, willing and able” to close. Further, a transfer between affiliated companies, as here, does not, in and of itself, constitute a repudiation, thus leaving as a question of fact whether the defendant’s termination of the contracts of sale constituted an anticipatory breach or repudiation. Pesa v. Yoma Development Group, Inc. Decided 2/9/12.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Some Interesting Recent Decisions
Supreme Court Rules Attaching GPS Device to Car Is a Search; Case Is “Big Loss” for U.S. (ABA Journal, 23 Jan 2012) - The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled for a drug defendant who argued that police should have obtained a warrant before attaching a GPS device to his car to monitor his movements. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion for a court that was unanimous in its finding that the police conduct was a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. SCOTUSblog initially called the decision “a big loss for the federal government.” The case, United States v. Jones, is an appeal by Antoine Jones, who was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine after police installed a GPS device on his Jeep Grand Cherokee. Scalia’s opinion was joined in full by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor. “It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case,” Scalia said. “The government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.” Scalia said Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was tied to the common law tort of trespass, at least until the latter half of the 20th century. The justices disagreed over analysis and whose interpretation offered a broader or more flexible interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion embracing both Scalia’s analysis and a privacy-expectation test espoused by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and three justices in the court’s liberal wing. Sotomayor wrote that a search occurs “at a minimum” when the government physically intrudes on a constitutionally protected area. Even in the absence of a trespass, she said, the Fourth Amendment is implicated when there is a violation of a suspect’s reasonable expectation of privacy. The American Civil Liberties Union applauded the decision in a press release. It includes this quote from ACLU legal director Steven Shapiro: “Today’s decision is an important victory for privacy. While this case turned on the fact that the government physically placed a GPS device on the defendant’s car, the implications are much broader. A majority of the court acknowledged that advancing technology, like cell phone tracking, gives the government unprecedented ability to collect, store and analyze an enormous amount of information about our private lives. Today’s decision suggests that the court is prepared to address that problem. Congress needs to address the problem as well.” Alito endorsed the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test in an opinion concurring in the judgment. He took issue with Scalia’s analysis, accusing him of relying on the tort law of trespass as it existed in the 18th century. Alito’s opinion was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan. “If longterm monitoring can be accomplished without committing a technical trespass—suppose, for example, that the federal government required or persuaded auto manufacturers to include a GPS tracking device in every car—the court’s theory would provide no protection,” Alito wrote. Scalia responded to Alito and criticized his reliance on Katz v. United States, which found a Fourth Amendment violation when police attached a listening device to the outside of a phone booth. “The concurrence begins by accusing us of applying “18th-century tort law,” “ Scalia wrote. “That is a distortion. What we apply is an 18th-century guarantee against unreasonable searches, which we believe must provide at a minimum the degree of protection it afforded when it was adopted. The concurrence does not share that belief. It would apply exclusively Katz’s reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test, even when that eliminates rights that previously existed.” [Thorough analysis by Prof Dan Solove here.]
Federal Judges Wary of Facebook, Twitter, Google+ Impact on Juries (Network World, 25 Jan 2012) - The impact of social media such as Twitter, Facebook and Google+ and others on federal juries is a concern that judges are frequently taking steps to curb. According to a study 94% of the 508 federal judges who responded said they have specifically barred jurors from any case-connected use of social media. The Federal Judicial Center was asked by a committee of the policy-making Judicial Conference of the United States to survey all 952 federal judges, of whom 53% responded on the issue. “The most common strategy is incorporating social media use into jury instructions - either the model jury instruction provided by (the Conference’s Committee on Court Administration and Case Management) or judges” own personal jury instructions,” the report said. “Also common are the practice of reminding jurors on a regular basis not to use social media to communicate during trial or deliberations, explaining the reasons behind the ban on social media, and confiscating electronic devices in the courtroom.” Some of the findings from the study included
Federal Judges Wary of Facebook, Twitter, Google+ Impact on Juries (Network World, 25 Jan 2012) - The impact of social media such as Twitter, Facebook and Google+ and others on federal juries is a concern that judges are frequently taking steps to curb. According to a study 94% of the 508 federal judges who responded said they have specifically barred jurors from any case-connected use of social media. The Federal Judicial Center was asked by a committee of the policy-making Judicial Conference of the United States to survey all 952 federal judges, of whom 53% responded on the issue. “The most common strategy is incorporating social media use into jury instructions - either the model jury instruction provided by (the Conference’s Committee on Court Administration and Case Management) or judges” own personal jury instructions,” the report said. “Also common are the practice of reminding jurors on a regular basis not to use social media to communicate during trial or deliberations, explaining the reasons behind the ban on social media, and confiscating electronic devices in the courtroom.” Some of the findings from the study included
Sunday, February 12, 2012
16 Things I Wish They Taught Me In School
http://www.positivityblog.com/index.php/2008/04/02/16-things-i-wish-they-had-taught-me-in-school/
Good article above with some really great suggestions..
Good article above with some really great suggestions..
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Glad I Didn't Turn Off the Game
13-2 run in the final two minutes..... I still think Austin Rivers will stay more than one year.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Social Media Impact on Recruiting
Great article on how social media is taking over recruiting...
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/7510010/social-media-makes-mark-recruiting
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/7510010/social-media-makes-mark-recruiting
Thursday, January 26, 2012
NY ALJ Says EE's Unlawfully Discharged for Facebook
In the first ruling of its kind, a National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge has found [4]that a Buffalo nonprofit organization unlawfully discharged five employees after they posted comments on Facebook concerning working conditions, including work load and staffing issues.
The NLRB has received an increasing number of charges related to social media in the past year, as that means of communication grows in popularity. The Office of General Counsel issued a report last month outlining some of the cases. [5] This is the first case involving Facebook to have resulted in an ALJ decision following a hearing.
The case involves an employee of Hispanics United of Buffalo, which provides social services to low-income clients. After hearing a coworker criticize other employees for not doing enough to help the organization’s clients, the employee posted those allegations to her Facebook page. The initial post generated responses from other employees who defended their job performance and criticized working conditions, including work load and staffing issues. Hispanics United later discharged the five employees who participated, claiming that their comments constituted harassment of the employee originally mentioned in the post.
The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Arthur Amchan on July 13-15, 2011, based on a complaint that issued May 9 by Rhonda Ley, NLRB Regional Director in Buffalo, New York.
Judge Amchan issued his decision on September 2, finding that the employees’ Facebook discussion was protected concerted activity within the meaning of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, because it involved a conversation among coworkers about their terms and conditions of employment, including their job performance and staffing levels. The judge also found that the employees did not engage in any conduct that forfeited their protection under the Act.
Judge Amchan orderedthat Hispanics United reinstate the five employees and awarded the employees backpay because they were unlawfully discharged. The judge’s decision also requires that Hispanics United post a notice at its Buffalo facility concerning employee rights under the Act and the violations found. Hispanics United has the right to appeal the decision to the Board in Washington.
To help provide further guidance to practitioners and human resource professionals, NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon has released a second report describing social media cases reviewed by his office.
The report underscores two main points made in an earlier compilation of cases:
Employer policies should not be so sweeping that they prohibit the kinds of activity protected by federal labor law, such as the discussion of wages or working conditions among employees.
An employee’s comments on social media are generally not protected if they are mere gripes not made in relation to group activity among employees.
The NLRB has received an increasing number of charges related to social media in the past year, as that means of communication grows in popularity. The Office of General Counsel issued a report last month outlining some of the cases. [5] This is the first case involving Facebook to have resulted in an ALJ decision following a hearing.
The case involves an employee of Hispanics United of Buffalo, which provides social services to low-income clients. After hearing a coworker criticize other employees for not doing enough to help the organization’s clients, the employee posted those allegations to her Facebook page. The initial post generated responses from other employees who defended their job performance and criticized working conditions, including work load and staffing issues. Hispanics United later discharged the five employees who participated, claiming that their comments constituted harassment of the employee originally mentioned in the post.
The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Arthur Amchan on July 13-15, 2011, based on a complaint that issued May 9 by Rhonda Ley, NLRB Regional Director in Buffalo, New York.
Judge Amchan issued his decision on September 2, finding that the employees’ Facebook discussion was protected concerted activity within the meaning of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, because it involved a conversation among coworkers about their terms and conditions of employment, including their job performance and staffing levels. The judge also found that the employees did not engage in any conduct that forfeited their protection under the Act.
Judge Amchan orderedthat Hispanics United reinstate the five employees and awarded the employees backpay because they were unlawfully discharged. The judge’s decision also requires that Hispanics United post a notice at its Buffalo facility concerning employee rights under the Act and the violations found. Hispanics United has the right to appeal the decision to the Board in Washington.
To help provide further guidance to practitioners and human resource professionals, NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon has released a second report describing social media cases reviewed by his office.
The report underscores two main points made in an earlier compilation of cases:
Employer policies should not be so sweeping that they prohibit the kinds of activity protected by federal labor law, such as the discussion of wages or working conditions among employees.
An employee’s comments on social media are generally not protected if they are mere gripes not made in relation to group activity among employees.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Court Opens the Door for Online Gambling?
Ruling by Justice Dept. Opens a Door on Online Gambling (NYT, 24 Dec 2011) - The Justice Department has reversed its long-held opposition to many forms of Internet gambling, removing a big legal obstacle for states that want to sanction online gambling to help fix their budget deficits. The legal opinion, issued by the department’s office of legal counsel in September but made public on Friday, came in response to requests by New York and Illinois to clarify whether the Wire Act of 1961, which prohibits wagering over telecommunications systems that cross state or national borders, prevented those states from using the Internet to sell lottery tickets to adults within their own borders. Although the opinion dealt specifically with lottery tickets, it opened the door for states to allow Internet poker and other forms of online betting that do not involve sports. Many states are interested in online gambling as a way to raise tax revenue.
Leigh Steinberg Gets His Say
A little late, but better than never... Below is a good read that everyone on social media sites were talking about a couple of weeks ago about Leigh Steinberg filing for personal bankruptcy. The article sets the record straight and discusses his storied career. Check it out!!!
http://www.thepostgame.com/commentary/201201/leigh-steinberg-agent-alcoholism-bankruptcy
http://www.thepostgame.com/commentary/201201/leigh-steinberg-agent-alcoholism-bankruptcy
Monday, January 23, 2012
What It Means To Speak Like A Lawyer
Jim McElhaney article... if you don't know who he is from reading the ABA magazines then check out this article.
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/more_than_just_words_this_is_what_it_really_means_to_talk_like_a_lawyer/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/more_than_just_words_this_is_what_it_really_means_to_talk_like_a_lawyer/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email
RIP JoePa 1926-2012
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=7487797 <--Great video by ESPN on the life and times of Joe Paterno.
Great man, and a great coach.
Joe Paterno Archive
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=7489534
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=7489603
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=7489343
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=7487797
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=7489826
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=7489847
Great man, and a great coach.
Joe Paterno Archive
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=7489534
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=7489603
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=7489343
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=7487797
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=7489826
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=7489847
Monday, January 16, 2012
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
