Interesting tidbit in the G&M (link below) on the differences in lible law between Canada and the US and how it might affect this case, if and when it gets to the courts. Since there is a Canadian plaintiff in a US jurisdiction, not sure which will rule?
Interesting tidbit in the G&M (link below) on the differences in lible law between Canada and the US and how it might affect this case, if and when it gets to the courts. Since there is a Canadian plaintiff in a US jurisdiction, not sure which will rule?
It's definitely going to get messy and confusing, based on my (little) understanding of the laws in both countries. The suit was filed in Ontario and any judgement would be registered in Ontario. However, collecting from an organization not based in Ontario and which does not conduct business in Ontario is pretty much impossible, to my understanding.
It's definitely going to get messy and confusing, based on my (little) understanding of the laws in both countries. The suit was filed in Ontario and any judgement would be registered in Ontario. However, collecting from an organization not based in Ontario and which does not conduct business in Ontario is pretty much impossible, to my understanding.
I suspect the ruling alone in the Rangers favour would be worth the $1,000,000!
The Rangers probably don't really expect to actually get the money and would be tickled pink just to win
the case and hopefully limit or stop these allegations in the future.
Definitely an interesting take on Hicks demise. I had just assumed it was because he always asked intrusive/untimely questions and was overall, a hack reporter.
At the time, the belief was that Hicks was canned for writing the article that questioned the signing of Spott to a 5 year extention after what Hicks said was the biggest choke job in Rangers history (allowing the Spits to win the 2010 playoff series after leading 3-0). That article was believed to be the last straw, and his last article as Ranger reporter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ORYX
At the same time though, if Fowler was committed to coming to Kitchener the 'whole time' why did he always state his intentions of going to Notre Dame, commit to Notre Dame and never report to rookie camp for the Rangers (In which you still retain your NCAA eligibility)? The answer is he didnt. Yes he intended, as he did, live out his committment to the USNDP, but I don't believe for a second he was going to report to Kitchener until later on in that committment.
That's what I said, I thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ORYX
Also pretty positive DeBoer would have traded many a player away from the team to secure that 2nd rounder BEFORE dropping Cam Fowler back into the draft if all it was about was a second rounder and he was a sure bet to report. To me, the logical reason is it either wasnt a sure bet he was reporting to the OHL, not even close, or there was no way he was reporting to Kitchener, whether it be by his own decision, or influenced by a Mr. Jeff Jackson.
He didn't have a big window to wheel and deal. The Tregunna deal was made on or very close to deadline day. He had after that deal was done until the end of the deadline. Then he had the period when trades are allowed before the draft.
It takes two to make a deal. If nobody wants to deal away a second rounder to the Rangers, then no deal for one can be done. Therefore, PD was forced to release Fowler's rights.
Thanks for the info. I appreciate the added insight on the situation. Not familiar with puckandgavel, I read what I could find on the site about their profile, was wondering what other background is on the writer?
I do see this coming down to a jurisdiction issue. One would imagine that will be a big factor before even hearing the case itself.
Thanks for the info. I appreciate the added insight on the situation. Not familiar with puckandgavel, I read what I could find on the site about their profile, was wondering what other background is on the writer?
I do see this coming down to a jurisdiction issue. One would imagine that will be a big factor before even hearing the case itself.
I am an attorney in NYC. My practice focuses on commercial litigation, so when I write about these issues, it's usually all new to me also. For instance, my research didn't turn up a statute called the SPEECH Act, which is a US law that greatly limits the ability of foreign judgments for libel to be enforced in the United States. I have added an analysis of that statute to the post from today.
The bottom line is that it's very, very unlikely that the Rangers will be able to recover any actual damages from The Michigan Daily or Matt Slovin.
MOD
Last edited by Fugu: 07-13-2012 at 12:26 AM.
Reason: ...
I am an attorney in NYC. My practice focuses on commercial litigation, ....
Hi
here in my area, my only cable company available so I can watch the OHL on TV doesn't cover the games when played in the States. Do you know why that is? and do you see any changes for this in the future?
I am an attorney in NYC. My practice focuses on commercial litigation, so when I write about these issues, it's usually all new to me also. For instance, my research didn't turn up a statute called the SPEECH Act, which is a US law that greatly limits the ability of foreign judgments for libel to be enforced in the United States. I have added an analysis of that statute to the post from today.
The bottom line is that it's very, very unlikely that the Rangers will be able to recover any actual damages from The Michigan Daily or Matt Slovin.
Be sure to check back in with the blog as news comes out on the lawsuit, or on any other legal hockey issues that may pique your interest.
Here's some info on the legal firm that the Rangers retained....
here in my area, my only cable company available so I can watch the OHL on TV doesn't cover the games when played in the States. Do you know why that is? and do you see any changes for this in the future?
None of the cable companies broadcast games from the US, because those teams don't broadcast their games.
When you order the game online, you get the video feed the team is required to take of every game, along with the radio commentator.
here in my area, my only cable company available so I can watch the OHL on TV doesn't cover the games when played in the States. Do you know why that is? and do you see any changes for this in the future?
If you are asking me because it is a pun on the word "commercial," it is very clever.
If you are asking me for actual legal advice, I can't help you.
If you are asking me because it is a pun on the word "commercial," it is very clever.
If you are asking me for actual legal advice, I can't help you.
I just thought maybe it was a regulation of some type that I didn't know of... I'm definitely not seeking legal advise, that would be pretty much useless anyways since we are from 2 different countries... right? So I must be very clever just kidding...
but CharlieGirl reminded me that every team do have their own telecast crew, and the junior hockey in the United States doesn't have the audience to make it work... I'm guessing.
I wouldn't mind forking out $7-8 / online game if the resolution didn't suck as much! Or is the actual game resolution better?
I know FASTHockey broadcasts tons of games from many different leagues. Wondering why something couldn't be worked out with them in those instances? Not the greatest quality, but acceptable for sure.
I am an attorney in NYC. My practice focuses on commercial litigation, so when I write about these issues, it's usually all new to me also. For instance, my research didn't turn up a statute called the SPEECH Act, which is a US law that greatly limits the ability of foreign judgments for libel to be enforced in the United States. I have added an analysis of that statute to the post from today.
The bottom line is that it's very, very unlikely that the Rangers will be able to recover any actual damages from The Michigan Daily or Matt Slovin.
Be sure to check back in with the blog as news comes out on the lawsuit, or on any other legal hockey issues that may pique your interest.
Even if the Rangers come out on top, I wouldnt think that the Rangers would receive the $1,000,000 they are sueing for. I believe they would be happy with the retraction and a release saying they were "misinformed" or something to that extent. A settlement is the best that I can see happening.
I honestly dont see this really going the way either side really wants it to.
I know FASTHockey broadcasts tons of games from many different leagues. Wondering why something couldn't be worked out with them in those instances? Not the greatest quality, but acceptable for sure.
I watched the U-17 last year on this, I had it on my 50" DLP TV going through the PS3 Web browser, it was borderline, but good because it was free. I agree with you something should be worked out.
correction, I had it from the laptop connected to TV with HDMI cable
Last edited by bidzey: 07-12-2012 at 01:29 PM.
Reason: correction
correction, I had it from the laptop connected to TV with HDMI cable
That's how we watched the playoff games from Plymouth that we couldn't get to. The quality isn't great but it's better than nothing. I wouldn't pay to watch a regular season game that way though.
Even if the Rangers come out on top, I wouldnt think that the Rangers would receive the $1,000,000 they are sueing for. I believe they would be happy with the retraction and a release saying they were "misinformed" or something to that extent. A settlement is the best that I can see happening.
I honestly dont see this really going the way either side really wants it to.
If I were TMD or Slovin, I wouldn't even make an appearance in the Canadian lawsuit. Kitchener Rangers would be awarded a judgment on default. Then, to enforce that judgment, they would have to come to the US, where TMD and Slovin have assets. There, TMD and Slovin would oppose enforcement as a violation of the SPEECH Act, and the US Court would likely agree with them.
So the Rangers don't even get a retraction. They just get a lot of wasted money. Assuming you are all from Kitchener, that just means more expenses passed along to you, the consumer.
If I were TMD or Slovin, I wouldn't even make an appearance in the Canadian lawsuit. Kitchener Rangers would be awarded a judgment on default. Then, to enforce that judgment, they would have to come to the US, where TMD and Slovin have assets. There, TMD and Slovin would oppose enforcement as a violation of the SPEECH Act, and the US Court would likely agree with them.
So the Rangers don't even get a retraction. They just get a lot of wasted money. Assuming you are all from Kitchener, that just means more expenses passed along to you, the consumer.
Thanks for this. I had a feeling this initial reaction from the Rangers is more about show than substance given the multiple jurisdictions at play.
As a community based club, how much cash do you burn to uphold a principle?
I finally caught up on what is the main subject going on here...
hububaba lot's of Trouba.... is it just me or is it ironic that the player's name is Trouba?
Thanks for this. I had a feeling this initial reaction from the Rangers is more about show than substance given the multiple jurisdictions at play.
As a community based club, how much cash do you burn to uphold a principle?
Unless they try to pursue the judgment in the United States, probably not much. I find it unlikely that TMD and Slovin would even appear in the action to defend themselves. The Rangers would obtain a default judgment fairly cheaply.
If they tried to enforce it in the US, that's when the fight would come and the bills would climb.
I imagine they will obtain their Ontario judgment, then bandy about as some sort of vindication that they didn't offer Trouba any money.
Unless they try to pursue the judgment in the United States, probably not much. I find it unlikely that TMD and Slovin would even appear in the action to defend themselves. The Rangers would obtain a default judgment fairly cheaply.
If they tried to enforce it in the US, that's when the fight would come and the bills would climb.
I imagine they will obtain their Ontario judgment, then bandy about as some sort of vindication that they didn't offer Trouba any money.
Slovan would then not be able to enter Canada at the least thou due to the judgement against him, no?
"At this point, the defendants have several options. If they choose to ignore the Rangers’ suit, the hockey team could win by default. And while monetary damages may not be enforceable in the U.S., the defendants could be denied entry into Canada or countries it has treaties with because of the outstanding judgment, Goldstein said."
Unless they try to pursue the judgment in the United States, probably not much. I find it unlikely that TMD and Slovin would even appear in the action to defend themselves. The Rangers would obtain a default judgment fairly cheaply.
True and the optics could be that TMD and Slovin didn't have confidence in their source and facts to even show up.
Which would be a win for the Rangers in Canada.
But the win for Rangers here, it would also send a very clear and loud message to the source (probably from Canada) to be very very sure about the facts before going to the press!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck and Gavel
If they tried to enforce it in the US, that's when the fight would come and the bills would climb.
and with probably both parties not wanting to waste time and money the only true winners would be the attorneys (sorry! )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck and Gavel
I imagine they will obtain their Ontario judgment, then bandy about as some sort of vindication that they didn't offer Trouba any money.
and to be honest I don't think the Rangers would want to drag the Troubas into court. Especially when their son is playing for the university. Tough position to place a kid into!
Last edited by Ward Cornell: 07-12-2012 at 08:36 PM.
"At this point, the defendants have several options. If they choose to ignore the Rangers’ suit, the hockey team could win by default. And while monetary damages may not be enforceable in the U.S., the defendants could be denied entry into Canada or countries it has treaties with because of the outstanding judgment, Goldstein said."
Tough blow for a 22 year old student.
Being denied entry into numerous countries may by enough to get them to retract it.
"At this point, the defendants have several options. If they choose to ignore the Rangers’ suit, the hockey team could win by default. And while monetary damages may not be enforceable in the U.S., the defendants could be denied entry into Canada or countries it has treaties with because of the outstanding judgment, Goldstein said."
Tough blow for a 22 year old student.
I think that guy is just wrong. I have to preface my answer by saying I know almost nothing about immigration law, but I still think the answer is pretty clear. Because no criminal liability attaches to something like this, I don't see any reason why Mr. Slovin would be prevented from entering Canada.
What it likely would prevent Mr. Slovin from doing is trying to establish himself economically in Canada. Any property or assets that he had in Canada would be subject to the judgment against him. Likewise for The Michigan Daily. Of course, this assumes that the Kitchener Rangers would discover the existence of those assets and enforce their judgment against them. If it is anything like the United States, and I am pretty sure that it is, it would require an affirmative act on behalf of the judgment creditor to obtain the assets of the judgment debtor. In other words, if Slovin buys a house in Canada, opens a bank account, or gets a job with a steady paycheck, money from these sources would not automatically be given to the Rangers unless the Rangers specifically enforce their judgment against these sources.
Back in the days of ye olde England when things like debtor's prisons existed (although technically they didn't completely go away until around the turn of the 20th century, and in the United States, about 1/3 of the states use a technicality to still enforce something similar to a debtor's prison), this may have been a concern for Slovin if he wished to travel to Canada. But as for now, I don't believe that any future civil liability to Kitchener Rangers in Ontario will prevent him from travelling to Canada. If it was a criminal judgment, I would say that he is right. But for a civil judgment? I would be interested in seeing the law that states he wouldn't be allowed in the country.
Picture Roman Polanski. He can't come to the US because he is subject to a criminal penalty. But if he just owed some guy money, he could come and go as he pleased. I seriously doubt Canada has a special rule for civil judgments. Again, I could totally be wrong, but I just find that incredibly hard to believe.
just kidding...
)
