Stealing $92M isn't violation of NFL Personal Conduct Policy

[Legacy User]

But smoking a joint or being accused (withou ever be charged) of a crime is, apparently.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ct-policy/

Pilot Flying J, the company run by Browns owner Jimmy Haslam, has agreed to pay a $92 million penalty as part of a federal investigation of fraud against the company’s customers. But Haslam himself won’t be penalized by the NFL.

The league says it sees no indication in the investigation into Haslam’s company that Haslam personally did anything that constitutes a violation of the NFL’s personal-conduct policy.

“There have been no allegations of any personal conduct that is in violation of NFL policy,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told PFT.

Although player arrests get most of the attention where the personal-conduct policy is concerned, everyone who works in the NFL is subject to the policy, including coaches, team executives, league officials and owners. Colts owner Jim Irsay is expected to face league discipline in connection with his March arrest for impaired driving. But in the case of Haslam, he’s apparently in the clear, as far as the league office is concerned.

[Kodiak]

Isn't watching the Browns already penalty enough?

[Legacy User]

Unless someone got hurt or killed you knew that it would eventually just fade to the rear and become a slap on the wrist and lets move on. 92 million? Pilot has revenues are over 30 billion and the company doesnt have to admit wrongdoing and no one goes to jail? They stole billions of dollars from people who didnt know any better and have to they pay back less than 1 % and we are all good? What the heck is wrong with people?

[jebrick]

Or because it is a corporation and not an individual ( no matter what SCOUS says). Unless Haslam is going to all the Flying Js and ripping the customers off personally. Much different than Irsay or Gordan.

[Legacy User]

Or because it is a corporation and not an individual ( no matter what SCOUS says). Unless Haslam is going to all the Flying Js and ripping the customers off personally. Much different than Irsay or Gordan.

The reasoning, at least the philosophical, for the corporate personis, is derived (twisted is more accurate) from Hobbes' Leviathan (1651) and De Cive (1642). He may have been influenced in this by Hugo Grotius. Does it go back further? Some on here might know. But Hobbes was trying to justify political rulership where an agent or body of agents stands in for the will of others (artificial person). He didn't give a shit about companies, he only cared about justifying a king that could rule with absolute authority. It would be fascinating to see how this notion evolved into extension to corporations.

[Legacy User]

Let's be real. Even if Haslem had personally stolen the cash the outcome would be no different.

As is plainly clear, the boss gets held to a much lower standard than the employees.

[R_S]

Or because it is a corporation and not an individual ( no matter what SCOUS says). Unless Haslam is going to all the Flying Js and ripping the customers off personally. Much different than Irsay or Gordan.

The reasoning, at least the philosophical, for the corporate personis, is derived (twisted is more accurate) from Hobbes' Leviathan (1651) and De Cive (1642). He may have been influenced in this by Hugo Grotius. Does it go back further? Some on here might know. But Hobbes was trying to justify political rulership where an agent or body of agents stands in for the will of others (artificial person). He didn't give a shit about companies, he only cared about justifying a king that could rule with absolute authority. It would be fascinating to see how this notion evolved into extension to corporations.

You bastard, you.

[Steelafan77]

Just a footnote in American History. For example... how much money has our own government "helped themselves to" over time? This is nothing and is regarded as a bad business decision and/or error in judgement. (If you are offended by my statement then please forgive my cynical perspective)

Haslem is taking the heat himself. Why? Haslem has a NFL Franchise Owner Title. Has it effected Flying J as a business? I think not. Flying J still does billions of business. In fact it may have increased their business... you know the old saying right? Any national exposure good or bad is still exposure. *sheepeople*

[Legacy User]

But smoking a joint or being accused (withou ever be charged) of a crime is, apparently.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ct-policy/

Pilot Flying J, the company run by Browns owner Jimmy Haslam, has agreed to pay a $92 million penalty as part of a federal investigation of fraud against the company’s customers. But Haslam himself won’t be penalized by the NFL.

The league says it sees no indication in the investigation into Haslam’s company that Haslam personally did anything that constitutes a violation of the NFL’s personal-conduct policy.

“There have been no allegations of any personal conduct that is in violation of NFL policy,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told PFT.

Although player arrests get most of the attention where the personal-conduct policy is concerned, everyone who works in the NFL is subject to the policy, including coaches, team executives, league officials and owners. Colts owner Jim Irsay is expected to face league discipline in connection with his March arrest for impaired driving. But in the case of Haslam, he’s apparently in the clear, as far as the league office is concerned.

The Owners

aaand Vince never took steroids

rules are for those that don't own

[StillMadAtSlobber]

Or because it is a corporation and not an individual ( no matter what SCOUS says). Unless Haslam is going to all the Flying Js and ripping the customers off personally. Much different than Irsay or Gordan.

The reasoning, at least the philosophical, for the corporate personis, is derived (twisted is more accurate) from Hobbes' Leviathan (1651) and De Cive (1642). He may have been influenced in this by Hugo Grotius. Does it go back further? Some on here might know. But Hobbes was trying to justify political rulership where an agent or body of agents stands in for the will of others (artificial person). He didn't give a shit about companies, he only cared about justifying a king that could rule with absolute authority. It would be fascinating to see how this notion evolved into extension to corporations.

[Nick79]

But smoking a joint or being accused (withou ever be charged) of a crime is, apparently.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ct-policy/

Pilot Flying J, the company run by Browns owner Jimmy Haslam, has agreed to pay a $92 million penalty as part of a federal investigation of fraud against the company’s customers. But Haslam himself won’t be penalized by the NFL.

The league says it sees no indication in the investigation into Haslam’s company that Haslam personally did anything that constitutes a violation of the NFL’s personal-conduct policy.

“There have been no allegations of any personal conduct that is in violation of NFL policy,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told PFT.

Although player arrests get most of the attention where the personal-conduct policy is concerned, everyone who works in the NFL is subject to the policy, including coaches, team executives, league officials and owners. Colts owner Jim Irsay is expected to face league discipline in connection with his March arrest for impaired driving. But in the case of Haslam, he’s apparently in the clear, as far as the league office is concerned.

They'd probably make him sell the team if he told his mistress not to associate with African-Americans

[Legacy User]

The reasoning, at least the philosophical, for the corporate personis, is derived (twisted is more accurate) from Hobbes' Leviathan (1651) and De Cive (1642). He may have been influenced in this by Hugo Grotius. Does it go back further? Some on here might know. But Hobbes was trying to justify political rulership where an agent or body of agents stands in for the will of others (artificial person). He didn't give a shit about companies, he only cared about justifying a king that could rule with absolute authority. It would be fascinating to see how this notion evolved into extension to corporations.

It's been a long time since I read Leviathan but my memory is it's significance was it theorized utilitarianism to be against human nature. He theorized that governments role was to prevent the greatest evil...in his opinion a quick and violent death in the state of nature, one of all against all...rather then promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people. His theory was mankind left the state of nature by surrendering nearly all of his individual rights to a Sovereign. I can see how one could figure the transfer of these individual rights to a sovereign could be seen as similar to stating a corporation has the same rights as an individual citizen...but I don't think this court really concerned itself with any sort of precedent or source for the Citizens United finding.

There were actually 5 opinions given on this case...so there really isn't one voice on the finding. If memory serves Kennedy wrote the primary finding and it determined that founders had always intended that corporations had first amendment rights and previous case law regarding corporate and union election spending had a chilling effect on free speech. There was tortured reasoning on anticorruption and shareholder concerns. His most ridiculous points that stand out in my memory are that influence over and access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt and the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in the democracy. And if shareholders of a media corporation disagreed with its political views the government would have the authority to restrict the media corporation's political speech.

I don't think these bastards used Hobbes or anyone else as a source. Just as the corporations directed populist anger over thirty years of flat middle class wages towards the debt and race...this finding allows the corporations to simply overwhelm any candidate that comes forth with a populist economic message. Just in case the chamber of commerce "lefties" don't root them out in the early primaries or a populist "righty" like a Buchanan gains sway.

[Legacy User]

I was merely pointing out the philosophical origin of the legal grounding. I never said the justices were thinking of Hobbes. But I think we can thank Hobbes for providing justification for supplying contractual rights to artificial entities. Interpret as you see fit.

[Legacy User]

I was merely pointing out the philosophical origin of the legal grounding. I never said the justices were thinking of Hobbes. Interpret as you see fit.

Not really coming at you Lit. I think the media just loves the sound of corporations have individual rights. It's good for contributions. We don't have a political system...we have a marketing competition with no difference in which side wins. I think this court starts with the result they want and work backwards. The whole thing is absurd. The top 1% OWN EVERYTHING. The corporations, the parties, the politicians, the judiciary, the media...ALL OF IT. If there is an afterlife...Kurt Vonnegut is laughing his ass off...this decision was the real life installation of Ramjack inc. The past thirty years haven't been government...it's an ongoing RICO case.

I don't think Hobbes was responsible for giving contractual rights to artificial entities. I think Leviathan was more descriptive of an ideal already in existence then groundbreaking. It's basically advocacy of monarchies being the best form of commonwealth. But it's been a long time...

[Legacy User]

I was merely pointing out the philosophical origin of the legal grounding. I never said the justices were thinking of Hobbes. Interpret as you see fit.

Not really coming at you Lit. I think the media just loves the sound of corporations have individual rights. It's good for contributions. We don't have a political system...we have a marketing competition with no difference in which side wins. I think this court starts with the result they want and work backwards. The whole thing is absurd. The top 1% OWN EVERYTHING. The corporations, the parties, the politicians, the judiciary, the media...ALL OF IT. If there is an afterlife...Kurt Vonnegut is laughing his ass off...this decision was the real life installation of Ramjack inc. The past thirty years haven't been government...it's an ongoing RICO case.

I don't think Hobbes was responsible for giving contractual rights to artificial entities. I think Leviathan was more descriptive of an ideal already in existence then groundbreaking. It's basically advocacy of monarchies being the best form of commonwealth. But it's been a long time...

Didn't mean to affect a defensive posture, just making clearer my point. In Leviathan and De Cive, Hobbes lays out and justifies the notion of artificial persons as he calls them and why they are due rights under contractual government. I often read Hobbes and familiar with his project. What I am trying to point out and all I am trying to point out is that I believe he is the first to provide philosophical justification for the status of artificial persons as entities that may lay claim to rights. I do not know how far back the concept goes in English law.

[955876]

But smoking a joint or being accused (withou ever be charged) of a crime is, apparently.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ct-policy/

Pilot Flying J, the company run by Browns owner Jimmy Haslam, has agreed to pay a $92 million penalty as part of a federal investigation of fraud against the company’s customers. But Haslam himself won’t be penalized by the NFL.

The league says it sees no indication in the investigation into Haslam’s company that Haslam personally did anything that constitutes a violation of the NFL’s personal-conduct policy.

“There have been no allegations of any personal conduct that is in violation of NFL policy,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told PFT.

Although player arrests get most of the attention where the personal-conduct policy is concerned, everyone who works in the NFL is subject to the policy, including coaches, team executives, league officials and owners. Colts owner Jim Irsay is expected to face league discipline in connection with his March arrest for impaired driving. But in the case of Haslam, he’s apparently in the clear, as far as the league office is concerned.

They'd probably make him sell the team if he told his mistress not to associate with African-Americans

And after years of reading your drivel you finally made a point that has merit. Atta boy Nick...

[Legacy User]

Didn't mean to affect a defensive posture, just making clearer my point. In Leviathan and De Cive, Hobbes lays out and justifies the notion of artificial persons as he calls them and why they are due rights under contractual government. I often read Hobbes and familiar with his project. What I am trying to point out and all I am trying to point out is that I believe he is the first to provide philosophical justification for the status of artificial persons as entities that may lay claim to rights. I do not know how far back the concept goes in English law.

I don't remember Hobbes actually using the phrase artificial person. So I quickly googled it and it comes up an awful lot as far as Hobbes criticism goes...I didn't spend much time with the links but I didn't get a direct quote with the words artificial person in it. I've always read it to be Leviathan was equivalent to sovereign which was more or less equivalent to monarch and there wasn't much original thought here. I actually thought Leviathan was very readable for books of this type. While Machiavelli didn't create a metaphor for his sovereign, I don't think there is much difference between the powers of a Leviathan and a Prince...except there can only be a single Leviathan. But his ideas of puppet regimes in new principalities is close to the artificial person construct. I'm fairly certain the Prince was about 100 years earlier. But like I said it's been years since I read either...and with all the artificial person analysis on Hobbes I get where your comparison is coming from.

[Legacy User]

See Hobbes' De Homine, chapter 15 and De Cive, chapter 5, especially section 10.