Posted: November 16th, 2022

PLAINTIFF’S MURRAY’S ARBITRATION MEMO

Use paragraphs and have an introduction.
1`. How is Socrates’s saying “THE UNEXAMINED LIFE IS NOT WORTH LIVING RELATED TO THE Allegory of the Cave? How can you apply it to today’s society or to your life–give examples? Post 500 words or more in correct English. Make sure you have a main point or idea!

2. How can you apply Plato’s ideas to the movie “The Lives of Others†[German movie 2006] What is the meaning of the ending of the movie? 300 words or more]
—
PLAINTIFF’S MURRAY’S ARBITRATION MEMO
SUMMARY
Plaintiffs appeal states: The Suspension expansion of the plaintiff, a practice squad player with the Philadelphia Eagles of the National Football League (“NFL”), Samuel Murray, was wrongly handed down by Commissioner Robert Goodell and that a fine of $5000 for each breach of contract offense was instigated by the arbitrator’s personal reasons that are not clear to him.
Commissioner Robert Goodell act of denying the NFL player’s unions request to look at the investigation file was unjustified and outrageous.
The arbitration panel ignored request requiring Commissioner Goodell to step down as arbitrator in Plaintiff’s case.
Commissioner Goodells decision to expand the length of Murray’s suspension was informed by concerns for the tented image of the league and not the intent of the case.
The arbitration panel was more concerned with the tented image of the league than the justice for the plaintiff. The concern for the leagues image clouded their judgement.
The fine was not mutual. Commissioner Goodell imposed the fine without first reaching a consensus with Murray defense team.
ARGUMENT
The plaintiff, Murray, argues that the expansion of his suspension time length from eight games ban to a whole season was unjustified. The ban was more informed by the concerns for the image of the league at the stake of justice for the plaintiff. In handing down his decision, commissioner Goodell stated that Murray’s actions were so detrimental to the reputation of the league that his suspension time length was increased to from a ban from games to that for the whole season. The fine of $5000 charged for breach of each contract was not a consensual agreement so that the award was not mutual and definite. He was not given time to give his opinion about it or to defend himself before the fine could be imposed on him. Murray seeks an appeal for his season long suspension and the fine of $5000 for each breach of contract offense.
The plaintiff is also for the view that Commissioner Robert Goodell act of denying the NFL player’s unions request to look at the investigation file was unjustified and outrageous. It went ahead denying him the right to know if the decision handed down by the Commissioner was based on the solid evidence so that he could accept the decision or challenge it. Murray’s defense counsel had the right to ensure that the evidence used to charge their client was for sure meeting the threshold to warrant the charges of the magnitude such as handed down by Commissioner Robert Goodell, the arbitrator.
The jury also seemed to have ignored the evidence presented in the video footage that `showed no evidence of sexual assault. The security footage was well captured and circulated to millions who also saw and now know that the claim that Murray sexually assaulted his wife were not valid. Added to this was the fact that Murray’s wife, the defendant, is enough evidence to stop criminal prosecution progression just like in the case of Tom Bradly (2015).
Murray also argues that the arbitration panel ignored a request requiring Commissioner Goodell to step aside as arbitrator in Plaintiff’s case. For whatever reasons the jury had in denying the said request, it is clear that the jury was partial in dealing with this case. On these grounds, the decision made by the arbitration team has to be reviewed as it show evidence of partiality which is a contravention of the set regulations guiding the arbitration process.
The court provides ways of dealing with such incidences for which evidence of partiality exist. The Supreme Court addressed such a case only once in the Commonwealth Coatings
Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co. (2012) the case was about a dispute between a contractor and a subcontractor. The complaint levied before the court was that the arbitrator had failed to give information that they were regularly doing business with the contractor who by then had paid him for the services which form the subjects of arbitration. The court resolutely ruled that the arbitrators had a duty to disclose any information that is potentially relevant to the arbitration and that failing to do so would definitely be interpreted as impartiality which authorizes the court to overturn the rulings of such arbitration. Justice Byron White and justice Thurgood consented that the parties must take care of all the casual relationships for them to possibly be fair and just in handing an arbitration decision. Therefore, the Commissioner Goodell was supposed to give the defense team access to evidence so that they could accept it or deny it.
In a different scenario Continental Insurance Co. v. Williams the arbitrator did not reveal that at the time of arbitration he was representing another party in unrelated case against Continental Insurance. After a hard scrutiny, the court found that there was evidence of partiality and revoked the award. The eleventh Circuit’s test was predicated on the Supreme Court’s announcement in Commonwealth Coatings that courts “ought to be considerably more circumspect to shield the absence of prejudice of mediators than judges, since the previous have totally free rein to choose the law and also the facts.” The lesson from numerous court cases is that judges ought to dependably fail in favor of full divulgence before arrangement and give continuous revelation thereafter.
The ninth Circuit has set an equivalent weight on the gatherings to get prehearing revelation proclamations from gathering selected referees who consent to act in a nonpartisan way, and instantly choose taking into account those announcements whether to challenge the mediator’s arrangement. The inability to challenge a referee in light of these announcements could prompt a waiver of the privilege to later test the grant for clear prejudice, as happened in Fidelity Federal Bank, FSB v. Durga Ma Corp (2006).
Moreover, the arbitration ignored the evidence implicating the plaintiff on grounds of involvement in betting at a casino. Based on the fact that the contract did not detail regulations barring a player from being in gambling place, furthermore, invalidated the alleged gambling charges against him. There was also lack of evidence that would support that Mr. Murray was indeed lying and had placed abet for the football march at casino. The investigation of the assumptions of the media on claims of seeing Murray at the casino while betting were also not deeply scrutinized. This invalidates the expansion of the ban period and the damages required.
Conclusion
The plaintiff, Murray, respectfully appeals to this Honorable Arbitration Panel to find in favor of the Plaintiff’s plea to prove that the Honorable Arbitration Panel was partial in making its decision as regards the case against Mr. Murray.
References
Helm, Katherine A. “The Expanding Scope of Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards: Where Does the Buck Stop?.” Dispute Resolution Journal 61.4 (2006): 16.
Sweet, Justin. “Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co.” Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction 4.1 (2012): 20-21.
Volin, B. (2015). Tom Brady files lawsuit against the NFL – The Boston Globe.BostonGlobe.com. Retrieved 24 February 2016, from https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/07/29/tom-brady-files-lawsuit-against-nfl/h8xeRXAKRSWx93RCnAFk2L/story.ht
Suggested area of arguement
She other writer can do the appeal defense paper using the evidence against the use of drugs

Order | Check Discount

Tags: PLAINTIFF’S MURRAY’S ARBITRATION MEMO