kipwinger

If he can't find a job in the NHL his best course of action would be to play in Europe and work to pay off whatever remains of his debt after the courts settle with his creditors and liquidate all his assets. He's not really marketable in the U.S. or Canada anymore and playing in Europe w/o taking care of his financial obligations would turn pretty bad for him pretty quickly. Long story short, I hope his 20s were fun because he's going to be paying for them for a LONG time.

No such thing as a "flight risk" as it pertains to a civil suit. "Flight risk" generally means that a person who has been arrested for a crime won't be given bail because they're likely to leave the country rather than go to court. Kane hasn't been, and likely won't be, charged with any crimes. As far as the bolded: This is all pretty complicated, and I'm not a bankruptcy expert, but here's what I think would likely happen. Because he still has SOME assets (his salary and/or the value of a payout if SJ buys him out) my guess is that he's probably filing Chapter 11 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy, meaning that a bankruptcy court will work to consolidate all or part of his debts (including to the two ladies if there's legal merit for it) and develop a plan for him to repay the remaining debt (like they did with 50 Cent). That plan will have the effect of a court order. If he were to move to Europe and blow it off he'd be in violation of a court order (which is a crime) and a warrant could be issued for his arrest. No biggie if he's in Europe right? Nope, because aside from the fact that most European countries have extradition treaties with the U.S. he'd also be disqualified from a whole host of Embassy and Consular services he'd need to become a legal resident of another country. For instance, if you're a fugitive the government can revoke your passport. Without that you can't apply for a foreign visa, and without that you can't stay in most countries for more than a month or so. So basically he'd be screwed.

It's not so much that's he's in massive debt, it's that he's basically destroyed his earning potential too. Remember when it came out that Jack Johnson's parents had basically blown through all his money and he was broke? Well he goes to bankruptcy court, sorts is out, and then has several more good earning years afterward to get himself in a good position. Kane, however, likely gets bought out and one has to assume will never play again. And since he's a dumbf*ck I'm gonna guess his ability to earn outside of hockey is pretty limited.

Fraud is a criminal charge. Hers is a civil suit. Should a judge rule in her favor she would be financially compensated, but he wouldn't be charged with any crimes.

I would, but I realistically only expect one of them to play in the NHL this year.

I heard on a Wings podcast that Sebrango is getting a waiver to stay with the Griffs.

I mean, it's not like he's good or anything. Totally forgettable. But I assume he'll be the Griffins' 4th line center.

Okay, I'll bite. Why would you put Rasmussen on the wing and not Veleno?

Pat Verbeek's nephew is on the team too eh? 3rd line center? I also fully expect Mitchell Stephens to be on this team as well when all is said and done.

The more I think about this the more I think we HAVE to trade for Jack Eichel, even if the cost is steep (meaning Raymond and a 1st are involved). We are absolutely stacked on defense. Stacked on the wing. Very solid in net. We have every single piece in place to put a competitive team on the ice and start growing toward Cup contention. All but one. And there's absolutely no chance we're getting that piece in the draft without insane luck, and we've learned you can't count on that.

I'll say the same thing about Erne's contract that I said about Fabbri's a year ago. It's an overpayment in the sense that he could have been had for less. But it's Chris Illitch's money, not mine, and it's not crippling the team. So who cares?

And? If I said I murdered John F. Kennedy it wouldn't make it so. Also, you're still angling for an argument. If you genuinely want to know the difference you can DM me and say "Hey Kip, no bullsh*t I'm genuinely interested in the difference between the two" and I'll be happy to break it down for you.

I've already explained why. Go back and reread the posts where I explained the difference earlier. Then read it again. It's not like you're suddenly going to get it if I make a Powerpoint presentation or whatever your preferred communication style is. I doubt that's even the point. You'd rather argue than shut up and learn something.

I explained the legal difference as best as I could. That wasn't good enough for you. Then you said I was "stupid or nuts", at which point it became necessary to remind you (and everyone else) that only one of us actually knows what he's talking about. One of us has a law degree and a career interpreting the law for the federal government, and the other guy is you. If the Michigan militia seizes infrastructure and form their own autonomous state (like the Oregon ranchers did) they will be charged with quite a few crimes, but sedition won't be one of them because...wait for it...they didn't commit the crime of sedition. Many of the Capital rioters likely did based on the evidence available. Wanna know how I know it was more than "a few hundred rioters" who stormed the Capital? Because 550 people have been charged with crimes related to the incident. So unless every single person at the Capital that day has been arrested and charged (they haven't) you can bet the number was a good deal greater than "a few hundred".

It's not an appeal to authority. I AM an authority. I'm falling back on my expertise, something you definitely don't have. But again, keep saying it and maybe it will be true. I wish you conservatives would just stick to sports.

Yep, it's totally that and not that you have no idea how the law is interpreted. Wanna know the difference between you and me as it pertains to this? I get paid by the United States Congress to interpret the law, and you're an opinionated guy on the internet. Get wrekt dork.

Legally it isn't, no matter how many times you say so.

Sweet google search bro. I bet you're awesome with WebMD as well. Sedition is a federal crime. For jurisdictional purposes federal laws are also enshrined in states' legal codes. This is so that revolutionary dipsh*ts arrested by the DC metro police (for example) can legally be held until they're transferred to federal authorities. So, for the second time, a person cannot be guilty of sedition against the state of Washington or city of Minneapolis. Why does this matter? Because it would be pretty hard to make the case that Antifa jackoffs occupying city blocks in Washington were trying to "prevent, by force or intimidation, the execution of the statute of the state". However, it IS NOT hard to make that case as it pertains to MAGA dipsh*ts storming the US Capital building to stop the validation of a federal election. Especially when so many of them livestreamed and/or made facebook posts saying they were taking part in a revolution or other words to that affect. Fortunately for the country, and not for MAGA dummies, you don't have to be convinced that the Jan. 6th riot was a legally worse infraction. A federal judge and grand jury in the District of Columbia need to be convinced. And take a wild guess what all those people were doing on Jan. 6th? Hint: they weren't watching the attacks on TV. Edit: You're trying to make the case that Antifa occupations are analogous to the Capital riots, when in reality they're analogous to when those Oregon ranchers occupied federal lands in 2016 and declared themselves sovereign citizens. All of which are illegal, but only one is sedition.

Your efforts to create a false equivalence are admirable but misguided. As I've repeatedly said, under existing law one of those two things is worse than the other. It's not my opinion, it's the legal code. A person who burns down a government building is guilty of arson. A person who burns down a government building because they want to start a revolution is guilty of arson AND sedition (which is what many of the Jan. 6th conspirators have been charged with). There is no such crime as sedition against the state of Washington or the city of Minneapolis. Only against the United States. Hence why, legally, Jan. 6th was worse. But something tells me that you're probably not willing to be convinced no matter how much I educate you on how the law actually works.

Of course I'm biased. I think MAGA f*ckwads are the worst. But that's not really the point. Crimes directed at the State, involving attempts to interrupt or otherwise subvert the functioning of our government are worse. Like, literally worse. As defined by law. You're acting like Jan. 6th wasn't serious because it was largely unsuccessful and because feckless dips***s participated in it. But that's missing the bigger picture. The ENTIRE reason they were at the Capital was to interrupt the process of government. No it wasn't a successful military coup or something. But it was DEFINITELY an attempt to obstruct the validation of a democratically held election because they didn't like the results of that election. That, by definition, is an attack on the State.

Nope. Don't agree. There are different degrees of criminality. Supporting rioters is wrong. Supporting rioters who are trying to interrupt the peaceful transfer of governance is worse. Both are bad but there's a difference of degree here. Let's not sugar coat what happened on July 6th. Those people weren't rioting because the cops killed an innocent black guy (again!). They were rioting because they didn't want Congress to certify the results of an election because their guy lost. Those are NOT the same thing.

I'm not a Lib, so I don't speak for them. However, I would say that most Libs I know DO support BLM or Antifa. That's the point I'm making. MAGA folks claim to respect the cops when it's a convenient argument to beat the Libs with, but we all saw (in person or on national tv) how much they respect cops when it mattered. Libs don't say they support BLM one day and then join a mob and beat black guys with flag poles the next. And if some Lib DID do that the rest of them would probably brand him a racist and ostracize him. As far as keeping cops accountable, there are SO many ways to do it. Here's a couple. You could require licensure like nurses have. Lose your license for being a dips*** and you don't get to be a cop anymore. Nurses CONSTANTLY think about the consequences of their actions because they don't want to lose their license. Second, you could have a separate criminal justice system for armed police like we do for the military. They hide behind "our job isn't like any other jobs". Okay, well now you've got your own unique set of consequences (which are more strict). Third, you could require all cops to do equipment checks before and after their shift (like the military). You don't get paid until your camera is on and functional. It's not hard... Know why we don't have these types of measures? Because police unions fight TOOTH AND NAIL to make sure cops AREN'T held accountable, that's why. There isn't some internal fight in police stations between good and bad cops. ALL COPS want to do whatever they want with minimal oversight. It's pretty much exactly what you described in your first post about having a gun and power.

I live in DC and work blocks from the Capital. If you think it was "a few hundred rioters" you're on crack. But I'm not surprised you'd bend reality to fit a political narrative. Your people literally thrive on it.

Out of the 10-12 bottom feeder teams last season I think we probably improved the most. The teams with better records (Chicago, Calgary, Arizona, Ottawa, Los Angeles) were only barely better points wise and none of them (other than maybe Los Angeles) has improved significantly this offseason. Plus Seattle is going to totally suck. I'm guessing we're going to land somewhere around 12-15 in the standings.