Players union may file collusion charge

[Stotle]

I'm pretty sure that Shack-ian colloquialisms are not equivalent to the law of conspiracy.

Actually, he pulled that directly from Black's. :eektf::eektf::eektf:

Oh, wait. Nevermind. Here it is:

An agreement by two or more persons to commit an unlawful action; a combination for an unlawful purpose.

As an aside, I am now a firm believer that "con" begins more legal terms than any other 3-letter combo...

[Lucky Jim]

Actually, he pulled that directly from Black's. :eektf::eektf::eektf:

Oh, wait. Nevermind. Here it is:

As an aside, I am now a firm believer that "con" begins more legal terms than any other 3-letter combo...

Hah. I was thinking the legal definition under RICO or, say, the Sherman Act. Not necessarily in the criminal context.

For instance, the agreement at the heart of RICO's conspiracy/enterprise requirement need not be an illegal act, I believe.

Then again, he did say "unfair." So I probably should have read more closely. I was blinded by his folksy rhetoric. Apologies to Shack!

[Stotle]

Hah. I was thinking the legal definition under RICO or, say, the Sherman Act. Not necessarily in the criminal context.

For instance, RICO's conspiracy/enterprise requirement need not be an illegal act, I believe.

Then again, he did say "unfair." So I probably should have read more closely. I was blinded by his folksy rhetoric. Apologies to Shack!

LJ, I'm just a caveman. I don't understand your litigator's mumbo-jumbo and complicated references to statutes and acronyms.

- Unfrozen Caveman Corporate Attorney

[Lucky Jim]

LJ, I'm just a caveman. I don't understand your litigator's mumbo-jumbo and complicated references to statutes and acronyms.

- Unfrozen Caveman Corporate Attorney

Hah. Yes, all my friends come into my office and look at the "cases" and "briefs" and point at them awkwardly.

Just saying that the "agreement" between two separate entities required by RICO need not be, itself, illegal. It need only be in the furtherance of an illegal activity. But, to be fair, again, RICO divides "conspiracy" and "enterprise" and most civil suits are prosecuted under the latter. So, really, I was just talking out of my ass.

[RShack]

Hah. I was thinking the legal definition under RICO or, say, the Sherman Act. Not necessarily in the criminal context.

For instance, the agreement at the heart of RICO's conspiracy/enterprise requirement need not be an illegal act, I believe.

Then again, he did say "unfair." So I probably should have read more closely. I was blinded by his folksy rhetoric. Apologies to Shack!

Well, I certainly accept your apology, but I'm not sure what it's for exactly.

Also, I don't know what Black's is, and I certainly didn't get anything from it. I was just talking about what the word conspiracy means in the real world, without consulting any particular source except personal familiarity with the English language. I was not pretending to talk about the more obscure aspects of legalese. I've never studied law, except for a couple parts of it that affected my life, but I do perhaps-wrongly insist that there is some more-or-less reasonable relationship between the law as a whole and real life in society outside the legal profession. As a result, I would think that anybody who thinks that their law school class is teaching them that scheduling ballgames constitutes an actual conspiracy either misunderstood something meaningful and important, or else needs to find a better law school. Whatcha think?

[waroriole]

Well, I certainly accept your apology, but I'm not sure what it's for exactly.

Also, I don't know what Black's is, and I certainly didn't get anything from it. I was just talking about what the word conspiracy means in the real world, without consulting any particular source except personal familiarity with the English language. I was not pretending to talk about the more obscure aspects of legalese. I've never studied law, except for a couple parts of it that affected my life, but I do perhaps-wrongly insist that there is some more-or-less reasonable relationship between the law as a whole and real life in society outside the legal profession. As a result, I would think that anybody who thinks that their law school class is teaching them that scheduling ballgames constitutes an actual conspiracy either misunderstood something meaningful and important, or else needs to find a better law school. Whatcha think?

Here's what I think. I think that you would rather remain ignorant on the situation and talk as though you're not. I've already explained to you how it is a conspriacy, so I'm not going to do that again. But, I will say that it is pretty audacious of someone to say that they have no idea what they're talking about, not respond to a reasoned explanation, and then insult the person who is trying to explain to them what they are talking about. This is pretty typical of the posters that you constantly rail against, yet you just employed the same debate tactics. Hypocritical much? Anyway, you can go on remaining ignorant if you choose, or you can read about what you're trying to debate. But, if you're going to do the first, then don't try to ridicule someone who knows more than you do.

[weams]

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/9748885/mlb-union-executive-director-continues-work-terminal-cancer-espn-magazine