Horse racing fantasy biogoraphy
Attorneys for the NCAA, NFL, and three other sports leagues who are suing to stop New Jersey from offering sports betting filed a blistering 92-page response to a federal judge on Friday, blasting what they called “a gross imposition on the time of the court.”
The sports organizations filed suit in August, seeking a summary judgment against the state due to its sports betting law passed earlier this year. The leagues say that law blatantly violates provisions of a 20-year-old federal law called the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which bars all but four states from offering any wagers on games played by the organizations:
The leagues’ attorneys described the state’s own request two weeks ago for summary judgment – partly on grounds that the federal law is said to be unconstitutional – as an attempt to burden the leagues during “the limited time in which we have to respond” to the state’s additional paperwork opposing the league’s motion.
“Defendants have submitted a wildly excessive statement of purported material ‘facts’ that extends far beyond the bounds of zealous advocacy,” the attorneys wrote, while disputing dozens of the state’s proposed list of facts.
The leagues’ complaints ranged from alleged selective use of quotes by league officials, including NBA Commissioner David Stern; of ignoring testimony that contradicts the state’s assertions; and relying on what the leagues say is “inadmissible hearsay” by Economics Professor Robert D. Willig of Princeton University, who analyzed documents submitted by the leagues related to gambling. The leagues filed a separate motion to exclude Willig’s testimony from the record.
Attorneys for the NCAA, NFL, and three other sports leagues who are suing to stop New Jersey from offering sports betting filed a blistering 92-page response to a federal judge on Friday, blasting what they called “a gross imposition on the time of the court.”
The sports organizations filed suit in August, seeking a summary judgment against the state due to its sports betting law passed earlier this year. The leagues say that law blatantly violates provisions of a 20-year-old federal law called the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which bars all but four states from offering any wagers on games played by the organizations:
The leagues’ attorneys described the state’s own request two weeks ago for summary judgment – partly on grounds that the federal law is said to be unconstitutional – as an attempt to burden the leagues during “the limited time in which we have to respond” to the state’s additional paperwork opposing the league’s motion.
“Defendants have submitted a wildly excessive statement of purported material ‘facts’ that extends far beyond the bounds of zealous advocacy,” the attorneys wrote, while disputing dozens of the state’s proposed list of facts.
The leagues’ complaints ranged from alleged selective use of quotes by league officials, including NBA Commissioner David Stern; of ignoring testimony that contradicts the state’s assertions; and relying on what the leagues say is “inadmissible hearsay” by Economics Professor Robert D. Willig of Princeton University, who analyzed documents submitted by the leagues related to gambling. The leagues filed a separate motion to exclude Willig’s testimony from the record.
Horse racing fantasy
Horse racing fantasy
Horse racing fantasy
Horse racing fantasy
Horse racing fantasy
Horse racing fantasy
Horse racing fantasy
Horse racing fantasy
Horse racing fantasy
Horse racing fantasy
Horse racing fantasy
Horse racing fantasy
Horse racing fantasy
Horse racing fantasy
Horse racing fantasy
Horse racing fantasy
Horse racing fantasy
Horse racing fantasy
Horse racing fantasy
Horse racing fantasy
No comments:
Post a Comment