Derrick Hall satisfied with Dbacks buying and se

first_img Derrick Hall satisfied with D-backs’ buying and selling Larry Fitzgerald’s 100th touchdown grab of his career was a doozy.It’s nothing we haven’t seen before. There are highlight reels of spectacular Fitzgerald catches that would take hours to comb through. Jump-balls, one-handed diving grabs and fierce catch-and-runs dot the Arizona Cardinals receiver’s career, and it’s almost daunting to cut Fitzgerald’s best catches into a list of five. Perhaps it wasn’t the most difficult of plays, but it did express just how much Fitzgerald has aged over time and showed more of the offensive creativity that has helped him build one of the best postseason careers for a receiver.Fitzgerald closed with 176 receiving yards and a touchdown on eight receptions for the game.2009 vs. Panthers(AP Photo/Chuck Burton)The 2009 NFC Divisional Round game for the Cardinals wasn’t much of a contest.Arizona would win 33-13 in Carolina as Fitzgerald rolled up 166 yards on eight catches. His one touchdown followed a first-quarter jump-ball catch in double coverage. OK, so that one was a better highlight package, but Fitzgerald’s diving touchdown at the pylon made for a pretty good image.It was a good summation of the game, as the Cardinals went ahead 27-7 before the half.2009 vs. Pittsburgh(AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)Fitzgerald’s go-ahead touchdown with 2:37 left in the game may have been more iconic — and painful — for Arizona fans, in Super Bowl XLIII but his mid-fourth-quarter score that pulled the Cardinals within 20-14 made for the better still-shot. Top Stories The 5: Takeaways from the Coyotes’ introduction of Alex Meruelo At the 1-yard line, Kurt Warner threw a corner fade that Fitzgerald caught at its peak. However, Steelers defensive back Ike Taylor also got a mitt on the ball.At this moment, it looked like there was too much going on for either to make a clean grab. But Taylor wasn’t able to do anything but lose grip as Fitzgerald’s hands gripped and shoulders ripped the football at an awkward angle as he came down for the touchdown.2012 vs. Eagles(AP Photo/Rick Scuteri)There’s not much to say here. This was a 2012 regular-season game, and Arizona led 10-0 when quarterback Kevin Kolb hit Fitzgerald up the middle for a score in the second quarter. There is no grand storyline to this eventual 27-6 win, nothing that really stood out.Except for the amazing Spanish radio call of Fitzgerald’s catch. And that this photo was repurposed in pencil by an artist on a YouTube timelapse. Former Cardinals kicker Phil Dawson retires Arizona Cardinals wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald (11) catches his 100th career touchdown pass during the second half of an NFL football game as New England Patriots cornerback Logan Ryan (26) defends, Sunday, Sept. 11, 2016, in Glendale, Ariz. (AP Photo/Rick Scuteri) So, compromise is in order.They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and to honor Fitzgerald’s leap into the top-10 of the most touchdown receptions spanning a career, we look at five striking images of his best scoring grabs spanning his career. It just so happens that most of the memorable ones came in the postseason.2009 vs. Atlanta Falcons(AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)While Fitzgerald has seemingly not lost his speed or athleticism, his leaping grabs like this one are in the past — or at least not as common since he’s shifted to playing more as an inside receiver.Arizona’s NFC Wild Card round of the 2009 playoffs began with an aggression that would propel the upstart 9-7 team all the way to the Super Bowl. Quarterback Kurt Warner flung a 42-yard touchdown pass to Fitzgerald in the end zone off a flea-flicker play.It had the Falcons’ Lawyer Milloy and Chris Houston throwing up their arms as they realized they’d been had.That gave the Cardinals a 7-0 lead early in the first quarter, a fine start to an eventual 30-24 victory.2015 vs. Green Bay Packers(AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)A Green Bay Packers Hail Mary pushed last year’s NFC Divisional Round game into overtime, and just when it felt like the Cardinals had lost momentum, Fitz came to the rescue. His 75-yard catch-and-run play set up Arizona inside the 5-yard line, and a shovel pass from Carson Palmer allowed the receiver to finish what he started, giving the Cards a 26-20 victory. 0 Comments   Share   Grace expects Greinke trade to have emotional impactlast_img read more

Harder Files Motion To Dismiss

first_imgAs highlighted in this previous post, in January 2015 the DOJ criminally charged Dmitrij Harder (pictured), the former owner and President of Chestnut Consulting Group Inc. and Chestnut Consulting Group Co., for allegedly bribing an official with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (“EBRD”).The enforcement action was notable in that it invoked the rarely used “public international organization” prong of the FCPA’s “foreign official” element.Recently, Harder filed this motion to dismiss:  In summary fashion it states:“The Indictment fails to accurately allege the elements of a violation under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) – it is devoid of any allegations that Mr. Harder paid an allegedly corrupt payment to a “foreign official,” fails to state required allegations when an allegedly corrupt payment is made to a third party, and impermissibly substitutes “public international organization” in the charging language against Mr. Harder. The FCPA counts should also be dismissed because the provision permitting the President to expand the term “foreign official” by identifying “public international organizations” as authorized by 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2(h)(2)(B) is unconstitutional. Finally, the Travel Act counts fail to state an offense under the Pennsylvania anti-bribery statute and because the Travel Act does not apply extraterritorially to the facts of this case.”As relevant to the FCPA’s third-party payment provisions, the motion states:“Under the FCPA, when an allegedly corrupt payment is made to a person who is not a “foreign official” (like “EBRD Official’s Sister”), it is a crime only if the payment is made by the defendant “while knowing that all or a portion of such money or thing of value will be offered, given, or promised, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official.” 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2(a)(3). The statutory language of the FCPA does not mention the phrase “for the benefit of.” The Indictment therefore fails in two ways: (1) it purports to expand the statute’s reach and criminalize payments made “for the benefit” of a foreign official; and (2) it fails to set forth any factual allegations that the allegedly corrupt payments were made by Mr. Harder “while knowing that all or a portion of such money or thing of value will be offered, given, or promised, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official.” The Indictment also fails to state an offense because it charges Mr. Harder with inducing a foreign official to use his influence with a public international organization under 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2(a)(3)(B), but that prong of the FCPA only addresses acts intended to influence a “foreign government” and not a “public international organization.”As relevant to the FCPA’s “foreign official” element and specifically the “public international organization” component of the “foreign official” definition, the motion states:“The FCPA counts in the Indictment (Counts One through Six) should be dismissed because the FCPA statute is unconstitutional to the extent criminal liability is premised upon allegedly corrupt payments in connection with “public international organizations.” In this regard, the FCPA states, without any explanation or limitation, that the President of the United States is empowered to designate entities as “public international organizations,” whose employees are then considered to be “foreign officials” covered by the FCPA. But Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to the President in criminal matters without providing some direction (such as policy, scope, or limitations), and Congress failed to do this in the FCPA. Further, because the FCPA is vague as to what conduct is criminal – because the term “public international organization” is not clearly defined nor are the designated entities so easily identified – this portion of the FCPA is void for vagueness, particularly because an individual can be convicted without proof that the defendant knew that the entity in question was a “public international organization” and therefore covered by the FCPA. Mr. Harder believes this to be the first case where the government has charged anyone under the “public international organization” prong of the FCPA, and the constitutional defects arising from that portion of the statute are readily apparent.Mr. Harder has not found any case that has reviewed the constitutionality of the definition of “public international organization” for purposes of the FCPA – the key element to the government’s case against Mr. Harder. The term “public international organization” was not in the FCPA when it was originally enacted in 1977. Only when the FCPA was amended as of November 10, 1998, was the term “public international organization” inserted into the FCPA. See PL 105-366 (Nov. 10, 1998). This term, as utilized in the FCPA, violates two important constitutional doctrines: the non-delegation doctrine and the void for vagueness doctrine.[…]Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to the President in criminal matters without providing some direction (such as policy, scope, or limitations), and Congress failed to do this in the FCPA. Further, because the FCPA is vague as to what conduct is criminal – because the term “public international organization” is not clearly defined nor are the designated entities so easily identified – this portion of the FCPA is void for vagueness, particularly because an individual can be convicted without proof that the defendant knew that the entity in question was a “public international organization” and therefore covered by the FCPA. Mr. Harder believes this to be the first case where the government has charged anyone under the “public international organization” prong of the FCPA, and the constitutional defects arising from that portion of the statute are readily apparent.4 Mr. Harder has not found any case that has reviewed the constitutionality of the definition of “public international organization” for purposes of the FCPA – the key element to the government’s case against Mr. Harder. The term “public international organization” was not in the FCPA when it was originally enacted in 1977. Only when the FCPA was amended as of November 10, 1998, was the term “public international organization” inserted into the FCPA. See PL 105-366 (Nov. 10, 1998). This term, as utilized in the FCPA, violates two important constitutional doctrines: the non-delegation doctrine and the void for vagueness doctrine.”Harder is represented by Ian Comisky (Blank Rome) and Stephen LaCheen (LaCheen, Wittels & Greenberg).U.S. District Court judge Paul Diamond (E.D. Pa.) is presiding over the case.last_img read more