This is on the BBC news site for those who nod-along with police PR.
Police PR departments are adept at blaming others.
The fault is partly with the court, but it is for the police to be satisfied they have got the powers they are exercising.
If the court errs, the police should re-apply.
![There will be a further hearing on sanctions. Given the gravity of the commission’s findings, one can expect the sanctions to be onerous. If so, the considerable legal trouble of the club will mean serious practical consequences. If the breaches are not minor, then presumably the punishments cannot thereby be slight. It may thereby be sensible for Manchester City to concentrate more on the sanctions hearing, than on any perhaps remote chance of a successful appeal.
But there is little sign that Manchester City will adopt a sensible approach to further proceedings, as it has not adopted a sensible approach to contesting this matter to date. Indeed, the club has exacerbated its predicament by its strident conduct of its defence to these charges. This would not be the fault of the lawyers: it can be assumed that the club’s lawyers will have set out the risks of being aggressive. The club would have had this advice, and it would seem that it still decided to be aggressive.
The decision of the disciplinary commission not only sets out the deliberate financial irregularities of the club, but also that it made “concerted efforts to stop and frustrate” the league’s investigation. Note here the word “concerted”—these efforts were systemic and deliberate. Such an approach accords with published documents about how the club approaches litigation elsewhere. The club chairman is reported to have had the view that the club would “rather spend 30 million on the 50 best lawyers in the world to sue [Uefa] for the next 10 years” than accept a fine.
Paying “30 million on the 50 best lawyers in the world”, or even hiring a man with seven wives each with seven sacks of seven cats, is of no avail if the facts and the law are against you. Law is not magic, and lawyers are not magicians. Decisions tend to follow the evidence, and the documentary evidence available to the club would have pointed to the determination it in time received. Nothing in the findings this week will have been a …](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:nx2kxyxako6sobj4g4pdkl6s/bafkreih7fqubn444ys35bmyedxpytmmalyasu54f4jrdhpuyjhtdpojm3m)
![Never had a settlement agreement been put to such a purpose. One can do many things with such agreements, but surely one could not do that? Usually, these litigation compromises do nothing more than resolve the differences between the parties. This one, however, was doing the job of primary legislation. Never had there been a more super-powered private contract.
And Trump almost got away with it. The judge in this case was unconvinced that there was a genuine dispute, and without a genuine dispute a court cannot have jurisdiction to hear any case. Judge Kathleen M Williams directed the parties to make submissions on this crucial jurisdiction point. But just before the deadline, the wily parties agreed to have the case dismissed.
[Advert]
By pulling this procedural trick, the parties could then pretend to enter a settlement agreement. The agreement could not be approved by the court, as the case had been dismissed. The supposed agreement was in two parts: an arrangement to set up a $1.776bn fund for effectively Trump’s political allies, and an order from the acting attorney general Todd Blanche giving Trump and others immunities in respect of their tax affairs.
It must have seemed so clever. But the court was having none of this. Following an application by a group of former federal judges, the judge reopened the case. Technically, the court could not decide the merits of the lawsuit, because of the earlier dismissal, but it could still look at ancillary related matters, such as if there had been a fraud on the court.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:nx2kxyxako6sobj4g4pdkl6s/bafkreihundexebdoa2zktbugtnp4n2sqd4grcrdqf6y5u75kwysopvakry)
![CLEVER LAWYER:
Belgium may complain.
FIFA FIXER:
We can give them something to keep them quiet, keep their silence. [Pause.] What about a peace prize?](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:nx2kxyxako6sobj4g4pdkl6s/bafkreigrr7p3oklkpmaivlynaz6ltbn7gy4eqlmxdo5udyj4lekjyiwwd4)
![II. DISCUSSION
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Isom v. Bulso, No. 20-14074, 2022
WL 682215, at *4 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). “We possess only that power authorized by Constitution and
statute.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Thus, this Court has “an independent obligation
to police the constitutional and statutory limits on [its] jurisdiction.” Ebrahimi v. City of
Huntsville Bd. of Educ., 114 F.3d 162, 165 (11th Cir. 1997). One such constitutional
mandate is set forth in Article III, which limits federal courts to adjudicating “Cases” or
“Controversies.” U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2; Kennedy v. Floridian Hotel, Inc., 998 F.3d
1221, 1229 (11th Cir. 2021). “The existence of a case or controversy is a “bedrock
requirement” of our jurisdiction; we cannot exercise judicial power without it.” Muransky
v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 979 F.3d 917, 924 (11th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, before the
Court can rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion, it must first confirm its jurisdiction.
A key characteristic of the case or controversy requirement is the existence of
adverseness, or “a dispute between parties who face each other in an adversary
proceeding.” Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 242 (1937).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:nx2kxyxako6sobj4g4pdkl6s/bafkreihnrqtnyogx3jolzm45do5tqnjhnqihamql4bitdn64dq3poqomqm)
