Friend of our site


MMA Headlines


UFC HP


Josh Gross


MMA Fighting


MMA Torch


MMA Weekly


Sherdog (News)


Sherdog (Articles)


Lowkick


Liver Kick


Fightsport Asia


Caged In


MMA Junkie


MMA Mania


Bloody Elbow


Fightlinker


Fightnomics


MMA Ratings


Rating Fights


Infinite MMA


MMA Convert


Fightline


Fight Medicine


CompuBox


CompuStrike


MMA Frenzy


Ult MMA


Fighters


Kevin Iole


Yahoo MMA Blog


MMA Betting


Search this site



Latest Articles


News Corner


MMA Rising


David Williams


Audio Corner


Oddscast


MMA Dude Bro


Sherdog Radio


Joe Ferraro


The Fightworks Podcast


Eddie Goldman


Pro MMA Radio


MMA Torch


Video Corner


Fight Hub


The Fight Nerd


Special thanks to...

Link Rolodex

Site Index


To access our list of posting topics and archives, click here.

Friend of our site


Buy and sell MMA photos at MMA Prints

Site feedback


Fox Sports: "Zach Arnold's Fight Opinion site is one of the best spots on the Web for thought-provoking MMA pieces."

Site Meter

« | Home | »

Nick Diaz attorney Ross Goodman to Nevada: If you don’t give us our hearing on April 24th, your suspension is invalid

By Zach Arnold | April 14, 2012

Print Friendly and PDF

Ross Goodman of the Goodman Law Group P.C. sent this letter to Nevada’s Attorney General on Friday. Here’s the text of the letter.

******

GOODMAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
Ross C. Goodman
Oscar B. Goodman
Virginia Tomova

April 13, 2012

Via Hand Delivery

Christopher Eccles
Deputy Attorney General
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Business & Taxation Division
555 East Washington Avenue, Suite 3900
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

Re: Hearing of First Amended Complaint against Nick Diaz

Dear Mr. Eccles:

We have received no response to our correspondence dated April 12th, 2012, seeking confirmation that the NSAC’s complaint against Mr. Diaz will be heard on April 24th, 2012.

Our client’s license is presently suspended on a summary basis until a final determination of any disciplinary action to be taken against him, under an order made by the NSAC pursuant to NRS 467.117(2) and NRS 233B.127(3) on February 22nd, 2012 (the “Summary Suspension Order”).

The law does not permit the NSAC to suspend our client indefinitely pending a hearing and determination of the complaint, but imposes a reasonable and definite time limit when which the complaint must be heard and determined. By enactment effected May 22, 2009, Nevada’s legislator amended NRS 233B.127(3) to provide that “[p]roceedings relating to the order of summary suspension must be instituted and determined within 45 days after the date of the order unless the agency and the licensee mutually agree in writing to a longer period.” [emphasis added] (Prior to this amendment, the time limitation was that the proceedings be instituted and determined “promptly”.) Requests for documents, including documents which are not relevant to the matters in dispute and which are protected by statutory and common law privilege, do not operate to extend the time limit within which a hearing must be held pursuant to the statutory limitation.

The final day for the hearing and determination of the NSAC’s complaint against Mr. Diaz was therefore April 6th, 2012 — 45 days after the date of the Summary Suspension Order. In discussions with Mr. Kizer, following the Summary Suspension Order, Mr. Kizer informed me and others that this matter would be placed on the NSAC’s April agenda. Our client was and is confident that there is no basis for disciplinary action against him and therefore did not object to a delay beyond the required 45 day time limit as long as the matter was heard and determined in April.

However, our client objects to any further delay.

We presume that the NSAC will comply with its statutory obligation to have this matter heard on April 24th, 2012. If not, my client takes the position that the NSAC has by virtue of its delay irrevocably elected to discontinue or abandon its complaint against Mr. Diaz. The NSAC has no authority to hear or determine the complaint at a later date, and any such purported hearing or determination of the complaint would be ultra vires the NSAC’s statutory powers.

We expect your response no latter than 4 PM, Monday, April 16th, 2012.

Very truly yours,

Ross C. Goodman, Esq.
GOODMAN LAW GROUP, P.C.

Topics: MMA, Media, UFC, Zach Arnold | 17 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

17 Responses to “Nick Diaz attorney Ross Goodman to Nevada: If you don’t give us our hearing on April 24th, your suspension is invalid”

  1. 45 Huddle says:

    This lawyer, for all of his brains…. Which seem to be a lot based on his writing ability…. Doesn’t realize that Diaz has already been found guilty… And now they have to prove innocence. And pissing into a fire like he is doing is a horrible strategy….

    • david m says:

      Can you explain your position that Diaz was already found guilty? What Goodman wrote seems quite reasonable.

      • Stel says:

        another 45 fail

        • 45 Huddle says:

          Hardly a fail.

          When you get found with an illegal substance in your system, you have already been suspended until further notice. You have been found guilty.

          It is the job of the fighter to then prove his innocence.

          These meetings will give a fighter a chance to talk, but 99% of the time it just turns into a sentencing hearing.

          Once again, they have already been proven guilty.

  2. 45 Huddle says:

    Zach,

    Sorry to change topics, but I am interested on what your thoughts on the Overeem/UFC/NSAC issue is right now?

    The fact that the UFC hasn’t even replaced him yet is crap. The longer this goes, the worse feeling I get that the NSAC is going to rubber stamp him and let the fight go on.

    Just unbelievable…

    • Zach Arnold says:

      I’ll have plenty to say as more details leak out, but let’s just say that what’s going on here is really a game of Russian Roulette by UFC.

      Think about it – if Overeem gets a hall pass to use testosterone and he beats JDS to win the UFC Heavyweight title, you’re looking at a scenario where Overeem, Barnett, Mir, and Cain are the main HW players. Cain has injury issues, Mir is the one solid guy now, and we know the drug issues of the other two.

      Kizer would not only be doing his commission’s image a favor by rejecting Overeem’s appeal but he’d also be doing UFC a huge favor in getting rid of this headache off their hands.

      • 45 Huddle says:

        It’s sad when we have to look towards Keith Kizer to do what is right.

        White & Fertitt have already lost a lot of my respect by not pulling Overeem already. They are not going about this the right way.

      • fd2 says:

        Considering Mir gained 40 pounds in five months in between Mir/Brock II and Mir/Kongo, I don’t know if it’s safe to describe him as “the one solid guy” when discussing PED concerns.

        • The Gaijin says:

          Amen. I was just about to make the same comment when I read that as well. Frank Mir is highly suspect in my book, but (a) he seems like a pretty smart guy (so he can pass an IQ test) and (b) he’s one of the highest paid fighters and has been making money for a long time, which makes me think he’s one of the few that can pull a BALCO and use stuff they don’t even know how to test for.

          (b) is one of the things I am most skeptical of with this sport as there’s a “1%” if you will that can and likely a portion does, afford and use things that are the typical run of the mill gym junkie stuff most guys get nailed with.

        • The Gaijin says:

          *that are not

        • fd2 says:

          For what it’s worth, a couple years ago I was talking to a guy involved in a prominent clothing company that sponsors mma fighters. He mentioned to me that there are a couple fighters that sponsors were/are avoiding, because they expected them to pop positive eventually. The two names he mentioned to me were Marquardt and Mir.

          I kind of filed it away at the time, but after Marquardt got popped for abusing TRT I gave it a bit more weight.

        • EJ says:

          God I love mma myths and how no matter how little no factual basis they have they continue to pop up and be spouted as facts. Mir in no way gained 40 pounds, that myth belongs in the same place that the Chuck eyepokes myths belong that is forgotten and never brought up again. Seriously trying to compare Mir to Overeem might be the biggest reach here and that’s saying alot considering some of the people here.

      • The Gaijin says:

        You’re right he didn’t gain 40lbs. But he magically went from 244 to cutting to make 265. In addition he dropped a ton of fat mass (look at his arms, midsection and back) and was absolutely shredded with muscle mass.

        So while he probably only “gained” 30lbs on the scales – he totally changed his body composition and I’d love to see stats on the increase in muscle mass alone.

        Good fail as usual.

        • Jason Harris says:

          How is it possible that a professional athlete with professional trainers and dietitians who has no other job but to keep their body in shape could put on mass! IT’S IMPOSSIBLE

  3. klown says:

    Thanks for covering this story in depth, Zach. I’m enjoying the legal back-and-forth.

  4. NotTheNoob says:

    The deadline for the NSAC’s response was this afternoon. Any updates?

  5. [...] Nick Diaz attorney Ross Goodman to Nevada: If you don’t give us our hearing on April 24th, you… [...]

Comments

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-spam image