- Joined
- Apr 17, 2010
- Messages
- 4,340
- Reaction score
- 2,939
Actually, the haters will drown in their own tearsWE will never get or credibility back, but at least we have the knowledge that we will drown in the tears of the haters
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Actually, the haters will drown in their own tearsWE will never get or credibility back, but at least we have the knowledge that we will drown in the tears of the haters
When this case winds up in court, the alleged illegal deflation as the evidentiary basis for Brady's suspension will be tossed. This of course also happens to be the basis for the team's fine and loss of draft picks. No crime, no penalty.Here's my read on where the situation is now:
Brady won't be suspended. If Goodell is smart, he will throw Vincent and Wells under the bus and reverse the suspension himself. If Goodell is stupid (the likely scenario), Brady will sue and get the suspension thrown out.
The questions I have are:
1) Will Brady sue for defamation?
2) How is Kraft going to get his picks and money back?
Everyone is so focused on the Brady suspension now, but I think the outcome there is pretty certain at this point.
It also amazes me how much of a divergence there is between the realities and legalities of this situation versus the media coverage.
That said, the text messages are circumstantial evidence because there are more than one interpretation of these statements.
Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion without an intervening inference. Wells in his presser and in the report makes all sorts of inferences about the text messages, and that is a primary reason why he wanted another interview with lockerroom attendant, Jim McNally. To see what he meant by that text.
My favorite was ...
If I recall correctly, Wells called the text messages "direct evidence" in his phone conference which really threw me off. Glad to see that at least in legal circles, this sort of thing should be tarnishing that reputation too.
If the NFL office knowingly gave the media incorrect psi readings and allowed them to be published for months before setting the record straight, wouldn't that be enough to at least get the defamation case before a jury and not thrown out by motion?When this case winds up in court, the alleged illegal deflation as the evidentiary basis for Brady's suspension will be tossed. This of course also happens to be the basis for the team's fine and loss of draft picks. No crime, no penalty.
As for the defamation suit, such suits are notoriously difficult to win and I don't see it happening. No suspension, no draft picks, and no fine seems attainable, but you will not hear an apology from the NFL.
I am not a lawyer, so others can provide more accurate replies. For defamation I believe there has to be intent. In other words, it is insufficient that the NFL lied, you would need to prove that they lied deliberately and with the intent to damage Brady. Lawyers opining on this issue all seem to agree that defamation is an especially high hurdle that is rarely achieved. Also, I don't think Brady is going to suffer much financially (his gear has in fact increased in sales) and he would be satisfied with getting the NFL findings and penalty tossed. I don't really think he wants monetary damages or contrition from the NFL. Good discussion here:If the NFL office knowingly gave the media incorrect psi readings and allowed them to be published for months before setting the record straight, wouldn't that be enough to at least get the defamation case before a jury and not thrown out by motion?
I mean the readings are factual, not a matter of opinion.
http://abovethelaw.com/2015/05/shou...d-roger-goodell-a-deflategate-email-exchange/As for suing the NFL, even if you are 100% totally not guilty of anything, defamation claims for public figures are hard to win and bring their own unpredicability, privacy invasions, peril and expense.
A very good read. It's surprising that Ben Volin, who's been down on the Pats position, tweeted a link to this.
I am not a lawyer, so others can provide more accurate replies. For defamation I believe there has to be intent. In other words, it is insufficient that the NFL lied, you would need to prove that they lied deliberately and with the intent to damage Brady.
Well, the NFL party line seems to be "Why would we want to humiliate one of our franchise players"?I am not a lawyer, so others can provide more accurate replies. For defamation I believe there has to be intent. In other words, it is insufficient that the NFL lied, you would need to prove that they lied deliberately and with the intent to damage Brady. Lawyers opining on this issue all seem to agree that defamation is an especially high hurdle that is rarely achieved. Also, I don't think Brady is going to suffer much financially (his gear has in fact increased in sales) and he would be satisfied with getting the NFL findings and penalty tossed. I don't really think he wants monetary damages or contrition from the NFL. Good discussion here:
http://abovethelaw.com/2015/05/shou...d-roger-goodell-a-deflategate-email-exchange/
Don't forget that the NFL gave the media false reports as well, and were happy to not correct them at any time. Could the ensuing sh*t storm count towards defamation of character? I would like to think so...What was their intent in publishing false PSI numbers and then not providing the accurate numbers to the Patriots until March 23, with the stipulation that the Pats could not release the correct numbers.
Think about it. The NFL gave the Patriots and the media a false PSI number (10.1 PSI) and then did not tell them that the numbers were false until AFTER all of the Wells interviews had been completed.
I am not a lawyer, so others can provide more accurate replies. For defamation I believe there has to be intent. In other words, it is insufficient that the NFL lied, you would need to prove that they lied deliberately and with the intent to damage Brady. Lawyers opining on this issue all seem to agree that defamation is an especially high hurdle that is rarely achieved. Also, I don't think Brady is going to suffer much financially (his gear has in fact increased in sales) and he would be satisfied with getting the NFL findings and penalty tossed. I don't really think he wants monetary damages or contrition from the NFL. Good discussion here:
http://abovethelaw.com/2015/05/shou...d-roger-goodell-a-deflategate-email-exchange/
Incorrect readings were in the NFL letter from Gardi to the team, so it was not merely an unsourced leak. The NFL had the correct measurements and published incorrect ones. So they lied. The tricky part is proving that they were not merely incompetent, but also malicious--they had to have known they were lying (goes to state of mind). Unlike Goodell, those silly courts draw a distinction between what we believe and what we can prove.I'm certainly no lawyer either, but I imagine you'd also have to prove that it was indeed the NFL who leaked the incorrect readings. If all that happened was the wrong numbers were published, I don't think the NFL has any legal obligation to set the record straight on what they could claim was an "unfounded rumor".
A very good read. It's surprising that Ben Volin, who's been down on the Pats position, tweeted a link to this.
Incorrect readings were in the NFL letter from Gardi to the team, so it was not merely an unsourced leak. The NFL had the correct measurements and published incorrect ones. So they lied. The tricky part is proving that they were not merely incompetent, but also malicious--they had to have known they were lying (goes to state of mind). Unlike Goodell, those silly courts draw a distinction between what we believe and what we can prove.