TheBostonStraggler
Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract
- Joined
- May 21, 2006
- Messages
- 6,318
- Reaction score
- 5,687
IMHO this is a good thing. Goodell taking himself off the case then appointing someone like Ted Wells ("fair" and "thorough") would give him completely coverage of 'unbias' while getting the decision maker he wants on the case (and may have tacit power over).
Remember this case needs somewhat if not significant 'bad faith' proof for it to have its most valid pathway to the courts. I know everyone thinks the courts are a catchall for righting wrongs -- it isn't. A plaintiff needs hard law to get it to a trial. And though this is apples-orhanges a bit, take a look at Kessler in San Jose vs MLB. What MLB did was what I consider pretty bad -- and the courts basically said to Kessler "sorry, you don;t have standing".
Fortunately Brady has 'bad faith' to get there. This phrase is relative, it casts a wide net, so anything close to identifying bad faith should allow Brady to get this to a trial/proceeding. Bottom line for Brady, this is about getting this to a trial and getting it out of the NFL's hands. And this letter, IMHO, makes bad faith tangential enough for Brady to legally move forward. Consider:
(1)"Ted Wells thorough and independent" coupled with "I'm not married to it". Conclusion: Your office, the office you are in charge of, made a determination that harmed the plaintiff. You're now stating you aren't reasonably sure of your office's action after the harm has already been committed?
(2) 'I(Goodell) haven't been involved' coupled with "the commissioner had authorized me to" punish Brady. Conclusion: the very announcement of punishment notes it was through your authority, with the action "determined" by your own subordinate, yet you state you are not married to your office's conclusion of improper action by the plaintiff and therefore hear an appeal in good faith?
Look, I am not a lawyer (I configure and/or break switches and routers ) so take it for what it's worth. But from my POV, today Goodell went from innuendos of bad faith to now near certain, tangible, sufficient proof of 'bad faith' to move forward with legal proceedings. IMHO if this isn't bad faith then 'Bad Faith' was written as law in bad faith.
Remember this case needs somewhat if not significant 'bad faith' proof for it to have its most valid pathway to the courts. I know everyone thinks the courts are a catchall for righting wrongs -- it isn't. A plaintiff needs hard law to get it to a trial. And though this is apples-orhanges a bit, take a look at Kessler in San Jose vs MLB. What MLB did was what I consider pretty bad -- and the courts basically said to Kessler "sorry, you don;t have standing".
Fortunately Brady has 'bad faith' to get there. This phrase is relative, it casts a wide net, so anything close to identifying bad faith should allow Brady to get this to a trial/proceeding. Bottom line for Brady, this is about getting this to a trial and getting it out of the NFL's hands. And this letter, IMHO, makes bad faith tangential enough for Brady to legally move forward. Consider:
(1)"Ted Wells thorough and independent" coupled with "I'm not married to it". Conclusion: Your office, the office you are in charge of, made a determination that harmed the plaintiff. You're now stating you aren't reasonably sure of your office's action after the harm has already been committed?
(2) 'I(Goodell) haven't been involved' coupled with "the commissioner had authorized me to" punish Brady. Conclusion: the very announcement of punishment notes it was through your authority, with the action "determined" by your own subordinate, yet you state you are not married to your office's conclusion of improper action by the plaintiff and therefore hear an appeal in good faith?
Look, I am not a lawyer (I configure and/or break switches and routers ) so take it for what it's worth. But from my POV, today Goodell went from innuendos of bad faith to now near certain, tangible, sufficient proof of 'bad faith' to move forward with legal proceedings. IMHO if this isn't bad faith then 'Bad Faith' was written as law in bad faith.