Tom Curran: "Brady will Rag Doll the NFL's Case!"

[PatsWickedPissah]

If I understand all of this correctly, the NFL* has a lot to lose here and the only intelligent decision Goodell can make is to vacate the suspension. This allows him to keep the confiscated draft picks and still do great damage to the Pats even though they have done no wrong.

Fans can thank Bob Kraft for the loss of picks and accepting the damage to the team meekly, asking, "Please Sir, may I have another?"

 

[Deus Irae]

Regardless of how Brady's appeal turns out he could still file a defamation lawsuit and expose the NFL*'s malfeasance and agenda in that way.

Brady could file a defamation case right now, if he chose to do so. It will be a separate filing, just as with Vilma. The league would then likely file a grievance against Brady for filing the defamation suit, which is also what happened in the Vilma situation.

It should be noted that, in Vilma's case, the defamation suit was against Goodell*, as opposed to the NFL itself, and it did not survive a motion to dismiss.



*Which was a poor decision, as it turned out, because the Judge basically tossed out the case for going after Goodell the individual instead of going after him as the NFL commissioner.

"Vilma's argument that the statements were made in Goodell's individual capacity is unpersuasive as Goodell was sued as Commissioner of the NFL and all of the statements attributed to Goodell were made in connection with the NFL's investigation of the pay-per-performance/bounty allegations," Berrigan wrote in her ruling. "Therefore, Vilma's claims are preempted and must be dismissed.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...ilmas-lawsuit-against-roger-goodell-dismissed

 

[The Gr8est]

Brady could file a defamation case right now, if he chose to do so. It will be a separate filing, just as with Vilma. The league would then likely file a grievance against Brady for filing the defamation suit, which is also what happened in the Vilma situation.

It should be noted that, in Vilma's case, the defamation suit was against Goodell*, as opposed to the NFL itself, and it did not survive a motion to dismiss.



*Which was a poor decision, as it turned out, because the Judge basically tossed out the case for going after Goodell the individual instead of going after him as the NFL commissioner.



http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...ilmas-lawsuit-against-roger-goodell-dismissed

I'm sure Brady's lawyers took note and won't make the same mistake.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm sure Brady's lawyers took note and won't make the same mistake.

If Brady files against the league, that's where the NFL's grievance will come in. Why?


Because, as I've talked about time and again, the NFLPA screwed up royally with the CBA:

Vilma is suing Goodell in federal court for defamation relating to Goodell's suspension of Vilma and other players in the Saints' "bounty" program. The NFL Management Council contends -- in a letter dated July 3 and reported Wednesday by the Times-Picayune -- that Vilma's suit violates the league's collective bargaining agreement, which has a clause preventing players from suing the NFL or any club.

"Clearly, League Discipline, and the Commissioner's responsibility for upholding that Policy, is 'conduct permitted by the CBA' and under the NFL's Constitution and Bylaws. Because all challenged communication occurred in furtherance of the Commissioner's responsibility, such conduct falls squarely within the protections of Article 3's no-suit provision," the letter says.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...evance-with-nflpa-over-jonathan-vilma-lawsuit

Brady would then have to find a way around that provision.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

What? #2 & #3 are very easy to prove.

#2-
The NFL knew what the readings were the second they were measured by the refs at halftime. Which then David Gardi lied about. Yet they issued a no comment to Mortenson's report. Why issue a no comment when you knew that was completely untrue?

#3
It is fact the NFL made the Patriots sign an NDA to learn what the actual measurement readings at HT were.

Right there is a case for malice.

nothing is "easy" to prove in court short of a smoking gun. yes, the NFl measured the balls. bur the nfl can say the guy who leaked it misunderstood the numbers. they have to find an email or text saying "we know the numbers are wrong but we are going to leak then any way" or something that proves recklessness. a mistake or negligence does not count as recklessness.

i don't trust the NFL one bit. they probably deleted all their evidence that would help brady.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

No you don't. It is a civil proceeding. The standard of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt. If Brady can get enough experts to show that these leaks could only come from someone in the NFL, it may be enough.

But there may already be enough evidence to prove that the league overstated the PSI. The letter in the Wells in Context report that was sent from the League to the Patriots that gave them overly inflated (no pun intended) numbers of what the PSI loss was.

Lastly, I already said that if they can convince a judge or jury that the Wells Report "mistakes" on the science could not be mistakes by an expert like Exponent. It will be enough for malice.

you still have to PROVE it, whether it is proof that shows a preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. the level of proof is different in each instance - that I agree.

 

[Dr Pain]

I agree that a civil suit is a long shot simply because rational people tend to avoid court. That being said, I would not be the least bit surprised if there is damning electronic communications within the NFL. This group does not impress me as intelligent and professional. Think of Kensil and his blow up at the Patriots when this happened. Can't you see him shooting out some crazy texts or emails? I can. It is in his nature it seems. I personally hope it happens as the rats need to be cleaned out but that is not Brady's responsibility.

Jastremski and McNally may have a far better shot but it would take deep pockets to take the NFL on.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

If Brady files against the league, that's where the NFL's grievance will come in. Why?


Because, as I've talked about time and again, the NFLPA screwed up royally with the CBA:



http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...evance-with-nflpa-over-jonathan-vilma-lawsuit

Brady would then have to find a way around that provision.

"such conduct falls squarely within the protections of Article 3's no-suit provision,"

Is the CBA published anywhere where John Q public would have access? I'm very curious about this part. I can't believe that a NFL player would be waiving his right to sue the league for intentional torts simply by being a union member.

 

[Deus Irae]

nothing is "easy" to prove in court short of a smoking gun. yes, the NFl measured the balls. bur the nfl can say the guy who leaked it misunderstood the numbers. they have to find an email or text saying "we know the numbers are wrong but we are going to leak them any way" or something that proves recklessness. a mistake or negligence does not count as recklessness.

All sorts of things are easy to prove in court.

 

[Deus Irae]

"such conduct falls squarely within the protections of Article 3's no-suit provision,"

Is the CBA published anywhere where John Q public would have access? I'm very curious about this part. I can't believe that a NFL player would be waiving his right to sue the league for intentional torts simply by being a union member.

https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf

 

[Rob0729]

you still have to PROVE it, whether it is proof that shows a preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. the level of proof is different in each instance - that I agree.

Whatever the standard is, there may be enough evidence now to prove it. Again, if Brady's experts can convince a jury that there is no way a qualified firm like Exponent could have screwed up the science like they did and the only explanation is that they twisted the data to provide "proof" that the balls were manually deflated, that would be malice.

 

[Rob0729]

nothing is "easy" to prove in court short of a smoking gun. yes, the NFl measured the balls. bur the nfl can say the guy who leaked it misunderstood the numbers. they have to find an email or text saying "we know the numbers are wrong but we are going to leak then any way" or something that proves recklessness. a mistake or negligence does not count as recklessness.

i don't trust the NFL one bit. they probably deleted all their evidence that would help brady.

Aaron Hernandez wished you were right. Yes, the circumstantial evidence against him was quite a bit, but there was no smoking gun or anything close to a smoking gun. And that is a criminal trial where the burden of proof is far, far higher.

And this is the official letter from the NFL to the Patriots that has two clear lies: One of the Patriots balls measured 10.1 PSI and the other that none of the Colts balls measured below 12.5 PSI.

http://wellsreportcontext.com/nfl-letter-to-patriots/

That backs up that the League was spreading false information. In fact, that letter itself might be enough to show malice since they clearly stated incorrect information to make it look like the Patriots balls were deflated worse than they were and there was a greater discrepancy between the Patriots and Colts' footballs.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Whatever the standard is, there may be enough evidence now to prove it. Again, if Brady's experts can convince a jury that there is no way a qualified firm like Exponent could have screwed up the science like they did and the only explanation is that they twisted the data to provide "proof" that the balls were manually deflated, that would be malice.

wait, are you talking about a defamation suit against wells/exponent or the NFL?

 

[Rob0729]

wait, are you talking about a defamation suit against wells/exponent or the NFL?

It would be against Wells, Exponent, and the NFL. All will likely be named in a defamation suit along with possibly Roger Goodell, Mike Kensil, Ryan Grigson, and anyone else Brady and his legal team might think were involved in trying to defame his reputation by blowing Deflategate out of proportion. But anything Wells or Exponent did would come back to the NFL because they were hired consultants for the NFL. The NFL could turn around and sue them if they lost a case to Brady, but legally the NFL is responsible for anything Wells or Exponent did in Deflategate because they were being paid as agents of the NFL in this case.

I can guarantee you that if Brady does proceed with a defamation suit, there will likely be a lot of named defendants. It all depends on how he will claim he was libeled.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf

Hmmmm, looks like the CBA may preempt Brady's potential defamation claim. If so, that sucks.

Any labor law specialist who can clarify this? Not really my neck of the woods and I'm too lazy to research it.

 

[Ring 6]

If Brady files against the league, that's where the NFL's grievance will come in. Why?


Because, as I've talked about time and again, the NFLPA screwed up royally with the CBA:



http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...evance-with-nflpa-over-jonathan-vilma-lawsuit

Brady would then have to find a way around that provision.

Am I mistaken or isn't it pretty widely understood that any agreement that bargains away your right to legal action will always be deemed unenforceable?

 

[Ring 6]

I agree that a civil suit is a long shot simply because rational people tend to avoid court. That being said, I would not be the least bit surprised if there is damning electronic communications within the NFL. This group does not impress me as intelligent and professional. Think of Kensil and his blow up at the Patriots when this happened. Can't you see him shooting out some crazy texts or emails? I can. It is in his nature it seems. I personally hope it happens as the rats need to be cleaned out but that is not Brady's responsibility.

Jastremski and McNally may have a far better shot but it would take deep pockets to take the NFL on.

If they sue for damages an attorney would take them on for a cut of the settlement.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

Am I mistaken or isn't it pretty widely understood that any agreement that bargains away your right to legal action will always be deemed unenforceable?

You're mistaken.

 

[Rob0729]

Hmmmm, looks like the CBA may preempt Brady's potential defamation claim. If so, that sucks.

Any labor law specialist who can clarify this? Not really my neck of the woods and I'm too lazy to research it.

Jonathan Vilma filed a defamation suit against the League. It was dismissed not because the CBA wouldn't allow it, but because the judge determined that although Vilma originally had a strong defamation case when Goodell doled out the punishments, the situation was rectified when Paul Tagliabue overturn Goodell's punishment. Here is her decision:

“While the Court is extremely disturbed by the fundamental lack of due process in (Commissioner) Goodell’s denying the players the identities and the right to confront their accusers, that was substantially rectified later in the process.”

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ainst-nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell/1843089/

Vilma filed suit after the signing of the current CBA. So the CBA does not block Brady from filing a defamation suit.

 

[Ring 6]

You're mistaken.

I don't think so. The law really doesn't allow you to bargain away your legal rights.