August 19th hearing transcript now available

[RelocatedPatFan]

Go to Chiefsplanet.com and read their threads on the topic. You'll find a sea change in opinions. I'm not going to check every forum in the U.S., but that's one example of people figuring it out.

Better than I thought and about the same. Seemed to me the same person fighting the good fight until the end.

Even then, they still have some essential facts wrong (deflator = equipment manager and Brady not knowing his name. they apparently didn't know there were 2 guys). Then again, I don't get my facts from the national media, so that might be the best one can hope for outside of "true" Patriot fans.

 

[eom]

mr wallach back on the job on twitter

https://twitter.com/WALLACHLEGAL

apparently, he was banging these out at a cigar bar at 1 am after I went to sleep last night, and he's already back at it.

btw, wallach has been on this tirelessly all day --- still going through it bit by bit

 

[Deus Irae]

btw, wallach has been on this tirelessly all day --- still going through it bit by bit

He's mostly repeating what we've already covered, but it's good to see that he's zoning in on mostly the same things.

 

[ivanvamp]

I said in a previous thread that I believe that if Berman ends up deciding to vacate the decision, one of his stipulations might be that the commissioner must explicitly separate penalties so that they apply to very specific incidents in which the NFL alleges Brady has broken NFL policies, because the way Vincent and Goodell conspired to rule based on a broad impression of "conduct detrimental" that includes some combination of tampering and non-cooperation (especially without respect to any particular incident of tampering) gave Brady no real mechanism to defend himself against each of those individual accusation and thus fight any part of the penalty in the appeal. That would explain why Berman is focusing so much on how much of the suspension is attributable to each specific action, and also why he keeps bringing up whether or not the Wells report and Goodell's decision distinguish between Brady's culpability in the AFC Championship Game tampering accusation (the only game for which the NFL even claims to have physical evidence of tampering) and an alleged ball deflation scheme that lasted more than a full season (as the NFL's claims about texts dating back to May 2014 would indicate).

For the life of me, I'm still trying to figure out what Brady actually did that either violated the integrity of the game, or would be considered "conduct detrimental" to the NFL.

Nobody has adequately explained and demonstrated anything Brady has done that is remotely associable with either of these two things.

 

[smurfalarm]

For the life of me, I'm still trying to figure out what Brady actually did that either violated the integrity of the game, or would be considered "conduct detrimental" to the NFL.

Nobody has adequately explained and demonstrated anything Brady has done that is remotely associable with either of these two things.

Agreed, and I tried to be pretty careful about using qualifiers like "alleged" and "claims" specifically for that reason. The NFL has played fast and loose with the evidence and the conclusions they have drawn from it.

 

[Ring 6]

For the life of me, I'm still trying to figure out what Brady actually did that either violated the integrity of the game, or would be considered "conduct detrimental" to the NFL.

Nobody has adequately explained and demonstrated anything Brady has done that is remotely associable with either of these two things.

The argument is that Tom Brady conspired with the Deflator and the Dorito Dink to cheat in order to have an unfair advantage by waiting until after the ref measured the balls at 12.5 psi, and then taking air out,because he felt that he had a better chance of winning if he played with softer footballs and knew the refs wouldn't let him do that.

IF he actually had done that, I would agree it is a conduct detrimental to the game.
The problem is there is nothing even in the vicinity of proof that it even happened, or that if it did Brady had anything to do with it.
There is not a single word of testimony in the entire case that refutes Brady, Deflator and DDs testimony that they did nothing. And there is no legitimate direct physical evidence either.

 

[Deus Irae]

For the life of me, I'm still trying to figure out what Brady actually did that either violated the integrity of the game, or would be considered "conduct detrimental" to the NFL.

Nobody has adequately explained and demonstrated anything Brady has done that is remotely associable with either of these two things.

Integrity of the game is a catch-all. As the Judge said, everything goes to the integrity of the game. That's why the NFLPA is trying to get the ruling basis narrowed down.

 

[ChoWZa]

IF he actually had done that, I would agree it is a conduct detrimental to the game.
The problem is there is nothing even in the vicinity of proof that it even happened, or that if it did Brady had anything to do with it.
There is not a single word of testimony in the entire case that refutes Brady, Deflator and DDs testimony that they did nothing. And there is no legitimate direct physical evidence either.

Whether or not something happened and if something happened was Brady involved is a minor issue. The bigger issue is that this was equated to steroids, when it's more analogous to stickum which is a first offense fine (paraphrasing Kessler's argument).

The media would all jump on Goodell's side again if we suddenly found out Brady was guilty, but that's not even the issue. You can't send someone to jail for life for jaywalking.

 

[Angelpats]

The media would all jump on Goodell's side again if we suddenly found out Brady was guilty, but that's not even the issue. You can't send someone to jail for life for jaywalking.

According to article 46 Goodell can, that's right after he gets takes out his leather belt and gives you a spanking.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Can someone explain to this non-lawyer to importance of the discussion as to whether Goodell would really have had the authority to decide if Pash's testimony would be cumulative or non-cumulative. Basically, what does that mean and why was it (to the judge, seemingly) so important?

I get the importance of having Pash testify and be cross-examined (Brady has the right to question his accusers) but I didn't "get" the other aspects of that situation. Thanks in advance!

 

[ChoWZa]

Can someone explain to this non-lawyer to importance of the discussion as to whether Goodell would really have had the authority to decide if Pash's testimony would be cumulative or non-cumulative. Basically, what does that mean and why was it (to the judge, seemingly) so important?

I get the importance of having Pash testify and be cross-examined (Brady has the right to question his accusers) but I didn't "get" the other aspects of that situation. Thanks in advance!

Well, as Kessler argued how could Goodell know if what Pash would say would be cumulative or non-cumulative before he said it? ie. How does Goodell know what Pash will say and what will be asked?

Berman realizes Pash was a co-author of the Wells report, per the NFL, which they tried to deny but it was in their press report, as Berman beat them up for. For this reason Berman did not seem to agree that Pash had no involvement, as the NFL argued, and should have been made available for testimony.

Goodell refusing to let them question Pash is the most likely reason (IMO[not a lawyer]) the suspension gets vacated. As Berman said, you've got to let them make their case. There was also precedent for vacating arbitration awards based on arbitrations refusing witnesses to be called.

 

[Deus Irae]

Can someone explain to this non-lawyer to importance of the discussion as to whether Goodell would really have had the authority to decide if Pash's testimony would be cumulative or non-cumulative. Basically, what does that mean and why was it (to the judge, seemingly) so important?

I get the importance of having Pash testify and be cross-examined (Brady has the right to question his accusers) but I didn't "get" the other aspects of that situation. Thanks in advance!

Realistically, he best way to look at it is that Pash is basically trying to get everything under the near absolute deference to findings of fact, while Kessler is arguing that not every decision reached by Goodell is an issue of fact, and that he doesn't get a free pass on those other things. Who can be prevented from testifying is not exclusively fact. It's procedure.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I guess I was confused by the cumulative/non-cumulative semantics. So... Goodell was basically deciding that anything Pash might have to say would be full encompassed by what Wells could testify to, since in his opinion Pash's role in the report was insignificant relative to Well's role. Berman is saying that this argument seems quite unreasonable, for someone(Pash) who was designated co-lead investigator an that in fact had edited the report.

So the fact of the exclusion of Pash, and also the reasoning expressed by the arbitrator (Goodell) for the exclusion, are each very problematic. Good!

 

[PatsWSB47]

I hope Berman finds the NFL's* position that Pash wasn't really part of the investigation...that it was just an error in the press release, "not credible" and then follows that up with "see how that feels!"

 

[Ivan]

For the life of me, I'm still trying to figure out what Brady actually did that either violated the integrity of the game, or would be considered "conduct detrimental" to the NFL.

Nobody has adequately explained and demonstrated anything Brady has done that is remotely associable with either of these two things.

It was cold, he was there. There is no way the weather deflated those footballs without Tom Brady's permission.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

I guess I was confused by the cumulative/non-cumulative semantics. So... Goodell was basically deciding that anything Pash might have to say would be full encompassed by what Wells could testify to, since in his opinion Pash's role in the report was insignificant relative to Well's role. Berman is saying that this argument seems quite unreasonable, for someone(Pash) who was designated co-lead investigator an that in fact had edited the report.

So the fact of the exclusion of Pash, and also the reasoning expressed by the arbitrator (Goodell) for the exclusion, are each very problematic. Good!

Wells also blew the cumulative reasoning up. Wells said Pash made edits, when asked what he edited Wells said he didn't know. So Wells basically testified Pash's testimony could not be cumulative, because Pash knows things Wells doesn't.

Berman seemed to be saying the law says he can't just say its cumulative without a reason. Add in Wells testifying it isn't cumulative and that would seem to be at least one unassailable reason to vacate.

 

[MagicMarker]

I wonder how extensive Pash's edits were. Is it possible Wells conclusion was "inconclusive" and Pash changed the conclusion?

 

[BradyFTW!]

I wonder how extensive Pash's edits were. Is it possible Wells conclusion was "inconclusive" and Pash changed the conclusion?

As hilariously awesome as it would be for that to come out, I don't think it's plausible. Wells would've said something by now if that was the case, IMO.

 

[raduray]

I would prefer Deez Nuts be Commissioner over Goodell.

I would rather have dikembe.

 

[SVN]

https://twitter.com/IanPGunn

another attorney chiming in