the Patriot
Third String But Playing on Special Teams
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2007
- Messages
- 510
- Reaction score
- 94
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.I have no idea of what the specific background of YOUGOTMOSSED is. Generalizing any profession - lawyers, doctors, police, military or otherwise (with their own ethical/professional standards) - is ridiculous and ignorant. If you spend any time on this planet, then understand there are good and bad people, honorable and dishonorable, in every profession (including your own, if you have a profession). I have seen all types in actual practice in real courts. If you haven't met these people in fashioning some generalization, then I would suggest you keep your opinion to yourself because you sound completely clueless. Travel a bit and learn professions are not honorable by nature. The people who work those professions earn the right to call themselves honorable by how they conduct themselves every day. There endeth the lesson of the day.
I have worked for federal judges in the Second Circuit and Fifth Circuit (those encompass multiple states, not just some single court in NY). I have seen the disciplinary committees and the results. The rules are in place, and are enforced (happy to provide links for those google challenged souls who cannot find the published information from many state and federal courts). I have no clue what this State NY "broken system" is, because I have no context for his background or experience in making that claim. YOUGOTMOSSED cites 1 complaint and states nothing happened, then offers theories as to why that system doesn't work. I would submit that is a pretty small sample size for such a sweeping generalization.
And for the record, I stated in my reply to you, with reference to the actual ethical standard (candor), that there are penalties for dishonesty to courts, both license (rules of professional responsibility) and money (court sanctions). You asked me about the specific argument in Brady's case, and I explained why that would be challenging under the facts of this case and specific to a court order. As stated also, violations of professional responsibility are raised to committees, not courts, and have no bearing on the decision in court. I never stated that could not be done because that was not what you asked me to explain.
I understand that but if wells found no guilt goodell could not have penalized the patriots.
Perhaps you want to blame goodell for hiring wells so he would fake the report but that still means wells has to fake it.
Are you seriously telling me that if the wells report found the deflation was solely due to weather that the patriots and Brady would have been penalized?
NFL, Union Closer to Deal Stripping Roger Goodell of Discipline PowerNFL Players Association executive directorDeMaurice Smith said, after more than a year of fighting and litigation over how the NFL investigates and metes out punishment to its players, league officials and the union are moving closer to a deal that would involve Commissioner Roger Goodell giving up power over off-the-field player discipline.
well you not seeing it done is anecdotal but if its not done much then its a rather hollow ethical obligation. In the Brady case the lies are repeated from the first case and they were exposed for that. Now they repeat them. Apparently they measured it an acceptable risk. If they get away with it I'll have to conclude that its indeed hollow
Two lawyers, friends of the court, have already stated that they would be filing the proper paperwork to show that Clement lied to the court. The two lawyers are Steph Stradley and Professor Robert Blecker. It should be noted that Blecker also filed an amicus brief on behalf of the NFLPA with the 2CA.
Clement is obligated to also file the proper paperwork. If he doesn't, then he can and probably will be brought before the court. Not sure why you are harping on this so long after the fact. Especially when it's been mentioned in this thread several times that Stradley and Blecker would be filing against Clement.
Appellate judges get amicus briefs all the time in cases. Whether they read them is another matter...
He couldn't take away picks and suspend Brady if the wells report was honest and concluded nothing happened but science.
Are you seriously telling me that if the wells report found the deflation was solely due to weather that the patriots and Brady would have been penalized?
Well, this is kind of a high profile case, so I think they'll take a gander at them.
How do you penalize a team when your independent investigation says they did absolutely nothing wrong? I get the goodell hate but it's just not reality to suggest he could penalize a team proven innocent.Couldn't and wouldn't are two entirely different questions. He could penalize the Patriots anything he wanted, under the current rules. Would he, if he'd been given a different report? No one knows but him.
How do you penalize a team when your independent investigation says they did absolutely nothing wrong? I get the goodell hate but it's just not reality to suggest he could penalize a team proven innocent.
That's not correct. The wells report found that it was more likely than not that patriot employees defeated footballs.The team wasn't punished for the supposedly deflated footballs. They were punished for non cooperation during the investigation. It's a total crock, of course, but theoretically the team penalty is not tied to the actual result of the investigation.
How do you penalize a team when your independent investigation says they did absolutely nothing wrong? I get the goodell hate but it's just not reality to suggest he could penalize a team proven innocent.
If he did an honest investigation he would have.You expected $Wells$ might say "I've proven Brady and the Patriots were completely innocent and did absolutely nothing wrong.
Really? Seriously?
Appellate judges get amicus briefs all the time in cases. Whether they read them is another matter...
You've lost me. You conclude that wells is a dishonest person so that means he isn't to blame for anything because he acted dishonestly.If the league was honest, there wouldn't have needed to be an investigation.
Is someone suggesting any of the owners, commish, writers, Wells etc. are honest in this affair?
Wells was hired to do a hit, I don't know what honesty has to do with it. It's only because the persecution is so ridiculous, that he had to make up the generally aware, more probable than not bull, because, as a professional liar for hire, he knew he couldn't sell that he had actual proof of anything.
Of course, the commish changed that anyway, because he's not a good liar and doesn't care, he's a dictator and the owners rumpswab.
If anything, Wells didn't lie enough, or well enough, for his boss.
I'm not sure how saying goodell asked him to please trump up phony charges exonerates wells actions.