AFL-CIO files amicus brief in support of Tom Brady

[Fencer]

When an innocent ruling by an Arbitrator would put the Arbitrator's own job in jeopardy with his employers.. there is something inherently very wrong. CBA or no CBA.

This is why I find this amicus point so wonderful and compelling. It speaks directly to the unfairness of Goodell appointing himself Arbitrator in a case that he professionally couldn't afford to see blow up in his face.

The Supreme Court has made clear that "elementary requirements of impartiality taken for granted in every judicial proceeding" are not "suspended when parties agree to resolve a dispute through arbitration."

I don't quite agree. If Goodell chose to be a halfway honest and decent person, I think the owners would let him get away with it.

That said, we'll never know whether my opinion on that score is correct ...

 

[Fencer]

That's when Goodell went wishy washy because everyone was pointing out only the commissioner had the right to hand down a decision. Goodell claimed it was his decision and Vincent was just communicating the fact (which we know was a bunch of brontosaurus sized poop and the media was still in their pocket and didn't bother to challenge the fact).

That's the one part of the whole thing that doesn't much bother me.

Goodell delegated. The main bad thing about it was that he could create a pretense of stand-offish impartiality that way -- but frankly, the pretence of independence and impartiality was blown to smithereens. The one thing that's gone right in the public perception of this whole thing since a few months into the process is that few people think the Wells report or anything else was "independent".

 

[Joker]

Mike Kensil reportedly told Patriots 'you're in big f---ing trouble' at halftime

"Shortly after the Deflategate scandal erupted, a report indicated that Kensil — who worked for the New York Jets for 20 years until 2006 — was the driving force behind the investigation. According to Greg Bedard of Sports Illustrated, Patriots officials claim Kensil walked up to equipment manager Dave Schoenfield at halftime and said, “We weighed the balls. You are in big f—ing trouble.”

Page 71 of the Wells report alludes to the conversation between Kensil and Schoenfield, though only to say that the two men have “different recollections of the precise sequence and content of the conversation.” Patriots officials basically feel that the exact content was important in showing that Kensil took joy in trying to catch them in the act."

GAME SET MATCH...*****

 

[venecol]

Mike Kensil reportedly told Patriots 'you're in big f---ing trouble' at halftime

"Shortly after the Deflategate scandal erupted, a report indicated that Kensil — who worked for the New York Jets for 20 years until 2006 — was the driving force behind the investigation. According to Greg Bedard of Sports Illustrated, Patriots officials claim Kensil walked up to equipment manager Dave Schoenfield at halftime and said, “We weighed the balls. You are in big f—ing trouble.”

Page 71 of the Wells report alludes to the conversation between Kensil and Schoenfield, though only to say that the two men have “different recollections of the precise sequence and content of the conversation.” Patriots officials basically feel that the exact content was important in showing that Kensil took joy in trying to catch them in the act."

GAME SET MATCH...*****

I think this goes to the NFLs ineptitude in this ordeal when the guy says "we weighed the balls." They had no idea what they were doing. Zero.

 

[Gumby]

I believe constitutional law is far more complicated than you surmise. How do you "literally" apply letter of the law on issues like abortion, gay marriage, or a whole host of issues that were not around back then, especially after the industrial revolution, and the advances in science of the past 80 years? Intent would be needed to do it and obviously past court rulings. There can always be two sides to every argument.

My argument (and the one i was countering) were not about constituional law per se, but about judicial philosophy. I think everyone who editorializes or reads about constitutional issues has a basic (and relatively common) understanding of the terms 'activist' and 'strict constitutionalist ' judicial philosophy. They are certainly better predictors of behavior/votes than saying 4 are 'pro-business' (whatever that may mean in real world-other than its use as a simple perjorative) , which is what my preceding poster was arguing.

 

[Gumby]

Wallach calls Feinberg's brief "the most important" of all the amicus briefs filed thus far.

Agree, Simply GREAT!

Feinberg hammers multiple points with a freaking sledgehammer logic (I like the below example):

First, an award that creates new violations never before identified or exacted punishment far in excess of that previously prescribed, is unenforceable. See In re Marine Pollution Serv., Inc., 857 F.2d 91, 93-96 (2d Cir. 1988). It is undisputed that the award here did both.

If the NFL sought to add a new violation for failure to report wrongdoing, increase the penalty for equipment violations, or begin suspending players for obstruction, it would be within its rights to do so. But these changes must come through the bargaining process—not the arbitration process. The arbitrator, whose authority is derivative of the contract, cannot modify the contract. Alexander, 415 U.S. at 53; Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U.S. at 683-84.

 

[GrogansArmy]

GAME SET MATCH...*****

Is that Kensil? My god he looks just like the spitting image of a corrupt cop that uses his badge to bully and abuse innocents.

 

[venecol]

My argument (and the one i was countering) were not about constituional law per se, but about judicial philosophy. I think everyone who editorializes or reads about constitutional issues has a basic (and relatively common) understanding of the terms 'activist' and 'strict constitutionalist ' judicial philosophy. They are certainly better predictors of behavior/votes than saying 4 are 'pro-business' (whatever that may mean in real world-other than its use as a simple perjorative) , which is what my preceding poster was arguing.

Gottcha

 

[Tony2046]

I don't know how any of us (well, the guys anyway) can possibly read all of those briefs and fail to get an erection lasting longer than 4 yours.

Powerful stuff!

If that's the case may I suggest bringing this with you to the bathroom.

(Guess what the centerfold is? Yep. You got it. The AFL-CIO Amicus.)

 

[Tony2046]

I don't quite agree. If Goodell chose to be a halfway honest and decent person, I think the owners would let him get away with it.

That said, we'll never know whether my opinion on that score is correct ...

Not sure I agree with that. Wouldn't that imply that the owners would have to be halfway honest etc....?

I'm sure some are but the more visible ones are just **** bags.

 

[Gumby]

My argument (and the one i was countering) were not about constituional law per se, but about judicial philosophy. I think everyone who editorializes or reads about constitutional issues has a basic (and relatively common) understanding of the terms 'activist' and 'strict constitutionalist ' judicial philosophy. They are certainly better predictors of behavior/votes than saying 4 are 'pro-business' (whatever that may mean in real world-other than its use as a simple perjorative) , which is what my preceding poster was arguing.

PS: i'm not a legal scholar, but i think we are talking solely about CONTRACT LAW here in this case and not constitutional or criminal law.

 

[XLIX]

Wallach calls Feinberg's brief "the most important" of all the amicus briefs filed thus far.

I respectfully disagree with that opinion. Feinberg's is probably the most succinct, persuasive one but IMHO the AFL-CIO filing is the most important one because having them on board emphasizes the importance of this case (which is one of the criteria for considering en banc).

 

[Tony2046]

PS: i'm not a legal scholar, but i think we are talking solely about CONTRACT LAW here in this case and not constitutional or criminal law.

Are you a Lawyer Gumby?

 

[Koma]

The best time for the NFL to "end this" was early May of last year, with a more honest version of the Wells report. They could have crafted it so everyone got a little positive and negative. First and foremost, they could have said there was no manual deflation and the PSI change was entirely to the weather and temperature changes.

For the Patriots, the league could have levied a penalty similar to what the Falcons received for pumping in crowd noise, a $35ok fine and the loss of a 2016 fifth round pick. They could have justified this by McNally leaving with the balls alone and stopping in the bathroom and by Brady not surrendering his phone. It would be a hit, but nothing crazy.

For the league itself, they could have come close to the apology that Kraft wanted by sacking the people who leaked false information to the media after the AFCCG and sent incorrect information to the Patriots. They could have admitted their ignorance of the IGL and their errors in handling the situation prior to the game. That is, they should have notified the Patriots of the complaint before the game and then had a detailed plan to test the balls at halftime and after the game. This could segue into their new protocols for securing and monitoring footballs during the next season. They would have looked proactive and smart - "We had a complaint, we addressed and found no wrongdoing, and we set up a system to prevent any such incidents in the future."

Finally, they could have fined the Colts $200k for making baseless accusations against another team and for breaking the rules by gauging a football on the sidelines during the game.

That would have ended it. No suspensions, no court cases, nothing lingering into the 2015 season. The NFL had 3 months to come up with a solution like that, but opted to portray themselves as being pure and blameless while nuking the Patriots instead.

Either the NFL didn't see "this nonsense" coming when they chose their path or they did and they decided to proceed anyway. Either way, it doesn't paint them in a positive light. It's also a pretty strong indication that they aren't going to end things any time soon.

 

[XLIX]

PS: i'm not a legal scholar, but i think we are talking solely about CONTRACT LAW here in this case and not constitutional or criminal law.

It is federal law which is the crux of the matter. Federal law says arbitrators get a lot of leeway, but must be fair. Goodell says he was fair. Brady says he wasn't. And that's why we have judges to interpret the laws.

 

[Tony2046]

I respectfully disagree with that opinion. Feinberg's is probably the most succinct, persuasive one by IMHO the AFL-CIO filing is the most important one because having them on board emphasizes the importance of this case (which is one of the criteria for considering en banc).

Question: IF one Amicus sparks interests by the judges to re-look at their decision does that also mean that they are more likely to read the other briefs filed?

 

[XLIX]

Question: IF one Amicus sparks interests by the judges to re-look at their decision does that also mean that they are more likely to read the other briefs filed?

I honestly think that that would depend on the judge. I bet a couple of judges already have their minds made up and wouldn't be swayed one way or another by all the amicus briefings in the world. But hopefully getting amicus briefs from such prominent parties could help a judge on the fence decide it is worth the court's time to have an en banc review.

 

[venecol]

The best time for the NFL to "end this" was early May of last year, with a more honest version of the Wells report. They could have crafted it so everyone got a little positive and negative. First and foremost, they could have said there was no manual deflation and the PSI change was entirely to the weather and temperature changes.

For the Patriots, the league could have levied a penalty similar to what the Falcons received for pumping in crowd noise, a $35ok fine and the loss of a 2016 fifth round pick. They could have justified this by McNally leaving with the balls alone and stopping in the bathroom and by Brady not surrendering his phone. It would be a hit, but nothing crazy.

For the league itself, they could have come close to the apology that Kraft wanted by sacking the people who leaked false information to the media after the AFCCG and sent incorrect information to the Patriots. They could have admitted their ignorance of the IGL and their errors in handling the situation prior to the game. That is, they should have notified the Patriots of the complaint before the game and then had a detailed plan to test the balls at halftime and after the game. This could segue into their new protocols for securing and monitoring footballs during the next season. They would have looked proactive and smart - "We had a complaint, we addressed and found no wrongdoing, and we set up a system to prevent any such incidents in the future."

Finally, they could have fined the Colts $200k for making baseless accusations against another team and for breaking the rules by gauging a football on the sidelines during the game.

That would have ended it. No suspensions, no court cases, nothing lingering into the 2015 season. The NFL had 3 months to come up with a solution like that, but opted to portray themselves as being pure and blameless while nuking the Patriots instead.

Either the NFL didn't see "this nonsense" coming when they chose their path or they did and they decided to proceed anyway. Either way, it doesn't paint them in a positive light. It's also a pretty strong indication that they aren't going to end things any time soon.

There was another time they could have ended it, when Berman warned everyone that these cases could take years to resolve and encouraged a settlement.

 

[venecol]

Question: IF one Amicus sparks interests by the judges to re-look at their decision does that also mean that they are more likely to read the other briefs filed?

Short answer: nobody knows.

 

[Joker]

Goodell says a lot of things.The amount of lies he's strewn across the landscape since his youth are prodigious.

"I played football for nine years of my life so I KNOW the game"...oh really? He never played a game of anything AFTER high school but...well, yeah, Roger says he did so...THAT PROVES IT!

Despite all we now know about the long-term danger of concussions, with all their tragic consequences, Roger Goodell said Friday he would encourage his son to play football.

That’s easy for him to say considering he doesn’t have a son.

“If I had a son, I’d love to have him play the game of football,” Goodell said during his annual state of the league address ahead of Super Bowl 50. “There’s risk in life. There’s risk to sitting on the couch.”

I mean, c'mon...Magna Cum Laude? LIE..intern for the NFL a year AFTER graduating Washington and Jefferson? an impossibility by his own NFL rules! another overt LIE. ESPN interviewer states on video "as a lawyer, Roger, you oversee etc etc etc" Goodell nods in agreement. On video tape for posterity. Goodell is NOT A LAWYER. Maybe he thought Firestone or whoever it was said LIAR instead of lawyer.
Goodell has lied about Ray Rice to the national media. Proven fact. He's lied continually during the past year and half about everything associated with this preposterous Deflategate crap, documented over and over and over again and again...BUT

Goodell says he was fair. Yeah, Caligula said the same thing. Krist, just stop this insanity.