If You read Nothing Else Today, Read This From "Above The Law"

Mack Herron said:

I am not a lawyer, so others can provide more accurate replies. For defamation I believe there has to be intent. In other words, it is insufficient that the NFL lied, you would need to prove that they lied deliberately and with the intent to damage Brady. Lawyers opining on this issue all seem to agree that defamation is an especially high hurdle that is rarely achieved. Also, I don't think Brady is going to suffer much financially (his gear has in fact increased in sales) and he would be satisfied with getting the NFL findings and penalty tossed. I don't really think he wants monetary damages or contrition from the NFL. Good discussion here:

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/05/shou...d-roger-goodell-a-deflategate-email-exchange/

Click to expand...

Mack Herron said:

Incorrect readings were in the NFL letter from Gardi to the team, so it was not merely an unsourced leak. The NFL had the correct measurements and published incorrect ones. So they lied. The tricky part is proving that they were not merely incompetent, but also malicious--they had to have known they were lying (goes to state of mind). Unlike Goodell, those silly courts draw a distinction between what we believe and what we can prove.

Click to expand...

shmessy said:

Everyone is centered on Brady's 4 games. I'm convinced they could survive that.

I want the draft picks back.


.

Click to expand...

Joker said:

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/01/26/nfl-mike-kensil-deflategate

"
Former New York Jets director of operations Mike Kensil is the “driving force” behind the NFL investigation of the New England Patriots regarding underinflated footballs during the AFC Championship game against the Indianapolis Colts, reports CSNNE.com’s Tom Curran.

Kensil worked for the organization for more than 20 years, left the Jets in 2006 and is now the league’s NFL Vice President of Game Operations. Kensil's reported interest in the Patriots began well before the AFC Championship.

According to the report, the connection between the investigation and the Jets “hints certainly at a preexisting judgment” of the Patriots and head coach Bill Belichick, who denied knowing anything about the deflated footballs during a news conference last week."

The league has ZERO credibility. Goodell came in in 2006..he names THIS guy his right hand man, a position of unchecked power to do anything he wants with impunity.

Kensil has been quoted in numerous print sources AND on electronic media that he despises Bill Belichick...this recorded in 2001. Have ANY of you EVER seen Roger Goodell or Kensil in a photo, shaking hands, working co-operatively or any other normal behavior an unbiased human being would do in a league like the NFL with Bill Belechick?

Goodell comes online in 2006 ..Kensil follows..it's been Gates Of Goodhell ever since. THERE IS NO ARGUING AGAINST THIS!!!!


Kensil worked for the organization for more than 20 years, left the Jets in 2006 and is now the league’s NFL Vice President of Game Operations. Kensi's reported interest in the Patriots began well before the AFC Championship.
Kensil worked for the organization for more than 20 years, left the Jets in 2006 and is now the league’s NFL Vice President of Game Operations. Kensi's reported interest in the Patriots began well before the AFC Championship.
Kensil worked for the organization for more than 20 years, left the Jets in 2006 and is now the league’s NFL Vice President of Game Operations. Kensi's reported interest in the Patriots began well before the AFC Championship.
Kensil worked for the organization for more than 20 years, left the Jets in 2006 and is now the league’s NFL Vice President of Game Operations. Kensi's reported interest in the Patriots began well before the AFC Championship.

Stop looking everywhere else for answers...the ANSWER is staring all of you in the face.

Click to expand...

Jlaff said:

Even what constitutes intent might not be a simple dictionary definition of the word in the context of defamation (just speculating, don't know US laws concerning this).

"Intent" in some circumstances can include being wilfully blind to consequences of actions, or "wilfully courting the risk" (know there is potential harm in actions, but proceed anyway). Heck, I believe gross negligence in some circumstances can fall under "intent", but don't take any of this to the bank.

Edit: and I don't buy that because it's been difficult to prove in the past means it won't happen here. The facts are almost unprecedented, which could very well lead to a supposedly unprecedented result. Then you throw in the best lawyers money can buy. You might be reading about Brady v NFL for years to come in law school casebooks.

Click to expand...

Sicilian said:

Forgot about the Gardi letter. Thank you for reminding me.

Click to expand...

Mack Herron said:

I am hoping and expecting this winds up in court, where the Gardi letter will undoubtedly be introduced as evidence. I will be most curious to hear the NFL explanation of where these numbers came from. I doubt Gardi made it up while typing. They had to have come from a written report of measurements. But they certainly did not come from the same list as the numbers provided to Wells and Exponent. So where is this list and where did it come from? Kensil was at Gillette directing the matter for the NFL. The NFLPA calls to the stand...

Click to expand...

Jlaff said:

Even what constitutes intent might not be a simple dictionary definition of the word in the context of defamation (just speculating, don't know US laws concerning this).

"Intent" in some circumstances can include being wilfully blind to consequences of actions, or "wilfully courting the risk" (know there is potential harm in actions, but proceed anyway). Heck, I believe gross negligence in some circumstances can fall under "intent", but don't take any of this to the bank.

Edit: and I don't buy that because it's been difficult to prove in the past means it won't happen here. The facts are almost unprecedented, which could very well lead to a supposedly unprecedented result. Then you throw in the best lawyers money can buy. You might be reading about Brady v NFL for years to come in law school casebooks.

Click to expand...

YOUGOTMOSSED said:

Well, as a practical matter, no one in the NFL is going to admit that they did this to maliciously screw the Patriots but you can infer intent based on actions. For example, hasn't Kensil publicly expressed his dislike of Belichick? How do you possibly let this guy head the investigation unless you had bad intentions?

Click to expand...

The name “actual malice” is misleading. Although the phrase conjures up images of defendants hatching evil plots to harm the plaintiff, a nefarious purpose isn’t required to prove actual malice. Rather, actual malice occurs when:

• The defendant publishes a statement about the plaintiff he knows is false; or
• The defendant publishes a statement about the plaintiff with reckless disregard for whether it is false or true.

In other words, defendants who make statements about public figures are expected to do some background research if they doubt the statement is true. They are also expected not to publish any statement that they know is not true.

Click to expand...

Actual malice in United States law is a condition required to establish libel against public officials or public figures and is defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Reckless disregard does not encompass mere neglect in following professional standards of fact checking. The publisher must entertain actual doubt as to the statement's truth. This is the definition in only the United States and came from the landmark 1964 lawsuit New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which ruled that public officials needed to prove actual malice in order to recover damages for libel.

Click to expand...

Under the rules set forth in Sullivan, a public official cannot recover from a person who publishes a communication about a public official's conduct or fitness unless the defendant knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of the statement's truth or falsity. This standard is referred to as "actual malice," although malice in this sense does not mean ill-will. Instead, the actual malice standard refers to the defendant's knowledge of the truth or falsity of the statement.

Click to expand...

upstater1 said:

There is enough here that they can go after the NFL for defamation.

Maybe a few news and TV stations as well.

I mean, Mark Brunell called Brady a liar outright.

I didn't say they would win, but the Vincent-Kensil-Gardi-Harbaugh-Grigson crew conspired.

Click to expand...

Mack Herron said:

I am hoping and expecting this winds up in court, where the Gardi letter will undoubtedly be introduced as evidence. I will be most curious to hear the NFL explanation of where these numbers came from. I doubt Gardi made it up while typing. They had to have come from a written report of measurements. But they certainly did not come from the same list as the numbers provided to Wells and Exponent. So where is this list and where did it come from? Kensil was at Gillette directing the matter for the NFL. The NFLPA calls to the stand...

Click to expand...

Gardi did not personally attend the AFC Championship Game (he had been in Seattle for the NFC Championship Game), and drafted the letter based on communications with colleagues with first-hand knowledge of events that had taken place at Gillette Stadium.

In fact , none of the Patriots game balls measured 10.1 psi when they were tested at halftime. We believe that there was an inadvertent error in communication of the results to Gardi. The NFL personnel providing the air pressure information to Gardi at the time did not have copies of the documents on which the measurements had been recorded by Richard Farley and were relying on memory alone. We do not believe that this error raises any doubt about the accuracy of the measurements recorded by Farley or any other relevant issue. We also note that the statement in the letter about the Colts measurements did not make clear that the Colts game balls inspected met the requirements on at least one of the two gauges used to measure the balls. In any event, with the knowledge and approval of League staff, we subsequently provided all of the air pressure data to counsel for the Patriots during the course of the investigation subject to a confidentiality commitment.

Click to expand...

Sicilian said:

I'm certainly no lawyer either, but I imagine you'd also have to prove that it was indeed the NFL who leaked the incorrect readings. If all that happened was the wrong numbers were published, I don't think the NFL has any legal obligation to set the record straight on what they could claim was an "unfounded rumor".

Click to expand...