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

Deus Irae said:

Malice, in U.S. legal terms, doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Click to expand...

BINGO!
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."

EG-publishing a psi reading you knew, or reasonably should have know was incorrect. At the very least, it should get the issue past summary judgment and to the jury which, I can assure you, would be the Goodell and the NFL 's worst nightmare.

I like Curran, but how does this article say anything? Curran hopes that for once things in this debacle go Brady's way, with Brady out-evidencing and outwitting dim-witted, agenda-driven Roger Goodell. Since that hasn't happened so far, I am not holding my breath.

Wax Frog said:

Click to expand...

LMAO...

Who is that guy w/ the glasses - George Steinbrenner?

PatsFanInVa said:

I just read the article and I'm trying to take off my Patriots goggles and say yes, it's what I wanted to read, but no, there's no qualitative difference in the reporting.

It's "the feeling is" rather than "sources say..." So therefore I'm trying not to hang any fan-emotion on this. There is this: a union in a quasi-adversarial relationship with the League is way more likely to back his case than 1/32 of league ownership (Kraft) or the hired random "judge," goodell.

This scandal's just ugly to me, because it lays bare the NFL* for what it is as an organization. But I guess I have said this before and am stating the obvious saying it again.

But if there's anybody who has an interest in backing Brady, it's the NFLPA (the guys who Brady has backed in the past.)

Now I wonder if they hang with him past the Goodell appeal stage and into any court case... of course we also do not know whether Brady goes to court.

Click to expand...

Of course they will, the union wants this to go past appeal and to the courts. The NFLPA didn't hire Jeff Kessler just to argue an appeal.

h0c2000 said:

More likely he's using Altavista based on his research so far. That's if he's still not using gopher.

Click to expand...

Dogpile seems like the obvious choice for him.

Tony2046 said:

My curiosity is that if the Wells report is debunked in court and it is proven that nothing was done how does Roger maintain the loss of draft picks?

Click to expand...

He doesn't have to justify it. The punishment was made and Kraft *****ed out rather than appeal. Even if/when Brady's team destroys the Wells Report in court, the picks aren't coming back because Kraft is a gutless loser.

YOUGOTMOSSED said:

BINGO!
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."

EG-publishing a psi reading you knew, or reasonably should have know was incorrect. At the very least, it should get the issue past summary judgment and to the jury which, I can assure you, would be the Goodell and the NFL 's worst nightmare.

Click to expand...

Hmm. I'm not a legal-eagle but it sounds like because the NFL never retracted/discredited Mort's report, an argument can be made. However, the NFL can say that there are not grounds for malice as the intent was not to commit libel vs Brady.

raduray said:

1. The NFL leaked incorrect PSI numbers.
2. The NFL knew the leaked numbers were wrong.
3. The Patriots were forbidden by the NFL to correct the information (can someone verify that).

If #3 above is correct, how is that not willful and malicious?

Click to expand...

you still have to prove #1-3 above. it won't be easy.

robertweathers said:

Hmm. I'm not a legal-eagle but it sounds like because the NFL never retracted/discredited Mort's report, an argument can be made. However, the NFL can say that there are not grounds for malice as the intent was not to commit libel vs Brady.

Click to expand...

not only that the NFL can say it made a mistake in giving false PSI numbers to Mort. a mistake does not equal malicious intent or actual malice.

raduray said:

3. The Patriots were forbidden by the NFL to correct the information (can someone verify that).

Click to expand...

Was reported the NFL made Patriots sign a non-closure agreement if they wanted to know the correct PSI readings.

Which i'm sure Brady's people will bring up. They are gonna ask why with the false Mortenson report and the NFL knowing the correct readings did the NFL never come out and refute Mortenson. All they did was have Greg Aiello come out and say "They weren't commenting at this time". This was after Mortenson point blank said NFL had the 2 below PSI readings and that league sources involved with investigation said it. Then they made the Pats sign a NDA to learn the proper readings? What's the reason for the NDA? If this was a fair and unbiased investigation why would the NFL block the Patriots from telling what the readings really were after they were dragged through the mud because of Mortenson and NFL's David Gardi's point blank lies.

Daid Gardi is the one who sent Kraft the letter in Janaury that all the balls were under and that one even meaursed as low as 10.1, which turned out to be false. He also said all the Colts balls within the required range which turned out to be false as well.

I still think it is funny that media throw out so much incorrect information about the legal process:

• Many mediots still think that Brady will have turn over his cell phone. Absolutely wrong. He will only have to do that if he files a defamation suit and even then that isn't guaranteed. The lawsuit to overturn the suspension and/or Goodell's appeal decision will be a CBA and procedural claim. No evidence about whether Brady is guilty or innocent will be heard.
• Many mediots now say that if Brady brings this to court, that he will have to go to court every week until it is resolved. Also not true, because it is arguing procedural stuff, Brady may not need to be present for this.

TommyBrady12 said:

you still have to prove #1-3 above. it won't be easy.

Click to expand...

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.

TommyBrady12 said:

Brady won't win a defamation suit. he would have to prove actual malace to defame by the NFL. The NFL screwed up, but was it done maliciously to defame him? also, brady is a public figure so the standard to prove defamation is even higher.

Click to expand...

Actually, as other pointed out you are misunderstanding the legal term malice. And none, public people do not have to prove malice at all. That is only a legal standard for public figures.

That is why I expect Jim McNally to get a nice little settlement from ESPN (assuming they haven't already given him a nice settlement).

But there is plenty of reasons to believe that Brady can prove malice. It looks pretty clear that Wells twisted the scientific data to give the illusion that there was no way that the Patriots footballs could have deflated to the levels they were naturally. Obviously, that has been debunked by many sources. If Brady can convince a judge or jury that no scientific expert like Exponent could make such a mistake without purposely trying to manipulate the data, that is malice.

Also, Brady would subpoena cell phone, business phone, and email records from all the key players in the league. If there are phone records of Mike Kensil talking to Chris Mortensen for 15 minutes the day of or before Mort does the 2 PSI report, that may also show malice.

Hell, just because there were leaks incorrect and damaging to the Patriots and Brady that weren't true and any reasonable person can conclude that it was leaked by the NFL, it may be enough to prove malice for a civil proceedings.

robertweathers said:

Hmm. I'm not a legal-eagle but it sounds like because the NFL never retracted/discredited Mort's report, an argument can be made. However, the NFL can say that there are not grounds for malice as the intent was not to commit libel vs Brady.

Click to expand...

That raises the issue of whether the statement they made (incorrect psi) was defamatory in nature. I think Brady has a case here too.

By publishing an incorrect psi reading (lower than it actually was), the implication is that the deflation went beyond that which could have occurred as a result of natural weather conditions so the Patriots and Brady must have manipulated the balls. That's the defamation.

The game here is whether your case can survive a dismissal by the judge and get to a jury (of course, you can still lose here as juries are highly unpredictable). My point is (1) the case for actual malice seems to have a basis and (2) that the incorrect psi report is defamatory in nature. Of course, a judge may not necessarily see it that way but, IMO, the theories are solid. At the very least, there appears to be a good faith basis to proceed and the discovery process should be interesting.

robertweathers said:

Hmm. I'm not a legal-eagle but it sounds like because the NFL never retracted/discredited Mort's report, an argument can be made. However, the NFL can say that there are not grounds for malice as the intent was not to commit libel vs Brady.

Click to expand...

Mort's report is irrelevant, barring further information about precisely how he got his information. The false NFL claims matter, though.

TommyBrady12 said:

you still have to prove #1-3 above. it won't be easy.

Click to expand...

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.

TommyBrady12 said:

not only that the NFL can say it made a mistake in giving false PSI numbers to Mort. a mistake does not equal malicious intent or actual malice.

Click to expand...

I'm 99.9% sure that they ran with that same story on their own network. That's going to be a little bit harder to explain away.

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.

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.

Do I have this right?

patfanken said:

I agree with everything you wrote, but there is one thing that troubles me a lot and that is TIME. When you go to court you have to move on THEIR speed, and courts move very slowly. Goodlell can drag the appeals process for months, and by the time it even gets to court the season can be started making it all moot. In other words, the TIMING of this entire process is a BIG issue and needs to be part of any discussion of it.

Click to expand...

I agree that's an issue Ken but I think that it's a risk Brady has to take. At this point I would take the risk of the late season or playoff suspension over folding because I think Brady deserves that support. And I really cannot see a court sanction what amounts to a 2 million dollar fine because the NFL thinks he may have known about something that probably didn't happen. Brady's legacy is worth taking whatever chance there is to exonerate him. I'm also looking forward to watching him take it out on those they face this season.

Tony2046 said:

My curiosity is that if the Wells report is debunked in court and it is proven that nothing was done how does Roger maintain the loss of draft picks?

Click to expand...

He says they don't agree and does what he feels like anyways, just as he did to the Saints.