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

RobertWeathers · Jun 17, 2015

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

True. Not sure if they can use the crap letter Gardi sent Bob as evidence w/o a public retraction...?

YOUGOTMOSSED · Jun 17, 2015

Rob0729 said:
Jonathan Vilma filed a defamation suit against the League. It was dismissed not because the CBA wouldn't allow it, but because the judge determined that although Vilma originally had a strong defamation case when Goodell doled out the punishments, the situation was rectified when Paul Tagliabue overturn Goodell's punishment. Here is her decision:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ainst-nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell/1843089/

Vilma filed suit after the signing of the current CBA. So the CBA does not block Brady from filing a defamation suit.

"Vilma’s argument that the statements were made in Goodellʹs individual capacity is unpersuasive as
Goodell was sued as Commissioner of the NFL and all of the statements attributed to Goodell were made in connection with the NFLʹs investigation of the pay‐per‐performance/bounty allegations. Therefore, Vilma’s claims are preempted and must be dismissed. "

I'm just quoting the decision. You can read it here.

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/08516266938

YOUGOTMOSSED · Jun 17, 2015

So if the CBA is going to c*ck block Brady from a defamation suit, is there some labor law angle to be played here? Was Goodell like this after the CBA was finalized?

Deus Irae · Jun 17, 2015

YOUGOTMOSSED said:
So if the CBA is going to c*ck block Brady from a defamation suit, is there some labor law angle to be played here? Was Goodell like this after the CBA was finalized?

There may be ways around the CBA. While rights to sue can be bargained away by employees (it happens all the time. Most employment contracts now contain clauses that do just that), they are only as effectively eliminated as various laws external to the contracts allow.

We saw that with the Starcaps situation.

Rob0729 · Jun 17, 2015

YOUGOTMOSSED said:
"Vilma’s argument that the statements were made in Goodellʹs individual capacity is unpersuasive as
Goodell was sued as Commissioner of the NFL and all of the statements attributed to Goodell were made in connection with the NFLʹs investigation of the pay‐per‐performance/bounty allegations. Therefore, Vilma’s claims are preempted and must be dismissed. "

I'm just quoting the decision. You can read it here.

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/08516266938

That doesn't mean Brady cannot sue. And you missed the key part of that paragraph:

Here, even according to the plaintiff’s own Complaint, the defamation claims are directly related to Goodellʹs decision to suspend, that is, discipline Vilma, pursuant to the CBA arbitration procedure. Moreover, the defamation claims and the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress would require interpretation of multiple portions of the CBA, not just the non‐suit provision in CBA Art. 3, section 2, as Vilma contends. As set forth hereinabove, for example, the CBA authorizes Goodell to suspend a player for what he considers ʺconduct detrimentalʺ and also authorizes him to investigate actions that he suspects constitute ʺconduct detrimental.ʺ

Again, Vilma's suit was not dismissed because the CBA does not allow it. It was because they determined that Vilma couldn't sue because he was suspended for conduct detrimental. This will not be why Brady sues if he does.

Brady will sue because of what happened before the suspension. He will sue that the League leaked false information that damaging to him. He will sue that the Wells Report manufactured a case against him where there was no evidence and evidence that actually says the contrary that was spun as damaging evidence.

I may have been wrong why the Vilma case was dismissed, but my original point still stands. The CBA doesn't block a player from suing the League for defamation. And that is where the similarities between Vilma and Brady end. Vilma never claimed that Goodell manufactured evidence against him or leaked false information that made him and the Saints look more guilty than they were. That will be Brady's suit if he files it.

ralmat55 · Jun 17, 2015

Something I think we should consider when discussing potential legal action is that any action is very unlikely to make it to jury. If the NFL is the rats den we think it is, victory is obtained just by beating the NFL's request for dismissal . They'll want to settle before any oaths are taken.

I've said it before. Jastremeki and McNally have the NFL by the scrotum already.

YOUGOTMOSSED · Jun 17, 2015

Deus Irae said:
There may be ways around the CBA. While rights to sue can be bargained away by employees (it happens all the time. Most employment contracts now contain clauses that do just that), they are only as effectively eliminated as various laws external to the contracts allow.

We saw that with the Starcaps situation.

Doesn't Starcaps pre-date the current CBA?

YOUGOTMOSSED · Jun 17, 2015

Rob0729 said:
That doesn't mean Brady cannot sue. And you missed the key part of that paragraph:

Again, Vilma's suit was not dismissed because the CBA does not allow it. It was because they determined that Vilma couldn't sue because he was suspended for conduct detrimental. This will not be why Brady sues if he does.

Brady will sue because of what happened before the suspension. He will sue that the League leaked false information that damaging to him. He will sue that the Wells Report manufactured a case against him where there was no evidence and evidence that actually says the contrary that was spun as damaging evidence.

I may have been wrong why the Vilma case was dismissed, but my original point still stands. The CBA doesn't block a player from suing the League for defamation. And that is where the similarities between Vilma and Brady end. Vilma never claimed that Goodell manufactured evidence against him or leaked false information that made him and the Saints look more guilty than they were. That will be Brady's suit if he files it.

I hope that you're a MA judge who gets Brady's case assigned to him.

Danger Zone · Jun 17, 2015

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...fcbaa6-1456-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html

Sally Jenkins said:
The AEI’s report totally rejects the finding that the footballs used by the Patriots in the AFC Championship had a significant drop in air pressure compared to the Colts. But the truly damning sentence is this one, buried in its erudite phrasings and equations: “The Wells report’s statistical analysis cannot be replicated by performing the analysis as described in the report,” the AEI concludes.

Translated into normal English: The math didn’t add up. It’s a standard principle in science: If you can’t replicate a set of results, then there is a problem with them. A flaw or a fraud is at work. Either you made a mistake, or you made it up.

When the AEI analysts looked more closely at how such a mistake could have been made, what they found “astonished” them, says the report’s co-author Stan Veuger. The Wells report “relies on an unorthodox statistical procedure at odds with the methodology the report describes.” Translation: The Wells report said it would use one equation, but then used a different (and weird) equation to arrive at its numbers.

“It was really clumsy,” Veuger says. “It’s the kind of mistake you’d see in freshman statistics class.”

Another plain English phrase possibly applies to all of this:

Falsifying results.

Falsifying results indeed.

(bold/emphasis is my own)

Deus Irae · Jun 17, 2015

YOUGOTMOSSED said:
Doesn't Starcaps pre-date the current CBA?

Yes, but I wasn't bringing up Starcaps specifically in relation to the current CBA. I was bringing up Starcaps as an example of external laws v. CBAs.

YOUGOTMOSSED · Jun 17, 2015

Deus Irae said:
Yes, but I wasn't bringing up Starcaps specifically in relation to the current CBA. I was bringing up Starcaps as an example of external laws v. CBAs.

I hope you're right. The Vilma decision has me concerned that Brady may be out of court on the defamation.

Deus Irae · Jun 17, 2015

YOUGOTMOSSED said:
I hope you're right. The Vilma decision has me concerned that Brady may be out of court on the defamation.

I can't answer to that with even a guess beyond "maybe, maybe not". I'd have to read the CBA a lot more closely, and I'd have to see what the Brady/NFLPA approach was going to be, in regards to attacking any suit blocking clauses.

With that said, let me just reiterate, for what seems like the one millionth time, that the NFLPA did an incredibly ****ty job in the last CBA. That makes the NFLPAs retention of Smith afterwards even more egregious than originally choosing him was. I would wish for the NFLPA to be able to find a means to void the current CBA but, seeing what I've seen from this bunch in the past, I'm afraid the replacement CBA would be even worse.

PatsFanSince74 · Jun 17, 2015

Three things:

One, I'm not as erudite as many of you, so, while I had kind of got the general idea from the context, I did go to the Urban Dictionary for a definition of "ragdoll." "v. in American Football, an engagement between a defensive linemen and offensive lineman where the defensive linemen tosses the (typically 320 lb.) offensive lineman away like a rag doll, usually with ensuing similar deleterious actions imparted to the ball carrier."

Two. I was thinking that it's kind of hard for me to think of Goodell as a 320 lb. "offensive lineman," until I reflected that he is indeed very, very "offensive." So, yeah!

Three. Works for me.

PatsDeb · Jun 17, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
I don't think so. The law really doesn't allow you to bargain away your legal rights.

Oh yes it does.

PatsFanSince74 · Jun 17, 2015

VectorPrime said:
I love Curran and by god I hope he's right. We deserve something to go right for a change.

Yeah. We're cursed. If only Butler had held onto Wilson's goal line pass and not given the Beast the chance to run it in with no time left on the clock.

YOUGOTMOSSED · Jun 17, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
I don't think so. The law really doesn't allow you to bargain away your legal rights.

Of course you can. In some circumstances (like duress), the bargain may be unenforceable but people bargain away their legal rights all the time.

PatsFanSince74 · Jun 17, 2015

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.

This case is pure gold for the NFLPA. They've been looking for a chance to nail Goodell in court for years. In fact, it would almost be logical for them to want to lose the Appeal and get Goodell, Kensil and a whole bunch of others under oath in open court.

PatsFanSince74 · Jun 17, 2015

IllegalContact said:
this doesn't end with Brady's exoneration..........when you get to the crux of the public damage inflicted without any substantial evidence, somebody is going to have to go down for it

the only real question is whether goodell will turn on his jet buddies to save his own ass

we're getting, way, way, way ahead of ourselves. I had thought that as well, but I think that Kensil and others know where ALL Goodell's bodies are buried, so he can't throw them under the bus. If they go down, they will go down together.

The Gr8est · Jun 17, 2015

PatsFanSince74 said:
we're getting, way, way, way ahead of ourselves. I had thought that as well, but I think that Kensil and others know where ALL Goodell's bodies are buried, so he can't throw them under the bus. If they go down, they will go down together.

Now there's a thought that will send me to the hospital in four hours.

PatsFanSince74 · Jun 17, 2015

patfanken said:
Ultimately it would be fine for Brady, but it would keep him off the field in 2015 until the court makes its decision.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how that would work. but, i don't think it's out of the question that Brady and the NFLPA would be able to get an injunction staying his suspension until the case was heard if they end up going to court.

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

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Supporter

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

PatsFans.com Supporter

Similar threads