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

RelocatedPatFan said:

I'm just wondering if there's a way to get Mortenson's source. Or a way to get after his phone/text records to see who may have communicated the information.

Click to expand...

rlcarr is hacking into the NSA phone record database as we await

YOUGOTMOSSED said:

I'll post the money shot again:

"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. "(emphasis added.)

My reading of that is that it didn't matter whether Goodell was sued individually or sued as an NFL agent, what mattered is Goodell's statements were part of a league investigation covered by the CBA. My guess is that the attorneys chose to frame it as Goodell acting as an individual to try to do an "end around" on the CBA preemption and the court didn't buy it.

Brady and the players union may have other legal recourse (based on breach of duty of "good faith"-type theories in CBA enforcement) but I'm not a labor law guy so I can't really speak to it. I thought the defamation aspect had merit but it looks like the CBA keeps that claim out of court.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid all you proved with your "money shot" is that you are stubbornly refusing to READ ENGLISH.

1. At no point in the quote was the word "CBA" ever uttered. You are fabricating any connection to the CBA.

2. The underlined 'and' is NOT being used as "and-also" as you seem to think, but rather "and-but":
A. Vilma asserted go-to-hell personally made disparaging comments
B. BUT all Go-to-hell's comments were made in his professional capacity as Ommissioner.

Therefore the judge threw the suit out on very BASIC and general rules of STANDING (US law and precedents), and had absolutely nothing to do with the technical merits of any specific labor agreement.

That is how I read the pull quote you all have been citing, so unless there is something more in those Vilma links, (I didnt go there and you all didn't quote it) that talks about the CBA then your supposition doesn't seem applicable.

And even if the CBA did prevent lawsuits, I am pretty sure it only prevents ones in which general responsibility/honesty is not at question.
--If Vilma/Brady just don't like the Ommissioner's decision about an admitted or "proven" 'act'; the no suit rule IMO would give him protection.
-- But IMO no court would give Ommissioner protection by the rule for issuing decisions based on malfeasance, intentional dishonesty, unproven scurrilous allegations, and wildly exorbitant punishments compared to precedent.

Guess which of the above two situations I think Brady is in?

Gumby said:

I'm afraid all you proved with your "money shot" is that you are stubbornly refusing to READ ENGLISH.

1. At no point in the quote was the word "CBA" ever uttered. You are fabricating any connection to the CBA.

2. The underlined 'and' is NOT being used as "and-also" as you seem to think, but rather "and-but":
A. Vilma asserted go-to-hell personally made disparaging comments
B. BUT all Go-to-hell's comments were made in his professional capacity as Ommissioner.

Therefore the judge threw the suit out on very BASIC and general rules of STANDING (US law and precedents), and had absolutely nothing to do with the technical merits of any specific labor agreement.

That is how I read the pull quote you all have been citing, so unless there is something more in those Vilma links, (I didnt go there and you all didn't quote it) that talks about the CBA then your supposition doesn't seem applicable.

And even if the CBA did prevent lawsuits, I am pretty sure it only prevents ones in which general responsibility/honesty is not at question.
--If Vilma/Brady just don't like the Ommissioner's decision about an admitted or "proven" 'act'; the no suit rule IMO would give him protection.
-- But IMO no court would give Ommissioner protection by the rule for issuing decisions based on malfeasance, intentional dishonesty, unproven scurrilous allegations, and wildly exorbitant punishments compared to precedent.

Guess which of the above two situations I think Brady is in?

Click to expand...

One of my posts cites the actual decision. Here it is again:

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

Feel free to read the whole thing for yourself. I'm on Brady's side. I'd love to see Goodell scrubbing toilets in Tijuana after being financially wiped out by a verdict in a defamation suit by Brady. If I'm reading this decision correctly, he won't get his defamation suit heard in court regardless of merit. I hope I'm wrong. I don't think I am.

Kessler and his associates are being paid a lot of money to research this thoroughly. The law can be amazingly flexible when it wants to be. They may have other options besides a defamation claim. I hope justice prevails. I'm just saying that this Vilma decision is not encouraging.

I hate that we have to discuss confusing legalese sh.it in the offseason after we won a Super Bowl. It's really not freaking fair that after achieving the highest of heights we have to spends months worrying about whether the face of our team will be able to even play starting next season. This is just bull.****.

I only can rely on my law courses in college, but if I recall correctly, you can't bargain away your right to sue for an intentional tort. That's against public policy. Knowingly leaking and failing to correct false information would seem to be a good case there could be an intentional tort of defamation. Not sure, but wouldn't be automatically thrown out either.

Mortenson would not be subject to anything -- he's reporting what he was told and believed to be true.
Exponent wouldn't either. They did their study for the league. The NFL did not need to release it.
Same with the Wells Report. He did a report, like he was asked.

Based on Mike McCann, Brady's case against the NFL on his appeal will come down to the "law of the shop", which means the commissioner might be judge and jury per the CBA, but he can't just do anything he wants. He has to follow rules and precedents of the NFL. If he doesn't, his decision can be thrown out. Didn't that just happen in the Peterson case?

Assuming the lawsuits for the suspension and the defamation issue are two separate things, can't we wait for the suspension getting overturned before aiming for other lawsuits against the league?

I just want to see TB on the field for the entire season.

AndyJohnson said:

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

Click to expand...

Yes it does. You can even waive your right to sue someone for their negligent behavior. Courts won't let you waive suing someone for their grossly negligent behavior, though.

Ever hear of arbitration clauses in your agreements with banks, etc., etc.? That's bargaining away your legal rights and is upheld all the time.

VectorPrime said:

I hate that we have to discuss confusing legalese sh.it in the offseason after we won a Super Bowl. It's really not freaking fair that after achieving the highest of heights we have to spends months worrying about whether the face of our team will be able to even play starting next season. This is just bull.****.

Click to expand...

If any attorney wants to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of Patsfans I'll chip in

The fundamental issue here is whether the footballs were deflated below acceptable levels

They weren't according to the "best recollection" of the official. Goodell/Wells simply assume the official's best recollection was wrong and continue on their witch hunt.

It's also extremely easy to prove there's an internal anti-Patriots bias in the NFL offices as well given all the leaks of false damaging "information"

There's a half dozen ways to quantify what's been stolen from the fans and the players

If Kessell doesn't completely neuter Goodell I hope some other enterprising attorney jumps on the bandwagon

Deus Irae said:

If Brady files against the league, that's where the NFL's grievance will come in. Why?


Because, as I've talked about time and again, the NFLPA screwed up royally with the CBA:



http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...evance-with-nflpa-over-jonathan-vilma-lawsuit

Brady would then have to find a way around that provision.

Click to expand...

How do you get out of such a bluntly worded provision though, it clearly says he can't sue the league and Vilma already tried suing Goodell and they tossed that out... I'm sure if its possible, the NFLPA and Brady have enough money to figure out how lol

TommyBrady12 said:

nothing is "easy" to prove in court short of a smoking gun. yes, the NFl measured the balls. bur the nfl can say the guy who leaked it misunderstood the numbers. they have to find an email or text saying "we know the numbers are wrong but we are going to leak then any way" or something that proves recklessness. a mistake or negligence does not count as recklessness.

i don't trust the NFL one bit. they probably deleted all their evidence that would help brady.

Click to expand...

This is what ive been thinking for a few weeks now, everyone on every side of the equation has had like 4+ months to tighten things up and make sure everything is in order and consistent with their stories... Plenty of time to go deleting some texts, emails off the server etc lol

What a **** show... I'll be sure to get some popcorn going though to see how legal Goliaths go at it at the highest levels of the system.

DarrylS said:

Better still an expose by a national credible media source, that shows the duplicity and fraud that takes place on Madison Avenue... we all know the connections, but connecting those dots can be difficult for most of us....

Click to expand...

I once bought a replica and fraudulous purse on Madison Ave...or you mean the unethical behavior runs so rampant at the NFL Offices that it spill one whole city block over to Park Avenue? Either way, I get your point.

MagicMarker said:

I only can rely on my law courses in college, but if I recall correctly, you can't bargain away your right to sue for an intentional tort. That's against public policy. Knowingly leaking and failing to correct false information would seem to be a good case there could be an intentional tort of defamation. Not sure, but wouldn't be automatically thrown out either.

Mortenson would not be subject to anything -- he's reporting what he was told and believed to be true.
Exponent wouldn't either. They did their study for the league. The NFL did not need to release it.
Same with the Wells Report. He did a report, like he was asked.

Based on Mike McCann, Brady's case against the NFL on his appeal will come down to the "law of the shop", which means the commissioner might be judge and jury per the CBA, but he can't just do anything he wants. He has to follow rules and precedents of the NFL. If he doesn't, his decision can be thrown out. Didn't that just happen in the Peterson case?

Click to expand...

Here's a link to the site with the operative CBA agreement that Deus Irae provided earlier. Article 3 is the part we've been talking about. This sections 2-3 seem to be (in part) what kept Vilma out of court.

https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf

Again, I'm not a labor law guy. Kessler's firm probably researched the sh*t out this issue and has some sense of what they can and can't do. Rather than driving ourselves crazy with speculation, it may be best to just wait and see.

Of course, if there's someone out there who has real expertise in this area and wants to give a free consult, that's great. Everyone else should probably stand down.

JarOfMayo51 said:

How do you get out of such a bluntly worded provision though, it clearly says he can't sue the league and Vilma already tried suing Goodell and they tossed that out... I'm sure if its possible, the NFLPA and Brady have enough money to figure out how lol

Click to expand...

When you've got a non-suit clause for certain provisions, one way you can approach it is to try to differentiate your case from the provisions. For example (and only for example),

Non-suit clause for "integrity of the game" issues
+
NFLPA desire to sue on "Whoopsie!" issue
=
Argument that "Whoopsie!" does not fall under "integrity of the game"

There are other potential avenues, as well. I just don't have enough info to really guess as to what the NFLPA's strategy would be in this area.

Deus Irae said:

When you've got a non-suit clause for certain provisions, one way you can approach it is to try to differentiate your case from the provisions. For example (and only for example),

Non-suit clause for "integrity of the game" issues
+
NFLPA desire to sue on "Whoopsie!" issue
=
Argument that "Whoopsie!" does not fall under "integrity of the game"

There are other potential avenues, as well. I just don't have enough info to really guess as to what the NFLPA's strategy would be in this area.

Click to expand...

I think this was less of a "whoopsie" issue and more of a "Kowabunga" issue. IMO

There you go. That's all the legal expertise I can provide. Hope it helped the cause. haha

Am I reading everyone right....that there is a good chance that a judge won't even allow Brady to take this to court?

Slowly turning into the man

Deus Irae said:

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

Click to expand...

"The NFL has found that 11 of the New England Patriots' 12 game balls were inflated significantly below the NFL's requirements, league sources involved and familiar with the investigation of Sunday's AFC Championship Game told ESPN."

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...-had-inflated-footballs-afc-championship-game

not sure if this helps or not, still an unnamed source, but a source that mort says was involved.

God I hate Mort so much.

eventually...if Goodell and Co. keep insisting on urinating down Patriots fans backs and claiming "weather", they WILL be called into the court of the streets.Judgement and sentence can be extremely swift and frighteningly vicious for arrogant,rich guy morons who lack the comprehension to see they are enraging people they never, ever should have.

Despots always end up badly, their "laws" be damned.

PatsWSB47 said:

Am I reading everyone right....that there is a good chance that a judge won't even allow Brady to take this to court?

Click to expand...

My read is no one here is a labor law expert but the CBA restrictions on filing lawsuits is a real concern.