Ring 6
PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2021 Weekly Picks Winner
2022 Weekly Picks Winner
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 63,761
- Reaction score
- 14,113
Well the point was whether Brady is prevented from suing.
Can you show me where the court rejected a Vilma suit by saying the gave away the right in the CBA? Not by twisting the words of a statement that gives a different reason, but an actual statement that says he cannot proceed because the CBA gave away that right and the court is fine with that?
I am not twisting anything. The judge said Vilma was preempted from suing Roger Goodell for defamation and his claims must be dismissed. He was preempted (i.e. prevented from suing because another procedure was in place) by the CBA. I'm sorry the judge didn't put it exactly in the words you want, but that is what those words mean - that Vilma gave away the right to sue Roger Goodell for defamation, at least in that particular court and under the particular circumstances alleged by Vilma, under the CBA. Case dismissed.
I am sure YOUGOTMOSSED is right and Brady's lawyers are coming up with dozens of ways that the Vilma case is distinguishable from Brady's, and much less egregious, but the fact remains that there is precedent for dismissal of a defamation case against Roger Goodell or the NFL brought outside of whatever procedures are contained in the CBA. That is not to say that other types of claims cannot be brought by Brady. His attorneys surely know this and will try to be creative and work within the confines of the CBA. However, the CBA obviously limits what claims can be brought in court by an NFL player.
I am going back to "agree to disagree" so this will be my last words on the subject.
It does not say preempted by the CBA. I'm sorry that you feel you can add something to the statement that isn't there.
If you read the rest of the quote by the judge, she dismissed the case, because there was no defamation of character because there was proof of his actions.
As far as your comments re Brady, so you are now saying the law allows Vilma to give away his right to sue, but not Brady?
You can't have it both ways. You can't say a court can't hear Vilma because the CBA disallows lawsuits, and then say Brady can sue.
The cumulative opinions you hold here conflict with each other.