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

Ring 6 · Jun 18, 2015

PatsDeb said:
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.

Oswlek · Jun 18, 2015

JMC00 said:
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.

An argument that can be supplemented by the league sending NE a threatening letter with demonstrably false data on it. So, not only did they fail to refute the misinformation, they were spreading their own in non-public communication.

Hard to throw up your hands and say, "well, there was a lot of stories flying around" when that's going on. Or, maybe I should say it's hard to do that without people seeing through your ********.

YOUGOTMOSSED · Jun 18, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
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.

With all due respect, if you're not a lawyer, can you please stand down?

It's pretty clear from the decision that the CBA Article 3 did preempt Vilma's defamation suit. That's not to say a distinction can't be drawn between Brady's claim and Vilma's claim but we're not misquoting the ruling.

I'm not interpreting that part of the CBA to mean that ALL defamation claims are preempted, just that Vilma's didn't pass muster.

Let's move on please.

PatsDeb · Jun 18, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
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.

AAARRGGGG - there is no conflict. You are lumping any type of claim that might be brought into whether a defamation claim can be brought. I never said the CBA disallows lawsuits. All I said was in Vilma's case it disallowed a defamation case. If you don't agree that's your perogative.

PatsDeb · Jun 18, 2015

YOUGOTMOSSED said:
With all due respect, if you're not a lawyer, can you please stand down?

It's pretty clear from the decision that the CBA Article 3 did preempt Vilma's defamation suit. That's not to say a distinction can't be drawn between Brady's claim and Vilma's claim but we're not misquoting the ruling.

I'm not interpreting that part of the CBA to mean that ALL defamation claims are preempted, just that Vilma's didn't pass muster.

Let's move on please.

Like and agree, x 10.

SVN · Jun 18, 2015

Oswlek said:
An argument that can be supplemented by the league sending NE a threatening letter with demonstrably false data on it. So, not only did they fail to refute the misinformation, they were spreading their own in non-public communication.

Hard to throw up your hands and say, "well, there was a lot of stories flying around" when that's going on. Or, maybe I should say it's hard to do that without people seeing through your ********.

Yes but that would involve the patriots being part of the lawsuit vs the nfl. All the false data leaks and everything vs the team wouldve been bought out if kraft fought. Brady's court fight will be based on the wells reports imcompetency alone and the punishment handed to him. The letters sent to NE , not sure on what pretext brady's lawyers will bring it up.

Oswlek · Jun 18, 2015

SVN said:
Yes but that would involve the patriots being part of the lawsuit vs the nfl. All the false data leaks and everything vs the team wouldve been bought out if kraft fought. Brady's court fight will be based on the wells reports imcompetency alone and the punishment handed to him. The letters sent to NE , not sure on what pretext brady's lawyers will bring it up.

You may be right, I don't have the most nuanced understanding of the law.

I suspect the letter could be used to demonstrate bias and predetermined conclusions, further eroding the validity of the report. Frankly, the report is so flawed simply on the face of it that this tactic shouldn't even be necessary.

Ring 6 · Jun 19, 2015

PatsDeb said:
AAARRGGGG - there is no conflict. You are lumping any type of claim that might be brought into whether a defamation claim can be brought. I never said the CBA disallows lawsuits. All I said was in Vilma's case it disallowed a defamation case. If you don't agree that's your perogative.

My entire discussion has been about the claim that Brady could be blocked from suing the league because the CBA took away that right.
I'm not sure how arguing the merits of something that doesn't apply is on point.

Ring 6 · Jun 19, 2015

YOUGOTMOSSED said:
With all due respect, if you're not a lawyer, can you please stand down?

It's pretty clear from the decision that the CBA Article 3 did preempt Vilma's defamation suit. That's not to say a distinction can't be drawn between Brady's claim and Vilma's claim but we're not misquoting the ruling.

I'm not interpreting that part of the CBA to mean that ALL defamation claims are preempted, just that Vilma's didn't pass muster.

Let's move on please.

Well I disagree. I do not see how it is clear that the CBA influenced the decision when the judge never said that it did. The judge, in fact, said there was no defamation.

YOUGOTMOSSED · Jun 19, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
Well I disagree. I do not see how it is clear that the CBA influenced the decision when the judge never said that it did. The judge, in fact, said there was no defamation.

OH, for pete's sake, page 3 of the decision:

"Goodell seeks dismissal of the Complaint based on three grounds: (1) the claims are preempted under Section 301 of the Labor‐Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185;1 (2) they are barred by the mandatory, binding dispute resolution procedures of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) with the NFL"

The footnote to that sentence:

"Article 3, Section 2 of the CBA provides:
The NFLPA agrees that neither it nor any of its members ... nor any member of its
bargaining unit, will sue, or support financially or administratively, or voluntarily provide
testimony or affidavit in, any suit against the NFL or any Club with respect to any claim
relating to any conduct permitted by this Agreement, or any term of this Agreement ... In
addition, neither the NFLPA nor any of its members ... nor any member of its bargaining
unit will sue or support financially or administratively any suit against the NFL or any
Club relating to the provisions of the Constitution and Bylaws of the NFL"

Motion for dismissal on the grounds of preemption granted!

Look, I know it can be hard for laymen to parse through the language in a court decision but C'MON MAN!

jpat · Jun 19, 2015

YOUGOTMOSSED said:
OH, for pete's sake, page 3 of the decision:

"Goodell seeks dismissal of the Complaint based on three grounds: (1) the claims are preempted under Section 301 of the Labor‐Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185;1 (2) they are barred by the mandatory, binding dispute resolution procedures of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) with the NFL"

The footnote to that sentence:

"Article 3, Section 2 of the CBA provides:
The NFLPA agrees that neither it nor any of its members ... nor any member of its
bargaining unit, will sue, or support financially or administratively, or voluntarily provide
testimony or affidavit in, any suit against the NFL or any Club with respect to any claim
relating to any conduct permitted by this Agreement, or any term of this Agreement ... In
addition, neither the NFLPA nor any of its members ... nor any member of its bargaining
unit will sue or support financially or administratively any suit against the NFL or any
Club relating to the provisions of the Constitution and Bylaws of the NFL"

Motion for dismissal on the grounds of preemption granted!

Look, I know it can be hard for laymen to parse through the language in a court decision but C'MON MAN!

This is a strange place for a first post on the forums, but I have to respectfully disagree. That quote clearly sates "Goodell seeks....". I interpret that to mean that is goodells argument, not that it is the reason it was dismissed.

the reason for dismissal is at the end of page 8:
"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."

Which i read to mean Vilma sued goodell the individual for defamation for what he said, and the judge says that Goodell said what he did in connection with the investigation.

rochrist · Jun 19, 2015

Rob0729 said:
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.

Felger in particular seems to have a very misguided idea of what the 'going to court' scenario will actually entail. But I suppose that shouldn't be a surprise. It's much easier just to make **** up.

rochrist · Jun 19, 2015

JMC00 said:
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.

It certainly seems suggestive of a conspiracy by at least some members of the league office.

Koma · Jun 19, 2015

jpat said:
This is a strange place for a first post on the forums, but I have to respectfully disagree. That quote clearly sates "Goodell seeks....". I interpret that to mean that is goodells argument, not that it is the reason it was dismissed.

the reason for dismissal is at the end of page 8:
"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."

Which i read to mean Vilma sued goodell the individual for defamation for what he said, and the judge says that Goodell said what he did in connection with the investigation.

I've stayed out of this debate because it's over my head, so I can't speak to either side of the argument.

I do want to say "Welcome to the Board!"

rochrist · Jun 19, 2015

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

And he got slapped down for it.

YOUGOTMOSSED · Jun 19, 2015

jpat said:
This is a strange place for a first post on the forums, but I have to respectfully disagree. That quote clearly sates "Goodell seeks....". I interpret that to mean that is goodells argument, not that it is the reason it was dismissed.

the reason for dismissal is at the end of page 8:
"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."

Which i read to mean Vilma sued goodell the individual for defamation for what he said, and the judge says that Goodell said what he did in connection with the investigation.

I'm spending waaaaay too much time on this.

Again, I'm not a labor law expert but I have some understanding of how it works. Goodell's was able to successfully argue that any of the claimed defamatory statements he made were in the context of an investigation and therefore covered by the CBA. Case dismissed. Sorry Vilma.

Again, I emphasize that Brady's circumstances are different and the court could very well go the other way in his case.

The CBA will probably not be interpreted to allow Goodell to commit any outrageous act he wants just by him claiming it was in the context of the investigation. For example, if NFL security locked Brady in a closet at halftime during the AFCCG after the the issue with the ball came up, I'm pretty sure Brady would have a solid case for false imprisonment and the NFL wouldn't get around that by saying it was merely "part of the investigation."

Thus, I think Brady's lawyers have a very real shot at convincing a court that the NFL knowingly publishing incorrect psi readings is not "part of an investigation"; it's actual defamation and the actions are outside any reasonable interpretation of what sort of conduct the CBA allows.

That's all I'm saying on the subject for now and will wait, with great interest and curiosity, to see what Kessler does.

Ivan · Jun 19, 2015

rochrist said:
And he got slapped down for it.

The player penalties were reversed but the franchise penalties stood. Payton, Williams, and Loomis were still suspended for the duration.

I would love to see the Patriots get the picks back but just don't see how that happens.

Gumby · Jun 20, 2015

YOUGOTMOSSED said:
I'm spending waaaaay too much time on this.

Again, I'm not a labor law expert but I have some understanding of how it works. Goodell's was able to successfully argue that any of the claimed defamatory statements he made were in the context of an investigation and therefore covered by the CBA. Case dismissed. Sorry Vilma.

Again, I emphasize that Brady's circumstances are different and the court could very well go the other way in his case.

The CBA will probably not be interpreted to allow Goodell to commit any outrageous act he wants just by him claiming it was in the context of the investigation. For example, if NFL security locked Brady in a closet at halftime during the AFCCG after the the issue with the ball came up, I'm pretty sure Brady would have a solid case for false imprisonment and the NFL wouldn't get around that by saying it was merely "part of the investigation."

Thus, I think Brady's lawyers have a very real shot at convincing a court that the NFL knowingly publishing incorrect psi readings is not "part of an investigation"; it's actual defamation and the actions are outside any reasonable interpretation of what sort of conduct the CBA allows.

That's all I'm saying on the subject for now and will wait, with great interest and curiosity, to see what Kessler does.

All the quotes provided so far say nothing about the toss of Vilma's case being because of the CBA. The judge said that he sued the individual in a personal capacity while the actions RG was taking were in a professional, job title, capacity. Therefore the suit had no merit / standing / eligibility. The judge never went so far as to provide any opinion as to the eligibility of the CBA and its provisions to the case. *

*[edit](Based on quotes provided and no I am not chasing your url's to find proof that something doesn't exist -- that is the nfl's pov / way to put off challengers. You provide evidence your assertion exists. To date- NOT SHOWN.)

THEREFORE you can make absolutely NO implications of the CBA's ability to limit lawsuits based on the Vilma case.

PatsDeb · Jun 20, 2015

Some of you guys need to go to law school rather than argue with YOUGOTMOSSED and you need to look up what the word "preemption" means under the law.

Joker · Jun 20, 2015

Yeah! I was born preemptively!

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

PatsFans.com Supporter

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

Rookie

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

In the Starting Line-Up

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

In the Starting Line-Up

Hall of Fame Poster

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Similar threads