How big of a concern is the threat of discovery to the NFL in a Brady lawsuit?

n6249c said:

"league did nothing to warn the Patriots" come on, get real. The league had no duty nor reason to warn the Patriots, in fact arguably they would be wrong to warn them. What you are suggesting seems akin to saying the mayor has a duty to warn you your neighbors have accused you of breaking the law, instead of keeping you ignorant while the police investigate. Just does not make any sense.

"dolts gone unpunished for illegally gauging a football on the sidelines" why would it be illegal? That ball was a Patriots ball that had been removed from play. It's not really any different from a fan catching a ball kicked through the uprights into the stands and gauging it, is it?

Face it, it was a sting, a trap. They all (league front office, probably plus execs from a team or two that are jealous and convinced the Patriots could not be so good for so long without cheating) thought the Pats were cheating, again, and that they could catch them and hang them for it. They were wrong, but too deep into it publicly by the time they discovered they were wrong, and they've had to keep doubling down ever since.

Click to expand...

Depends on the law you're breaking. If it's a local noise ordinance a warning is definitely the first step. It certainly isn't to perform some botched sting, spend millions to support the botched sting, find the accused guilty despite no real evidence, and then sentence them to be drawn an quartered because they didn't learn their lesson from when you sentenced them to 25 years in prison for jaywalking. This is the levels of silliness the NFL's justice system is operating at.

n6249c said:

"league did nothing to warn the Patriots" come on, get real. The league had no duty nor reason to warn the Patriots, in fact arguably they would be wrong to warn them.

Click to expand...

Excuse me ?

The league's mandate should be to have a fair game, not to catch someone in the act. If the league thought we were cheating their sole focus should have been to ensure we weren't - not to catch us in the act. By not warning us, if we were cheating, they ensured that half the AFCCG would be played on an uneven playing field.

They had a duty to the game - to their precious shield - to tell us that if we were doing it to cut it out.

n6249c said:

"league did nothing to warn the Patriots" come on, get real. The league had no duty nor reason to warn the Patriots, in fact arguably they would be wrong to warn them. What you are suggesting seems akin to saying the mayor has a duty to warn you your neighbors have accused you of breaking the law, instead of keeping you ignorant while the police investigate. Just does not make any sense.

Click to expand...

If the law I was breaking was as inconsequential as this one, it is perfectly plausible that someone would send out a little warning for me to get my act together. (It wouldn't be the Mayor, but someone in charge of something)

In both the real world and in the sports world, it would not be unheard of for an authority to tell someone "hey, we've had these complaints you're watering your lawn on even numbered days..... don't know if they are true but we're going to be checking, so make sure you are squared away...."

Instead what happened was the policeman drove by my house and saw the lawn was wet, so he figured I must have been watering it, so he sent me to jail for 5 years.

why do you people keep obsessing over this ridiculous "what if "crap.

There IS no "what if", "suppose this", "could be", "might have been" or any other fairy story scenario.

FACT...the referee that worked the game measured the balls, using the official NFL gauge...EVERY SINGLE BALL WAS IN THE LEGAL RANGE!!!

Stop this obsessive paranoid insanity.
Wells stated he accepted every single word out of the ref's mouth EXCEPT that he used the official gauge..his reason being "because THAT is what I, Ted Wells , think...I have zero proof, I have zero records, I have zero witnesses..but I say he used the other "unofficial gauge" "and therefore four Patriots balls were under the legal limit by the weight of a piece of paper. In the real world THIS determination by Wells is what is known as BULLSHYT.

C'mon, wake up...it's all been a lie and it all started in 2006 with the election of Goodell. And let me be as clear as I possibly can...if I was the man who measured those balls and I SAID FOR THE RECORD I used the official gauge, and was then contradicted in a public report by Ted Wells that I was wrong, I'd find him and punch him right in his goddamned mouth. This is why the NFL HAS TO BE INVESTIGATED. It's not about this farce we've been witnessing since January, it's about OUTRIGHT organized criminal activity among a select group of very rich, powerful conspirators. Write your congressmen. Write to the federal government branches that have the investigatory power to look into EVERY SINGLE FACET of the NFL as it exists today. We are looking at the reincarnation of Tammany Hall before our very eyes and NO ONE has the guts to do something about it.

Here's a good reddit discussion on the discovery issues: https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/3ec7rs/an_attorneys_perspective_on_the_potential_brady/

A lawyer presents his version of what discovery would involve and it does indicate that the NFL's communication on the investigation and punishment process would be discoverable under a lawsuit based on labor law. Brady would not have to file a defamation suit. I'd be interested to hear from lawyers here about this guy's analysis.

shmessy said:

The above four points, however, are cold, hard, objective facts that point to a coordinated and conscious defamation campaign.

Click to expand...

Whether they suffice to prove defamation of a public figure is hard to predict. But they would seem to be strong defenses against any kind of motion for summary dismissal.

And if that non-lawyer opinion of mine is accurate, then it's also important. For it would bean that if Brady sues the NFL for defamation, they have to either settle or go to court.

tigerjohn said:

Here's a good reddit discussion on the discovery issues: https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/3ec7rs/an_attorneys_perspective_on_the_potential_brady/

A lawyer presents his version of what discovery would involve and it does indicate that the NFL's communication on the investigation and punishment process would be discoverable under a lawsuit based on labor law. Brady would not have to file a defamation suit. I'd be interested to hear from lawyers here about this guy's analysis.

Click to expand...

Great quote:

If Brady doesn't appeal, it's likely because he knows he's guilty, and the NFL would be able to obtain evidence that proves it.

If Brady does appeal, I would fully believe he's 100% innocent, because he would have to know that discovery would invade his life and find anything damaging to him that exists. That's a huge risk to Brady, so I would be shocked if he were actually guilty and make the huge mistake of bothering to open himself up to discovery.

Click to expand...

tigerjohn said:

Here's a good reddit discussion on the discovery issues: https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/3ec7rs/an_attorneys_perspective_on_the_potential_brady/

A lawyer presents his version of what discovery would involve and it does indicate that the NFL's communication on the investigation and punishment process would be discoverable under a lawsuit based on labor law. Brady would not have to file a defamation suit. I'd be interested to hear from lawyers here about this guy's analysis.

Click to expand...

Thank you! If this is authoritative (and it surely sounds it to me) it pretty much wraps things up.

The point about Brady having to open himself up if he sues is a great one. Still, if he's not prepared to sue, he's just bringing a knife to a gunfight and the Omissioner will know it.

On the other hand, if he's innocent, he should run, not walk, to file suit. Given the breadth of discovery, it's all but inconceivable to me that he wouldn't turn up some deeply damaging material -- and what's a few million dollars against his future reputation?

EDIT: So here's Roger's choice. Either there is damaging material on Brady's phone or there isn't. If there is, he has everything to lose and won't sue even if the suspension is confirmed without reduction. If there's not, Brady holds all the cards and Roger better pray that anything damaging about how the "infraction" was brought to the NFL's attention, how the NFL handled the media, how the investigation was framed and established or how Wells conducted it has mysteriously gone the way of the missing 18 minutes of Watergate tapes.

Which makes the rational play for him either to stick with the full suspension and challenge Brady to sue or to fold completely. But that isn't a prediction -- he's not that smart.

tigerjohn said:

Here's a good reddit discussion on the discovery issues: https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/3ec7rs/an_attorneys_perspective_on_the_potential_brady/

A lawyer presents his version of what discovery would involve and it does indicate that the NFL's communication on the investigation and punishment process would be discoverable under a lawsuit based on labor law. Brady would not have to file a defamation suit. I'd be interested to hear from lawyers here about this guy's analysis.

Click to expand...

One of the commenters was asked his thoughts on the Wells Report...I thought he nailed it pretty good:


[–]PatriotsJimDuche 9 points 21 hours ago
Since you're an attorney, and assuming you've read the Wells report, what's your opinion of Brady's guilt (or innocence) based on that report?

[–]Packerscorduroyblack 39 points 21 hours ago
It was bizarre. Basically, the NFL farmed out the investigation to someone it paid a lot of money to. That's strange already. Then, the report was completely unscientific and was filled (IMO) with a lot of confirmation bias. It didn't provide exhibits to evidence very regularly, and it left out massive amount of information that could've mitigated Brady's guilt (if any). For Brady having talked to the investigators for something like 8-10 hours, there was hardly anything in the report. Why not? Did he really say nothing of use in that time? Or did he simply not say anything thing helped the conclusion that the Report was clearly seeking to make by that point?
The report left out a lot of information. It wasn't an objective report. It was a report designed to give the NFL the reasonable basis for suspending Brady and punishing the Patriots. Because of the CBA, and the way the NFL is structured, the Patriots were ****ed and had no real legal recourse. Brady on the other hand... might have a case.