New Order From Judge Berman (Friday 7/31 Afternoon)

The Gr8est said:

But would offering to accept the ruling of an independent arbiter be considered a good faith attempt to settle? Could the judge accept that and send the case to an independent arbitrator.

Click to expand...

That might work. If Brady were to say that he is willing to accept the result of a Binding Arbitration by an independent arbiter appointed by the Court, that might get it done.

PatsFanSince74 said:

Thanks, that clarifies your position.

Click to expand...

It's not really a position. It's just a statement of where the case stands right now.

I've tried to stay away from the "Lets read the judges mind game" but this is getting a bit out of hand.

PatsFanSince74 said:

Deus, we're all on the same side here and I'm not trying to be argumentative, but just trying to understand your position.

The "vibe" from Berman is clear: "I request that you all engage in comprehensive, good-faith settlement discussions prior to the conference on August 12,2015. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV is available to assist you if you wish." He then describes the conferences on August 12th and 19th as "Settlement Conferences" and demands that Brady and Goodell be present at each "without limitation." He also tells both parties that they can submit another written brief to him, in the form of a "15 page double spaced memo (further supporting your positions)." He's not interested in hearing any new arguments or any new suggestions.

Click to expand...

As you admit you are not in the legal profession, have never me tor been before Berman but 'havbe lieved in NY 25 years, and know ow these people think", this is no more than your inexperienced opinion of the meaning of a response.
Judges ALWAYS want cases settled. Both sides have asked for expedition, which means settling is the best way to get there.
Brady and Goodell need to be there because no one can reach an agreement without them.
"Further supporting your opinions' is almost by definition a request for more argument.

You are parsing every word, and you don't have the experience or knowledge to really have any idea what is between the lines.

That's not a "vibe," but pretty clear. It's also better news for Brady and the NFLPA than it is for the NFL, since, in filing its Motion to Uphold, the NFL didn't think there was anything to settle.

Click to expand...

Clear about what? Every judge recommends settling, and in the interest of expedition he is pursuing that option.

So, what happens if the NFL reads the handwriting on the wall and offers to reduce the suspension to two games but Kessler comes in with your five points and Berman decides he has no choice but to Uphold and not Vacate? How does Brady proceed with a Defamation suit if the finding of the "Arbiter" has already been upheld by a Federal Court? How will he even get a court to hear that suit?

Click to expand...

This is where you take a 90 degree turn into not making sense.
You are expressing an opinion that the judge is going to rule on the facts and merits of the case based on whoever doesn't want to give in to the other must lose?
That makes no sense and has no basis in fairness or equity.
The only place I have seen anyone suggest that the judge will penalize Brady, or the NFL for not compromising by deciding the case on 'you lose not because of the facts or the legal validity of your claim, but because I wanted you to settle whether guilty or not, and you annoy me so you lose" is in your posts.

I think Brady can succeed in getting this vacated, but not taking the position you propose. Once it's vacated, then the court will refer the matter to a truly independent Arbiter and a whole range of options would be open to Brady

Click to expand...

Brady succeeds on the merits, not on out-anticipating what you have decided is a corrupt judge with a verdict for sale, based on how contrite and willing to give up your rights you are.

Deus Irae said:

It's not really a position. It's just a statement of where the case stands right now.

Click to expand...

Maybe it's just semantics, but I think your OP is indeed a "position," in that you are offering your interpretation as to how you see where the case "stands right now."

The vibe to which I was referring was the lawyers getting a sense of which direction the judge will rule, and that is not clear from the settlement letter, at all.
I think the judge's letter makes it very clear that he's not looking for either side to take a hard line, but rather for the two sides to try to settle. You're free to interpret the letter differently, but that's how I read it. By suggesting that there is room to "settle," he's actually suggesting that there is a chance he could Vacate the ruling. But, he's also making it clear that he wants a good faith effort from both sides.


The judge, assuming he's functioning in proper capacity and with proper ethics, is not going to take the winning case and turn it into the losing case just because he's pissed that the 'right' side didn't take half a beating when it didn't deserve any beating at all.
A Judge has very broad leeway in this matter, consistent with what anyone would define as his acting within his "proper capacity" and "proper ethics." All that Berman's "capacity" and any relevant "ethics" require is that he rule as to whether Goodell's ruling was or was not in compliance with the CBA, by either Upholding or Vacating it. However, he has gone beyond that and has asked the two sides to appear, not just to present their arguments but to try to "settle" the matter.

He is doing Brady and the NFLPA a favor by even suggesting that there might be room to "setttle." I doubt very much that Wells anticipated that. In my view, it would be throwing that favor back in Berman's face to take a hard line in response.

This is all looking like it could break the right way for Brady. They shouldn't blow it. All Kessler wants is a chance to have the entire matter reviewed by an Independent Arbiter, where the entire charade will be exposed. They might just get that if they play their cards right.

It doesn't work that way with an honest and ethical judge. There's a difference between taking a had line and being uncooperative.
The difference between those two can be a very, very thin line. I don't think either side should be foolish enough as to try to find out where it is for Judge Berman.

I think that one of our posters in this thread has offered a very good suggestion: Brady and the NFLPA should offer to submit to binding, independent arbitration by an arbiter assigned by the Court. That would meet any reasonable definition of "co-operation" and it would also screw Goodell, because that is the last thing he wants.

AndyJohnson said:

I've tried to stay away from the "Lets read the judges mind game" but this is getting a bit out of hand.



As you admit you are not in the legal profession, have never me tor been before Berman but 'havbe lieved in NY 25 years, and know ow these people think", this is no more than your inexperienced opinion of the meaning of a response.
Judges ALWAYS want cases settled. Both sides have asked for expedition, which means settling is the best way to get there.
Brady and Goodell need to be there because no one can reach an agreement without them.
"Further supporting your opinions' is almost by definition a request for more argument.

You are parsing every word, and you don't have the experience or knowledge to really have any idea what is between the lines.


Clear about what? Every judge recommends settling, and in the interest of expedition he is pursuing that option.


This is where you take a 90 degree turn into not making sense.
You are expressing an opinion that the judge is going to rule on the facts and merits of the case based on whoever doesn't want to give in to the other must lose?
That makes no sense and has no basis in fairness or equity.
The only place I have seen anyone suggest that the judge will penalize Brady, or the NFL for not compromising by deciding the case on 'you lose not because of the facts or the legal validity of your claim, but because I wanted you to settle whether guilty or not, and you annoy me so you lose" is in your posts.


Brady succeeds on the merits, not on out-anticipating what you have decided is a corrupt judge with a verdict for sale, based on how contrite and willing to give up your rights you are.

Click to expand...

Looks like we disagree, but thanks for noting that I don't claim any particular expertise, and that I am just expressing my opinion.
The only thing I imagine we can agree on is that we won't have to wait very long to see how this turns out.

PatsFanSince74 said:

Looks like we disagree, but thanks for noting that I don't claim any particular expertise, and that I am just expressing my opinion.

Click to expand...

We do, as I believe you cannot read a judges mind by reading a letter.

Just wanted to clarify the last part, because numerous times you have claimed expertise with comments such as this:

PatsFanSince74 said:

Please read some of my other posts. I know guys like this. I've lived among their ilk in NYC for 25 years. I have personal connections, not to Berman, but to the kind of folk that he is.

Click to expand...

PatsFanSince74 said:

But I think a guy like Berman will want to see a little give as part of his definition of "good faith participation."

Click to expand...

AndyJohnson said:

We do, as I believe you cannot read a judges mind by reading a letter.

Just wanted to clarify the last part, because numerous times you have claimed expertise with comments such as this:

Click to expand...

All I claim is to know and have spent a lot of time with people from a background similar to his, which is true. I think I know how guys like Berman think. That's all I've claimed. If I'd claimed to know him or have specific knowledge of him that would be another matter and would have represented a falsehood on my part, but I never said that.

The two key words in the second quote you cite are "I think." I'm entitled to my opinion, as is anyone else out here, as to what "I think" this or any judge might view as "good faith participation." Just my opinion. You're entitled to your own.

I just don't know why that bothers you so much. I have said many times in my posts that I have no idea what he's going to decide. I just think I know how he thinks not what he thinks. No more, no less.

PatsFanSince74 said:

Maybe it's just semantics, but I think your OP is indeed a "position," in that you are offering your interpretation as to how you see where the case "stands right now."

The vibe to which I was referring was the lawyers getting a sense of which direction the judge will rule, and that is not clear from the settlement letter, at all.
I think the judge's letter makes it very clear that he's not looking for either side to take a hard line, but rather for the two sides to try to settle. You're free to interpret the letter differently, but that's how I read it. By suggesting that there is room to "settle," he's actually suggesting that there is a chance he could Vacate the ruling. But, he's also making it clear that he wants a good faith effort from both sides.


The judge, assuming he's functioning in proper capacity and with proper ethics, is not going to take the winning case and turn it into the losing case just because he's pissed that the 'right' side didn't take half a beating when it didn't deserve any beating at all.
A Judge has very broad leeway in this matter, consistent with what anyone would define as his acting within his "proper capacity" and "proper ethics." All that Berman's "capacity" and any relevant "ethics" require is that he rule as to whether Goodell's ruling was or was not in compliance with the CBA, by either Upholding or Vacating it. However, he has gone beyond that and has asked the two sides to appear, not just to present their arguments but to try to "settle" the matter.

He is doing Brady and the NFLPA a favor by even suggesting that there might be room to "setttle." I doubt very much that Wells anticipated that. In my view, it would be throwing that favor back in Berman's face to take a hard line in response.

This is all looking like it could break the right way for Brady. They shouldn't blow it. All Kessler wants is a chance to have the entire matter reviewed by an Independent Arbiter, where the entire charade will be exposed. They might just get that if they play their cards right.

It doesn't work that way with an honest and ethical judge. There's a difference between taking a had line and being uncooperative.
The difference between those two can be a very, very thin line. I don't think either side should be foolish enough as to try to find out where it is for Judge Berman.

I think that one of our posters in this thread has offered a very good suggestion: Brady and the NFLPA should offer to submit to binding, independent arbitration by an arbiter assigned by the Court. That would meet any reasonable definition of "co-operation" and it would also screw Goodell, because that is the last thing he wants.

Click to expand...

You're wrong in your take on what I've posted, and your post actually goes along with most of what I've written. I'll leave it at that.

Deus Irae said:

You're wrong. I'll leave it at that.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

PatsFanSince74 said:

All I claim is to know and have spent a lot of time with people from a background similar to his, which is true. I think I know how guys like Berman think. That's all I've claimed. If I'd claimed to know him or have specific knowledge of him that would be another matter and would have represented a falsehood on my part, but I never said that.

Click to expand...

Seriously?
You know nothing about him, but you know how he thinks, because you spent a lot of time around people like him?
That's like saying "I know how THOSE PEOPLE act".

My point is you are trying to come across like you have an intimate knowledge of what is between the lines of his writing, and what his motivation is and what criteria he will use to pass judgment and that is just wrong.
Please explain how you know 'people with his background' would over look the law in deciding a court case and instead would rule against whichever side didn't give in.
A few examples would be fine.

The two key words in the second quote you cite are "I think." I'm entitled to my opinion, as is anyone else out here, as to what "I think" this or any judge might view as "good faith participation." Just my opinion. You're entitled to your own.

Click to expand...

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to point out that you are framing it as if it is from a point of knowledge and it is not.

I just don't know why that bothers you so much. I have said many times in my posts that I have no idea what he's going to decide. I just think I know how he thinks not what he thinks. No more, no less.

Click to expand...

Because you have absolutely no basis for that.
Just say what you think will happen,there is no need to try to find fabricated high ground for your opinion.
Its a disservice to the board, which has, as a whole sought out expert opinion on these legal matters. You making up an expertise that doesn't exist does not help that.

AndyJohnson said:

Seriously?
You know nothing about him, but you know how he thinks, because you spent a lot of time around people like him?
That's like saying "I know how THOSE PEOPLE act".

My point is you are trying to come across like you have an intimate knowledge of what is between the lines of his writing, and what his motivation is and what criteria he will use to pass judgment and that is just wrong.
Please explain how you know 'people with his background' would over look the law in deciding a court case and instead would rule against whichever side didn't give in.
A few examples would be fine.



Of course you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to point out that you are framing it as if it is from a point of knowledge and it is not.


Because you have absolutely no basis for that.
Just say what you think will happen,there is no need to try to find fabricated high ground for your opinion.
Its a disservice to the board, which has, as a whole sought out expert opinion on these legal matters. You making up an expertise that doesn't exist does not help that.

Click to expand...

I've never "made up" an expertise. I've been very clear about how I've arrived at my opinions and I have clearly stated them as "opinions." Some have found them useful. Some have politely disagreed.

I think we're just talking past each other now. We both want Brady exonerated. We both want Goodell and his charade exposed. Let's just leave it at that.

PatsFanSince74 said:

I've never "made up" an expertise. I've been very clear about how I've arrived at my opinions and I have clearly stated them as "opinions." Some have found them useful. Some have politely disagreed.

Click to expand...

I think many, including myself, felt you were offering your opinion as an educated one with respect to Judge Berman. Those who felt that can now be clear, those who didn't would already have been.

I think we're just talking past each other now. We both want Brady exonerated. We both want Goodell and his charade exposed. Let's just leave it at that.

Click to expand...

I don't think we are talking past each other. I wanted to clarify that you implication of insight into Berman had no legitimate basis. I feel that has happened. You on the other hand are restating, qualifying and 'agreeing to disagree'. It would appear we both are acknowledging the others comments.
Why 'we both want Brady exonerated' has anything to do with that discussion is beyond me.

I never disputed that you said it was your opinion, but you clearly 'made up' a commentary to make it appear your opinion was based on inside information. I am simply clarifying that having no legal background and 'knowing a lot of people the same background as the judge' offers you no unique insight.

AndyJohnson said:

I think many, including myself, felt you were offering your opinion as an educated one with respect to Judge Berman. Those who felt that can now be clear, those who didn't would already have been.



I don't think we are talking past each other. I wanted to clarify that you implication of insight into Berman had no legitimate basis. I feel that has happened. You on the other hand are restating, qualifying and 'agreeing to disagree'. It would appear we both are acknowledging the others comments.
Why 'we both want Brady exonerated' has anything to do with that discussion is beyond me.

I never disputed that you said it was your opinion, but you clearly 'made up' a commentary to make it appear your opinion was based on inside information. I am simply clarifying that having no legal background and 'knowing a lot of people the same background as the judge' offers you no unique insight.

Click to expand...

I've never claimed to have legal background. I've never "made up" anything or claimed "inside information," but I have claimed, and will continue to claim, that I have insight (that anyone is completely free to choose to accept or ignore or take with a grain of salt) into how Judge Berman is likely to approach the case based on 25 years of being around members of the Prosecutorial (from Manhattan ADA's to Federal Prosecutors), Judicial (from Clerks to Judges to people whose first name is "Justice") and legal (including prominent First Amendment and Defense Attorneys) community in this part of the country.

Some of those connections are through family, some through friends and some through professional relationships, but I assure you that none of them are fabricated and certainly none of them have been presented with the intention of misleading anyone.

Some on the Board have found that useful and said so...and I don't view any of them as particularly gullible. Others haven't...and I respect their views. You are apparently among the latter. Why don't you just ignore what I have to say if you find it so "misleading" or, as you imply, disingenuous.

I'm done with this conversation, Andy.

PatsFanSince74 said:

I've never claimed to have legal background. I've never "made up" anything or claimed "inside information," but I have claimed, and will continue to claim, that I have insight (that anyone is completely free to choose to accept or ignore or take with a grain of salt) into how Judge Berman is likely to approach the case based on 25 years of being around members of the Prosecutorial (from Manhattan ADA's to Federal Prosecutors), Judicial (from Clerks to Judges to people whose first name is "Justice") and legal (including prominent First Amendment and Defense Attorneys) community in this part of the country.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could expand upon what you mean by 'being around'.
Part of my skepticism is no doubt based on what seems to me like you are dancing around that trying to make it sound like more than it is.
Perhaps I am too skeptical, I just get my bs senses up when someone tries to purport having a better insight into what the judge will do because they 'know a lot of people with the same background'.
Even now you are still adding this information to your post, as if to espouse your opinion as somehow specially informed.

Some of those connections are through family, some through friends and some through professional relationships, but I assure you that none of them are fabricated and certainly none of them have been presented with the intention of misleading anyone.

Click to expand...

I didn't say you fabricated that you know people, or that you were trying to mislead anyone, I said that you are making comments designed to make you sound like you have some type of inside information and that your opinion is more informed that others.
That is what you are saying right? So just explain what manner your insight into how "someone like Berman' would view things, as well has how you know who 'someone like Berman' is.
Clearly you aren't saying everyone in the legal profession in NY are all the same and anyone who lived there 25 year can predict their actions.

Some on the Board have found that useful and said so...and I don't view any of them as particularly gullible. Others haven't...and I respect their views. You are apparently among the latter. Why don't you just ignore what I have to say if you find it so "misleading" or, as you imply, disingenuous.

I'm done with this conversation, Andy.

Click to expand...

Because you are claiming better insight into this than anyone else.
If you were an attorney in that court, or a reporter, or someone who has studied the court, and Berman's decisions, I would respect that and place more value on your guess.
If you were simply trying to make your opinion sound more informed than someone elses by claiming you have insight into Berman, then why would you be reluctant to describe how you have that. So far its just "I live here, I know how THOSE PEOPLE think.

I choose not to ignore what you have to say because I honestly want to judge it appropriately.
If you have a legitimately enhanced insight into this situation that would impact my value on your opinion. If that insight is bluster, that would also.
Up to you. You can just say no more, or you can give some details to back up your claim that your guess is more educated (other you saying it is because it is).

SVN said:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...k-for-permission-to-appear-in-court-by-phone/

Click to expand...

Dear God. I am forced to agree with Florio yet again.

The naif in me says these are death-bed conversions by mediots who have recognized the error of the media's ways and are ridden by guilt about the media's role in the stampede to railroad Tom Brady.

The cynic in me says that these guys realize that this is the only way to keep the story going now that the case is in the hands of the court, which is bor-ing and beyond the attention span of most of their audience.

patriot1136 said:

I gotta ask, because I'm damn curious. It sounds like your father in law is a big shot lawyer. Is he at least a cool guy overall? Like do you guys get along and whatnot?

Click to expand...

Ha, great question--he is certainly well off and enjoys his life more than I could ever imagine. Some people just have a way where they can avoid any problems or concerns (likely money, I suppose), so that is something I'm envious of.

Due to that reasoning, I probably get the benefit of the doubt since I'm not on his radar that much. He's definitely not an *******, so all in all I'm lucky in that regard. Pretty typical FIL relationship, I suppose. Just thought I'd share the labor lawyer angle, so apologies if it was a bit boring.

SVN said:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...k-for-permission-to-appear-in-court-by-phone/

Click to expand...

Is there any credible report that Brady is thinking of attending by phone other than the vague assertion in this article? If there is, does anyone know the "good reason" that has been suggested for that decision?

This I can understand. Brady would rather not have to spend an entire day, hell probably 2 for travel and prep, in NYC while training camp and preseason is in full swing. That being said he needs to.