NYT about Berman

Fencer · Aug 9, 2015

JMC00 said:
****dell just went on record yesterday and said he isn't compromising from 4 games. So that's not gonna happen.

How exactly did you get from

"Goodell said X"

to

"X is true"

???

I don't see the connection at all.

RelocatedPatFan · Aug 10, 2015

JMC00 said:
****dell just went on record yesterday and said he isn't compromising from 4 games. So that's not gonna happen. It's either gonna 0 games or 4 games.

Not to mention, Brady can't (after appeal) publicly accept blame as that would seem to be automatically perjuring himself. So, that has to be off the table.

Ring 6 · Aug 10, 2015

Peachhead said:
Just a reminder: Judge Berman's decision will have exactly ZERO to do with Brady's innocence or guilt. That isn't the issue before the court. The decision will totally be about the procedure. In the court view does Goodell have too much disciplinary power? Did he use that power improperly? Should the procedure be changed and how?

If the NFLPA/Brady wins I don't think the decision from Judge Berman will say anything about Brady's innocence. The judge will probably change the disciplinary procedures going forward. Then just vacate the punishment and send it to a different arbitrator to look over the Wells report and decide if it's safe to use as toilet paper...err, I mean, what, if any punishment Brady should get. The decision of an independent arbitrator is where Brady and by extension the Pats could clear their name. Not that it would effect the team penalties.

I think the only ways this could end quickly would both be bad news for us. Either the NFL wins (the judge OKs the NFL head office being prosecutor, jury, judge and appellate judge) or there's a settlement that would probably reduce or illuminate Brady's suspension but likely allows Goodell to keep most or of all his current power.

This is a good thing.
Regarding Brady's innocence, he is being required to proof something didn't happen, which is impossible. The NFL has said 'we think you did it, because we think you did it and you have to prove us wrong' which is largely impossible.

The fact that Goodell butchered everything that is fair and reasonable in the process is iron clad.
Guilt or innocence would fall on who has the burden of proof, but the mistakes, errors and unfairness of the process is a slam dunk in Bradys favor.

RelocatedPatFan · Aug 10, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
This is a good thing.
Regarding Brady's innocence, he is being required to proof something didn't happen, which is impossible. The NFL has said 'we think you did it, because we think you did it and you have to prove us wrong' which is largely impossible.

The fact that Goodell butchered everything that is fair and reasonable in the process is iron clad.
Guilt or innocence would fall on who has the burden of proof, but the mistakes, errors and unfairness of the process is a slam dunk in Bradys favor.

I hot like because I agree and hope this to be the case.

It would be fun if Berman did a dressing down on Goodell to that effect by asking him how he arrived at his decision (in a fair and impartial way).
So, Goodell is now a human lie detector and can look into a man's soul to determine guilt or innocence?

I assume an arbitrator has to possess, within themselves, the ability to look at an issue from multiple perspectives in order to arrive at a fair and impartial decision. Does Goodell have to prove he is capable of that? Goodell has had the luxury of being able to piecemeal this together and control the narrative, but what would happen if he had to put it all together in a cognitive and cohesive manner?

Questions I would ask:

Did you prove (within reason) that "unnatural" deflation of footballs happened, if so walk me through.
Did you prove (within reason) that someone on the Patriots staff actively caused the deflation of the footballs, if so walk me through your line of reasoning.
Did you prove (within reason) that Brady directed individuals to deflate the footballs.

In order for the verdict to be probable than not, each of those events would have to have an 80% chance of being true. .80 * .80 * .80 = .51 or 51%.

in my line, Goodell is probably saying 100%, 100% and oddly (100% or even 51%).

I think I'll take PFKs lead and take a little break. I might be overly invested in this sham of a verdict.

PatsFanSince74 · Aug 10, 2015

JMC00 said:
****dell just went on record yesterday and said he isn't compromising from 4 games. So that's not gonna happen. It's either gonna 0 games or 4 games.

Goodell is either more stupid than even I think he is or it's a bluff.

A couple of quotes from a piece in today's Glob emphasize that:

“Berman doesn’t have patience for nonsense, entitlement, or stubbornness when unwarranted, and I would not expect him to let these proceedings drag on if the parties are acting petulant,” said Jason Bonk, sports law attorney for New York law firm Cozen O’Connor. “He’s very good at getting to the core issues, and won’t tolerate inflated egos. It’s a simple case, long overdue for private resolution....McCann [the guy from UNH] believes that Brady has a decent chance of winning his case if it goes to judgment, but ultimately expects the parties to settle, at Berman’s urging."

I will be very curious to see if Berman tips his hand in open court or if he waits until they are in his chambers, but I'd bet a lot that one side or the other is going to know by 5PM on Wednesday which way Judge Berman's "meat cleaver" [as described by Judge Preska] will fall if they don't settle.

PatsFanSince74 · Aug 10, 2015

XLIX said:
I decided to do a little research on what a federal judge can consider when forming a decision. This is not like a criminal proceeding where members of the jury must not know much about the case going in and have to turn the TV off every time it gets mentioned in the news or something like that.

There seems to be no clear cut consensus regarding how far a judge can look into things on his own. Some circuits seem to allow it more than others.

IMHO, the more this judge knows the facts - the true facts - of this case, the better off we are. He could be following Stradley or Florio for all we know. Of course, he could be following the NY Daily News or the Boston Globe instead.

Well, he's admitted he's a "media junkie," though not necessarily a sports media follower. So, I think he could be reading almost anything or visiting almost any sites in addition to the "usual suspects" like the NYT and WSJ and, very good news for us, The Washington Post and the inimitable Sally Jenkins! And yes, he probably does read the Daily News every day (which I would not have thought before), which means he's been reading what Lupica and Myers are saying, which isn't all bad. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't have his clerk googling everything that's been written on the case in the last couple of weeks, which hopefully turned up Steph Stradley's blog.

XLIX · Aug 10, 2015

RelocatedPatFan said:
So, Goodell is now a human lie detector and can look into a man's soul to determine guilt or innocence?

Any judge worth his weight in salt should know that that's Cris Collinsworth's job.

Ring 6 · Aug 10, 2015

RelocatedPatFan said:
I hot like because I agree and hope this to be the case.

It would be fun if Berman did a dressing down on Goodell to that effect by asking him how he arrived at his decision (in a fair and impartial way).
So, Goodell is now a human lie detector and can look into a man's soul to determine guilt or innocence?

I assume an arbitrator has to possess, within themselves, the ability to look at an issue from multiple perspectives in order to arrive at a fair and impartial decision. Does Goodell have to prove he is capable of that? Goodell has had the luxury of being able to piecemeal this together and control the narrative, but what would happen if he had to put it all together in a cognitive and cohesive manner?

Questions I would ask:

Did you prove (within reason) that "unnatural" deflation of footballs happened, if so walk me through.

Did you prove (within reason) that someone on the Patriots staff actively caused the deflation of the footballs, if so walk me through your line of reasoning.

Did you prove (within reason) that Brady directed individuals to deflate the footballs.

In order for the verdict to be probable than not, each of those events would have to have an 80% chance of being true. .80 * .80 * .80 = .51 or 51%.

in my line, Goodell is probably saying 100%, 100% and oddly (100% or even 51%).

I think I'll take PFKs lead and take a little break. I might be overly invested in this sham of a verdict.

But again, its not about guilt its about procedure and fairness.

Goodell the commissioner: I told Vincent to suspend Brady based wholly on the Wells report and him being more probably than not generally aware.

Brady: No one ever said I could be suspended for being generally aware of anything and no one ever has been

Goodell the arbitrator: Oh ****

SIDEBAR
Goodell the arbitrator: He is right, we weren't allowed to do that
Goodell the commissioner: Thats OK, I can go back and change the reason then you can say it was never based on that, because, you know, you are me.
Both Goodell's: hahahaha good one Rog

Goodell the arbitrator: Brady you cheated, then lied, then committed perjury and now i find you schemed, conspired, approved and bribe the people involved, because my alter ego needs a new reason.

RelocatedPatFan · Aug 10, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
But again, its not about guilt its about procedure and fairness.

Goodell the commissioner: I told Vincent to suspend Brady based wholly on the Wells report and him being more probably than not generally aware.

Painfully aware of the procedure point.

Hence the reason it would be fun. Goodell is playing at being an arbitrator and Berman has wide latitude in his room to discuss whatever he wants. Ultimately, he'll make the call in accordance to labor law, but he might call into question Goodell who has not shown any ability or presented a mindset of someone who has that responsibility of being an arbitrator.

Sorry, I'll keep the "wishful thinking" out of the forums

.

varjao · Aug 10, 2015

Bring the axe and let judge Berman decides who he is going to decapitate, **** all this, I reached my limit over framegate, training camp on going and we still talking about this. I'm done, if it's 4 games, give the 4 games, Goodell will be crucified for taking the big star of the game for 5 weeks.

Meanwhile, Belichick's next man up philosophy will keep us in the hunt.

eom · Aug 10, 2015

varjao said:
Bring the axe and let judge Berman decides who he is going to decapitate, **** all this, I reached my limit over framegate, training camp on going and we still talking about this. I'm done, if it's 4 games, give the 4 games, Goodell will be crucified for taking the big star of the game for 5 weeks.

Meanwhile, Belichick's next man up philosophy will keep us in the hunt.

I'm all in favor of piling on goodell, but wouldn't 4 games be 4 weeks?

ps

I wonder if dowd started his website for berman's perusal

varjao · Aug 10, 2015

eom said:
I'm all in favor of piling on goodell, but wouldn't 4 games be 4 weeks?

ps

I wonder if dowd started his website for berman's perusal

We have a bye in week 4, Brady would only play in week 6.

Sthepen A Smith said it all right, when he said the absurd it would be Brady serving the same or even more games than Greg Hardy (I think he could get his suspension reduced even more) and being away from the game until week 6.

vyrago · Aug 10, 2015

varjao said:
Bring the axe and let judge Berman decides who he is going to decapitate, **** all this, I reached my limit over framegate, training camp on going and we still talking about this. I'm done, if it's 4 games, give the 4 games, Goodell will be crucified for taking the big star of the game for 5 weeks.

Meanwhile, Belichick's next man up philosophy will keep us in the hunt.

This case has become the sports equivalent of Jarndyce vs Jarndyce.

mosi · Aug 10, 2015

The easiest thing for this judge to do is call Brady, Jastremski, and McNally to court, put them under oath and ask them if they purposely deflated the balls after the refs had set them at the demand of Brady. When they answer no. Case closed. Everyone go home....

But wait, now put Gooddell on the stand and ask him if this whole thing was a sting to frame the pats - and I guarantee that he will take the 5th!

QuantumMechanic · Aug 10, 2015

vyrago said:
This case has become the sports equivalent of Jarndyce vs Jarndyce.

You don't know how right you are. If there's a settlement it'll likely be for re-arbitration. If Brady wins, the judge's order will likely be for re-arbitration. And no matter what, the losing party will probably appeal to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (the circuit courts, unlike SCOTUS, have to hear everything appealed to them).

YOUGOTMOSSED · Aug 10, 2015

I know everyone is trying to keep a happy thought in their head, but an article going on about how much this judge likes settlement and pushes for quick resolution doesn't really tell us anything. ALL judges love settlement because they all have much better things to do than . . . their job.

I really don't know how to take the statement about this judge saying he is a "news junkie."

From the start, I've hated this case being in NY but if Goodell turns this into a "stubborn contest" making settlement impossible, we have some good things going for us:

1- Goodell has been taken to the woodshed in a few decisions in federal court. I hope that the federal courts are starting to resent him for wasting their time with his bullsh*t and may want to send him a strong message.

2- Kessler is a heavyweight in NY and will be taken seriously.

3- It should be evident that Brady was punished despite the absence of any real evidence of wrongdoing. That should offend any fair minded person reviewing the case.

4- the "process" used by Goodell was straight out of 17th century Salem, MA. It should outrage anyone who went to law school.

Ring 6 · Aug 10, 2015

YOUGOTMOSSED said:
I know everyone is trying to keep a happy thought in their head, but an article going on about how much this judge likes settlement and pushes for quick resolution doesn't really tell us anything. ALL judges love settlement because they all have much better things to do than . . . their job.

I really don't know how to take the statement about this judge saying he is a "news junkie."

From the start, I've hated this case being in NY but if Goodell turns this into a "stubborn contest" making settlement impossible, we have some good things going for us:

1- Goodell has been taken to the woodshed in a few decisions in federal court. I hope that the federal courts are starting to resent him for wasting their time with his bullsh*t and may want to send him a strong message.

2- Kessler is a heavyweight in NY and will be taken seriously.

3- It should be evident that Brady was punished despite the absence of any real evidence of wrongdoing. That should offend any fair minded person reviewing the case.

4- the "process" used by Goodell was straight out of 17th century Salem, MA. It should outrage anyone who went to law school.

There has been a lot of speculation on this site about what the judge means between the lines of his memo, how he thinks, what he will be angry about, and even what he will do about it, by people who really have no clue. (We ALL have no clue, but some are claiming they do)

The fact that courts don't like to hear arbitration cases is interesting to consider but irrelevant to this case. Courts don't like to let murderers go, but when due process is violated they do it any way. In other words, whether the standard is high or not doesn't speak to whether the standard is met.

I think that Brady would have a wonderful case about guilt or innocence, but that isn't at issue here.
I think Brady has an iron clad, slam dunk case that the arbitration of the decision was not fair, reasonable, or consistent with the CBA, the law of shop, or the labor laws in this country.

BigPeteG · Aug 10, 2015

Heh. Don't believe the hype. Lawyers and people who write about lawyers always want to look at the legal angles of thing. They try to make the law seem entirely based on precedent and logic. But when push comes to shove these Judges can make any decision they make seem legal. There are so many laws - and there is always plenty of precedent for any kind of decision.

If he believes Brady is being railroaded and is incensed enough to care - he can go after any procedural mistakes - collateral estoppel for example - and destroy the NFL. If he is not moved enough to care - thinks the law is strong in the NFL's favour and doesn't want to suffer a rebuke from the appeals court - he can go with the NFL and claim under the CBA acting like jackass is fine.

Those aren't the only two choices - point here is that the law is subject to the personal beliefs, politics and whims of the judges..They come to the conclusion they want first - and they look to the law to justify it. The supreme court is filled with judges dissenting and writing sometimes impressive legal reasons as to why..

Ring 6 · Aug 10, 2015

BigPeteG said:
Heh. Don't believe the hype. Lawyers and people who write about lawyers always want to look at the legal angles of thing. They try to make the law seem entirely based on precedent and logic. But when push comes to shove these Judges can make any decision they make seem legal. There are so many laws - and there is always plenty of precedent for any kind of decision.

If he believes Brady is being railroaded and is incensed enough to care - he can go after any procedural mistakes - collateral estoppel for example - and destroy the NFL. If he is not moved enough to care - thinks the law is strong in the NFL's favour and doesn't want to suffer a rebuke from the appeals court - he can go with the NFL and claim under the CBA acting like jackass is fine.

Those aren't the only two choices - point here is that the law is subject to the personal beliefs, politics and whims of the judges..They come to the conclusion they want first - and they look to the law to justify it. The supreme court is filled with judges dissenting and writing sometimes impressive legal reasons as to why..

Every time I have ever dealt with a lawyer, they will tell you all the strengths of your case initially, and then when you move forward, will start talking about how you can never predict what a judge will do, that there are no 'crystals balls' and no guarantees, even if you are not looking for one.
Then, every time I have ever read legal filings, each one that you read sounds confident, complete, sensible, strong and optimistic, then you read the counter-filing and think they blew the whole argument to shreds.

I think the reality is that many laws are up to interpretation, the peripheral facts are never the same, and in many cases there are competing laws that favor each side, and even then some of them may not apply.
In a well contested suit, it isn't about listening to the arguments and picking whose sounds better, but about balancing the advantages and negatives of one side vs the other.

Here, it is clear that Goodell can be arbitrator, but it is also clear that an arbitrator reviewing his own decision opens up a major can of worms, and every reason to not allow that to happen basically exists in this case.

RobertWeathers · Aug 10, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
Every time I have ever dealt with a lawyer, they will tell you all the strengths of your case initially, and then when you move forward, will start talking about how you can never predict what a judge will do, that there are no 'crystals balls' and no guarantees, even if you are not looking for one.
Then, every time I have ever read legal filings, each one that you read sounds confident, complete, sensible, strong and optimistic, then you read the counter-filing and think they blew the whole argument to shreds.

I think the reality is that many laws are up to interpretation, the peripheral facts are never the same, and in many cases there are competing laws that favor each side, and even then some of them may not apply.
In a well contested suit, it isn't about listening to the arguments and picking whose sounds better, but about balancing the advantages and negatives of one side vs the other.

Here, it is clear that Goodell can be arbitrator, but it is also clear that an arbitrator reviewing his own decision opens up a major can of worms, and every reason to not allow that to happen basically exists in this case.

The more I think about it, the NFLPA goaded Goody into hearing TB12's appeal by telling him he couldn't to prove out your last paragraph in court.

NYT about Berman

Pro Bowl Player

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Supporter

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

In the Starting Line-Up

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

In the Starting Line-Up

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Burn it all down!

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

Practice Squad Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

Similar threads