NFL attorney says NFLPA's move to vacate Brady's Deflategate suspension is 'baseless'

Another Lawyer with an opinion is all and he knows **** like the next Lawyer who would gladly take the case for $ 300 per hour.

The Judge was a Lawyer and he will be dealing with Lawyers from both sides.

AzPatsFan said:

A question for the attorneys here.

If Judge Berman issues a call for a redo with a neutral arbiter, is the only issue whether the NFL under the CBA 46 still only a procedural issue.

Or is the entire reasonableness of the investigation and issues of facts still subject to review?

Click to expand...

I would expect if the decision is shot down because the Commissioner is evidently biased, then the NFL will be required to consider whether it wishes to consider discipline against Brady at all. The Judge will not direct a neutral arbiter. He will simply blow the award up by invalidating it. In so doing, he will hopefully explain all reasons the decision is of no legal effect, and that will establish some of what is required in any re-do of the process (these decisions from judges are important because they define the CBA and its procedures for future issues).

If the NFL tries it again with a neutral arbiter, then I expect that individual would have all the authority to review the decision that Goody possessed, which means he would review all aspects of the decision limited only by guidance the Judge may have given in defining the process (for example, if the judge writes that this infraction is limited to the fine/ball, then an arbiter could not suspend Brady at all - going back to whether the NFL would choose to revisit the issue if vacated). In short, the arbiter could review any and issues that might make the punishment consistent with the CBA, and would have any authority Goody might have to call for additional investigation or clarification of facts in executing that authority.

[EDIT: And in the event your reference to "neutral arbiter" is to a mediator prior to judgment, they can consider anything but likely would focus on the law applicable to the specific case. I interpreted 'redo' as post-judgment on the motion to vacate.]

This thread makes me happy because, rather than the insidious leaks the NFL surely had planned, releasing the transcript has stripped them of everything but a smug bluff.

MassPats38 said:

I would expect if the decision is shot down because the Commissioner is evidently biased, then the NFL will be required to consider whether it wishes to consider discipline against Brady at all. The Judge will not direct a neutral arbiter. He will simply blow the award up by invalidating it. In so doing, he will hopefully explain all reasons the decision is of no legal effect, and that will establish some of what is required in any re-do of the process (these decisions from judges are important because they define the CBA and its procedures for future issues).

If the NFL tries it again with a neutral arbiter, then I expect that individual would have all the authority to review the decision that Goody possessed, which means he would review all aspects of the decision limited only by guidance the Judge may have given in defining the process (for example, if the judge writes that this infraction is limited to the fine/ball, then an arbiter could not suspend Brady at all - going back to whether the NFL would choose to revisit the issue if vacated). In short, the arbiter could review any and issues that might make the punishment consistent with the CBA, and would have any authority Goody might have to call for additional investigation or clarification of facts in executing that authority.

[EDIT: And in the event your reference to "neutral arbiter" is to a mediator prior to judgment, they can consider anything but likely would focus on the law applicable to the specific case. I interpreted 'redo' as post-judgment on the motion to vacate.]

Click to expand...

There's always the possibility in that case that the league plays the role of aggravated DA -- "We know he's guilty, but it would be a waste of resources to retry the case, so we're letting the guilty perp walk."

In that event, I hope the Patriots promptly file an appeal of their penalty. If they just cite Berman's ruling, the league will snippily reply that they disagree with Berman, and that's that. But if they stress that a lot more data on ball pressure will be available by next February, the league will be in a tighter spot to deny the appeal. The league CAN probably insist that McNally and Jastremsi testify in any appeal, but so be it ...

Fencer said:

There's always the possibility in that case that the league plays the role of aggravated DA -- "We know he's guilty, but it would be a waste of resources to retry the case, so we're letting the guilty perp walk."

In that event, I hope the Patriots promptly file an appeal of their penalty. If they just cite Berman's ruling, the league will snippily reply that they disagree with Berman, and that's that. But if they stress that a lot more data on ball pressure will be available by next February, the league will be in a tighter spot to deny the appeal. The league CAN probably insist that McNally and Jastremsi testify in any appeal, but so be it ...

Click to expand...

I hope the team does follow a favorable decision in Brady's case with an appeal.

My only concern there is Kraft signed some agreed disclaimer on his right to appeal, which has already shut the team's rights down in that regard for good. Logically, the NFL could claim it has taken a second look at the matter and backs off its position. Kraft could claim he gave up the right without full knowledge of the facts at the time he waived his rights, which works in regular appeals.

As with all of this mess, unfortunately, logic and reason have not been the central theme of operations. Here's hoping . . . .

MassPats38 said:

I hope the team does follow a favorable decision in Brady's case with an appeal.

My only concern there is Kraft signed some agreed disclaimer on his right to appeal, which has already shut the team's rights down in that regard for good. Logically, the NFL could claim it has taken a second look at the matter and backs off its position. Kraft could claim he gave up the right without full knowledge of the facts at the time he waived his rights, which works in regular appeals.

As with all of this mess, unfortunately, logic and reason have not been the central theme of operations. Here's hoping . . . .

Click to expand...

Do you think Kraft would have signed a final agreement accepting the penalty? Why?

I agree he might have missed a deadline to appeal, however, or something like that, which would have the same effect.

Anyhow, since Goodell claims godlike powers, then in particular he can reopen a case that might otherwise seem closed.

Fencer said:

Do you think Kraft would have signed a final agreement accepting the penalty? Why?

Click to expand...

That was speculation. Not knowing why he declared that in the first place, I was considering the possibility he may have done something more concrete believing that would facilitate some perceived better outcome. It may be of little significance if the NFL considers Kraft's statement to be definitive on the subject.

Fencer said:

Do you think Kraft would have signed a final agreement accepting the penalty? Why?

I agree he might have missed a deadline to appeal, however, or something like that, which would have the same effect.

Anyhow, since Goodell claims godlike powers, then in particular he can reopen a case that might otherwise seem closed.

Click to expand...

Kraft specifically said he was not appealing at that time. Admittedly, his right to appeal was lost in three more days but he could ask for the penalty to be reviewed and be consistent with his earlier statement.

Come to think of it, what would we expect the league's attorney to say, "Gee, we've thought about it and changed our minds, those guys have a great case after all?"

MassPats38 said:

I hope the team does follow a favorable decision in Brady's case with an appeal.

My only concern there is Kraft signed some agreed disclaimer on his right to appeal, which has already shut the team's rights down in that regard for good. Logically, the NFL could claim it has taken a second look at the matter and backs off its position. Kraft could claim he gave up the right without full knowledge of the facts at the time he waived his rights, which works in regular appeals.

As with all of this mess, unfortunately, logic and reason have not been the central theme of operations. Here's hoping . . . .

Click to expand...

What if Kraft were to contend that the NFL's actions constituted willful misconduct? Might that be grounds for arguing to void such an agreement?

Zeus said:

What if Kraft were to contend that the NFL's actions constituted willful misconduct? Might that be grounds for arguing to void such an agreement?

Click to expand...

That would require testicular fortitude. I have not seen any by RK when The 31 are involved.

PatsWickedPissah said:

That would require testicular fortitude. I have not seen any by RK when The 31 are involved.

Click to expand...

Bob is providing council to Caitlyn Jenner on what it feels like to have no sack.

Zeus said:

What if Kraft were to contend that the NFL's actions constituted willful misconduct? Might that be grounds for arguing to void such an agreement?

Click to expand...

The CBA is not written with precise definition. Any contract can be nullified by things like fraud. Instead of fighting over the penalties, the Pats would be fighting over denial of the procedure based on NFL misconduct akin to fraud.

Again, that was pure speculation on how Kraft may have been more definitive in giving up on his appeal. I do not actually believe it happened here (just throwing out ways he could have made his life more difficult if he ultimately did try to appeal the decision). If Kraft really wants to battle over this, I still believe he can under any circumstances.

SVN said:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...dys-deflategate-suspension-baseless/31301467/

Just makes my blood boil reading everything dan nash says and frankly is worrisome

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I'm trying to parse this statement from the NFL. SO there's a "competitive integrity policy" that applies to teams only but Brady was actually disciplined under a separate policy for players called "conduct that’s detrimental and affects the integrity of the game" which is broadly defined as whatever the heck Goodell says it is?

Help me out here!

Oswlek said:

This thread makes me happy because, rather than the insidious leaks the NFL surely had planned, releasing the transcript has stripped them of everything but a smug bluff.

Click to expand...

Interesting that, only a few hours after writing this, the NFL proved me wrong by leaking that it is stubborn ol' Tom Brady who is holding up the process. Just when you think you can't go any lower....

MassPats38 said:

I would expect if the decision is shot down because the Commissioner is evidently biased, then the NFL will be required to consider whether it wishes to consider discipline against Brady at all. The Judge will not direct a neutral arbiter. He will simply blow the award up by invalidating it. In so doing, he will hopefully explain all reasons the decision is of no legal effect, and that will establish some of what is required in any re-do of the process (these decisions from judges are important because they define the CBA and its procedures for future issues).

If the NFL tries it again with a neutral arbiter, then I expect that individual would have all the authority to review the decision that Goody possessed, which means he would review all aspects of the decision limited only by guidance the Judge may have given in defining the process (for example, if the judge writes that this infraction is limited to the fine/ball, then an arbiter could not suspend Brady at all - going back to whether the NFL would choose to revisit the issue if vacated). In short, the arbiter could review any and issues that might make the punishment consistent with the CBA, and would have any authority Goody might have to call for additional investigation or clarification of facts in executing that authority.

[EDIT: And in the event your reference to "neutral arbiter" is to a mediator prior to judgment, they can consider anything but likely would focus on the law applicable to the specific case. I interpreted 'redo' as post-judgment on the motion to vacate.]

Click to expand...

Would the arbiter have the power to return the picks if he found Brady innocent of all charges?

The Gr8est said:

Would the arbiter have the power to return the picks if he found Brady innocent of all charges?

Click to expand...

No. Any re-arb will simply be a redo of Brady's June 23rd appeal.

If they did Hard Knocks on the league office, do you think the average drop in IQ for the viewers would reach double digits?

Trick Question as they already did this, but the crews IQ dropped so much, they forgot how to use the recording equipment.

man, i need better writers for jokes .

The Gr8est said:

Would the arbiter have the power to return the picks if he found Brady innocent of all charges?

Click to expand...

No. Different cases/awards.

The Gr8est said:

Would the arbiter have the power to return the picks if he found Brady innocent of all charges?

Click to expand...

The picks are going to be returned by the new Commissioner once this moron is exposed, loses in court, loses in arbitration, the leaks start coming about ABOUT the NFL, and the owners dump him sometime around March.