Matt Chatham ANNHILATES Article 46

PatsFanSince74 said:

My understanding is that if the two sides don't settle, Judge Berman has no choice but either to Uphold or Vacate.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Can someone please confirm/deny? I thought he could also give a "settlement" of his own, e.g., drop to a two-game suspension.

Hoodie said:

Here's another. I'm worried because all of this is taking place in the Moynihan building! Is that bad Karma?

Click to expand...

tom seems to get along with her so i dont think so..

neuronet said:

Interesting. Can someone please confirm/deny? I thought he could also give a "settlement" of his own, e.g., drop to a two-game suspension.

Click to expand...

Confirm. If the two sides don't settle, it's all or nothing.

TommyD4207 said:

Confirm. If the two sides don't settle, it's all or nothing.

Click to expand...

I thought he could also send the case to a neutral arbitrator?

Gronkowski123 said:

tom seems to get along with her so i dont think so..

Click to expand...

I would just prefer it to be the Bundchen Courthouse.

EDIT: or maybe not if the divorce rumors turn out to be true.

Hoodie said:

I thought he could also send the case to a neutral arbitrator?

Click to expand...

That could happen if he vacates the suspension.

TommyD4207 said:

Confirm. If the two sides don't settle, it's all or nothing.

Click to expand...

That's really interesting. So all of this "settlement" talk could be the judge saying to the NFL: "Send it to a mutually agreeable arbitrator for re-investigation or I'll just vacate and you'll have nothing." Let's hope!

Hoodie said:

Here's another. I'm worried because all of this is taking place in the Moynihan building! Is that bad Karma?

Click to expand...

Nah. In fact I think of it as the opposite. The ghost of the pure blooded Irishman Daniel Patrick Moynihan will be looking out for the welfare of his fellow pure blooded Irishman, Thomas Edward Patrick Brady. In fact, I bet he's haunting the hell out of Judge Berman until he comes around.

Mike the Brit said:

That's really interesting. So all of this "settlement" talk could be the judge saying to the NFL: "Send it to a mutually agreeable arbitrator for re-investigation or I'll just vacate and you'll have nothing." Let's hope!

Click to expand...

Well, here's the important thing. The judge can't send it to a neutral independent arbitrator unless he vacates the suspension. In other words, it can be part of his order.

Then again, if he doesn't think anything happened, he might not do that. It's more likely that the first thing would happen than the second.

Either way, Brady plays in the interim.

Sorry Grid, but nowayback posted this on Chatham's column back on Tuesday (page 4). However, its a column that is worth repeating, so you have my thanks. I know I missed the original one, so I'm glad its been in essence bumped up.

This column is important in that it completely debunks the NFL case EVEN in the small parameters that the Judge is allowed to rule on. It is the one article I've seen that concentrates solely on the CBA and where Goodell overstepped his authority.

Too often we, as fans, have become unfocused by the ENORMITY of the bad things the NFL has done to Brady and the Pats over the last 6 months. We get all caught up in the injustice of a league punishing us for something that clearly didn't happen in the first place. We get all caught up with perfidy of the NFL's malicious strategy of misinformation and slander, plus their unfair policies of not correcting misinformation or gagging any Pats attempts to defend themselves. This often leads us to confuse and confound those we try to educate because, when you think about it, the OVERWHELMING scope of the NFL's league office is so corrupt that it is hard to get a handle on it.

In the Article you and nowayback posted, Chatham clearly outlines the 4 distinct violations of the CBA. A number of people have cited the "lack of notice" clause that has been the linchpin of all the past NFL defeats. But I think the thing that will tip the scales on this case with be the "fundamental fairness" section of the CBA., because there is NO stretch of the imagination where Goodell has been perceived as being FAIR.

Thanks again

TommyD4207 said:

Well, here's the important thing. The judge can't send it to a neutral independent arbitrator unless he vacates the suspension. In other words, it can be part of his order.

Then again, if he doesn't think anything happened, he might not do that. It's more likely that the first thing would happen than the second.

Either way, Brady plays in the interim.

Click to expand...

You say: "The judge can't send it to a neutral independent arbitrator unless he vacates the suspension." I take it that I'm reading it right as "Vacates the decision" not "Gives a stay of the suspension pending an investigation by a neutral, independent arbitrator".

Now here's my question:

Can the judge say:

"I order the NFL's decision to be vacated and I order that a new hearing be held before XXX, a neutral independent arbitrator."

or can he only say:

"I order the NFL's decision to be vacated and express the opinion that, if any further action is taken by the NFL, it must be subsequent to investigation by a neutral independent arbitrator if it is later to be upheld by this court"

If it is a straight up-or-down decision, it sounds like the second is the most he could do if the parties don't agree independently.

(Sorry for the semantic nitpicking, but, you know, the law for us outsiders ...)

BTW- It's articles like this that make me totally convinced that Brady's suspension will be vacated. However that will STILL not correct the ultimate injustice that has occurred. Too many fans will still believe that "something" happened that Brady got off on a technicality. The NFL itself will NOT be forced to admit its culpability in this unjust prosecution of both the Pats and Brady.

Only a defamation suite by Brady or the Pats will force the discovery process that will lay bare the details that has led us to the national nightmare known as "deflategate", and begin to wash away the stain the NFL has tarnished us with. I'm afraid that vacating Brady's suspension will satisfy too many of us, and with the season getting started, take our eyes off the ball of the really important battle. Which is exposing the NFL as the perfidious, malicious, and corrupt origination that it has become under the evil direction of Roger Goodell.

Hoodie said:

I would just prefer it to be the Bundchen Courthouse.

EDIT: or maybe not if the divorce rumors turn out to be true.

Click to expand...

tom would be a fool to divorce gisele.

Mike the Brit said:

You say: "The judge can't send it to a neutral independent arbitrator unless he vacates the suspension." I take it that I'm reading it right as "Vacates the decision" not "Gives a stay of the suspension pending an investigation by a neutral, independent arbitrator".

Now here's my question:

Can the judge say:

"I order the NFL's decision to be vacated and I order that a new hearing be held before XXX, a neutral independent arbitrator."

or can he only say:

"I order the NFL's decision to be vacated and express the opinion that, if any further action is taken by the NFL, it must be subsequent to investigation by a neutral independent arbitrator if it is later to be upheld by this court"

If it is a straight up-or-down decision, it sounds like the second is the most he could do if the parties don't agree independently.

(Sorry for the semantic nitpicking, but, you know, the law for us outsiders ...)

Click to expand...

No problem. It would be the first one.

It's going to be:

1) Affirms the suspension
2) Vacates the suspension
3) Vacates the suspension with the order to have the appeal heard by a neutral arbitrator.

Assuming, of course, there's no settlement.

If the NFL wont budge from their position that Brady must accept the Wells Report then there will be no settlement. And hopefully the judge will take his anger out on the NFL for being so stubborn.

Galeb said:

If this were hockey or soccer, I'd be worried, but there are no goalies in football.

Click to expand...

What this joke too subtle or just not funny?

Galeb said:

What this joke too subtle or just not funny?

Click to expand...

Yes. Probably. Maybe a little esoteric.

I think directly referencing "pulling the goalie" would have been worth a chuckle, which it got from me when I read it.

Good optimistic take. After Wednesday I was feeling upbeat with my framegate thoughts. NFL got hammered and were Definately on the defensive.

We were led to believe for weeks leading up to Wednesday's hearing that the demeanor of Berman would tip his hand which way he was leaning. Settlement talks or not. Well we seen which way he as leaning. I was ecstatic.

I start reading some of the other posts on this site. The layman fan was joyful, but the ****house lawyers we have were poo pooing back and forth. . Don't read into this or that. It is only settlement talks. When it comes time for the trial Berman will only look at the CBA.

This post makes sense. I really feel Berman is pissed at the NFL for dumping this Emporer induced ruling in his lap. He will find the cracks in the CBA to allow justice to prevail. As for our so called lawyers chirping in. I would guess the last case you tried was Yuengling Light.

Galeb said:

If this were hockey or soccer, I'd be worried, but there are no goalies in football.

Click to expand...

I thought Hoodie was thinking Moynahan, as in Bridget (different spelling on last name, but phonetically accuracte -- enough)

TommyD4207 said:

1) Affirms the suspension
2) Vacates the suspension
3) Vacates the suspension with the order to have the appeal heard by a neutral arbitrator.

Click to expand...

Ah, if (3) is among his options, the judge does have quite a lot of discretion, then. Thanks!