Berman supposedly bound by the Peterson case?

GrogansArmy said:

I know I'm getting old and I do try very hard to keep up with current slang and acronyms, but this one has thrown me for a loop: INAL?

I'm sorry but what does that mean?

Click to expand...

I think it should have been IANAL = I am not a Lawyer.

Somewhat off topic but . . . did Goodell learn a gosh darn thing from Tagliabue?

Tagliabue (who was a lawyer) seemed to understand the value of staying out of the spotlight except for ceremonial purposes, treat the press like mushrooms (feed them sh*t and keep them in the dark), handle matters as quietly as possible and, above all, stay the f*ck out of court (you don't want to invite that vampire through the door). Goodell has been the exact opposite and the results have been disastrous.

BradyFTW! said:

In order for this argument to work, though, you have to agree that the parties are the same as in the Peterson case. I would guess that Kessler would argue that the parties are the same (NFLPA vs. NFL), and at least this one issue is the same (the NFL cannot punish an NFLPA member without prior notification that he can be punished). The NFL would presumably argue that this issue is fundamentally different, and maybe even that the parties are different, since Brady and Peterson are different people. I dunno, not a lawyer.

Click to expand...

It doesn't always require both parties to be the same, but it requires at least one party to be the same.

GrogansArmy said:

I know I'm getting old and I do try very hard to keep up with current slang and acronyms, but this one has thrown me for a loop: INAL?

I'm sorry but what does that mean?

Click to expand...

Stop being so IANAL retentive

Has Deus ever signed off with "IAAL"?

One interesting aspect of this is that it seems to be more about fact than about law. I.e., the collateral estoppel argument, in its essence, seems to be that a court in Minnesota has established the fact that the "Law of the Shop" and essence of the CBA include notice provisions, and hence that Arbitrator Goodell was incorrect when he assumed or ruled otherwise.

ctpatsfan77 said:

It doesn't always require both parties to be the same, but it requires at least one party to be the same.

Click to expand...

IIRC, it has to be the party it is being used against or else you are binding a party to a decision that did not concern them initially.

YOUGOTMOSSED said:

Somewhat off topic but . . . did Goodell learn a gosh darn thing from Tagliabue?

Tagliabue (who was a lawyer) seemed to understand the value of staying out of the spotlight except for ceremonial purposes, treat the press like mushrooms (feed them sh*t and keep them in the dark), handle matters as quietly as possible and, above all, stay the f*ck out of court (you don't want to invite that vampire through the door). Goodell has been the exact opposite and the results have been disastrous.

Click to expand...

thats the problem with Goodell not being a lawyer. I dont think he even understands the CBA. the guy does what he wants and then gets a proverbial smackdown in court time and time again for not following it

GrogansArmy said:

I know I'm getting old and I do try very hard to keep up with current slang and acronyms, but this one has thrown me for a loop: INAL?

I'm sorry but what does that mean?

Click to expand...

"I'm not a lawyer."

There are so many tangents in this case it is getting quite confusing.. another morning, another angle, another possibility, another discussion..

IANAL.. IAAF(I am just a fan) who wishes this would conclude soon.. I want to talk football, but this is like waiting for a train wreck, cannot look away..

If anything this may spur a whole generation to go to law school.. while wearing their #12 shirts.

ctpatsfan77 said:

As I understand it, no. Decisions from one circuit are not legally binding precedent on other circuits, although judges are supposed to at least give them some weight.

Click to expand...

Yup, a federal court in Minnesota's ruling is not binding on a NY federal court.

What is binding on Berman is 2nd circuit court of appeals and supreme court rulings. and technically judges are supposed to follow the laws passed by congress but you know how it goes with some of them.

RIpats88 said:

thats the problem with Goodell not being a lawyer. I dont think he even understands the CBA. the guy does what he wants and then gets a proverbial smackdown in court time and time again for not following it

Click to expand...

Pash or Nash, One of the ashholes, must be using him like a puppet. I am not sure who tells who to do what.

RIpats88 said:

thats the problem with Goodell not being a lawyer. I dont think he even understands the CBA. the guy does what he wants and then gets a proverbial smackdown in court time and time again for not following it

Click to expand...

This highlights the problem of nepotism and people from sheltered, wealthy/powerful backgrounds in positions of authority. They're used to having their way all the time and don't seem to understand that their actions have consequences so they don't think things through. I suppose this is because they're used to having someone in a position of power bail them out whenever they screw up.

Did Goodell honestly think Brady would just say "ok" and eat dirt when he was deciding the punishment over this trumped up nonsense? Did he not consult with lawyers about what would happen when an irate Brady hires a powerhouse lawyer to contest this?

For those who actually want to read up on the legal topic, this is a pretty good summary of what those legal concepts are.

For the Cliff Notes summary, the terms precedent or persuasive decisions apply to the general effects of decisions between courts, regardless of the parties involved in the decisions. Collateral estoppel/res judicata/claim preclusion/issue preclusion more or less applies to litigation anywhere between the parties. If your car is hit in Massachusetts and rolls into Connecticut, you should not be able to sue in negligence in Massachusetts, lose the case on final decision, and then try again in Connecticut with the same exact claims hoping for a different answer.

Some good information in this thread. Glad to see some pats fans went to law school (or simply watch to much Judge Judy)

I went straight to -- well, I won't call her a "horse" -- cowgirl's mouth, with https://twitter.com/CurtMonash/status/634238824353255426

Hiya! Is there good discussion somewhere of the collateral estoppel part of Kessler's argument?

Click to expand...

and just got the reply https://twitter.com/StephStradley/status/634359975112933376

Not that I've seen. It's briefed & Kessler discusses I think in previous hearing. Interesting argument.

Click to expand...