Holland vs. Munson

I knew Munson was a joke when I read his summary of the Wells Report on ESPN.com. When asked whether either the Patriots or Brady could challenge its findings, he said something along the lines of: "No. The Well Report provides clear and convincing evidence of wrongdoing. Any challenge will be unsuccessful."

While the entire summary was outrageously biased in favor of the NFL, that statement demonstrated his personal bias as well as his lack of legal knowledge (almost all impartial observers agree that there were many, many holes in the Wells Report that would not have withstood a truly impartial review).

neuronet said:

These are mostly ad hominem arguments against his article. He's not saying anything we haven't already said here, it's not crazy at all what he's saying. That is, Berman's hands are tied for the most part legally speaking, and there is a good chance he sides with the NFL even though he realizes it is ridiculous. Of course there are other options, but this is one main option.

The Garvey case should give us all pause, no?

Click to expand...

In terms of trying to overturn on the basis of fact finding yes but that's not the basis of the case.

United States code of law Title 9(arbitration) chapter 1 section 10

(a) In any of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration-(1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means;(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them;(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or(4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.


It seems that since Goodell (I'll just call him RG1 going forward) is the prosecutor, judge, jury and appeals court it's not hard to argue that he engaged in "evident partiality".

The judge also implied that RG1 was guilty of misconduct by refusing to hear testimony of the coauthor of the Wells report. Certainly he could claim that is "pertinent and material".

Lastly, there is a defined penalty for equipment violations of a fine so it could be argued RG1 exceeded his authority by suspending Brady instead of going with the defined fine.

That's not to say that's what the Judge will rule but those type of factors didn't apply in the Garvey case which used a neutral arbitrator.

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:

I am not even sure that the Garvey ruling on banning the re-argument of facts applies in cases where the alleged facts were ascertained by the use of lies, falsification of data, manipulation of public opinion, and other underhanded tactics, all that are directly linked to the person who was making the allegations, making a ruling, and hearing an appeal. This is not a case of making errors. This is a case of crafting falsehoods.

Click to expand...

Arbitrator engaging in fraud/corruption/misrepresentation is grounds for vacatur, according to the relevant federal law that Deus has posted a few times (edit: and that Evil Tom just posted a few seconds before I posted this). So my guess would be that you're right: the Garvey decision doesn't grant arbitrators the right to reach whatever conclusion they want via fraudulent/corrupt means.

allworldrussfrancis said:

I knew Munson was a joke when I read his summary of the Wells Report on ESPN.com. When asked whether either the Patriots or Brady could challenge its findings, he said something along the lines of: "No. The Well Report provides clear and convincing evidence of wrongdoing. Any challenge will be unsuccessful."

While the entire summary was outrageously biased in favor of the NFL, that statement demonstrated his personal bias as well as his lack of legal knowledge (almost all impartial observers agree that there were many, many holes in the Wells Report that would not have withstood a truly impartial review).

Click to expand...

Munson's a joke, and his takes have been ridiculous but, to point to Neuronet in agreement, that doesn't mean Munson will be wrong in terms of his final position. Yes, it looks ridiculous to think that the NFL could win, but we're dealing with the United States' legal system here, and that system hasn't been about getting things right for a long, long time.

After reading the transcripts, yes, it is possible we will lose this challenge. Nash isn't a total idiot, though the judge did cut him down a bit every time that he got on a roll.

Winning this case is not like Gostkowski lining up for an extra point. No gimme. But is isn't a 60-yarder either. I say it's about a 40 yarder on a fair weather day.

JMC00 said:

like clockwork apparently felger is treating munson's opinion piece as gospel but people like McCann and Stradley's opinion are wrong because why? It's not an anti-Pats/Brady opinion.

Click to expand...

They're homers. Pats footie pajama wears! You're absolutely right, Mike!!

Also, too: Given Felger's track record for being right in this and on the Pats in general, I'd be more worried if Felger's was on the other side.

Why does Munson think this is a tetherball game where every little kid gets a trophy? It's not the judge's job to go easy on the NFLPA so that they don't feel bad about their weak case. It's also not the judge's job go hard after one side to create drama. Does he think this is an episode of Law and Order?

I have read this thread and one thing keeps running through my head. I have to wonder why Munson is NEVER questioned about his sordid past when he goes on these programs to spew the League office's party line. I mean he is getting air time because of his supposed "legal expertise". Now IF that legal expertise consists of grossly inappropriate behavior and eventual disbarment, doesn't the audience deserve to know it.

Letting Munson go on shows posing as a legal expert without a full disclosure, is akin to having John Wilkes Booth being allowed to be called an expert on the Lincoln administration. Or in other words, something Fox News would encourage.

This was probably mentioned but it's golden....Munson was suspended (ethics violations) from practicing law twice...the 2nd time was 1991...the last time he practiced law...legally.

Lester Munson is definitely qualified to speak in his narrow field of expertise. Mainly, what Goodell's a**hole tastes like.

One of the crucial parts of Garvey that nobody seems to mention is that a judge can vacate an award if he/she believes the arbitrator made "irrational" findings of fact.

If a remand is appropriate even when the arbitrator’s award has been set aside for “procedural aberrations” that constitute “affirmative misconduct,” it follows that a remand ordinarily will be appropriate when the arbitrator simply made factual findings that the reviewing court perceives as “irrational.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1210.ZPC.html

The key holding of Garvey is that the court cannot substitute their own judgement for that of the arbitrator. But the court can still vacate an award and remand it for reconsideration.

JMC00 said:

like clockwork apparently felger is treating munson's opinion piece as gospel but people like McCann and Stradley's opinion are wrong because why? It's not an anti-Pats/Brady opinion.

Click to expand...

I heard about five minutes of his show today and he was talking about Munson, but even Felger had a hard time selling that Munson was credible.

I have noticed that Felger recently has been telling the audience that his schtick is basically an act and that he is taking the contrarian side because that is what his show does and it is boring for everyone just to take the Patriots side. I listen to the show about 10 minutes a day and I have heard him say it twice in the last two weeks. I wonder if their internal numbers are showing that his contrarian act on Deflategate is hurting the show's ratings. It is one thing to be a contrarian about the team and personnel moves, but on this I don't think the contrarian point of view is a good thing for his show.

Munson is one of the dumbest people in media.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2...-into-a-major-league-baseball-teams-computer/

mr holland is back on the case right now on twitter

https://twitter.com/Prof_Holland

although, I really think he's just slapping down a wwe character.
all these kind of trolls are just in it for the attention.

Rob0729 said:

I heard about five minutes of his show today and he was talking about Munson, but even Felger had a hard time selling that Munson was credible.

I have noticed that Felger recently has been telling the audience that his schtick is basically an act and that he is taking the contrarian side because that is what his show does and it is boring for everyone just to take the Patriots side. I listen to the show about 10 minutes a day and I have heard him say it twice in the last two weeks. I wonder if their internal numbers are showing that his contrarian act on Deflategate is hurting the show's ratings. It is one thing to be a contrarian about the team and personnel moves, but on this I don't think the contrarian point of view is a good thing for his show.

Click to expand...

I've noticed the same thing, Rob. I only switch over to their show when commercials are running on WEEI and NPR and I've heard him say the same things the past week or two.

IANAL, but it sure seems to me that the USSC decision in Garvey has very little to do with this particular issue, but the haters are latching onto it because it is sports related and the NFL brought it up so, you know, since it's sports and all, well then it's exactly the same thing so there.....

Munson is defending the shield at the behest of the suits at ESPN.

They are whoring for Goody to get better game selection for MNF and to keep access for their 'insiders'.

BTW the Schfter claim about Brady being willing to take a suspension. This was also NFL spin. While I'm sure he reporter end what he was told the source were NFL sources, not sources close to Brady, big diff. IMO Brady was never going to take a suspension, matter of honor.

Kdo5 said:

They were doing the same on WEEI this afternoon. For Christ sakes they were throwing around terms like "intelligent" and "respected" in description of Munson as an analyst...

Click to expand...

Munson is the Exponent of Legal Experts. "With whom do you want me to agree and how much will you pay me for my opinion?"

Count on BSPN to get a disbarred crooked alcoholic as their legal whore as if there isn't enough qualified attorneys in this country.