One lawyer's differing opinion on the recent court transcripts

BradyFTW! said:

The ball is no longer in Goodell's court, and since that became the case every development has been favorable. I'm not claiming that it'll stay that way, but there's no reason at all to regard "Goodell acted in bad faith" as evidence that Berman's going to make an unfavorable ruling. He might, and we'd be foolish not to be prepared for that, but this is a different ballgame.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is an excellent point, and is enough to make me less pessimistic. (Not optimistic, mind you...just less pessimistic )

Patsfanin Philly said:

None of this has gone the way we expected.
We thought the Ideal Gas Law would be the end of it soon after the Colts game....not
We thought the Wells Report would be an honest effort at factfinding....not
We thought the appeal with Goodell would result in the lessening of the suspension.....not
We thought Kraft would fight for his team/GOAT/reputation....not
We thought Berman would vindicate Brady.........???

Click to expand...

One of these things is not like the others.

This has gone on so long that it feels to me like the way I always feel right before the Super Bowl… Where everything has been said and analyzed and gone over and over and over and over and over again to the point where you're just so sick of all of it.

The only difference is with this everything has sucked.

no matter how this plays out, soon as the CBA expires the NFL can expect a lengthy hold out by the players.

There is no way This CBA ever makes it to agreement again. Roger Goodell has killed the NFL, the NFL just doesn't know it yet. The biggest hold up in the last Negotiation was goodell maintaining power, the players eventually gave it up and let him keep it, since that time goodell has abused that power, and completely ruined the integrity of the nfl office. I would expect the next CBA to involve the players refusing to play in a league where someone as shady, incompetent and lack of integrity is capable of taking MILLIONS of dollars away from a player because of hearsay, and opinion, without any actual proof. This will result in either a shortened season, or replacement players till the regulars cross the line, a result, poor performance, injuries, fan backlash, and respect for the league dropping to an all time low.

The NFL is officially the walking dead.

neuronet said:

One of my close relatives is a judge, and she said she does this all the time, which is why I didn't dismiss Munsen's article out of hand like some did.(That...and I've explicitly gone chicken little over this topic....)

...

But I am heartened by the fact that her first goal genuinely seems to simply get it right, that's what she worries about more than anything.

Click to expand...

So, how would she rule?

Short rant on this. Berman's decision is going to set precedent on this case. It's interesting how the merits of one case will have so much effect on future cases. If I were the NFL, I wouldn't have wanted this specific incident to go to court, because you've basically put Article 46 in a fight which it stands to lose. Article 46 only has to really win one fight then it wins subsequent fights by default. The NFL shouldn't have overreached on this particular case. They should have waited for an incident where they could actually hire an independent investigator because they're more certain of guilt (don't need to do the mock job investigation), they could have accepted the findings without edits, then levied an outrageous penalty, tempting (or outright forcing) the player to appeal (uphold penalty), then fight it in court, basically limit the argument to just notice/fairness and put Article 46 in the best spot to win.

The NFL has, imo, played this so poorly from a strategic point of view, it makes you wonder if they're actually trying to forfeit commissioner power so he can no longer be accused of not being harsh enough, or if this was all really about generating revenue in the off season. The NFL is coming off as too incompetent for me to actually believe it.

neuronet said:

One of my close relatives is a judge, and she said she does this all the time, which is why I didn't dismiss Munsen's article out of hand like some did.(That...and I've explicitly gone chicken little over this topic....)

Click to expand...

Lester Munson was disbarred in 1991 for stealing money from a client as part of a settlement to keep him out of jail.

I dismiss everything Lester Munson says about the law, because he's not an attorney. What he says is not relevant to any discussion, especially those about the law or legal issues.

I wouldn't care if he was writing about how beautifully written Tom Brady's shopping list is - I still wouldn't give **** one about anything Lester Munson has to say about anything.

There are plenty of actual lawyers with actual knowledge who have written similar things to Munson. If you're looking for someone to agree with that position, I suggest you pick some of them.

Not this utter fraud.

TommyD4207 said:

Lester Munson was disbarred in 1991 for stealing money from a client as part of a settlement to keep him out of jail.
.

Click to expand...

Lester Munson still has a law license in Illinois - that is of public record. He may have been suspended or disciplined in 1991 but he was never disbarred.

I think that by that definition of insanity attributed to Albert Einstein, one could argue that I am insane: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”

I have been coming out here every day for weeks and reading hopeful comments (thanks Steph and Sally!) and doomsday comments (**** you Munson and Volin!) and ending up in the same place at the end of the day...every damn day: "It sure looks like Judge Berman is going to Vacate Goodell's ruling...definitely heading in that direction..but, then again, there's a lot that suggests he has no choice but to Uphold Goodell's ruling...definitely could go that way..."

And, I'll come out here again tomorrow, I know, and I'll do it all over again. Even though I know it is completely out of my control.

Insane? Maybe. But at least in a good cause.

"Free Tom Brady!"

TommyD4207 said:

Lester Munson was disbarred in 1991 for stealing money from a client as part of a settlement to keep him out of jail.

I dismiss everything Lester Munson says about the law, because he's not an attorney. What he says is not relevant to any discussion, especially those about the law or legal issues.

I wouldn't care if he was writing about how beautifully written Tom Brady's shopping list is - I still wouldn't give **** one about anything Lester Munson has to say about anything.

There are plenty of actual lawyers with actual knowledge who have written similar things to Munson. If you're looking for someone to agree with that position, I suggest you pick some of them.

Not this utter fraud.

Click to expand...

But you cannot dismiss Munson's opinion. Here is why.
He will pick a side for all the wrong reasons because he is an idiot. He is as likely to be right as he is wrong because he has no clue as to what he is talking about and severely lacks critical thinking.
Look at it this way, if you went to Ethiopia and asked the first person you saw whether Brady will be found innocent or guilty, they have a 50% chance of being correct. So does Munson, because his insight is exactly the same and asking his opinion is the same as flipping a coin.

TommyBrady12 said:

Lester Munson still has a law license in Illinois - that is of public record. He may have been suspended or disciplined in 1991 but he was never disbarred.

Click to expand...

Do you have a link? My understanding is that he is NOT licensed to practice law currently.

ChoWZa said:

The NFL shouldn't have overreached on this particular case. They should have waited for an incident where they could actually hire an independent investigator because they're more certain of guilt (don't need to do the mock job investigation), they could have accepted the findings without edits, then levied an outrageous penalty, tempting (or outright forcing) the player to appeal (uphold penalty), then fight it in court, basically limit the argument to just notice/fairness and put Article 46 in the best spot to win.

The NFL has, imo, played this so poorly from a strategic point of view, it makes you wonder if they're actually trying to forfeit commissioner power so he can no longer be accused of not being harsh enough, or if this was all really about generating revenue in the off season. The NFL is coming off as too incompetent for me to actually believe it.

Click to expand...

I had a similar thought the other day while on a bike ride. It is almost like they are sick of the autocratic rule and have decided they want a way out that is anything but them backing down, as if everything is in the context of negotiations with the players union. If they back down voluntarily, they look weak. If a judge rules that 46 leads to corrupt process, they can redo it and save face.

Then I decided my brain was suffering from oxygen deprivation , slowed down a bit, and went back to seeing Goodell et al as idiots.

Your thinking and articulation are better than mine however.

neuronet said:

We are at least lucky that there isn't much middle ground for Berman here: he either vacates or uphold. So he can't pull his legal ninja forever, he will eventually have to decide something if the sides refuse to settle.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's entirely true. What comes next depends on which ground he chooses for vacating (let's keep a happy thought that's what he'll do). It's my understanding that if the court buys Kessler's "notice" argument then the NFL is done (subject to appellate review). If he vacates on some other ground, the underlying case has to go to a neutral arbitrator.

The judge does have options on how he plays this with his ruling. I'm hoping that he can pressure the NFL into agreeing to having this decided by a neutral and staying all penalties in the interim.

I dont buy it. So berman is going to spend the whole time telling the nfl how they violated the cba and grounds where he could vacate it and then go and say "article 46 so goodell can do what he wants. Screw precedent set in all other nfl cases using article 46"

I dont see it happening. I think hes trying to give the nfl a way out of this

RIpats88 said:

I dont buy it. So berman is going to spend the whole time telling the nfl how they violated the cba and grounds where he could vacate it and then go and say "article 46 so goodell can do what he wants. Screw precedent set in all other nfl cases using article 46"

I dont see it happening. I think hes trying to give the nfl a way out of this

Click to expand...

Another good point that doesn't tend to be brought up. This is hardly the first time that provision's been challenged in court - and it doesn't have the best success rate in being upheld of late.

raduray said:

So, how would she rule?

Click to expand...

She doesn't care about this topic at all, and knows nothing about it. She lives in LA.

YOUGOTMOSSED said:

I don't think that's entirely true. What comes next depends on which ground he chooses for vacating (let's keep a happy thought that's what he'll do). It's my understanding that if the court buys Kessler's "notice" argument then the NFL is done (subject to appellate review). If he vacates on some other ground, the underlying case has to go to a neutral arbitrator.

Click to expand...

Right, but at least he would vacate in that case, which I see as a win for Brady and a loss for the NFL. And a neutral arbiter can only be bad for the NFL.

neuronet said:

Right, but at least he would vacate in that case, which I see as a win for Brady and a loss for the NFL. And a neutral arbiter can only be bad for the NFL.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Going back to a neutral arbitrator (especially if it's one that Berman selects, which I suspect he might), will just add an extra step to the process. But it's a huge win for Brady, and you might get your "vindication" from that result too, if said arbitrator determines, "Yeah, he didn't do anything wrong, this is stupid." and throws the thing out.

Also, you'd get Pash and Goodell testifying as witnesses in that scenario too. Good times.

TommyBrady12 said:

Lester Munson still has a law license in Illinois - that is of public record. He may have been suspended or disciplined in 1991 but he was never disbarred.

Click to expand...

Because he agreed to never practice again.

He also was a drunk back then, don't know about now.

AndyJohnson said:

Do you have a link? My understanding is that he is NOT licensed to practice law currently.

Click to expand...

He's active AND authorized to practice law in Illinois. you have to type his name into the following page.

https://www.iardc.org/lawyersearch.asp