McCann: Going to be a very tense hearing on Deflategate.

I think he will just because, it will put them through the mud. He wouldn't be in it for the money but would be in it to crap all over certain peoples reputations just as they have done his.

PatsFanSince74 said:

Interesting. Thanks. I still don't see him filing such a suit.

Why? He has more to lose by losing than he stands to gain by winning. The haters are still going to hate, the ill-informed are still going to be ill-informed and the just plain dumb are going to continue being just plain dumb, even if he wins. On the other hand, if he loses, he will look bad to the few who have given him the benefit of the doubt and the haters, ill-informed and dumb will feel vindicated.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. While the above certainly applies to some people, there are certainly a lot who are open minded and willing to change. Heck, the past 6 months have proven that.

archstanton543 said:

Even if he did that, he would have to prove that he lost money directly because of Defamegate. That's almost impossible to do and even if he spent all his time and money and won, it wouldn't be worth what he'd get in return.

Click to expand...

No, he does not have to prove monetary losses. The act of being subjected to ridicule due to defamation would be actionable, and it cannot be doubted that these lies have subjected him to ridicule.

Feel the rage of Patriots fans over this, then times that by whatever number you like over a 100 and that is probably how the one person involved is IMO feeling. This will not be dropped. I even see personal law suits coming. The whole lot.

Saying the above, I really hope that the Union has taken steps and are prepared to act once the verdict is in and are not caught on the hop by how quick the NFL was before, even though it transpires that it was a dumb move in the end.

I hope they serve the bastards as they leave the court.

Hope this is not another harbinger of 7 months of deflategate ******** until the season opens in Sept.

XLIX said:

I respectfully disagree. While the above certainly applies to some people, there are certainly a lot who are open minded and willing to change. Heck, the past 6 months have proven that.

Click to expand...

As I suggested to the OP, bookmark it and throw it in my face if he does.

DarrylS said:

Hope this is not another harbinger of 7 months of deflategate ******** until the season opens in Sept.

Click to expand...

I'd say that reflects the triumph of hope over experience.

The whole thing was BS. A witch hunt. I'd love hear the judge call it as such and admonish the NFL for wasting everyone's time. You bet your ass that the NFL would be screaming bloody murder if the data collected (that they didn't save) supported thier case and pointed the finger at the Pats.

DarrylS said:

Hope this is not another harbinger of 7 months of deflategate ******** until the season opens in Sept.

Click to expand...

It won't dominate the offseason this year like last because there's really nothing new going on. Last year we had the anticipation of the Wells Report until May, then discussion of same for the next few months.

This year we have nothing of the sort. There is an appeal in March, which will certainly gain discussion, but nothing like last year.

I still don't understand this simple problem. The NFL, not the NFLPA, brought suit to validate the ruling. How can they now say that the court in which THEY filed does not have jurisdiction in the matter and so the ruling should be vacated?

If I were on the Appeals Court I would have refused the filing on that basis alone.

SLGDEV said:

I still don't understand this simple problem. The NFL, not the NFLPA, brought suit to validate the ruling. How can they now say that the court in which THEY filed does not have jurisdiction in the matter and so the ruling should be vacated?

Click to expand...

They are not saying the court does not have jurisdiction.

They are saying that court does have jurisdiction and that the law requires the court to rule in their favor in this case.

QuantumMechanic said:

They are not saying the court does not have jurisdiction.

They are saying that court does have jurisdiction and that the law requires the court to rule in their favor in this case.

Click to expand...

I don't think so (but you may be right). What I read early on is that they were saying that the [lower] court does not have jurisdiction to overturn [parts of] a CBA.

SLGDEV said:

I don't think so (but you may be right). What I read early on is that they were saying that the [lower] court does not have jurisdiction to overturn [parts of] a CBA.

Click to expand...

"Jurisdiction" is question of whether or not a case can be before the court in the first place. No one, not even the NFL, is arguing that the case is improperly before the court or that the court is not allowed/able to render a decision (if a court finds it doesn't have jurisdiction it must dismiss the case without any findings other than that it has no jurisdiction).

The NFL is saying that court has the power to render a decision (hence it has jurisidiction) and that the law compels that decision to be an upholding of Goodell-as-arbitrator's arbitral award because (according to the NFL) none of the enumerated legal reasons that are the basis for vacating an arbitral award apply.

QuantumMechanic said:

They are not saying the court does not have jurisdiction.

They are saying that court does have jurisdiction and that the law requires the court to rule in their favor in this case.

Click to expand...

Yep, they are saying the court had the jurisdiction to find in their favor, nothing more.

sb1 said:

I wonder what's next.My money is on NFL says Brady himself took the footballs into the bathroom with a needle.

This must end with a defamation suit. No way they can keep happily falsely painting a worse and worse picture of the story to get the ruling they want without being held accountable.

Click to expand...

In regards to a defamation suit for Brady is what McCann says at the end:

"
When this is finally over, would Brady consider a defamation suit against the NFL?

“It’s really hard if you’re a public figure to win a defamation suit,” McCann said. “You have to show actual malice, you have to show in this case that the NFL intentionally or knowingly lied about Brady as opposed to making mistakes about what happened. It’s tough to do, but you know, if you keep saying bad things about someone and it gets worse and worse as time goes on, you do make it more likely that person will file a defamation suit.”"

To me, this is McCann saying that the NFL, by increasingly upping it's charges against Brady (from "more probable than not" to "masterminded a scheme"), has opened itself up to a defamation case by Brady..

XLIX said:

No, he does not have to prove monetary losses. The act of being subjected to ridicule due to defamation would be actionable, and it cannot be doubted that these lies have subjected him to ridicule.

Click to expand...

He (probably) doesn't have to prove damages in this case, because of the notion of defamation per se. Some forms of defamation are considered so injurious on their face that you don't need to prove damages. But not all forms of defamation fit that requirement. For example, let's say that a tabloid ran a story claiming that Peyton Manning is an a—hole who never tips anyone, anywhere. Manning could sue, but he would have to prove damages as a result of the article, since being mislabeled as a cheapskate isn't defamation per se.

This case would IMO be defamation per se, since the NFL is accusing him of, essentially, cheating at his job.

Below is a great post from a lawyer on a Bills message board of all places. To me this explains why the NFL is pursuing the appeal as well as its other behavior:

"Well, you can't look at Judge Berman's ruling as a single decision. There were many separate components to his ruling, including the following:

(1) Judge Berman concluded that no player would have fair notice that a failure to cooperate with an NFL investigation could lead to a suspension, because, in the past, players have only been fined for failing to cooperate with investigations.

(2) He also concluded that no player would have fair notice that he could be punished merely for being "generally aware" of rule violations committed by other people.

(3) He rejected Roger Goodell's finding of fact that Brady was more than "generally aware" of the rule violations. Goodell concluded in his opinion that Brady was more than merely "generally aware" that the balls were being deflated: Goodell found that Brady "approved of, consented to, and provided inducements" for the balls to be deflated. Judge Berman rejected this finding, and instead decided that "the record is clear that [Goodell's disciplinary award] relies upon the Wells Report's finding that Brady was 'generally aware' of the alleged ball tapering."

(4) He concluded that the Player Policies that deal with "equipment violations" apply to the act of intentionally deflating footballs. In other words, he held that intentionally deflating a football is an "equipment violation."

(5) He rejected the NFL's attempt to punish Brady for violating the "conduct detrimental" rule. Judge Berman held that this rule, which provides for a player to be punished for engaging in "conduct detrimental" to the game, could not be applied to Brady, because that rule is very generally worded, and the "equipment violations" rule--which, as I mentioned above, Judge Berman concluded was applicable to this case--was more specific. When two rules appear to apply to a certain course of conduct, the more specific rule should generally be applied instead of the more general rule.

(6) He held that the NFL improperly denied Brady the opportunity to examine Jeff Pash, the "co-lead investigator" in the Wells Report. Judge Berman reasoned that failing to allow Brady to question him during the arbitration hearing violated a federal statute, which provides that an arbitrator cannot "refuse to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy."

(7) He held that the NFL improperly prevented Brady from having access to documents and notes created during the Wells investigation, because arbitrators have a duty "to insure that relevant documentary evidence in the hands of one party is fully and timely made available to the other party."

Each one of these conclusions is problematic for the NFL. (1) and (2) call into the question the range of conduct the NFL is permitted to punish. (3) is troubling, because federal courts usually defer to findings of fact that arbitrators make. (4) involves a questionable interpretation of one of the NFL's rules. (5) is real disaster for the NFL, because it significantly narrows the scope of the NFL's authority to punish players for engaging in "conduct detrimental" to the league. Finally, (6) and (7) have implications for the procedures the NFL has to follow during future disciplinary proceedings.

So, if you're the NFL, the decision has far greater implications than merely giving Brady a get out of jail free card. It calls into question a wide range of NFL rules, the authority of NFL arbitrators, and the procedures the league has to follow in conducting disciplinary proceedings.

It's doubtful that the court of appeals will disagree with all of Judge Berman's conclusions, so I don't think it's very likely that Judge Berman will get completely reversed and the NFL will completely "win" on appeal. But, a "win" for the NFL doesn't require a complete reversal of every one of Judge Berman's conclusions. Even if the Second Circuit agrees that the arbitration was flawed, it might not agree with all seven of those flaws that Judge Berman found. It would be a meaningful victory for the NFL to have even just a few of Judge Berman's conclusions reversed.

So, if I'm the NFL, even if I don't think that the Second Circuit will uphold Brady's punishment, I still appeal in the hopes that the court will narrow Judge Berman's opinion so that it doesn't call into question quite so many aspects of the NFL's disciplinary scheme."

QuantumMechanic said:

Has the NFL ever actually said that outside of legal filings? I don't recall them doing so.

And stuff contained in legal filings cannot give rise to a defamation action. It can be as defamatory as all get-out, but that doesn't matter since legal filings are privileged against any defamation actions.

(The privilege can be lost if the filer publishes the filings with the media. But if the media gets the filings from the court themselves, the privilege stays intact.)

Click to expand...

Quantum - The answer is yes. Goodell's finding as part of the arbitration and in his statements afterwards. And the findings were published to the media by the NFL.

Ivan said:

Doty didn't hear this case.

Click to expand...

Doty did hear the Adrian Peterson case, which is also up for appeal.

PatsFanSince74 said:

My comment was that the article is bad because it states the obvious and is passed off as "insight."

However, if you insist that I point out things that were "wrong," McCann misstates that the team is still led by Kessler and fails to note that the primary respondent is no longer Kessler, but Winston & Strawn's Appellate Partner, Steffen Johnson. Kessler and Greenspan's names appear on the right side of the cover page of the Appeal Brief (I assume you have read it), or in the "second seat." His article might have been insightful had he done some actual homework and compared Johnson with Clement. But he did not.

He also fails to note that the NFLPA has added Andrew Tulumello, an Appellate Partner from Gibson Dunn. It would have been interesting and useful if he had done some background research and contrasted and compared Tulumello and Johnson with the NFL's high profile team. That would have provided the reader with insight, instead of a partially accurate regurgitation of the obvious.

That is all bad or lazy reporting and I fully stand by my original post.

Click to expand...

I'm going to be honest. I believe you are splitting hairs. Steffen Johnson is from the same law firm as Kessler. Just because he's handling the appeal doesn't mean that he is now the lead attorney for the NFLPA or Brady. The NFLPA and Brady are still Kessler's clients. And, as such, Kessler is still the "Lead Attorney".
Furthermore, the Tulumello addition isn't new. He was added in late June of 2015 prior to Brady's appeal hearing with the NFL. So, I'm not sure you can categorize it as a "failure to note" so much as it being old news.

So, you can stand by your original post, but it would seem that you are just as guilty of not doing homework as you claim McCann to be.