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

DaBruinz · Feb 4, 2016

QuantumMechanic said:
It's nice for us fans to say that, but I don't buy it for a second. First, they won't be able to successfully strike over anything. Sure, maybe for a couple of weeks, but once the lack of paychecks kicks in, they'll cave.

Second, they're not going to strike over that. I wish I could remember where I read it, but some months ago an ex-player had an excellent article somewhere pointing out why they won't. Primary reason was that the players view it as "won't happen to me" and are much more concerned about working conditions, $, etc.

If you think the players won't strike over Goodell having all this power then you are smoking cheap stuff. Guarantee that this will be a huge issue. Especially since affected the likes of name players like Peterson, Brady, and Rice.

DaBruinz · Feb 4, 2016

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.

You can bookmark this and throw it in my face if he ever files such a suit. I just don't see it even if the point of law you are making is correct.

I'd love to hear how Brady has more to lose than he stands to gain by filing a defamation lawsuit. Because, honestly, opening up the NFL to the scrutiny of the legal system over this is exactly what needs to happen. We deserve to know whether or not it was a sting operation that was set up by the league. We need to know who, exactly, was involved. Because, in all honesty, if the league officials are not treating each team fairly, as they are dictated to by the rules they have to follow, then they need to be removed and compensation awarded to the Patriots.

Forget about the public. The "haters", the "ill-informed", and the "dumb". They aren't what matters..

What matters is that defamation was committed and breaking up this lie of "integrity" that Goodell continues to perpetuate..

PatsFanSince74 · Feb 4, 2016

DaBruinz said:
I'd love to hear how Brady has more to lose than he stands to gain by filing a defamation lawsuit. Because, honestly, opening up the NFL to the scrutiny of the legal system over this is exactly what needs to happen. We deserve to know whether or not it was a sting operation that was set up by the league. We need to know who, exactly, was involved. Because, in all honesty, if the league officials are not treating each team fairly, as they are dictated to by the rules they have to follow, then they need to be removed and compensation awarded to the Patriots.

Forget about the public. The "haters", the "ill-informed", and the "dumb". They aren't what matters..

What matters is that defamation was committed and breaking up this lie of "integrity" that Goodell continues to perpetuate..

As I said in my post, I leave it to the lawyers to decide whether what a court would define as "defamation" has occurred. I just don't know, but think it's possible that it did not. You mix together Brady and the Patriots; I'm not sure what kind of "discovery" is permitted in a civil proceeding were Brady to pursue a defamation case, but I think we'd probably agree that by not leaving open the option to sue, Kraft did a grave disservice to Brady and those interested in the truth.

PatsFanSince74 · Feb 4, 2016

DaBruinz said:
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.

Yes, I'd noticed but did not correct my error on Tulumello and should have done so earlier but didn't have time; thanks for pointing it out and enabling me to correct myself.

That said, I think I'm right about the importance of having an Appellate lawyer in charge at this point. If they get the "wrong judges," then, as amazing as Kessler is, I would want someone deeply familiar with the Appellate Process in general and the Second Circuit in particular running the show.

DaBruinz · Feb 4, 2016

PatsFanSince74 said:
As I said in my post, I leave it to the lawyers to decide whether what a court would define as "defamation" has occurred. I just don't know, but think it's possible that it did not. You mix together Brady and the Patriots; I'm not sure what kind of "discovery" is permitted in a civil proceeding were Brady to pursue a defamation case, but I think we'd probably agree that by not leaving open the option to sue, Kraft did a grave disservice to Brady and those interested in the truth.

You said that Brady has more to lose by a defamation lawsuit than to gain. However, you have failed to explain how that is..

PatsFanSince74 · Feb 4, 2016

Edit. Error

PatsFanSince74 · Feb 4, 2016

DaBruinz said:
You said that Brady has more to lose by a defamation lawsuit than to gain. However, you have failed to explain how that is..

I think I did in my OP. You disagree. That's fine. The haters will hate whether he wins or loses. Those who have given him the benefit of the doubt will turn on him if he loses. You are free to discount that.

I would bet the farm that that is how he and his advisers see it and will see it. He will not file a defamation suit. Period.

But, you have a different view and I'm not going to change your mind.

Bookmark this and throw it in my face before the entire board if he files a defamation suit, which he will not do, and I will eat crow.

Otherwise, there's nothing else to discuss. If you just want to shout back at me, feel free to do so. I'm not interested. I've said I'll eat crow if he proves me wrong, but I am confident that he and his family and his close advisers are too smart to go that route.

DaBruinz · Feb 5, 2016

PatsFanSince74 said:
I think I did in my OP. You disagree. That's fine. The haters will hate whether he wins or loses. Those who have given him the benefit of the doubt will turn on him if he loses. You are free to discount that.

I would bet the farm that that is how he and his advisers see it and will see it. He will not file a defamation suit. Period.

But, you have a different view and I'm not going to change your mind.

Bookmark this and throw it in my face before the entire board if he files a defamation suit, which he will not do, and I will eat crow.

Otherwise, there's nothing else to discuss. If you just want to shout back at me, feel free to do so. I'm not interested. I've said I'll eat crow if he proves me wrong, but I am confident that he and his family and his close advisers are too smart to go that route.

Actually, no. You said it with the following post about 3/4 of the way through the thread. And I asked you how you thought Brady stood more to lose. Here is the post you said it.

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.

You can bookmark this and throw it in my face if he ever files such a suit. I just don't see it even if the point of law you are making is correct.

Instead of answering the question, you've dodged it and played spin doctor. You made the claim that Brady had more to lose than to gain from filing a lawsuit on this. I asked you to explain. You went on some BS spiel about "letting the lawyers decide what is defamation" instead of answering the question asked of you. I asked you again how Brady stood to lose more than gain. And you, again, avoided answering the question with some BS that has nothing to do with the question asked of you.

You made the claim that Brady stood to lose more than gain if he filed a defamation lawsuit. I ask again, how you figure that he stands to lose more than gain if he filed. I am NOT asking you if he will or won't. I asking you to defend your statement that he stands to lose more than gain. Or should we right it off to "lazy or bad posting"?

PatsFanSince74 · Feb 5, 2016

DaBruinz said:
Actually, no. You said it with the following post about 3/4 of the way through the thread. And I asked you how you thought Brady stood more to lose. Here is the post you said it.

Instead of answering the question, you've dodged it and played spin doctor. You made the claim that Brady had more to lose than to gain from filing a lawsuit on this. I asked you to explain. You went on some BS spiel about "letting the lawyers decide what is defamation" instead of answering the question asked of you. I asked you again how Brady stood to lose more than gain. And you, again, avoided answering the question with some BS that has nothing to do with the question asked of you.

You made the claim that Brady stood to lose more than gain if he filed a defamation lawsuit. I ask again, how you figure that he stands to lose more than gain if he filed. I am NOT asking you if he will or won't. I asking you to defend your statement that he stands to lose more than gain. Or should we right it off to "lazy or bad posting"?

I was as clear as I can be. You disagree with my assessment and think it is "BS." That's your right.

But, to repeat: It's my view that he has more to lose than gain because those who are his critics/haters will still be his critics/haters even if he wins a defamation suit. If he loses a defamation suit, those who have given him the benefit of the doubt...i.e., not his strong supporters, such as myself, who stood outside the SDNY Courthouse in Manhattan last August for several hours and was five feet away from Brady as he got into his SUV after the Appeal Hearing and can be heard on tape, as several people out here reported, shouting "We love you Tommy. One more for the thumb, Tommy!"...those who are now giving him the benefit of the doubt will cease to do so if he loses. I will always believe him and believe in him, even if he files such an, in my opinion, ill-considered suit, win or lose.

I live outside New England now and most of my friends are all over the country. I don't think it's possible for people who live in the region to understand the depth and intensity of feelings of those who hate Brady and the Patriots.

God himself could come down from heaven, stand on the 50 yard line at Gillette Stadium, surrounded by a heavenly choir of angels, and condemn Goodell while proclaiming Brady's and the Patriots' innocence and these people would still regard them as "cheaters" and suggest that Kraft had somehow bought God off with a large donation to religious philanthropies. We are not going to change that and I have learned just to ignore it.

So, even though you disagree with that assessment, it is a reasonable assessment and represents how I see things. I'm not trying to change your mind. You can call it whatever you want.

If you are referring to monetary "wins" or "losses," that's very difficult to assess. In order to claim monetary damages, he would have to demonstrate that he lost specific endorsements or opportunities for endorsements and, then, even if his suit met the criteria for a defamation suit (which many have argued he would not, but on which I am silent since I am not a Litigator), try to capture those losses as damages from the League. As others, who know more about this than do I, have observed out here, that is a very high legal hurdle to surmount. Perhaps not impossible, but very difficult.

Finally, it is, indeed, possible that Brady's fans and supporters might feel they have something to gain by way of vindication were he to prevail. I have come to believe that exposing the lies that the League perpetrated is more of a fantasy of fans than a reality that will benefit Brady.

So, I can't be any clearer and I know I am not going to change your mind. If you reply to this, you will have the last word, as I am finished with this conversation.

vyrago · Feb 17, 2016

Todd Bradley said:
I'm no lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, but isn't it virtually impossible for Berman's ruling to be overturned?

I thought when the ruling was made people like Florio said it written with a "poison pill" so to speak, where any overturning would get sent back to Berman and he would subsequently deny the NFL again and so on and so forth...

That would be poetic justice in light of the NFL shenanigans with regard to Roger ruling on his own ruling on Brady's appeal.

IllegalContact · Feb 17, 2016

2 possibilities here......either the court of appeals ends it and there is nothing left to say, or we continue in this 'suspended animation' for another year

I think the appeal will be denied on the same kinds of practical points that Berman made.....that the industrial justice rendered by the NFL does not abide by the CBA which would supercede any random authority that the commissioner might have.

patman52 · Feb 17, 2016

PatsFanSince74 said:
I was as clear as I can be. You disagree with my assessment and think it is "BS." That's your right.

But, to repeat: It's my view that he has more to lose than gain because those who are his critics/haters will still be his critics/haters even if he wins a defamation suit. If he loses a defamation suit, those who have given him the benefit of the doubt...i.e., not his strong supporters, such as myself, who stood outside the SDNY Courthouse in Manhattan last August for several hours and was five feet away from Brady as he got into his SUV after the Appeal Hearing and can be heard on tape, as several people out here reported, shouting "We love you Tommy. One more for the thumb, Tommy!"...those who are now giving him the benefit of the doubt will cease to do so if he loses. I will always believe him and believe in him, even if he files such an, in my opinion, ill-considered suit, win or lose.

I live outside New England now and most of my friends are all over the country. I don't think it's possible for people who live in the region to understand the depth and intensity of feelings of those who hate Brady and the Patriots.

God himself could come down from heaven, stand on the 50 yard line at Gillette Stadium, surrounded by a heavenly choir of angels, and condemn Goodell while proclaiming Brady's and the Patriots' innocence and these people would still regard them as "cheaters" and suggest that Kraft had somehow bought God off with a large donation to religious philanthropies. We are not going to change that and I have learned just to ignore it.

So, even though you disagree with that assessment, it is a reasonable assessment and represents how I see things. I'm not trying to change your mind. You can call it whatever you want.

If you are referring to monetary "wins" or "losses," that's very difficult to assess. In order to claim monetary damages, he would have to demonstrate that he lost specific endorsements or opportunities for endorsements and, then, even if his suit met the criteria for a defamation suit (which many have argued he would not, but on which I am silent since I am not a Litigator), try to capture those losses as damages from the League. As others, who know more about this than do I, have observed out here, that is a very high legal hurdle to surmount. Perhaps not impossible, but very difficult.

Finally, it is, indeed, possible that Brady's fans and supporters might feel they have something to gain by way of vindication were he to prevail. I have come to believe that exposing the lies that the League perpetrated is more of a fantasy of fans than a reality that will benefit Brady.

So, I can't be any clearer and I know I am not going to change your mind. If you reply to this, you will have the last word, as I am finished with this conversation.

So your saying that if during discovery the NFL admitted it was a sting and the colts knew about it and took steps to limit deflation such as filling up the balls outside where it was cold, instead of in a heated locker room it is counter acted by something in evidence that the NFL has that it has not released. He does not have to win a case to embarrass the league as the league has embarrased him.

Ivan · Feb 17, 2016

PatsFanSince74 said:
Yes, I'd noticed but did not correct my error on Tulumello and should have done so earlier but didn't have time; thanks for pointing it out and enabling me to correct myself.

That said, I think I'm right about the importance of having an Appellate lawyer in charge at this point. If they get the "wrong judges," then, as amazing as Kessler is, I would want someone deeply familiar with the Appellate Process in general and the Second Circuit in particular running the show.

Couldn't agree more. Brady is in good hands but a bad draw could still screw him.

ctpatsfan77 · Feb 17, 2016

PatsFanSince74 said:
If you are referring to monetary "wins" or "losses," that's very difficult to assess. In order to claim monetary damages, he would have to demonstrate that he lost specific endorsements or opportunities for endorsements and, then, even if his suit met the criteria for a defamation suit (which many have argued he would not, but on which I am silent since I am not a Litigator), try to capture those losses as damages from the League. As others, who know more about this than do I, have observed out here, that is a very high legal hurdle to surmount. Perhaps not impossible, but very difficult.

IANAL, but I am fairly sure that is not the issue. The NFL branding him a cheater would almost certainly qualify as defamation per se, meaning he doesn't have to prove actual harm to be awarded damages.

The real issue is that he has to prove that this wasn't mere stupidity or incompetence, but "actual malice"—that the NFL knew they were spreading lies, or acted with "reckless disregard" for the truth.

Ivan · Feb 17, 2016

I would donate right now to support a defamation suit by Brady I just don't believe he will file one. I. Think he just wants it over and done with so he can focus entirely on winning championships.

IllegalContact · Feb 17, 2016

patman52 said:
So your saying that if during discovery the NFL admitted it was a sting and the colts knew about it and took steps to limit deflation such as filling up the balls outside where it was cold, instead of in a heated locker room it is counter acted by something in evidence that the NFL has that it has not released. He does not have to win a case to embarrass the league as the league has embarrased him.

oh jeezus.......

9077e874a244a2f30e3a91776396c75d773c2d9d0add5ed99bb01ffe6a43a9bf.jpg

IllegalContact · Feb 17, 2016

Ivan said:
I would donate right now to support a defamation suit by Brady I just don't believe he will file one. I. Think he just wants it over and done with so he can focus entirely on winning championships.

no wonder there is a divergence of economic classes in this country

Patsfanin Philly · Feb 17, 2016

Ivan said:
I would donate right now to support a defamation suit by Brady I just don't believe he will file one. I. Think he just wants it over and done with so he can focus entirely on winning championships.

IllegalContact said:
no wonder there is a divergence of economic classes in this country

Can you explain because for the life of me, I can't connect the dots on that one.

PatsFanSince74 · Feb 17, 2016

ctpatsfan77 said:
IANAL, but I am fairly sure that is not the issue. The NFL branding him a cheater would almost certainly qualify as defamation per se, meaning he doesn't have to prove actual harm to be awarded damages.

The real issue is that he has to prove that this wasn't mere stupidity or incompetence, but "actual malice"—that the NFL knew they were spreading lies, or acted with "reckless disregard" for the truth.

That's been discussed at some length out here. While you and I agree that this was a malicious "sting" by the NFL, Goodell and the League are probably protected because most of their statements were made in the context of the court proceeding. Proving the sting would be tough and would require convincing a jury

PatsFanSince74 · Feb 17, 2016

Patsfanin Philly said:
Can you explain because for the life of me, I can't connect the dots on that one.

I took it as a "rich get richer, poor get poorer" comment. The idea that someone on this board (unless their family name is on a building at Harvard or they are pulling down very, very big bucks somewhere) would contribute money to fund a law suit by a guy whose net worth is already in the nine figure range is kind of mind boggling...

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

Pats, B's, Sox

Pats, B's, Sox

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pats, B's, Sox

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pats, B's, Sox

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Hall of Fame Poster

PatsFans.com Supporter

Hall of Fame Poster

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Similar threads