What happened to Tunsil proves that Brady was 100% right in destroying his phone

QuantumMechanic said:

They didn't negotiate it away. Rather, they did not negotiate for it.

Your employer can say "let me look at your personal cell phone or you're fired" and you won't have a leg to stand on unless you have a contract that says he can't do it or live in a state that has a law that says (or has been interpreted by courts to say) refusal to turn over a personal phone can't be grounds for firing.

Click to expand...

Yes- it was not in the CBA.

Gumby said:

Just because it isnt mentioned that doesnt mean they "negotiated it away". What theNflpa negotiated away (or more accurately: failed to address) was a right to a TRULY IMPARTIAL appeal authority.

That left the door open for kim sun go-to-hell to do whatever the heck he feels like. But that doesnt mean they negotiated away or (in a fair world) your rights to own private property and protections against self-incrimination in fishing expeditions are given up. It just means a bunch of Namby-pamby lawyers are giving undue deference to 'arbitration agreement' doctrine and undue admiration for their fellow word-parsers contortion-gymnastics ability.

Click to expand...

I agree. My wording was poor.

letekro said:

You and Steph Stradley are talking about the legal issue. I have no opinion on that, so I can't see how we have a "disagreement." It is a legal issue. It requires research and thought that I don't care to give it. I can tell from the briefs that the law is not clear in this area. My only purpose is to try to clear up the facts. While the opinions are hard to understand even if you know the facts, they are downright impossible if you don't know the facts.

Click to expand...

See Joker's post above yours. From that piece:

The coup de grâce came Tuesday morning, when the league leaked to ESPN that “Brady destroyed his cell phone,” locking in the notion that something sinister — and irreparable — had occurred. The press release announcing the decision likewise focused on the destruction of the cell phone, raising eyebrows from sea to shining sea and reinforcing for many the idea that Brady had something to hide, and that he tried to hide it.

But like the much longer Wells report, closer inspection of the Goodell decision undermines the primary conclusion. And, as usual, the Achilles heel can be found in a footnote.

Specifically, it can be found at footnote 11 on page 12: “After the hearing and after the submission of post-hearing briefs, Mr. Brady’s certified agents offered to provide a spreadsheet that would identify all of the individuals with whom Mr. Brady had exchanged text messages during [the relevant time] period; the agents suggested that the League could contact those individuals and request production of any relevant text messages that they retained. Aside from the fact that, under Article 46, Section 2(f) of the CBA, such information could and should have been provided long before the hearing, the approach suggested in the agents’ letter — which would require tracking down numerous individuals and seeking consent from each to retrieve from their cellphones detailed information about their text message communications during the relevant period — is simply not practical.”

In English, here’s what the footnote means: Although the text messages couldn’t be retrieved directly from Brady’s phone, his agents provided all of the phone numbers with which Brady exchanged text messages. His agents also said that the league could attempt to get the actual text messages from the phones of the people with whom Brady communicated, but the league refused to attempt to try, claiming that it would be too hard to track down the various people and to persuade them to cooperate.

Brady's team offered to help the league track down all the relevant texts even though Brady's phone was wiped. After months of investigation and $5 million in expenses for the Wells Report, the league - needing information it deemed critical - decided that it was "not practical" to pursue the matter. Instead, they cited Brady for a lack of cooperation. Despite them providing information on every single one of those texts the NFL was looking for.

Would it have been more cumbersome? Yes. When we are talking about the crime of the century? You do it. The NFL itself CHOSE TO NOT PURSUE THIS. They could have. They chose not to. They cannot choose not to pursue it and then cite Brady for a lack of cooperation.

letekro said:

I'm just trying to clear up the facts. For example, it is a commonly held belief on this forum that Brady provided Wells with the text messages and emails on the phone he used during the 2014 season. That is patently false. Many here also believe that Brady was disciplined for not handing over his phone, but this is also false. The penalty for noncooperation was for not providing the potentially relevant texts and emails that were requested.

Click to expand...

This is where you are so wrong it's incredible. They requested that Brady turn over texts/emails, but Brady's camp pointed out that they already had all the texts from Jastremski and McNally, and Well's was satisfied. Well's initial report was that Brady was completely cooperative and stated on record that there would be no repercussions for not handing over the phone.

Fast forward to the Appeal hearing and Brady's camp turned over texts, emails, as well as all the information necessary to pull any data (messages, emails, etc). Goodell didn't bother to gather that data (likely because he already knew there wasn't anything there).

The idea that Brady refused to turn over texts/emails/info is wrong, as well as the fact that he was never required to in the first place. Even if they deemed him uncooperative for not turning over any data/info all, they can't punish him for it because it's private property and the league has no right to demand it and thus no right to punish him for demand something that they have no right to. Get it?

Finally, the thing Goodell hung his hat on, beyond the "You destroyed your phone!!!!" was the lack of messages during the time-frame they thought this 'scheme' was going on. The problem is that it's circular logic. If it never happened and Brady doesn't text the two ball-boys often, than the texts don't exist. Lack of evidence isn't evidence. It's like the nuts who think there were advanced technological civilizations in that past and the lack of any evidence is because they had a nuclear holocaust and the lack of any evidence is evidence that proves it. That's bad logic... It's no different in the Brady case.

Gumby said:

But that doesnt mean they negotiated away or (in a fair world) your rights to own private property and protections against self-incrimination in fishing expeditions are given up.

Click to expand...

In an employer-employee relationship in the US there are no such rights by default. You only have them if you have a contract that says you do or if your state privacy laws state or imply such a right.

Joker said:

Brady offered to help NFL gather missing text messages

The league arguably opted not to track down the text messages or to match them up with text messages that the league already harvested from other phones, like the one used by John Jastremski, because the league already had the silver bullet it needed to win convincingly in the court of public opinion.

Tom Brady destroyed his cell phone.

It was expertly leaked to ESPN by the same league office that had expertly leaked the 11-of-12 footballs falsehood to ESPN.

Tom Brady destroyed his cell phone.

It’s a theme that will be adhered to even though Brady made available the phone numbers necessary to reconstructing the contents of the messages.

Tom Brady destroyed his cell phone.

The details don’t matter once the message takes root. For #DeflateGate, a couple of giant oaks are growing at the NFL’s equivalent of Toomer’s Corner. The first one? 11 of 12 footballs were two pounds under the minimum PSI.

The second?

Tom Brady destroyed his cell phone.

The "facts"? YOU keep ignoring the greatest "FACT"," F-A-C-T", of this case..that the balls were TWO POUNDS, not TENTHS of a pound, TWO WHOLE POUNDS under 12.5!!! Why are you being so deliberately obtuse?? There IS NO CASE from the start!!! What the hell does Brady's phone have to do with anything MONTHS LATER?!! Jeezus krist stop this insanity.

Click to expand...

Joker, the whole case is stupid. But, there is no reason to mischaracterize the facts to make the case seem more stupid than it is. Basically, Brady was the subject of the investigation. It was his phone. He had power to turn over the relevant information on it. He refused to do it. Fine. Good call, bad call, it is impossible to know. But it is not accurate to say that providing a list of people that you texted with is the same as providing the content of those texts (to the extent they contained any of the search terms).

JarOfMayo51 said:

People who can't grasp this concept are either trolling or lack any common sense whatsoever

Click to expand...

or an agenda...

JarOfMayo51 said:

Man you really don't know what you're talking about so you should just stop... EMAILS ARENT TIED TO A SPECIFIC ELECTRONIC DEVICE... You can access your email from any device, your PC, your tablet, your phone, your 2nd phone, your 3rd phone, your moms phone, your uncles computer..

Your lack of technical knowledge is really making you look ignorant... also, all texts are saved with the service provider and all texts that he had with McNally and Jastremski Ted Wells already had in his possession, since it takes 2 people to have a text exchange...

Click to expand...

Wait, you're telling me you only need one phone to see a text conversation between 2 people, not both of them? Based on everything I've heard from the NFL on this subject, that sounds made up.

Satchboogie3 said:

This is where you are so wrong it's incredible. They requested that Brady turn over texts/emails, but Brady's camp pointed out that they already had all the texts from Jastremski and McNally, and Well's was satisfied. Well's initial report was that Brady was completely cooperative and stated on record that there would be no repercussions for not handing over the phone.

Fast forward to the Appeal hearing and Brady's camp turned over texts, emails, as well as all the information necessary to pull any data (messages, emails, etc). Goodell didn't bother to gather that data (likely because he already knew there wasn't anything there).

The idea that Brady refused to turn over texts/emails/info is wrong, as well as the fact that he was never required to in the first place. Even if they deemed him uncooperative for not turning over any data/info all, they can't punish him for it because it's private property and the league has no right to demand it and thus no right to punish him for demand something that they have no right to. Get it?

Finally, the thing Goodell hung his hat on, beyond the "You destroyed your phone!!!!" was the lack of messages during the time-frame they thought this 'scheme' was going on. The problem is that it's circular logic. If it never happened and Brady doesn't text the two ball-boys often, than the texts don't exist. Lack of evidence isn't evidence. It's like the nuts who think there were advanced technological civilizations in that past and the lack of any evidence is because they had a nuclear holocaust and the lack of any evidence is evidence that proves it. That's bad logic... It's no different in the Brady case.

Click to expand...

Brady refused to turn over potentially relevant emails and texts. I quoted the passage from the Wells Report that stated this. I can't take your word that the opposite happened. If you want to send me a link that controverts this, I am open to reading it.

Wells wanted texts between Brady and folks other than Jaz and McNally. This was not provided. Whether this was grounds for punishment is the subject of a legal dispute currently in the Second Circuit. The factual predicate is not, however, up for debate--Brady refused to provide potentially relevant texts and emails. His legal team does not dispute this, because it is true. That he wasn't obligated to provide them is beside the point. In real life, in private companies, there are often repercussions for failing to do things that you don't have an obligation to do.

Your third paragraph starts with a false statement, and then gets into the question of what the league had a right to do, which is a legal issue that has been debated in the Second Circuit. I have no opinion on the law in this area.

Your last paragraph is incomprehensible. Brady never provided any texts or emails from the most important phone - the one he used from September 2014-March 2015. This is why the league is making a big deal about the destruction of the phone--it is probably the best evidence that ever was in existence of Brady's involvement/non-involvement, and he made sure it was unavailable to the investigation. That looks bad; the Second Circuit said as much. Oh wait I forgot, they are all Jets fans!

ctpatsfan77 said:

His attorneys and Wells specifically hashed out that his phone would not be required before he destroyed his phone.

Click to expand...

Yup, just shows how outrageously clueless and irresponsible (perhaps intentionally so) judge Chin was in calling the phone destruction into question during the recent appeals court hearing.

letekro said:

Brady refused to turn over potentially relevant emails and texts. I quoted the passage from the Wells Report that stated this. I can't take your word that the opposite happened. If you want to send me a link that controverts this, I am open to reading it.

Click to expand...

I said he didn't turn anything over to Well's BEFORE the suspension. Again, they had the texts on Jaws and McNally's phones.

letekro said:

Wells wanted texts between Brady and folks other than Jaz and McNally. This was not provided. Whether this was grounds for punishment is the subject of a legal dispute currently in the Second Circuit. The factual predicate is not, however, up for debate--Brady refused to provide potentially relevant texts and emails. His legal team does not dispute this, because it is true. That he wasn't obligated to provide them is beside the point. In real life, in private companies, there are often repercussions for failing to do things that you don't have an obligation to do.

Click to expand...

1. Well's asked for relevant texts. Since Brady didn't do ANYTHING and no 'scheme' ever existed, the 'relevant' texts between others simply doesn't exist. The ONLY people who would even be involved in a scheme would be the ball boys. Who the hell else would you expect him to be texting about breaking rules?
2. Repercussions for not doing what your Boss wants. We are talking about suspending someone for essentially a quarter of the year (4 out of 16 games) and millions of $, for demanding something totally ILLEGAL. Big difference. You can't fire or punish someone for not turning over personally property. Period.

letekro said:

Your third paragraph starts with a false statement, and then gets into the question of what the league had a right to do, which is a legal issue that has been debated in the Second Circuit. I have no opinion on the law in this area.

Click to expand...

It's not false, he supplied Goodell with emails, texts, and a ton of info before the APPEAL (which I stated in my post...). In fact, some of his private emails/texts (such as his jab at Manning) were leaked to the press, proving that fears of his privacy getting invaded were completely reasonable.

letekro said:

Your last paragraph is incomprehensible. Brady never provided any texts or emails from the most important phone - the one he used from September 2014-March 2015. This is why the league is making a big deal about the destruction of the phone--it is probably the best evidence that ever was in existence of Brady's involvement/non-involvement, and he made sure it was unavailable to the investigation. That looks bad; the Second Circuit said as much. Oh wait I forgot, they are all Jets fans!

Click to expand...

I don't know the details of which emails/texts were from which phones, but Goodell had access to all his communications (obviously Brady probably no longer had a lot of the emails/texts, but he gave Goodell all the info necessary to retrieve them from the phone company, etc. ) for the Appeal hearing. Goodell chose not to acquire all the digital info due to time (because a days work is unreasonable after 3+ months and $5 million to try to frame Brady).

Satchboogie3 said:

I said he didn't turn anything over to Well's BEFORE the suspension. Again, they had the texts on Jaws and McNally's phones.


1. Well's asked for relevant texts. Since Brady didn't do ANYTHING and no 'scheme' ever existed, the 'relevant' texts between others simply doesn't exist. The ONLY people who would even be involved in a scheme would be the ball boys. Who the hell else would you expect him to be texting about breaking rules?
2. Repercussions for not doing what your Boss wants. We are talking about suspending someone for essentially a quarter of the year (4 out of 16 games) and millions of $, for demanding something totally ILLEGAL. Big difference. You can't fire or punish someone for not turning over personally property. Period.


It's not false, he supplied Goodell with emails, texts, and a ton of info before the APPEAL (which I stated in my post...). In fact, some of his private emails/texts (such as his jab at Manning) were leaked to the press, proving that fears of his privacy getting invaded were completely reasonable.


I don't know the details of which emails/texts were from which phones, but Goodell had access to all his communications (obviously Brady probably no longer had a lot of the emails/texts, but he gave Goodell all the info necessary to retrieve them from the phone company, etc. ) for the Appeal hearing. Goodell chose not to acquire all the digital info due to time (because a days work is unreasonable after 3+ months and $5 million to try to frame Brady).

Click to expand...

Good post. I take issue with some of it though. Wells asked for specific texts, like all texts between Brady and a certain person during a certain time frame and all texts that included the search terms. Brady turned over data from a number of devices that were run against the search terms, but he failed to provide anything from the phone that was active during the most relevant period. So, his argument was not "I didn't turn over the the texts on that phone because they were not relevant", but rather "I didn't turn them over because I didn't have the phone, because I got rid of it." This may seem like a small difference, but it is quite different from what you are suggesting. And it looks bad, to be honest.

Also, there is nothing per se illegal about a private employer asking an employee to see their texts or other information if the employer deems it relevant to an inquiry into their conduct, and nothing wrong with disciplining that employee if he fails to comply. As an example, If I, the private employer, think you are looking at porn on your phone at work, I can ask you to provide your internet history to me and fire you if you refuse. Subject to the terms of any employment contract, I can fire you for any reason, or for no reason.

And the "details" that you claim not to know are very important here. Brady provided some texts from phones that were not active during the relevant timeframe, but decided to treat the data on the phone that was active during the relevant period quite differently--disposing of it and then offering to give a worthless list of people he spoke with. Contrary to what you are suggesting, the texts could not be recovered from the phone company for that period, and, yes, it is impractical to try to convince someone, over whom the NFL has no power to compel production of evidence or punish in any way, to provide evidence out of the goodness of their heart.

letekro said:

And the "details" that you claim not to know are very important here. Brady provided some texts from phones that were not active during the relevant timeframe, but decided to treat the data on the phone that was active during the relevant period quite differently--disposing of it and then offering to give a worthless list of people he spoke with. Contrary to what you are suggesting, the texts could not be recovered from the phone company for that period, and, yes, it is impractical to try to convince someone, over whom the NFL has no power to compel production of evidence or punish in any way, to provide evidence out of the goodness of their heart.

Click to expand...

This is the problem right here though. Brady is a union guy, there was no way in hell he was going to turn over his phone (giving up a right and CBA point). It's also a HUGE security risk, not just with family/private texts and emails, but saved passwords, etc. The NFL has given no one any reason to trust them with personal information.

And of course this leads to the second part. It doesn't matter what Brady turned over, if they think you are guilty, they are just going to claim you are hiding information. It doesn't matter if that information simply doesn't exist.

And that leads to my stance. All the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the fact that nothing happened. There's no scientific evidence of ball deflation beyond mother nature. The texts that were obtained from the ball boys are clean (don't get me started on the deflator stuff, it's connecting dots that don't exist), the only actual text references to PSI are that Brady wanted them at 13. The idea that McNally would rush deflating a bag of balls just 0.2PSI in 90 seconds in a bathroom when none of the refs really seemed to care at all about "security of the footballs". None of it adds up at all.

I don't care how "bad" it looked that Brady didn't surface the texts they wanted, because THEY DON"T EXIST. How the hell is Brady supposed to turn over something that doesn't exist? Please explain that to me.

A cell phone is, or should be, an antiquated term. "Cell Phone" was a wireless device that allows POTS calls when the device was within one of the antenna 'cells'.

The modern cell phone is a personal digital assistant that presents a picture of your day to day movements , it presents a picture of your far reaching travels, it presents a picture of your thoughts (browsing history and your texting), records what you find interesting or important (what do you snap pics of and then text about or who/what you make a call to), it interfaces with your bank/financial institutions accounts and holds credit card information, it has precise information on and control of your home (your security system, your garage door, your car, even your HVAC Power and Watering systems), it presents a picture of what you do for work and what the status of your work is, what your personal life is like and status of it (work email and personal email), it holds the future of your actions from 'synced' calendars and past movement trends, newest ones contain your thumb print. (not withstanding encryption to keep it private -- and how absolute that is as well as what it recorded and stored off phone).
Anyone, ANYONE, who would hand their personal digital assistant over to someone else for them to go thorough and examine is a god damned fool. Everyone over the course of owning their personal digital assistant will break a law as well as speak/record something socially unacceptable even scandalous, everyone (laws are so numerous most of us break a law without knowing it on a regular basis).
That Tom Brady would not want to hand his personal digital assistant over to someone trying to dig up dirt on him is axiomatic. That the public would believe that 'someone' saying Tom's guilty because he wouldn't turn it over is a telling statement of the general public's lack of reasoning power (or more precisely their lack of wanting to use their reasoning power).

The cell phone will get even more functional and thereby more intrusive as time goes on. Proceed at your own peril if you plan on allowing examination of your "cell phone" by anyone or anything.

letekro said:

And the "details" that you claim not to know are very important here. Brady provided some texts from phones that were not active during the relevant timeframe, but decided to treat the data on the phone that was active during the relevant period quite differently--disposing of it and then offering to give a worthless list of people he spoke with. Contrary to what you are suggesting, the texts could not be recovered from the phone company for that period

Click to expand...

Interesting insight...almost as if letekro himself played a part in the Wells investigation (assuming his assertions are true). Still doesn't sufficiently answer the underlying premise...that there is no basis for even asking for the cell phone....as there was no infraction that can be demonstrated or proven (IGL). And there is no basis for such a punishment either, even if it somehow could be proven (in fact it's inconsistent with the NFL rules that mandate a $25K fine for ball deflation, nor is it aligned with the previous stickum punishments). Furthermore, a simple chronology of events vividly demonstrates that the NFL switched its strategy to one that was centered on the cell phone, once the Wells Report started to unravel. Again, the cell phone is a red herring...

letekro said:

Good post. I take issue with some of it though. Wells asked for specific texts, like all texts between Brady and a certain person during a certain time frame and all texts that included the search terms. Brady turned over data from a number of devices that were run against the search terms, but he failed to provide anything from the phone that was active during the most relevant period. So, his argument was not "I didn't turn over the the texts on that phone because they were not relevant", but rather "I didn't turn them over because I didn't have the phone, because I got rid of it." This may seem like a small difference, but it is quite different from what you are suggesting. And it looks bad, to be honest.

Also, there is nothing per se illegal about a private employer asking an employee to see their texts or other information if the employer deems it relevant to an inquiry into their conduct, and nothing wrong with disciplining that employee if he fails to comply. As an example, If I, the private employer, think you are looking at porn on your phone at work, I can ask you to provide your internet history to me and fire you if you refuse. Subject to the terms of any employment contract, I can fire you for any reason, or for no reason.

And the "details" that you claim not to know are very important here. Brady provided some texts from phones that were not active during the relevant timeframe, but decided to treat the data on the phone that was active during the relevant period quite differently--disposing of it and then offering to give a worthless list of people he spoke with. Contrary to what you are suggesting, the texts could not be recovered from the phone company for that period, and, yes, it is impractical to try to convince someone, over whom the NFL has no power to compel production of evidence or punish in any way, to provide evidence out of the goodness of their heart.

Click to expand...

And you know all of this how? Because almost all of the public information we have regarding what Brady did or did not do regarding the extent of his cooperation came directly from the mouth of Roger Goodell or one of his cronies, so excuse me if I don't take his word for it.

letekro said:

Brady refused to turn over potentially relevant emails and texts. I quoted the passage from the Wells Report that stated this. I can't take your word that the opposite happened. If you want to send me a link that controverts this, I am open to reading it.

Wells wanted texts between Brady and folks other than Jaz and McNally. This was not provided. Whether this was grounds for punishment is the subject of a legal dispute currently in the Second Circuit. The factual predicate is not, however, up for debate--Brady refused to provide potentially relevant texts and emails. His legal team does not dispute this, because it is true. That he wasn't obligated to provide them is beside the point. In real life, in private companies, there are often repercussions for failing to do things that you don't have an obligation to do.

Your third paragraph starts with a false statement, and then gets into the question of what the league had a right to do, which is a legal issue that has been debated in the Second Circuit. I have no opinion on the law in this area.

Your last paragraph is incomprehensible. Brady never provided any texts or emails from the most important phone - the one he used from September 2014-March 2015. This is why the league is making a big deal about the destruction of the phone--it is probably the best evidence that ever was in existence of Brady's involvement/non-involvement, and he made sure it was unavailable to the investigation. That looks bad; the Second Circuit said as much. Oh wait I forgot, they are all Jets fans!

Click to expand...

Why exactly is Wells entitled to texts to folks other than Jaz and McNally? Even if he texts his wife "this is such bs that they think I did this" they would somehow overlook it.

Froob said:

Why exactly is Wells entitled to texts to folks other than Jaz and McNally? Even if he texts his wife "this is such bs that they think I did this" they would somehow overlook it.

Click to expand...

1) Because an investigator who didn't ask for them is grossly incompetent.
2) Because all employers are entitled to them unless the employee has a contract saying the employer is not entitled or there's a law saying the employer isn't entitled.

If at work something hinky went down (say info about some upcoming product got leaked, especially if leaked to a competitor) your employer certainly could demand that everyone turn over all their texts under pain of punishment or termination (again, assuming no contractual or statutory provision to the contrary, and I'm willing to bet any such statutory provision is rare, especially in a situation like that).

QuantumMechanic said:

1) Because an investigator who didn't ask for them is grossly incompetent.
2) Because all employers are entitled to them unless the employee has a contract saying the employer is not entitled or there's a law saying the employer isn't entitled.

If at work something hinky went down (say info about some upcoming product got leaked, especially if leaked to a competitor) your employer certainly could demand that everyone turn over all their texts under pain of punishment or termination (again, assuming no contractual or statutory provision to the contrary, and I'm willing to bet any such statutory provision is rare, especially in a situation like that).

Click to expand...

I thought he was protected under the CBA? Or it just that he said they didn't need his phone and the inconsistency between Brady and Favre and Gostowski?

Froob said:

Why exactly is Wells entitled to texts to folks other than Jaz and McNally? Even if he texts his wife "this is such bs that they think I did this" they would somehow overlook it.

Click to expand...

That is the crux of the entire story. According to the CBA the NFL are not entitled to ANYTHING on the private phone of players. I just don't understand how someone can be punished because he refuses to cooperate about something that he specifically doesn't need to do. If the current CBA and infamous article GO****YOURSELF makes this possible then you can prepare for an even longer lockout than I thought whenever the next CBA is due. The league will protect their carte blanche article with all means and the NFLPA will fight it with everything they got.