Patriots have filed an amicus brief in support of Brady/NFLPA.

XLIX · May 25, 2016

The Patriots speak loudly about the overall unfairness of the entire process, and mention how Goodell acted inappropriately as arbitrator.

" the Commissioner treated Mr. Brady’s appeal not as an appeal but as a continuation of
the investigation. The Commissioner made new findings and shifted the basis for his discipline of Mr. Brady in a decision from which Mr. Brady then had no appeal rights."

So, as Olson noted, Goodell acted outside his authority by unilaterally changing the "crime" with which Brady was charged, thereby not affording Brady a chance to defend himself against this brand new "crime."

fnordcircle · May 25, 2016

BelichickFan said:
https://cbsboston.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/patriots-amicus-curiae-brief.pdf

Just read through all of this. I like that it doesn't just go into arbitration law but also manages to work in the fact that there's no evidence against Tom.

In short, the Commissioner relied on the Wells Report. The Wells Report relied on Exponent’s “conclusion” that science did not explain the PSI of the Patriots footballs. Exponent based that conclusion on assumptions from Paul Weiss. Those assumptions could only be tested by having access to the interview notes sought in discovery. The Commissioner refused to allow that discovery.

BelichickFan · May 25, 2016

fnordcircle said:
Just read through all of this. I like that it doesn't just go into arbitration law but also manages to work in the fact that there's no evidence against Tom.

Yeah, it's a lot of what we've been saying. They work the legal aspects in but they also make the point that, most likely, nothing happened and, if it did, there's no evidence supporting that.

SVN · May 25, 2016

fnordcircle said:

So when the odds are slim for Brady to get a hearing,patriots throw in a fan appeasing amicus brief instead of standing up when it wouldve mattered?
This whole al davis comparison is media noise.

Hammer of Thor · May 25, 2016

It's about time that this was brought up in a Court filing -- it's certainly been discussed here:

The Commissioner, to move beyond the “general awareness”

finding, asserted that Mr. Brady was not credible when he testified that he and Mr.

Jastremski only discussed the preparation of footballs for the Super Bowl in their

communications in the days following the AFC Championship Game. SPA50.

That finding was made before it was known the transcripts of the hearing would be

made public. The transcripts, later ordered to be made public, reveal that the

Commissioner misstated the evidence and that, in fact, Mr. Brady testified he and

Mr. Jastremski spoke about both the preparation of footballs for the upcoming

Super Bowl and about the PSI story that was garnering media attention.8 JA968-

969

Tunescribe · May 25, 2016

SVN said:
So when the odds are slim for Brady to get a hearing,patriots throw in a fan appeasing amicus brief instead of standing up when it wouldve mattered?

Yeah, you've got to wonder why everything that "sounds good" from a fan standpoint always seems to arise waaaaaaay too late to have meaningful impact.

XLIX · May 25, 2016

Other miscellaneous observations:

The Patriots amicus brief quotes the one that came from all those professors yesterday. I wonder if the 2 are related....

The Patriots specifically cite wellsreportincontext.com, so that website now exists as part of the record.

The Patriots point out the general unfairness of the league having access to the Weiss/Exponent notes without allowing Brady access to same. The amicus pretty much says:
The Commissioner relied on Wells
Wells relied on Exponent
Exponent relied on Weiss' notes
Therefore it was fundamentally unfair to deny Brady's defense team access to those notes.

They made sure they mentioned how Goodell lied about Brady's testimony, and how that lie made it into oral arguments

Hammer of Thor · May 25, 2016

And a further footnote:

8 This misstatement of Mr. Brady’s testimony about the content of the Brady-Jastremski

communications was repeated at oral argument in this Court by League counsel. That

misstatement, unfortunately, continued the pattern of misstatements in the NFL’s brief to this

Court about the record in this case. For example, to address the refusal to provide discovery of

interview notes, the NFL’s brief asserted that Mr. Brady’s counsel was present at numerous of

the Paul Weiss interviews. In fact, they were present at only Mr. Brady’s interview. See JA123.

The NFL’s brief further stated that the term “deflator” was used in Jastremski-McNally texts

before and throughout the 2014 season; in fact, the term appears in only one of thousands of

texts, a text that occurred four months before the season in a string of texts having nothing to do

with the preparation of footballs. JA170. The NFL’s brief also totally mischaracterized the

content of other texts, asserting, for example, that they contained demands by Mr. McNally that

Mr. Brady provide him with financial or other benefits; in fact, not a single text stated that. All

these mischaracterizations were designed to make the evidence against Mr. Brady seem far

stronger than it was. The actual texts at issue are set forth in detail in the Wells Report, so this

Court need not rely on their mischaracterizations in the NFL’s brief.

Mike the Brit · May 25, 2016

I thought this was a great brief. (I also very much like the Wells Report in Context web site).

It's possible that the court will just say "fairness, shmairness" and that Goodell has complete discretion, but focusing on the unavailability of the testimony gathered by Weiss seems to me a great move from a legal point of view -- it was a flagrant violation of procedural fairness if ever there was one. There's nothing more basic to any judicial or quasi-judicial procedure than the right of the accused to see the evidence against them and respond to it.

I also like the way that that issue is placed right in the centre of the argument (if you don't believe the assumptions about half-time measurement then there's no case that anything ever happened -- science explains it all).

And I like the way that the brief doesn't neglect or concede on any of the other issues but just treats them succinctly with the contempt they deserve.

letekro · May 25, 2016

Dont know if this moves the dial, but it is a good thing. Good job, Bob.

DaBruinz · May 25, 2016

This Amicus Brief really does blow up the league's argument. Much of it is what many on this board have said since the beginning..

I am still scratching my head trying to understand how the two judges in the 2CA could have found in favor of the league when it's clear as day that Goodell violated the "Law of Shop" when it comes to how arbitration is supposed to be handled.

reneluar · May 25, 2016

Footnote 3: Even when roger goodell is making a great job for the league......
Signed: BOB kraft

Ice_Ice_Brady · May 25, 2016

Far too little, far too late.

Sfpat · May 25, 2016

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:
Adding another voice to dispute the science is not needed, since the science is unfortunately a sidelight by now, but..

When a member of the NFL really rips into the NFL for it procedures regarding the CBA that are in question, you'd have to think that this will have impact.

That is a different dynamic than the other amicus briefs. A member of management is stepping up to support a member of labor, to say that the leadership of management screwed over the laborer.

This is the key point. Basically the accuser is saying that the accuser is lying (hey judge, I stand before you and everything I say is and has been a lie).

The Gr8est · May 25, 2016

Tunescribe said:
Yeah, you've got to wonder why everything that "sounds good" from a fan standpoint always seems to arise waaaaaaay too late to have meaningful impact.

Like a Congressman voting a certain way to appease his voters once the bill passage /non-passage is already determined.

Kontradiction · May 25, 2016

reneluar said:
Footnote 3: Even when roger goodell is making a great job for the league......
Signed: BOB kraft

turkeyneck · May 25, 2016

Well constructed brief that is a year too late. This is just SpongeBob blowing a smokescreen so he doesn't get booed off the field come training camp.

The Gr8est · May 25, 2016

So any chance Ted Olson had a hand in convincing the Pats to file this brief?

Froob · May 25, 2016

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
Far too little, far too late.

The re posted thread or the brief?

bbobbo · May 25, 2016

XLIX said:
Other miscellaneous observations:

The Patriots amicus brief quotes the one that came from all those professors yesterday. I wonder if the 2 are related....

The Patriots specifically cite wellsreportincontext.com, so that website now exists as part of the record.

The Patriots point out the general unfairness of the league having access to the Weiss/Exponent notes without allowing Brady access to same. The amicus pretty much says:
The Commissioner relied on Wells
Wells relied on Exponent
Exponent relied on Weiss' notes
Therefore it was fundamentally unfair to deny Brady's defense team access to those notes.

They made sure they mentioned how Goodell lied about Brady's testimony, and how that lie made it into oral arguments

i think it's worth it for everyone to see the original text (i also posted it in the 1000+ post thread):

However, as the Exponent Report stated, science fully explains the Patriots halftime PSI numbers depending on when, during halftime, officials measured the PSI of the footballs. The Wells Report conceded that “[t]he analysis of the data is ultimately dependent on assumptions and information that is uncertain” and that “varying the applicable assumptions can have a material impact on the ultimate conclusions.”

The timing of PSI measurements during halftime is, therefore, critical. Paul Weiss interviewed the seven witnesses to the halftime PSI gauging of Patriots and Colts footballs, all of whom are League employees. Nowhere does the Wells Report reveal what any of those witnesses said about when during halftime the gauging began, how long it took, or when it ended. Paul Weiss simply told Exponent what assumptions to make about the timing of these halftime events. These timing assumptions fell outside the parameters Exponent concluded would provide a scientific basis for the PSI. Consequently, the most basic premise of the Wells Report turned on assumptions provided by Paul Weiss on issues about which Paul Weiss interviewed seven League witnesses.

The only way Mr. Brady’s counsel could test the timing assumptions that Paul Weiss directed Exponent to follow was to obtain the notes of those interviews. The Commissioner denied that discovery. That left Mr. Brady unable to challenge the fundamental premise of the Wells Report: that science alone does not explain the PSI of the Patriots footballs. This unfairness fell only on Mr. Brady, since the League not only had access to the notes but actually used as counsel in Mr. Brady’s appeal hearing one of the Paul Weiss lawyers who conducted the very interviews at issue.

Patriots have filed an amicus brief in support of Brady/NFLPA.

Pro Bowl Player

The poster who James White said inspires him.

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

Minuteman Target

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Pats, B's, Sox

On the Game Day Roster

I heard 10,000 whispering and nobody listening

In the Starting Line-Up

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

On my retirement tour.

In the Starting Line-Up

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Independent Investigator & pliable af

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

Similar threads