Tom Brady, NFLPA Granted 14-Day Extension To File Motion For Rehearing By Second Circuit Court

He wasn't playing for them at the time but rest assured those two love birds would have found each other...

Gumby said:

I think it is legal for them to ASK, and you are confusing the fact that Go-to-Hell's interpretation of the CBA gives him the right to do whatever he wants to a player (who agreed to this mutual pact) who refuses that REQUEST. But that does not extrapolate out to a general principal that every other employer can use. Most of us do NOT work under a CBA.

Click to expand...

You have that backwards. If Brady is protected from having to turn over the phone it would be the CBA (or a law -- but since the NFLPA didn't claim the NFL broke any laws, which the NFLPA certainly would have claimed if laws were broken it's a safe assumption there was no law) that protected him.

People working w/o a CBA or a contract that gives them a right not to have their personal phone demanded on pain of punishment have less rights than Brady does, not more.

JarOfMayo51 said:

Only scummy organizations would ask for Facebook account credentials etc, I'd never work for one that makes such ridiculous and invasive requests

The audacity to demand such a thing, as if they have a right to read your personal conversations with family, friends and lovers

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you. But the point is that as horrible as that sounds, employers can do it unless and until a law is passed saying they can't.

So people shouldn't assume that just because something sounds crazy and invasive that they can't be punished for refusing.

QuantumMechanic said:

You have that backwards. If Brady is protected from having to turn over the phone it would be the CBA (or a law -- but since the NFLPA didn't claim the NFL broke any laws, which the NFLPA certainly would have claimed if laws were broken it's a safe assumption there was no law) that protected him.

People working w/o a CBA or a contract that gives them a right not to have their personal phone demanded on pain of punishment have less rights than Brady does, not more.

Click to expand...

The other factor is TBs employer is the Patriots and they did not (I don't think?) ask him to turn over his personal phone to them or Wells.

robertweathers said:

The other factor is TBs employer is the Patriots and they did not (I don't think?) ask him to turn over his personal phone to them or Wells.

Click to expand...

That is interesting. If that were the case and they did not it would have been a slap in Rog's face. I haven't read or heard anything like that. Curious though.

Tony2046 said:

That is interesting. If that were the case and they did not it would have been a slap in Rog's face. I haven't read or heard anything like that. Curious though.

Click to expand...

Pats or the NFL would need to have a court order to seize his phone and that would not have happened on many levels.

This also ties back to the lack of notice.re: phone

QuantumMechanic said:

You have that backwards. If Brady is protected from having to turn over the phone it would be the CBA (or a law -- but since the NFLPA didn't claim the NFL broke any laws, which the NFLPA certainly would have claimed if laws were broken it's a safe assumption there was no law) that protected him.

People working w/o a CBA or a contract that gives them a right not to have their personal phone demanded on pain of punishment have less rights than Brady does, not more.

Click to expand...

You must be one of those lawyers who was taught that the constitution is a charter of 'negative liberties'. We are inherently free in america and to have that freedom removed a law must be passed to restrict that freedom; not the other way around as you say.

Laws dont give rights they restrict them. Rights-freedoms are inherent/assumed.

AndyJohnson said:

This.
They can ask as part of an investigation. They have no subpoena power so Brady can say no. He cannot be disciplined for not handing over the phone but not doing so can be considered a factor in assessing guilt.
In other words heirs [sic, he is] not obligated to give them his phone but denying the request can be considered suspicious and since the NFL doesn't really have to justify its decision can use that as a basis or contributing factor.

Click to expand...

Mostly agree with how you say it, couple caveats:

Bold1: cannot is a bit overstated. In go-to-hell's world he thinks he can punish anything. An arbitrator should not be able to punish that refusal.

Bold2: again overstated (but the other direction), in basic American 'common-law philosophy' (if you will) you are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY and have a RIGHT TO NOT SELF-INCRIMINATE.
So most folks have at least a philosophical problem with saying the arbitrator CAN CONSIDER that refusal as incriminating when Go-to-hell runs his kangaroo court. Legally, because CBA makes this a contract law issue and not so much a criminal or constitutional law issue, arbitrators may very well be able to infer prejudice or incrimination (more informed posters [i think lawyers] on this forum in other threads have said as much). But that the law allows something, doesnt make it morally right, fair, or acceptable to most folks' sense of fair play or "integrity "

Gumby said:

You must be one of those lawyers who was taught that the constitution is a charter of 'negative liberties'. We are inherently free in america and to have that freedom removed a law must be passed to restrict that freedom; not the other way around as you say.

Laws dont give rights they restrict them. Rights-freedoms are inherent/assumed.

Click to expand...

Who needs a lawyer George Carlin can break it down like no other.

Tony2046 said:

He's referring to Brady's two other phones. One which he owned prior to the time frame in question (Nov-March IIRC) and the other after.

Click to expand...

Right, but the one he didn't provide to forensics was the Nov-Mar phone (i.e., the most relevant one).

JarOfMayo51 said:

Only scummy organizations would ask for Facebook account credentials etc, I'd never work for one that makes such ridiculous and invasive requests

The audacity to demand such a thing, as if they have a right to read your personal conversations with family, friends and lovers

Click to expand...

Right, they may have a right to ask for it, but no employer is going to want it made public (or made known withing their company) that they're asking employees for such information. It's not the law that prevents it, it's business and public relations.

letekro said:

Right, but the one he didn't provide to forensics was the Nov-Mar phone (i.e., the most relevant one).

Click to expand...

He tried to get the texts from AT&T but was unsuccesful.

Look the truth is that if brady were to give up his phone EVERY player in the NFL would hate him. That is a big no-no. Goondell would use this as precedent for every disciplinary case before him.

letekro said:

Right, but the one he didn't provide to forensics was the Nov-Mar phone (i.e., the most relevant one).

Click to expand...

He provided forensics but was unable to recover actual text messages. He was able to recover the phone logs which provide who would have received the relevant text messages and calls.

The NFL did not call one single number in an attempt to recover any messages although Brady had offered to provide contact information and assistance to recover data for each number in the phone log.

BTW: I don't believe we can focus on Brady's phone log without looking at the NFL's actions as well.

Refusal of investigation notes.
Refusal of direct questioning of Pash
Lying about Brady's testimony for PR purposes
Etc.
Etc.

I can't believe This thread had gone back to leterkos idiotic phone obsession.



But but but but what if Brady texted Morgan Fairchild about PSI...................

Ivan said:

I can't believe This thread had gone back to leterkos idiotic phone obsession.



But but but but what if Brady texted Morgan Fairchild about PSI...................

Click to expand...

It looked bad for Brady to "destroy" his phone. But it's the ultimate red herring here. We know that Wells never required the phone. We know that the NFL *could* have tracked down Brady's texts should they have desired to, even without his phone. Moreover, if it was ever indicted that Brady's punishment would be, even in part, for "destroying" his phone, why did Brady *VOLUNTEER* that information? He simply could have told Goodell at the appeal hearing that, once again, no, he was not turning it over. But he described how and why he "destroyed" it. He was under no obligation to even mention that. The only reason he did was because (a) Wells already told him he didn't need it, and (b) there was never any hint that Brady was anything less than fully cooperative, so there was no hint that "destroying" a phone that he was not under any circumstances going to turn over anyway would result in any sort of punishment at all.

But of course Goodell used that as a sledgehammer against Brady.

Ivan said:

But but but but what if Brady texted Morgan Fairchild about PSI...................

Click to expand...

In her prime she was a goddess.

robertweathers said:

In her prime she was a goddess.

Click to expand...

Always good to include a point of reference.

TommyBrady12 said:

He tried to get the texts from AT&T but was unsuccesful.

Look the truth is that if brady were to give up his phone EVERY player in the NFL would hate him. That is a big no-no. Goondell would use this as precedent for every disciplinary case before him.

Click to expand...

Goodell probably didn't seem AT&T to be credible.

robertweathers said:

In her prime she was a goddess.

Click to expand...

Too bad she married Jon Lovitz.