But attorneys like Steph Stradley have said people misunderstand Garvey vs MLB in regards to this case. The Supreme Court determined that MLB had a fair process to come up with their silly decsion. So the process was sound, but the ruling was ridiculous. Brady and the NFLPA are attacking the process which the Garvey vs. MLB actually could support Brady and the NFLPA rather than the NFL.
BINGO, we have BINGO.
That's right on the mark, Rob, and deserves to be repeated. The Garvey precedent can be easily be overcome by the overwhelming evidence that the NFL deliberately acted unfairly, and unethically in this matter. As silly as the MLB case decision was, the process wasn't rigged. In this case, the entire process was rigged and Berman has already acknowledged this.
Of course, Judgex rule strangely all the time, so anything is possible, but if Berman plans to us Garvey as a reason to rule for the league on Garvey, he's going to have make a giant stretch to do it. And everything we've seen from him would lead us to believe he ISN'T ready to make that leap. Rather than present reasoned arguments to counter Kessler, it seems all the NFL can do now. is try and intimidate Berman with the threat of an appeal.
BTW- now that I have your attention, Rob let me offer run this by you (and others). Curran's article really cements the reality that nothing happened at the AFCCG. Bu tmore critically, it also makes it clear that Welles and Pash deliberately hid exculpatory evidence in order to make a fraudulent case against Brady and the Pats. They would have had to know well in advance of the publication of the report. that nothing really happened and went through with their prosecution anyway . Now I don't know if that reaches the level of criminality. but it certainly must crash through some ethical barriers that bar associations may deem worthy of their oversight.
I know for certain, if a DA hid exculpatory evidence like Pash and Welles, at best he'd be fired and lose his license to practice law. At worst he might face criminal charges. But I know this is a civil issue and I guess lawyers are supposed to cheat, lie, and manipulate the facts in their client's favor. Even still, there ARE rules of conduct that even lawyers are supposed to abide by. Knowing that neither Brady or the Pats did anything wrong before they presented the report, and then manipulating that evidence to best support a narrative the league office had taken, seems to me to be actionable.. Am I just a nut who wants revenge or did these lawyers have crossed the line.
.