Wow! Lester Munson is a complete and utter moron

[Rob0729]

Ok, I heard a bit of his interview of Lester Munson by John Clayton on ESPN radio today. For a legal expert, the man knows absolutely nothing about the law. It is scary how much more I know than him. Here are some of his gems from the interview with my responses:

• Doesn't see big problems with the Wells investigation & report - He is the only one. Even most of the people who believe the report see huge holes in it. He is still selling it is a strong document when people have poked some incredibly large holes in the report.
• Thinks the appeals process is for a fast resolution and the NFLPA are just trying to fight that - I think the NFLPA wants this resolved as fast as possible. They just want a fair resolution.
• Brady was stupid to appeal the suspension because Goodell can force him to turn over his phone and texts - Ummm.... No he can't. Goodell or any arbitrator hearing the appeal doesn't have subpoena power. Brady's chances of winning an appeal are likely slim without turning over his phone, but he is not required to.
• He thinks when Brady turns over his texts, we will see his text responses to McNally and Jastremski - I know the guy is like 100, but shouldn't he know that if Wells got McNally's and Jastremski's telephones, they already have Brady's responses? My 90 year old great aunt gets the concepts of how texts work.
• Judges, especially federal judges, don't like to review or overturn arbitrators' rulings and rarely do because they don't want that on their record - It seems that almost every time a player appeals to federal court against the NFL's arbitrator's ruling, the player wins. I can't remember a time a player filed an appeal to Judge Doty and he didn't hear it.
• The NFL has a very good record in federal court in these types of appeals - Sure if you take away the Peterson, Rice, Bountygate federal appeals which the NFL lost, you have a pretty good record.
• Brady will have to turn his cell phone over if he appeals in Federal court - I know people are saying this, but I think this only applies to if he sues for defamation. If he and the NFLPA appeals Goodell's appeal decision or his refusal to appoint an independent arbitrator, I don't think he has to turn over his phone. He will be filing the appeal on grounds that the NFL violated the CBA by letting Troy Vincent make the ruling and Goodell being unable to rule on this. The Federal judge would then be hearing testimony and arguments on those points and not looking at whether Brady is innocent or guilty. The judge will just be ruling whether to set aside Goodell's decision and force him to select an independent arbitrator or not. Brady's cell phone is irrelevant to a federal appeal.

You can hear it here (about 1:40 in).

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=12894071

 

[FrodoBagginz]

You can hear it here (about 1:40 in).

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=12894071

I'll pass.

 

[Rob0729]

I'll pass.

I posted most of the highlights.

 

[FrodoBagginz]

I posted most of the highlights.

No need to read it either. I got everything I need to know from the first sentence...."on ESPN radio today."

 

[Joker]

Lester Munson is a disbarred lawyer, Rob.

I mean, c'mon man...pretty low hanging fruit. His credibility would be a minus number if such a thing was possible.

 

[Rob0729]

BTW, Ben Volin is writing entire articles quoting Munson now. More clear evidence Munson is an idiot:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...znSRuM/story.html?event=event25?event=event25

 

[Rob0729]

Lester Munson is a disbarred lawyer, Rob.

I mean, c'mon man...pretty low hanging fruit. His credibility would be a minus number if such a thing was possible.

He is perfect for ESPN. He has also adopted the ESPN style of being an analyst - Ignore the facts and make strong opinions based on which way will get the best ratings. I still think it is funny that when Bonds got a hung jury on the top 3 of the 4 counts he was charged with, he ranted and raved about how the Bonds' defense went 0 for 4 in court.

 

[juny]

BTW, Ben Volin is writing entire articles quoting Munson now. More clear evidence Munson is an idiot:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...znSRuM/story.html?event=event25?event=event25

As well as volin

 

[Brady2Moss]

I'm starting to think I may have gone into a coma after the Kearse catch and this is all a very lucid nightmare. Idiots are appearing from every corner. God help us.

 

[Canuck]

Munson hasn't practiced law in 25 years. To call him a legal expert is laughable. He is simply a reporter. As a lawyer he was terrible, he was serving a three year suspension when he gave up his licence voluntarily.

 

[TomPatriot]

BTW, Ben Volin is writing entire articles quoting Munson now. More clear evidence Munson is an idiot:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...znSRuM/story.html?event=event25?event=event25

And Volin too . . .

 

[reflexblue]

Ok, I heard a bit of his interview of Lester Munson by John Clayton on ESPN radio today. For a legal expert, the man knows absolutely nothing about the law. It is scary how much more I know than him. Here are some of his gems from the interview with my responses:

• Doesn't see big problems with the Wells investigation & report - He is the only one. Even most of the people who believe the report see huge holes in it. He is still selling it is a strong document when people have poked some incredibly large holes in the report.
• Thinks the appeals process is for a fast resolution and the NFLPA are just trying to fight that - I think the NFLPA wants this resolved as fast as possible. They just want a fair resolution.
• Brady was stupid to appeal the suspension because Goodell can force him to turn over his phone and texts - Ummm.... No he can't. Goodell or any arbitrator hearing the appeal doesn't have subpoena power. Brady's chances of winning an appeal are likely slim without turning over his phone, but he is not required to.
• He thinks when Brady turns over his texts, we will see his text responses to McNally and Jastremski - I know the guy is like 100, but shouldn't he know that if Wells got McNally's and Jastremski's telephones, they already have Brady's responses? My 90 year old great aunt gets the concepts of how texts work.
• Judges, especially federal judges, don't like to review or overturn arbitrators' rulings and rarely do because they don't want that on their record - It seems that almost every time a player appeals to federal court against the NFL's arbitrator's ruling, the player wins. I can't remember a time a player filed an appeal to Judge Doty and he didn't hear it.
• The NFL has a very good record in federal court in these types of appeals - Sure if you take away the Peterson, Rice, Bountygate federal appeals which the NFL lost, you have a pretty good record.
• Brady will have to turn his cell phone over if he appeals in Federal court - I know people are saying this, but I think this only applies to if he sues for defamation. If he and the NFLPA appeals Goodell's appeal decision or his refusal to appoint an independent arbitrator, I don't think he has to turn over his phone. He will be filing the appeal on grounds that the NFL violated the CBA by letting Troy Vincent make the ruling and Goodell being unable to rule on this. The Federal judge would then be hearing testimony and arguments on those points and not looking at whether Brady is innocent or guilty. The judge will just be ruling whether to set aside Goodell's decision and force him to select an independent arbitrator or not. Brady's cell phone is irrelevant to a federal appeal.

You can hear it here (about 1:40 in).

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=12894071

Stop posting sht from bspn, they are the enemy, They are goodys mouth piece.

 

[aluminum seats]

Thanks for listening so we don't have to. I heard him on Mike & Mike and was shocked at how dense he sounded. He really is a moron.

What sucks is that he and ESPN create an echo chamber of idiocy that most people (understandably, having jobs, and lives…) will accept as the truth.

 

[Oswlek]

He thinks when Brady turns over his texts, we will see his text responses to McNally and Jastremski - I know the guy is like 100, but shouldn't he know that if Wells got McNally's and Jastremski's telephones, they already have Brady's responses? My 90 year old great aunt gets the concepts of how texts work.

I turned it on in the middle (didn't even have it on long enough to hear Lester's name, though it wasn't hard to guess) and as soon as I heard this I turned it back off. My lord what a stupid comment.

 

[goheels22002]

Lester Munson, discredited as a legal analyst, is really an embarrassment to ESPN who can afford extremely qualified analysts to look at these issues. Here's an Above The Law piece from the Bonds steroids investigation:

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/04/espn-legal-analyst-does-disservice-to-all-mankind/

 

[Rob0729]

I forgot to post the funniest quote. Munson thinks Goodell should have used Mueller to run this investigation because everyone agrees that his investigation of the Rice tape was truly independent.

 

[RayClay]

Yeah, saw him and thought he was a moron. Turned it [youtube] off.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

One more Munson miscue I heard. In the law there are three standards of proof, "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is the criminal standard for conviction. Secondly is "clear and convincing evidence" which is usually used in limited circumstances and is one notch below the criminal standard. Lowest is "preponderance of the evidence" which is more likely than not and the lowest standard which is what Ted Wells alleges..
Munson however claimed that well found "clear and convincing evidence" a higher standard than even Wells claimed... I would have expected someone with a law degree..or even a 1L, a first year law student to know the difference. Just another reason to mute him when he comes on...

 

[Midship]

He was on mike&mike during my drive to work other day. Had to change the station, it was brutal.

Edit: I actually can't stand their show in general, but it's the only sports radio I can get on FM.

 

[smurfalarm]

One more Munson miscue I heard. In the law there are three standards of proof, "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is the criminal standard for conviction. Secondly is "clear and convincing evidence" which is usually used in limited circumstances and is one notch below the criminal standard. Lowest is "preponderance of the evidence" which is more likely than not and the lowest standard which is what Ted Wells alleges..
Munson however claimed that well found "clear and convincing evidence" a higher standard than even Wells claimed... I would have expected someone with a law degree..or even a 1L, a first year law student to know the difference. Just another reason to mute him when he comes on...

Yep, I mentioned that specific point on a different thread. Clear and convincing evidence is generally what is required for probate and child custody cases. Can you imagine your kids' inheritance being taken away based on the amount of evidence in the Wells report?