PATRIOTS NEWS Official Brady vs. NFL Federal Court 8/12 Thread (LIVE UPDATES)

[RelocatedPatFan]

Has anyone asked Goodell if he's still not married to the Wells report? Let's add that to the list of lies being propagated by the Commish.

 

[reflexblue]

It's academic because it's not happening.

I really doubt anyone would go after Brady in a criminal prosecution but it would kill any potential defamation claims against the league, which is why they're pushing so hard for it I imagine.

I think goodell, pash,nash etc. would.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

NO He absolutely does NOT. There is nothing anywhere in the CBA that states anyone can be suspended for being aware of the actions of another. There is also no precedent of it ever having been done, but zillions of precedent of it NOT being done.


But he does not have the right to denying Brady the right to put up a defense, and ruling on his own decisions without even a hearing clearly does that.


He also, by precedent, is not allowed to be the arbitrator in a hearing where he is a witness.


Regardless of any of that, the arbitrator cannot change the reason that the individual who handed the punishment used.
Whatever you want to call it, there is a tremendous conflict of interest, where you have an arbitrator defending the position of his own decision against appeal.
That is patently unfair, and will never hold up, regardless of whether the CBA vaguely implies it could.

In other words, in agreeing to this version of the CBA, there is no possible way to believe that the NFLPA believed that Goodell would be the arbiter in a dispute that is the NFLPA believing Goodell misused his powers.

Here's an article explaining the standards of review for vacating arbitration awards:

http://www.stblaw.com/docs/default-...ing-content/publications/pub1124.pdf?sfvrsn=2

 

[TommyD4207]

NO He absolutely does NOT. There is nothing anywhere in the CBA that states anyone can be suspended for being aware of the actions of another. There is also no precedent of it ever having been done, but zillions of precedent of it NOT being done.

Section 1.
League Discipline:

(a)All disputes involving a fine or suspension imposed upon a player for conduct on the playing field (other than as described in Subsection (b) below) or involving action taken against a player by the Commissioner for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football, will be processed exclusively as follows: the Commissioner will promptly send written notice of his action to the player, with a copy to the NFLPA. Within three (3) business days following such written notification, the player affected thereby, or the NFLPA with the player’s approval, may appeal in writing to the Commissioner.


Section 2.
Hearings:

(a)Hearing Officers. For appeals under Section 1(a) above, the Commissioner shall, after consultation with the Executive Director of the NFLPA, appoint one or more designees to serve as hearing officers. For appeals under Section 1(b) above, the parties shall, on an annual basis, jointly select two (2) or more designees to serve as hearing officers. The salary and reasonable expenses for the designees’ services shall be shared equally by the NFL and the NFLPA. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commissioner may serve as hearing officer in any appeal under Section 1(a) of this Article at his discretion.

May serve as a hearing officer in ANY appeal. There's no gray area there.

But he does not have the right to denying Brady the right to put up a defense, and ruling on his own decisions without even a hearing clearly does that.

He was "sort of" allowed to put up a defense, although the cards were totally stacked against him, including that four-hour time limit.

Ruling on his own decisions is perfectly fine under Section 46. The key, again, is that he has to rule impartially. It's very clear by the transcripts and by his final decision that he did not do that.

He also, by precedent, is not allowed to be the arbitrator in a hearing where he is a witness.

There is nothing that says this in the CBA. If anything, it says that he can be an arbitrator if he's a witness.

Regardless of any of that, the arbitrator cannot change the reason that the individual who handed the punishment used.

This is what I said to you in the previous post. Under Article 16 of the CBA:

Section 2. Scope of Authority:

The powers of the Impartial Arbitrator and the rights of the parties in any proceeding before him or her shall be solely to determine disputes that are specifically referred to the Impartial Arbitrator pursuant to the express terms of this Agreement. In no event shall the Impartial Arbitrator have any authority to add to, subtract from, or alter in any way the provisions of this Agreement.

That's what Goodell did when he changed the language. Again, this is something the sports media ignores, but this is actually a huge ****ing deal, right up there with Goodell ignoring Brady's testimony under oath

Whatever you want to call it, there is a tremendous conflict of interest, where you have an arbitrator defending the position of his own decision against appeal.

Of course it is. But it's what the NFLPA agreed to. Now, that said, this clause of the CBA would be rendered useless by a pro-Brady decision. It's inherently illegal, although not technically illegal. Again, it's all dependent on whether or not Goodell was an impartial arbitrator. That's the standard in law. That's the part where it doesn't matter what they collectively agreed to, if it's illegal, it's illegal.

That is patently unfair, and will never hold up, regardless of whether the CBA vaguely implies it could.

Again, it would totally "hold up" if Goodell wasn't so obviously partial in his decision.

In other words, in agreeing to this version of the CBA, there is no possible way to believe that the NFLPA believed that Goodell would be the arbiter in a dispute that is the NFLPA believing Goodell misused his powers.

Arbitrator, not arbiter. They're different things.

And the clause in the CBA says exactly what it says. Now, obviously the NFLPA never conceived of Goodell going completely off the reservation here, but it says what it says.

-Yes, Goodell can impose any punishment he wants under the guidelines of the CBA.

-Yes, Goodell can absolutely serve as an independent arbitrator on any appeal that he sees fit to do so, although having the ability to appoint a 3rd-party to be the arbitrator, he should at least have some tacit reason to not do it. He doesn't have that, although it's not completely required that he does, it certainly looks awful in court.

-No, Goodell cannot increase the punishment (or in this case, the ruled findings for the punishment). He can only affirm or reduce.

-No, Goodell cannot rule partially in an appeals hearing. That's against Labor Law.

Just because something's not fair, doesn't make it illegal, and DeMaurice Smith ****ing sucks.

 

[Horace's Ivories]

 

[Ring 6]

Here's an article explaining the standards of review for vacating arbitration awards:

http://www.stblaw.com/docs/default-...ing-content/publications/pub1124.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Are there any cases in law that do not include Roger Goodell, where the arbitrator is judging his own decision?

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

I think goodell, pash,nash etc. would.

It's a prosecutor's decision but, again, it's academic because it's not happening.

Usually, in a settlement, the parties issue an agreement that states that it is understood that they are not admitting fault but making a business decision. In criminal proceedings, people plead to lesser charges as part of a deal. I've never heard of a party admitting fault in a civil matter as a condition to settlement and the very notion is absurd IMO.

 

[TommyD4207]

Are there any cases in law that do not include Roger Goodell, where the arbitrator is judging his own decision?

Not many.

Just like there's not many arbitrator's decisions that get vacated in court. Unless you're the NFL, then it's 4 for 4.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

Are there any cases in law that do not include Roger Goodell, where the arbitrator is judging his own decision?

I'm not personally aware of any but it's sounds like a pretty compelling example of "partiality of the arbitrator," which is a ground to vacate.

 

[Hoodie]

So now the latest report is there may be witnesses called in next week's hearing and that may include M&J.

Good. Get it all open. Let's hope Kensil and Mort doesn't have other plans for that day as well.

Makes me nervous because you never know what they'll say but they both withstood questioning from Wells and nothing they said was damning enough to be included in the Wells Report.

 

[adam941]

Yes thats another part of it as well

Which is why I have to shake my head whenever someone suggests "just" a one game suspension, but only for non-compliance. First, Brady has been more compliant than anyone would expect, above and beyond the letter of the CBA, certainly more so than the vast majority of players who get caught up in the league's discipline process. But much more importantly, no one has ever been suspended for non-compliance in the history of the NFL, ever. Now Brady is not your typical union guy, but like Belichick, I think he fully understands certain unwritten responsibilities and I just cannot imagine Brady purposely being responsible for the league screwing over every future player that gets in trouble holding the threat of suspension just for not handing over their private cell phone. The precedent at stake here seems to be beyond most people's comprehension, but then again, I think too many people do not think beyond anything that affects just themselves. Sorry for ranting, but this really is blood boiling. When this ends, I think the whole world might actually hear all pats fans sigh with relief.

 

[TommyD4207]

Makes me nervous because you never know what they'll say but they both withstood questioning from Wells and nothing they said was damning enough to be included in the Wells Report.

If it even comes to that. Berman would really be crossing into some unusual territory if he decided to call the Dorito Dink twins.

 

[Love The Drake]

Good theres nothing to hide here who knows maybe this is what the judge needs to hear.
If not how Crazy would it be if the ballboys said they deflated with no command from Brady or the Patriots.
My guess deflation by any person never occured and Kensil Grigson Irsay should be the only suspects being questioned by a Judge.

 

[Hoodie]

If it even comes to that. Berman would really be crossing into some unusual territory if he decided to call the Dorito Dink twins.

Don't know if anyone else was listening to D&H+T but a caller was saying that the court can subpoena a witness but if that witness is beyond 150 miles from the court it's a hardship and they remote participate etc... I didn't catch it all but could someone clarify if that's true?

 

[Ring 6]

May serve as a hearing officer in ANY appeal. There's no gray area there.

How does that apply to 'generally aware'? It does not.

He was "sort of" allowed to put up a defense, although the cards were totally stacked against him, including that four-hour time limit.

Thats like kind of pregnant.
Brady was not allowed to examine witnesses, specifically Pash and Goodell.
The notes of the Wells report were withheld.
Goodell ruled, without hearing, on motions involving the actions of Goodell.
You were allowed to put on a defense, but not a complete one, is the same as not being allowed to put on a defense,.

Ruling on his own decisions is perfectly fine under Section 46.

It certainly is not.
Labor law also requires the implementation of a CBA on issue not specifically laid out to be consistent with the intent of the parties, and the party that did not write it receives benefit of the doubt.
There is no possible way you can argue that the NFLPA considered that Article 46 meant that Goodell could rule, then Goodell could settle the dispute that Goodell ruled outside of his authority. It would be unconscionable and therefore unenforcable.

The key, again, is that he has to rule impartially. It's very clear by the transcripts and by his final decision that he did not do that.

Agreed

There is nothing that says this in the CBA. If anything, it says that he can be an arbitrator if he's a witness.

No it does not. Not in any way. And it is legally unacceptable.

This is what I said to you in the previous post. Under Article 16 of the CBA:



That's what Goodell did when he changed the language. Again, this is something the sports media ignores, but this is actually a huge ****ing deal, right up there with Goodell ignoring Brady's testimony under oath

Right. That was exactly my point.

Of course it is. But it's what the NFLPA agreed to. Now, that said, this clause of the CBA would be rendered useless by a pro-Brady decision. It's inherently illegal, although not technically illegal. Again, it's all dependent on whether or not Goodell was an impartial arbitrator. That's the standard in law. That's the part where it doesn't matter what they collectively agreed to, if it's illegal, it's illegal.

Missouri courts have already ruled it illegal.

Again, it would totally "hold up" if Goodell wasn't so obviously partial in his decision.

So an unfair hearing would hold up if it were fair? Yes, I agree.

Arbitrator, not arbiter. They're different things.

And the clause in the CBA says exactly what it says. Now, obviously the NFLPA never conceived of Goodell going completely off the reservation here, but it says what it says.

-Yes, Goodell can impose any punishment he wants under the guidelines of the CBA.

-Yes, Goodell can absolutely serve as an independent arbitrator on any appeal that he sees fit to do so, although having the ability to appoint a 3rd-party to be the arbitrator, he should at least have some tacit reason to not do it. He doesn't have that, although it's not completely required that he does, it certainly looks awful in court.

-No, Goodell cannot increase the punishment (or in this case, the ruled findings for the punishment). He can only affirm or reduce.

-No, Goodell cannot rule partially in an appeals hearing. That's against Labor Law.

Just because something's not fair, doesn't make it illegal, and DeMaurice Smith ****ing sucks.

Your error here is that you are taking individual items out of the CBA and not considering their impact on each other.
There is inherent fairness implied in the CBA.
When you have deliniated rights that does not mean you have them even when they conflict or create a conflict of interest.
Goodell was incapable of effectively serving as arbitrator in this case, because a central piece of it was based upon his own actions. That is at its face unfair, and a reason to vacate the award.

By the way, people are speculating on why Berman is concerned with guilt.
I think it is very simple. If guilt is in question and the arbitrator walks in assuming guilt, he is flawed.
If Goodell the commissioner did not understand that facts, and is then asked to arbitrate the facts he misunderstood to begin with the process is materially flawed.

 

[Ring 6]

Not many, or none?

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not personally aware of any but it's sounds like a pretty compelling example of "partiality of the arbitrator," which is a ground to vacate.

I have felt from the start that while this is Tom Brady and the NFL, it is a court case and it will set precedent for Labor Law.

Are we really saying that if Brady was a unionized housekeeper charged with stealing $20 out of a hotel room, and Goodell was the CEO of Hilton that there would be any chance he could be considered impartial as the arbitrator?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Makes me nervous because you never know what they'll say but they both withstood questioning from Wells and nothing they said was damning enough to be included in the Wells Report.

Provided that there was no deflation scheme, they'll just tell the truth. If there was a deflation scheme and they crack in court, then the Patriots will deserve what they got. Well, maybe they won't deserve what they got, but they'll deserve something at least. I'd be shocked if the latter turned out to be the case, though. A scheme to deflate balls by like a third of a PSI would be monumentally stupid on too many levels to count.

Best case scenario: McNally gets called up to testify, clarifies what the "deflator" text meant in a plausible way, accuses Wells of lying about what he said re: the "urinal" in the locker room, acknowledges that he had little to no interaction with Brady (hence Brady not knowing his name), then drops the mic and struts off.

 

[wilmingtonpatsfan]

I just hope this judge is not as corrupted as some judges in the movies.

 

[VectorPrime]

I just hope this judge is not as corrupted as some judges in the movies.

You watch too many movies. Or Law and Order SVU.