8/14: NFLPA's latest submission is in

[JJC]

Regarding kelvins, yes.

We each have our own. In the same vein, I get annoyed by anyone who claims:

1. The plural of shrimp is shrimps!
2. Scallops is pronounced like the word all is not in the middle of it, but their friend Al instead!

I heard both this week.

 

[NashuaPats]

Are you sure that's it and not (it's got that feeling of a watershed moment):

Great Fonzie clip. My favorite part of it is him wearing his leather jacket while water skiing. Lol.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Well damn, today I learned something.

I think that the Fifth Amendment protection is a protection against self-incrimination in the sense of making yourself liable to *criminal* prosecution. So, if you're required to testify in a campus matter (say, you cheated on an exam) you can't be required to testify whether, in doing so, you committed a criminal offence (hacked into the professor's computer). If that's so, then Brady doesn't get protection, since there's no criminal offence in deflating a football.

EDIT: Just saw that TommyD makes essentially the same point.

 

[Mike the Brit]

We each have our own. In the same vein, I get annoyed by anyone who claims:

1. The plural of shrimp is shrimps!
2. Scallops is pronounced like the word all is not in the middle of it, but their friend Al instead!

I heard both this week.

Don't come to Britain, then (but you'll be missing out on some delicious food).

 

[JJC]

Great Fonzie clip. My favorite part of it is him wearing his leather jacket while water skiing. Lol.

We had a LOT more patience back in the 70's! Was it me, or did that clip take FOREVER to develop?

 

[patsfan13]

I would think the 5th amendment should apply in almost all situation, it is part of the Bill of Rights. The authors were adherents to the concept of Natural Rights, ie rights that are inherent to all humans. One cannot be compelled to incriminate oneself.

 

[Pats2000]

Daniel Wallach ‏@WALLACHLEGAL 44m44 minutes ago
Key omission from NFL brief: No CA2 case law on arbitrator's ability to consider, then reject, preclusive effect of prior arbitration award

Can anyone explain this?

Basically Goodell said he considered prior case law, then decided it didn't apply to this situation in his arbitration ruling, lol

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Great Fonzie clip. My favorite part of it is him wearing his leather jacket while water skiing. Lol.

True, the point I was trying to make was, The NFL has "jumped the shark" with their latest filing (that clip is how the phrase came into the american vernacular).

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I would think the 5th amendment should apply in almost all situation, it is part of the Bill of Rights. The authors were adherents to the concept of Natural Rights, ie rights that are inherent to all humans. One cannot be compelled to incriminate oneself.

One cannot be compelled to give testimony that will criminally incriminate oneself. If it won't criminally incriminate you you must answer.

Further, I'm pretty sure that if you take the 5th in a civil case (which you are allowed to do if your answer would criminally incriminate you) your failure to answer can be used against you in that case (in a criminal case it cannot be).

Finally, I'm also pretty sure it only applies in the context of government actions - getting arrested, being a witness in any sort of legal action operated by the government (even if the government is not a party to the action), testifying in front of a governmental body - and not in entirely private disputes that have not availed themselves of the legal system yet.

 

[RunAmok]

More from McCann.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/08/14/tom-brady-filing-roger-goodell-deflategate-federal-case-analysis

For me, this whole charade can be summed up in this simple exchange between Kessler and Wells during the appeal regarding the texts about the balls being over-inflated.


Kessler Q. Even though it was all about inflation, you interpret it to be about deflation?
Wells A. That's correct, sir


This is so Orwellian that it is frightening.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

If only the fans listened then, there were some here, we were alone, treated like ........ in every forum, we couldnt change a thing and no one listened, and its to late, our team was wasted. Its to late for us. but we learned alot being a naive.... its been so bad for our team. What they said never happend.
We dont wish that on anyone especially a good man like Brady, BB and the fans NE.
Its simple Goodell is a narcissistic corperatate nothinging loser with a small pr...k, excuse my language, but hes just a jerk and worked for them many times. Same loser CEO's that believe their smart and destroy good companies. Hes a loser and the owners dont see it because hes so busy sucking their ... for acceptance. I only wish that we could be hit again by Goodell instead of NE, and that NE fans could enjoy their SB win as fans, you deserve that, not this nonsence.

I for one am strongly rooting for Patriots vs. Saints in Super Bowl 50 as the ultimate response to the buffoonery and treachery of Goodell and company. Godspeed my friend! Hope Browner isn't seriously hurt.

 

[Mike the Brit]

For me, this whole charade can be summed up in this simple exchange between Kessler and Wells during the appeal regarding the texts about the balls being over-inflated.


Kessler Q. Even though it was all about inflation, you interpret it to be about deflation?
Wells A. That's correct, sir


This is so Orwellian that it is frightening.

First rule of witch hunting: The more evil the witch, the better they are at concealing themselves ...

 

[Hoodie]

Well said

 

[Joey007]

I for one am strongly rooting for Patriots vs. Saints in Super Bowl 50 as the ultimate response to the buffoonery and treachery of Goodell and company. Godspeed my friend! Hope Browner isn't seriously hurt.

The Saints are going no where near a Super Bowl this year. That defense is terrible even with Browner.

 

[JJC]

One cannot be compelled to give testimony that will criminally incriminate oneself. If it won't criminally incriminate you you must answer.

Further, I'm pretty sure that if you take the 5th in a civil case (which you are allowed to do if your answer would criminally incriminate you) your failure to answer can be used against you in that case (in a criminal case it cannot be).

Finally, I'm also pretty sure it only applies in the context of government actions - getting arrested, being a witness in any sort of legal action operated by the government (even if the government is not a party to the action), testifying in front of a governmental body - and not in entirely private disputes that have not availed themselves of the legal system yet.

If that is true, how can it then be a right? Rights are things which cannot be breached by others, whether individuals or the state, without consequences. If the NFL compelled Brady to testify against himself, how would that not be a violation of his civil rights?

 

[Cunk]

All this over air in footballs. Unbelievable.

I agree. I am currently residing in Argentina. I've been going to therapy for a shoulder issue for the past few months. I finally decided to talk about what's going on in the States and about the whole deflate-gate thing. Telling her what a big controversy this is and why made me just shake my head and laugh about the ridiculousness of it.

 

[Fencer]

And there would be no incentive for Brady to settle even previous to that.

Money. Hassle. Writing the NFL a check to end the court case is a great bargain.

The only reasons not to do it are rather fuzzy, centering on public image, revenge and so on.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

The Saints are going no where near a Super Bowl this year. That defense is terrible even with Browner.

Certainly it was bad last year. This year they built their secondary to mimic the press man single high safety sceme that the Patriots used last year and the Seahawks have been using. There is talent there. But the proof will be on the field, of course.

 

[TommyD4207]

Money. Hassle. Writing the NFL a check to end the court case is a great bargain.

The only reasons not to do it are rather fuzzy, centering on public image, revenge and so on.

I don't know. I think if that were going to happen, it would have happened by now.

Brady thinks he's innocent, and he's behaving like someone who thinks he's innocent. Why pay the NFL a dime if you did nothing wrong?

Someone would have to clarify how this whole part works, but in civil court, is it customary for the losing party to pay court costs?

 

[Peachhead]

Michael Mccann explains it all here:

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/08/11/deflategate-hearing-roger-goodell-tom-brady-judge-berman

I think this is the part that worries me:
"Can you explain what would happen if Judge Berman rules in favor of Brady?

If Judge Berman vacates Brady’s suspension, Brady would—for the moment—be eligible to play in the Patriots season opener against the Pittsburgh Steelers on September 10th. But the technical effect of Judge Berman vacating the suspension is that Goodell’s July 28th decision to uphold Brady’s punishment would be invalid. It is at least theoretically possible that the NFL could issue another punishment."

If it included a suspension I think Goodell would get socked with a contempt of court charge and an injunction within the hour. Judge Berman would NOT be happy!