DeMaurice Smith on Brady/NFL Settlement Talks

[Ring 6]

I think it's easy to see a scenario where Brady could say "because they got tired of me always yelling at them about ball inflation levels McNally and Jastremski took it upon themselves to deflate balls past the league required levels. They did this without any direction from myself or the Patriots."

I mean, easy to see if you leave out the fact that Tom seems to be a decent human being unwilling to have others take the fall for a non-event that idiots blew into a huge scandal just to save his own skin.

But Brady was not always yelling at them about ball inflation and would perjure himself.
Plus it's just not true and Brady appears to be the kind of guy who will go down with the ship before found something dishonest.

 

[Ring 6]

Slightly off topic...I'm having a back and forth with a guy at work. Can anyone get me a link or a list of the NFL execs or other higher-ups that have NY connections? thanks

All of them lol

 

[RayClay]

How many of us would pay big money to see a real congressional investigation into the NFL and all its shenanigans and lies and coverups and such? At this point, with their anti-trust exemption, I'd think that it really could - and should - be done. There's just so much material to work with.

I'd like to see a severe investigative report by a journalist, if there are any left.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I'd like to see a severe investigative report by a journalist, if there are any left.

The Washington Post has the muscle. They need to do it.

 

[The Brandon Five]

My love for the game of football is being slowly and inexorably diminished by Roger and his band of mediocrities.

 

[Tony2046]

I admire your optimism. However, my experience says that "justice" rarely is wrapped in such a nice neat linear package. But I hope you're right...

While searching last night for how many of the cases dissented by Katzmann were approved for an en banc hearing, which I could not find, I read a lot of interesting articles regarding the thoughts behind the decision process..

From what I gather and please correct me if I'm wrong, tradition, respect to the process etc.. are also in play when deciding whether or not an en banc hearing is granted. Further, I read of a case which denied the en banc hearing but the original ruling was modified and, more confusingly , I read another in which the judge did not approve an en banc hearing out of respect to the original panel judges.

I'm not a legally minded person and do not know the environment but it seems, as you say, there is a lot more involved than whether they got the original decision slightly off target or not.

IOW, it seems as though Olsen will have to demonstrate a glaring blunder in the case because a slightly skewed difference of opinion will not fly.

Tough to be a judge. Truth and justice is, in part, a matter of perception.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Tough to be a judge. Truth and justice is, in part, a matter of perception.

"Veritas? Quid est veritas?"

 

[Huckleberry1]

While searching last night for how many of the cases dissented by Katzmann were approved for an en banc hearing, which I could not find, I read a lot of interesting articles regarding the thoughts behind the decision process..

From what I gather and please correct me if I'm wrong, tradition, respect to the process etc.. are also in play when deciding whether or not an en banc hearing is granted. Further, I read of a case which denied the en banc hearing but the original ruling was modified and, more confusingly , I read another in which the judge did not approve an en banc hearing out of respect to the original panel judges.

I'm not a legally minded person and do not know the environment but it seems, as you say, there is a lot more involved than whether they got the original decision slightly off target or not.

IOW, it seems as though Olsen will have to demonstrate a glaring blunder in the case because a slightly skewed difference of opinion will not fly.

Tough to be a judge. Truth and justice is, in part, a matter of perception.

As Olsen and I believe Katzmann have both pointed out Bradys appeal to Goodell was on the finding of Brady "generally aware of equipment staff deflating footballs after inspection by the referee," however Goodell both changed the facts of the case by deciding Brady directed a scheme to have footballs deflated after inspection and impeded their investigation by destroying his phone. An appeal hearing is intended as a protection for employees and not another opportunity for management to find grounds for further punishment, so Brady really never got an appeal as Goodell created new grounds. Brady was appealing on one set of ground and Goodell punished on another, that completely undermines the appellate process and is definitely grounds for a new hearing.

 

[Clonamery]

"Veritas? Quid est veritas?"

For the NFL it's like the scales of a fish, slimey and fragmented.

 

[Tony2046]

As Olsen and I believe Katzmann have both pointed out Bradys appeal to Goodell was on the finding of Brady "generally aware of equipment staff deflating footballs after inspection by the referee," however Goodell both changed the facts of the case by deciding Brady directed a scheme to have footballs deflated after inspection and impeded their investigation by destroying his phone. An appeal hearing is intended as a protection for employees and not another opportunity for management to find grounds for further punishment, so Brady really never got an appeal as Goodell created new grounds. Brady was appealing on one set of ground and Goodell punished on another, that completely undermines the appellate process and is definitely grounds for a new hearing.

I understand that and I personally completely agree with that but I also have seen legal minds sway one way or another on this issue for various reasons. Meaning its not as simple as right or wrong in their minds. One thing I find interesting in Olsens brief is whether a CBA should grant authority or limit it. If the judges agree with "grant" then, I believe, the arguments you state become very strong as they would be presented in a new and meaningful perspective but if they believe it's "limit", then the arguments posted are weak in that they were already present during the appeal and it was decided that or implied that the CBA was poorly written.

Obligatory disclaimer: IANAL obviously.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

"Veritas? Quid est veritas?"

"Veritas est quae ergo ego loquor ".-Goodell

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

. Further, I read of a case which denied the en banc hearing but the original ruling was modified and, more confusingly , I read another in which the judge did not approve an en banc hearing out of respect to the original panel judges.
.

I would think in this case, the deference might not apply since it was the Chief Judge who dissented and agreeing to the en banc hearing agrees with his position.... Agreeing to a rehearing would be acting in deference to the chief judge...

 

[Tony2046]

"Veritas est quae ergo ego loquor ".-Goodell

Thanks to Google.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Thanks to Google.

5 years of Latin finally came in handy other than when doing crosswords....

 

[Clonamery]

"Veritas est quae ergo ego loquor ".-Goodell

"Scrotum, er.., Scutum protegens: Integritas." - Goodell

*Google

 

[Huckleberry1]

I understand that and I personally completely agree with that but I also have seen legal minds sway one way or another on this issue for various reasons. Meaning its not as simple as right or wrong in their minds. One thing I find interesting in Olsens brief is whether a CBA should grant authority or limit it. If the judges agree with "grant" then, I believe, the arguments you state become very strong as they would be presented in a new and meaningful perspective but if they believe it's "limit", then the arguments posted are weak in that they were already present during the appeal and it was decided that or implied that the CBA was poorly written.

Obligatory disclaimer: IANAL obviously.

How can it be an appeal if the grounds for the punishment are established during the appeal?

 

[Deus Irae]

Famous quotes that they might as well say, since they've essentially said them without speaking the actual words:


We **** the bed when it came to the CBA. Therefore, I need to spend all of my time fixing my screwups before the players realize that I'm a huge part of the problem, and can my ass.

- DeMaurice Smith


We demand a whole bunch of things, but we're not willing to hold out for them.

- NFL players


I AM the law!

- Roger Goodell


You just keep bringing in the TV money, Roger, and we'll all keep taking turns in the barrel.

- Robert Kraft

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Famous quotes that they might as well say, since they've essentially said them without speaking the actual words:


We **** the bed when it came to the CBA. Therefore, I need to spend all of my time fixing my screwups before the players realize that I'm a huge part of the problem, and can my ass.

- DeMaurice Smith


We demand a whole bunch of things, but we're not willing to hold out for them.

- NFL players


I AM the law!

- Roger Goodell


You just keep bringing in the TV money, Roger, and we'll all keep taking turns in the barrel.

- Robert Kraft

That about sums it up...and in plain English.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Thanks to Google.

Google left out a translation of "ergo" ("therefore") and added "it is," which is implied but not in the original.

The translation would be:
The truth is, therefore, what I say.

Or, if the context suggests;
Therefore, the truth is what I say.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

As Olsen and I believe Katzmann have both pointed out Bradys appeal to Goodell was on the finding of Brady "generally aware of equipment staff deflating footballs after inspection by the referee," however Goodell both changed the facts of the case by deciding Brady directed a scheme to have footballs deflated after inspection and impeded their investigation by destroying his phone. An appeal hearing is intended as a protection for employees and not another opportunity for management to find grounds for further punishment, so Brady really never got an appeal as Goodell created new grounds. Brady was appealing on one set of ground and Goodell punished on another, that completely undermines the appellate process and is definitely grounds for a new hearing.

You just summed up the argument. I suspect you didn't get paid $1,800 an hour to do so.