Holland vs. Munson

[SVN]

Regarding it, the article says:


This was a unanimous declaration by SCOTUS. Those saying you are not bothered by this....Why?

It's like being on this forum the day before the Wells report was released, when we were all riding unicorns on top of rainbows because Wells was going to eviscerate the unprofessional sting operation and totally exonerate Brady (E.g., see palm beach pats fans prediction thread about what the Wells report would say). People are slowly, inexorably, becoming unjustifiably optimistic again.

Stop.

Be pessimistic, or there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

The judge bashing of NFL has led to a lot cheers and conclusions .Lawyers predicting a Brady win is not helping control the expectations either. I am still not very sure what the judge will rule. Maybe he doesnt want to be associated with the NFL crap and is calling it out in public forcing them to settle .If he rules for NFL he can show that he killed NFL but had to stick to the precedence ruling law.

 

[JMC00]

These are mostly ad hominem arguments against his article. He's not saying anything we haven't already said here, it's not crazy at all what he's saying. That is, Berman's hands are tied for the most part legally speaking, and there is a good chance he sides with the NFL even though he realizes it is ridiculous. Of course there are other options, but this is one main option.

I take it you missed the fact that Berman said in court that awards have been vacated because witnesses haven't been allowed to be called without explanation.

 

[JackBauer]

Regarding it, the article says:


This was a unanimous declaration by SCOTUS. Those saying you are not bothered by this....Why?

It's like being on this forum the day before the Wells report was released, when we were all riding unicorns on top of rainbows because Wells was going to eviscerate the unprofessional sting operation and totally exonerate Brady (E.g., see palm beach pats fans prediction thread about what the Wells report would say). People are slowly, inexorably, becoming unjustifiably optimistic again.

Stop.

Be pessimistic, or there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

IANAL, but to me there's a distinction here between serious errors of fact and procedural fairness, or in this case a lack thereof. Berman has pointed out in questioning instances where the process may well have run afoul of federal law-e.g. not producing Pash for questioning, and has implied that these errors of process could be sufficient grounds for vacating the award.

 

[Gronkowski123]

so berman destroys the league in court then rules in favor of them?

 

[neuronet]

I take it you missed the fact that Berman said in court that awards have been vacated because witnesses haven't been allowed to be called without explanation.

I saw that, but that doesn't mean he won't end up going back to Garvey, or that the Garvey case isn't a major concern. He's trying to show the NFL his hands aren't really 100% tied, clearly, to encourage settlement. But the real question is whether the Pash BS passes the high threshold (set by Garvey) to actually pull that trigger to vacate, or whether it was a relatively minor mistake on the part of the NFL that doesn't change the big picture.

Again, I'm not saying Munsen is right, I'm saying he is making an argument that a reasonable person can make, and that we should not be overly optimistic based just on how the judge asked questions this week. When will you people learn? It's like the black knight sketch here sometimes....

 

[raduray]

Regarding it, the article says:


This was a unanimous declaration by SCOTUS. Those saying you are not bothered by this....Why?

It's like being on this forum the day before the Wells report was released, when we were all riding unicorns on top of rainbows because Wells was going to eviscerate the unprofessional sting operation and totally exonerate Brady (E.g., see palm beach pats fans prediction thread about what the Wells report would say). People are slowly, inexorably, becoming unjustifiably optimistic again.

Stop.

Be pessimistic, or there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Regarding the Garvey case, from the case summary link below:

Courts are not authorized to review the arbitrator's decision on the merits despite allegations that the decision rests on factual errors

So, no re-litigation of the facts. However, this does not preclude vacating on grounds of evident partiality and other process unfairness.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_1210

 

[JMC00]

Regarding it, the article says:


This was a unanimous declaration by SCOTUS. Those saying you are not bothered by this....Why?

It's like being on this forum the day before the Wells report was released, when we were all riding unicorns on top of rainbows because Wells was going to eviscerate the unprofessional sting operation and totally exonerate Brady (E.g., see palm beach pats fans prediction thread about what the Wells report would say). People are slowly, inexorably, becoming unjustifiably optimistic again.

Stop.

Be pessimistic, or there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Oh ************. Don't f**cking cite the Garvey case if you have no clue about it. The Garvey case is different because mlb followed the proper arbitration procedures. With this case the nfl clearly did not follow procedures, such as not allowing Kessler to question Pash, Berman point blank said in court that arbitration awards have been vacated because a witness was not allowed to be called without explanation. Which Berman basically said the nfl's explanation was ********.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Regarding it, the article says:


This was a unanimous declaration by SCOTUS. Those saying you are not bothered by this....Why?

It's like being on this forum the day before the Wells report was released, when we were all riding unicorns on top of rainbows because Wells was going to eviscerate the unprofessional sting operation and totally exonerate Brady (E.g., see palm beach pats fans prediction thread about what the Wells report would say). People are slowly, inexorably, becoming unjustifiably optimistic again.

Stop.

Be pessimistic, or there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Which is exactly why Kessler has repeatedly reinforced the point that he is not trying to have the facts of the case re-tried. That's the NFL's straw man of the NFLPA position.

The NFLPA position is that Goodell's actions as arbitrator violated federal labor law. That's a whole lot different than the Garvey case.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Albert Einstein versus Britney Spears

Are we naming smart and stupids here?

 

[JMC00]

But the real question is whether the Pash BS passes the high threshold (set by Garvey) to actually pull that trigger to vacate, or whether it was a relatively minor mistake on the part of the NFL that doesn't change the big picture.

Clearly this stuff is just too much for your head and you can't properly grasp it.

This judge just said awards have been vacated because of sides refusing to allow a witness to be questioned without an explanation. If the Garvey case had any affect on that Berman wouldn't have it in his mind.

 

[Canuck]

Munson is not a legal expert. He is a free lance sports reporter with highly biased opinions which usually turn out wrong.

Here is a brief recap of his legal history.

After his admittance to the Illinois State Bar in 1976 and practicing law for 13 years, it appears Munson, facing multiple charges of misconduct occurring during a time he was already on probation by the Ilinois Bar, voluntarily agreed to discontinue practicing law. As a mitigating factor in his misconduct, Munson pointed to his alcoholism. In its 1991 decision to suspend Munson’s law license because of his continued misconduct while on probation, the Disciplinary Commission wrote:
“On September 30, 1986, Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for three years and until further order of the Court, and this suspension was stayed and Respondent was placed on probation for three years with conditions. In re Munson, No. 85 CH 57, M.R. 4029. Respondent's misconduct included his neglect of three client matters as well as misstatements regarding the status of two of the client matters. Respondent's misconduct was attributable to his alcoholism.”
.

“In October 1989, Respondent discontinued practicing. Respondent has no current intention to return to the practice of law.”

http://liestoppers.blogspot.ca/2007/03/lester-munson-legal-expert.html

 

[Sticky Caulk]

MLBPA vs Garvey is becoming an annoying soundbite driven piece of !@#$ that needs to die. The fact that everyone using this is misrepresenting the fact that it was the MLBPA and not the MLB involved should tell you all you need to know.

 

[Rob0729]

I don't get why people get on Lester Munson. The guy is spot on all the time. Let's go back and look at some of the things he said:

• Ted Wells wrote a well crafted document that will uphold to scrutiny and made a solid compelling case of cheating that is unimpeachable.
• Roger Goodell wrote a solid appeal decision that also will be unimpeachable.
• Brady will never get a judge to hear his case because they do not want to get involved. It will get thrown out of court.

And let's not forget how Munson correctly stated that Bonds and his lawyers got their arses kicked in court when he was acquitted on four of the five counts and only convicted of the lowest count (which was overturned in appeal).

 

[neuronet]

Clearly this stuff is just too much for your head and you can't properly grasp it.

Yes, that is clearly the conclusion to draw. Go stick your head in an microwave, douchebag. James Incandenza style, just cut a hole in the door and you'll do the world a favor.

This judge just said awards have been vacated because of sides refusing to allow a witness to be questioned without an explanation. If the Garvey case had any affect on that Berman wouldn't have it in his mind.

That doesn't follow. Just because he brought up possible counterexamples he could use doesn't mean he isn't also considering Garvey as precedent without explicitly laying it out on the table for the masses to consume. Before you gratuitously insult people's intelligence, you might try saying something f-ing intelligent.

Again, I'm not saying this line of thought is correct, but it is obviously something that should be on our radar, it is not stupid, and we shouldn't be too optimistic, given the history of what has transpired so far.

 

[Rob0729]

BTW, Munson is yet another one of the lightweight legal commentators (along with Roger Kosak) who constantly point to the Steve Garvey case as proof that Brady will not win.

Daniel Wallach was on 98.5 last night and said that case is irrelevant to this case. In that case, the Supreme Court determined that the MLB process to come to their conclusions was fair and sound, just the ruling is ridiculous. The Brady case is all about the process. The NFL will win or lose based on whether the process was fair or not, not based on the ruling.

What Munson is also missing is the open session this week was all about process.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Be pessimistic, or there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

We also believed the investigation would be independent and look into the leaks from the NFL. We were totally blindsides by that.

BUT, are you saying a FEDERAL judge might not be independent?

Obviously, none of us know the final outcome, but would it be ok for us to feel optimistic as the Judge certainly seems to be seeing through the NFL's farce? the more BSPN trumps their nonsense, the better i feel because we know the NFL is scared and trying to still win the PR war.

 

[raduray]

For Baghdad Les

Daniel Wallach@WALLACHLEGAL
Garvey case does not handcuff J. Berman: there, court resolved "merits of the parties' dispute on basis of its OWN factual determinations"

Daniel Wallach@WALLACHLEGAL
Garvey judge also "usurped the arbitrators' role by resolving dispute & barring further [arbitration] proceedings." Berman smarter than that

Daniel Wallach@WALLACHLEGAL
Garvey distiguishable from Brady: lacked "evident partiality" and "unfair process" claims, and judge reversed b/c he disagreed with findings

 

[TruthSeeker]

Yes, that is clearly the conclusion to draw. Go stick your head in an microwave, douchebag. James Incandenza style, just cut a hole in the door and you'll do the world a favor.



That doesn't follow. Just because he brought up possible counterexamples he could use doesn't mean he isn't also considering Garvey as precedent without explicitly laying it out on the table for the masses to consume. Before you gratuitously insult people's intelligence, you might try saying something f-ing intelligent.

Again, I'm not saying this line of thought is correct, but it is obviously something that should be on our radar, it is not stupid, and we shouldn't be too optimistic, given the history of what has transpired so far.

In short, the NFLPA has not argued the facts in order to overturn, only to show the process. So Garvey is a red herring since it doesn't address ANY of the NFLPA points.

 

[reflexblue]

Munson exists so that people who hate Brady, BB, and the Patriots will get to read something that reinforces those beliefs. People tend to do this, thats why Fox news and MSNBC exist.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Munson exists so that people who hate Brady, BB, and the Patriots will get to read something that reinforces those beliefs. People tend to do this, thats why Fox news and MSNBC exist.

Really makes you wonder why CNN exists, then. For people who hate the very concept of thinking?