PATRIOTS NEWS NFL Appeal oral arguments thread

[PatsFanSince74]

I'm not disputing the collaboration. I'm just saying that I think the prime villains here are Pash and others in the league office and if they had it their way the Wells Report would have come down harder on Brady. The flip side to that is that Wells fought AGAINST that influence. Not always easy to do when a client is paying you millions of dollars. For that I think he should be spared the worst vitriol of patsfans, particularly since his weak conclusion was a key part of Kessler's ultimately successful arguments in front of Berman. The weakness of that language was not accidental, to say the least.

But we can't know what Wells did or didn't do. That's why it's material to Brady's case that he did not have access to Pash under oath as part of the proceedings.

Unless you work for Paul Weiss (in which case you are violating Attorney-Client privilege), you have no way of "knowing" that Wells fought "against" the League's influence. That's an hypothesis based on your reading of the language. If you just said, "I think Wells...." did this or that, then I'd have no argument with you since we'd be arguing the unarguable.

But, the unalterable point in all of this is that we can not know the degree to which Pash influenced the final draft of the Wells report itself.

For all we know there was an earlier version in which Wells concluded that there was no way to determine the role that Brady might or might not have played or the knowledge he might or might not have had about the alleged scheme to lower the pressure in the balls and the final generally aware language was a compromise by Wells to alter his position to fit the desires of his client, Pash, prior to payment of the final bill.

There is just no way in which you can say that that is not possible that Wells originally concluded that there was no way to connect Brady to the alleged scheme and then changed the wording under pressure from Pash unless you work for Paul Weiss or the League.

That is why it is material that Kessler could not question Pash under oath.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

My wife's a lawyer down here as are, for better or worse, many of my friends, including one who used to be a Federal Prosecutor before he decided to make some money doing White Collar defense. Two of our friends are judges. Their legal training was all at the schools that produced the panel.

I was able last summer to get a pretty good read on Berman, which I shared with the Board and which turned out to be on target, but haven't had time to find much out about the members of the Appeals panel.

...I also used to date an ADA...but that's another story.

Coincidentally, Robert Blecker was my criminal law professor in law school.

 

[BTTA]

That is why it is material that Kessler could not question Pash under oath.

Thus, does this create a defensible position for the NFL as to why Pash was not made available? That it was all attorney-client conversation?

 

[letekro]

For all we know there was an earlier version in which Wells concluded that there was no way to determine the role that Brady might or might not have played or the knowledge he might or might not have had about the alleged scheme to lower the pressure in the balls and the final generally aware language was a compromise by Wells to alter his position to fit the desires of his client, Pash, prior to payment of the final bill.

I think this is my whole point. Even if Pash was involved with the conclusion (Like you, I'm assuming he was), the conclusion is very weak and does not strongly support the severe discipline imposed. Since we know from the Appeal ruling that Pash was rabidly out for blood, the ONLY logical conclusion is that Wells is the one responsible for the watered down language in the Report (and probably would've made it even weaker, if Pash was not opposing him from the other side). Whether the language was the result of a compromise (it probably was) is beside the point I'm trying to make, which is that Wells was pushing a conclusion that was not exactly the one that his client wanted. So, for me, there is significant evidence that, while involved in this charade, he was not the driving force, and actually fought against that force (the league office).

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Partners there make anywhere from 1-3 million per year in salary.

Their "salary" is actually a "draw" of no more than mid six figures. The big bucks come from their share of the partnership pie.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I think this is my whole point. Even if Pash was involved with the conclusion (Like you, I'm assuming he was), the conclusion is very weak and does not strongly support the severe discipline imposed. Since we know from the Appeal ruling that Pash was rabidly out for blood, the ONLY logical conclusion is that Wells is the one responsible for the watered down language in the Report (and probably would've made it even weaker, if Pash was not opposing him from the other side). Whether the language was the result of a compromise (it probably was) is beside the point I'm trying to make, which is that Wells was pushing a conclusion that was not exactly the one that his client wanted. So, for me, there is significant evidence that, while involved in this charade, he was not the driving force, and actually fought against that force (the league office).

Your saying that there is "significant evidence" of X is very different than saying "KNOWING" X (CAPS were your emphasis), which is what you said before. So, we'll just have to agree to disagree on our perceptions of what the "evidence" could or could not/might or might not suggest.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Coincidentally, Robert Blecker was my criminal law professor in law school.

Good pedigree.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Thus, does this create a defensible position for the NFL as to why Pash was not made available? That it was all attorney-client conversation?

I'll defer to a lawyer on this, but the NFL did not raise that as its defense at the time, which they almost surely would have done had it applied. Instead they said it was "unnecessary" (or words to that effect) to talk to Pash since the development of the report was a "cumulative" (their word at the time) process. Berman decided that that was the ******** that it was.

 

[letekro]

Your saying that there is "significant evidence" of X is very different than saying "KNOWING" X (CAPS were your emphasis), which is what you said before. So, we'll just have to agree to disagree on our perceptions of what the "evidence" could or could not/might or might not suggest.

I didn't say I "know." I said it is the only logical conclusion. If two men, one holding a machete, walk into an empty dark room and the machete-wielder walks out holding the other's head, I'm going to logically conclude the survivor beheaded the other, not that the other stole the machete and committed suicide by cutting his own head clear off. I don't "know" that's what happened, but the other is so implausible that it need not be considered.

Being a lawyer, working with lawyers of Wells's caliber and prestige, working on sensitive matters for large clients, observing the actions of the league office throughout this fiasco--all of these things inform my viewpoint of what happened. I'm still waiting for a plausible alternative as to how the "generally aware" language got into the Report that doesn't involve a disagreement between Wells and Pash, with Pash on the more anti-Brady side of things. As a lawyer, I can tell you that that weak phrase in the absolute most essential sentence of a 200 page document did not come about by accident and it is certainly not the language that the client wanted.

 

[ReverendMaynard]

I didn't say I "know." I said it is the only logical conclusion. If two men, one holding a machete, walk into an empty dark room and the machete-wielder walks out holding the other's head, I'm going to logically conclude the survivor beheaded the other, not that the other stole the machete and committed suicide by cutting his own head clear off. I don't "know" that's what happened, but the other is so implausible that it need not be considered.

Being a lawyer, working with lawyers of Wells's caliber and prestige, working on sensitive matters for large clients, observing the actions of the league office throughout this fiasco--all of these things inform my viewpoint of what happened. I'm still waiting for a plausible alternative as to how the "generally aware" language got into the Report that doesn't involve a disagreement between Wells and Pash, with Pash on the more anti-Brady side of things. As a lawyer, I can tell you that that weak phrase in the absolute most essential sentence of a 200 page document did not come about by accident and it is certainly not the language that the client wanted.

FWIW, Wells himself claimed that he used that terminology because that was the standard of proof necessary for the league to discipline. He went on to say that if he was a juror in a criminal case, he would have voted guilty, meaning he felt it really was beyond a reasonable doubt. So, either he was lying then, or this supposed disagreement didn't go down the way you think it did.

 

[letekro]

FWIW, Wells himself claimed that he used that terminology because that was the standard of proof necessary for the league to discipline. He went on to say that if he was a juror in a criminal case, he would have voted guilty, meaning he felt it really was beyond a reasonable doubt. So, either he was lying then, or this supposed disagreement didn't go down the way you think it did.

This is wrong. "More probable than not" was the standard that Wells was referring to, go back and read the transcript of the conference call with reporters. What we have been discussing here is the "generally aware" language, which is not any kind of legal standard and significantly undermines the league's case for severe discipline---in fact it was the centerpiece of Kessler's arguments at the Appeal hearing. He could have easily said "more probable than not that Brady ordered the ball deflation" or "more probable than not Brady gave memorabilia in exchange for deflated footballs", but he said none of those things. When Pash was in control, i.e., in the Appeal ruling, this is exactly how he phrased it (he might have even taken out the more probable than not, can't remember).

As for his comments to reporters, yes he was likely lying then re beyond a reasonable doubt. Lawyers lie to the press all the time. They are under no duty to do otherwise. If he really felt that way, he would not have phrased his ultimate conclusion so meekly in the Report.

 

[neuronet]

Uncorrected mistakes could hurt NFL’s credibility with appeals court

It sounds like Brady's lawyer(s) pretty much dropped the ball here, came in fairly unprepared, and didn't attack the BS with the same level of clarity and rolodex-mind as previously. Maybe they were thinking it was a formality that they would win and didn't refresh their memory and such with all the lies the NFL would try to throw out?

I'm pretty pissed it seems like all this BS got through without Brady's people taking it down.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

I'll defer to a lawyer on this, but the NFL did not raise that as its defense at the time, which they almost surely would have done had it applied. Instead they said it was "unnecessary" (or words to that effect) to talk to Pash since the development of the report was a "cumulative" (their word at the time) process. Berman decided that that was the ******** that it was.

The NFL seemed to be oscillating on this point during the arbitration proceedings but I thought they ultimately gave up the ghost on the "independence" of the report. That was a huge issue regarding why these proceedings were a bit funky (excuse the legal jargon) to say the least.

 

[Big Bucks]

Had a dream last night. Started with Brady winning $1Billion Defamtion suite against the NFL, $300m from ESPN and $100m against Roger Goddell.

With that 1.4Billion, Brady calls Donald Trump and he agrees to match the figure. They then get every player via the union to walk out on there team and set up another league. lol

Disclaimer: It was a dream, players can get out of there contracts.

 

[ReverendMaynard]

This is wrong. "More probable than not" was the standard that Wells was referring to, go back and read the transcript of the conference call with reporters. What we have been discussing here is the "generally aware" language, which is not any kind of legal standard and significantly undermines the league's case for severe discipline---in fact it was the centerpiece of Kessler's arguments at the Appeal hearing. He could have easily said "more probable than not that Brady ordered the ball deflation" or "more probable than not Brady gave memorabilia in exchange for deflated footballs", but he said none of those things. When Pash was in control, i.e., in the Appeal ruling, this is exactly how he phrased it (he might have even taken out the more probable than not, can't remember).

As for his comments to reporters, yes he was likely lying then re beyond a reasonable doubt. Lawyers lie to the press all the time. They are under no duty to do otherwise. If he really felt that way, he would not have phrased his ultimate conclusion so meekly in the Report.

You're right. He was speaking in the larger context of whether the balls were intentionally deflated, not so much Brady's involvement specifically.

 

[letekro]

You're right. He was speaking in the larger context of whether the balls were intentionally deflated, not so much Brady's involvement specifically.

Heck, the Report could have even said "more probable than not that Brady knew of ball deflation." But, it doesn't even go that far. Like I said, I'm not saying we should throw him a parade, just that the worst contempt should be reserved for Pash and the league office.

 

[Ring 6]

Now we are defending Wells
That is like celebrating the rapist for not murdering the victim.

 

[varjao]

Wells requested 5 or 6 interviews with the Dorito Dinks until the Patriots say enough is enough so they could make a case of non collaboration and obstruction. If the Pats conceded the interviews Wells would keep requesting until he get what he wanted. 1 or 2 interviews was enough to get all information he needed from them.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I didn't say I "know." I said it is the only logical conclusion. If two men, one holding a machete, walk into an empty dark room and the machete-wielder walks out holding the other's head, I'm going to logically conclude the survivor beheaded the other, not that the other stole the machete and committed suicide by cutting his own head clear off. I don't "know" that's what happened, but the other is so implausible that it need not be considered.

Being a lawyer, working with lawyers of Wells's caliber and prestige, working on sensitive matters for large clients, observing the actions of the league office throughout this fiasco--all of these things inform my viewpoint of what happened. I'm still waiting for a plausible alternative as to how the "generally aware" language got into the Report that doesn't involve a disagreement between Wells and Pash, with Pash on the more anti-Brady side of things. As a lawyer, I can tell you that that weak phrase in the absolute most essential sentence of a 200 page document did not come about by accident and it is certainly not the language that the client wanted.

First of all, this is what you actually said: "...there is no way that the "generally aware" language was not the result of an intense battle between Wells and Pash, and that Wells ultimately prevailed, to Brady's benefit." That's as close to a statement of certain knowledge as I can imagine. You didn't say "it's highly unlikely that..." You said "there is no way that..." You are trying to affirm the unknowable as certain. As others in this thread have suggested, you can't just say you didn't say what you said. If you want to say that you would like to rephrase it, that's another matter. We've all done that.

I, too, have worked with and advised lawyers, political figures and business executives of "Wells' caliber and prestige." No doubt, you, like me, could roll multiple household names off your tongue that fit that description, but that would be crass.

You have chosen to make a case that puts Wells in a more favorable light than that which he is commonly accorded by people who visit this board, for reasons known only to yourself. You make some interesting points, but, in the end, none of them lead me to conclude, "Gee, he's gotta be right."

What you've done is provide a narrative for Wells' language that puts the most positive "spin" possible on his involvement, from the perspective of someone sympathetic to Brady. But, you have not provided anything definitive to demonstrate that that "spin" has the benefit of being the truth.



PS: As for your example of the two men, the machete and the severed head, you can "logically" conclude many things. But, you cannot be certain of your conclusion. Much of late 19th and early 20th century Philosophy was dedicated to discussions of that nature. For example, you say that the room is empty and dark, but you do not say that there was only one entrance nor do you say that there were no alternative entry points, such as air vents. There is also, in the case you raise, a plausible, if not highly likely, scenario that the one man entered the room to assist the other in his suicide. But, many things in life that are not highly likely turn out to be true. So, you can conclude that it's "highly likely" that man A beheaded man B, but you can't say that it is certain.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

Wells requested 5 or 6 interviews with the Dorito Dinks until the Patriots say enough is enough so they could make a case of non collaboration and obstruction. If the Pats conceded the interviews Wells would keep requesting until he get what he wanted. 1 or 2 interviews was enough to get all information he needed from them.

It's obvious this was a part of their strategy to build a "non-cooperation" case.. just keep requesting things repeatedly over and over, to the point of obnoxious, and then when the other side blinks you blast some headlines out in the paper and internet that they "REFUSED INTERVIEWS AND WERE NON-COOPERATIVE!!!!"

This is made more obvious by the NFLs continued narrative around that.. they were interviewed in person 4 separate times... and they didnt refuse a 5th, they just refused to do it in person in the middle of a work day again.. he said he would still be willing to meet with them via conference call, which is very reasonable yet the NFLs reaction was that of shock and disgust