NFL Appeal oral arguments thread

[RelocatedPatFan]

I think Wells only had one interview with McNally. The NFL and their team had 4 previous interviews. But, Wels knew he has 1 shot with the interview and apparently wasn't well prepared for it.

 

[XLIX]

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

The sad fact of the matter is that compared to the Commissioner, Wells was much less blatantly unfair.

He is still a corrupt lowlife sleazebag, but his report is much more mild than what the Commissioner himself said.

 

[XLIX]

I think Wells only had one interview with McNally. The NFL and their team had 4 previous interviews. But, Wels knew he has 1 shot with the interview and apparently wasn't well prepared for it.

You're right that he wasn't prepared. My understanding - and I can't remember where I heard this so please don't ask for a source - was they did the interview with him before finding the "incriminating" texts. So they wanted to ask him about those, when the Patriots said enough is enough.

 

[RobertWeathers]

You're right that he wasn't prepared. My understanding - and I can't remember where I heard this so please don't ask for a source - was they did the interview with him before finding the "incriminating" texts. So they wanted to ask him about those, when the Patriots said enough is enough.

I'll vouch for you on that. It is true. When he wanted to interview him a 5th time after they got the texts the team told Wells to go fry an ice cube

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

Not sure how you can say that Brady's lawyers dropped the ball. I hope that someone can offer a certainty here, but it's my understanding that the Judges ask the sides questions and the sides answer. I don't believe that one side can offer an objection if a lie is being broadcast by the lawyer of the other side. And it's my understanding that Kessler was offered no chance at rebuttals to what Clement was stating.

What is supposed to happen is that Clement is supposed to file paperwork stating that he misstated things during the hearing. However, friends of the court (aka interested parties following the case) can also file this paperwork. If they do and the perpetrating lawyer doesn't, then the judges tend to get pretty miffed. I'm certain that others who know the system better can fill us in on that as well..

Robert Blecker, who filed an amicus brief on the case, and Steph Stradley have already stated they planned on filing the necessary paperwork. Sally Jenkins reported on it. I'd hate to be Clement if he doesn't file before they do..

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Is it just me or is the only reason Roger changed the charges, yes changed - during Brady's appeal of the original charges, to scheme (or was that their appeal in the courts in front of Berman?), was specifically so they could invoke article 46.

Otherwise, everything in the CBA points towards an equipment violation.

Seems odd to me this whole farce isn't being seen through by the judges (which perhaps Berman was more of aware of because it happened during his part and too much time has passed and the narrative has been dominated by the NFL* media outlets).

 

[Ring 6]

The sad fact of the matter is that compared to the Commissioner, Wells was much less blatantly unfair.

He is still a corrupt lowlife sleazebag, but his report is much more mild than what the Commissioner himself said.

He hired Exponent to lie about the science.
Without Wells going in the tank there is nothing Goodell could do.

 

[Ring 6]

Is it just me or is the only reason Roger changed the charges, yes changed - during Brady's appeal of the original charges, to scheme (or was that their appeal in the courts in front of Berman?), was specifically so they could invoke article 46.

Otherwise, everything in the CBA points towards an equipment violation.

Seems odd to me this whole farce isn't being seen through by the judges (which perhaps Berman was more of aware of because it happened during his part and too much time has passed and the narrative has been dominated by the NFL* media outlets).

No, it was because the appeal would have been successful because you cannot punish 'generally aware' so he had to make up a new reason and hope it didn't get caught.

 

[XLIX]

He hired Exponent to lie about the science.
Without Wells going in the tank there is nothing Goodell could do.

Heh heh. Your naïveté is adorable!

 

[Ring 6]

Heh heh. Your naïveté is adorable!

Yeah, mine.

 

[XLIX]

Yeah, mine.

no no, I'm sure you're right. Roger Goodell has been so reasonable and fair throughout this whole process.

You're just, like, a total Goodell rump swab, aren't you?

 

[Ring 6]

no no, I'm sure you're right. Roger Goodell has been so reasonable and fair throughout this whole process.

You're just, like, a total Goodell rump swab, aren't you?

Yeah, that's what I said.

How does calling out Wells for his abysmal disregard for any attempt at honesty have anything to do with what Goodell did with the piece of crap he delivered after he delivered it?

If Wells did an honest investigation it would have handcuffed Goodell from being able to screw the Patriots.
Arguing Goodell was worse to excuse Wells frame job is ignorant.

 

[neuronet]

Not sure how you can say that Brady's lawyers dropped the ball. I hope that someone can offer a certainty here, but it's my understanding that the Judges ask the sides questions and the sides answer. I don't believe that one side can offer an objection if a lie is being broadcast by the lawyer of the other side. And it's my understanding that Kessler was offered no chance at rebuttals to what Clement was stating.

Useful to know: can anyone verify this is the case?

 

[neuronet]

Not sure how you can say that Brady's lawyers dropped the ball. I hope that someone can offer a certainty here, but it's my understanding that the Judges ask the sides questions and the sides answer. I don't believe that one side can offer an objection if a lie is being broadcast by the lawyer of the other side. And it's my understanding that Kessler was offered no chance at rebuttals to what Clement was stating..

FOr some of it, maybe, but the storyline was that the judge was grilling Brady's lawyers about why he destroyed his phone etc.. And unless they weren't allowed to respond to direct questions from the judges, then they should have had slam dunk responses to that. If we are to believe the stories, they were a bit caught off guard. Hopefully the stories were wrong, or just focused on the questions and not the answers.

 

[DaBruinz]

FOr some of it, maybe, but the storyline was that the judge was grilling Brady's lawyers about why he destroyed his phone etc.. And unless they weren't allowed to respond to direct questions from the judges, then they should have had slam dunk responses to that. If we are to believe the stories, they were a bit caught off guard. Hopefully the stories were wrong, or just focused on the questions and not the answers.

The lawyers could respond directly to the judge's questions.. However, the judges asking questions outside the purview of the Appeals process is what many question. The judges were supposed to be focused on the process. Which they didn't seem to be. They seemed to be focused on issues beyond the process.

And I disagree with the take that Kessler and Co. were caught off guard.

 

[Nehalem]

Yeah, that's what I said.

How does calling out Wells for his abysmal disregard for any attempt at honesty have anything to do with what Goodell did with the piece of crap he delivered after he delivered it?

If Wells did an honest investigation it would have handcuffed Goodell from being able to screw the Patriots.
Arguing Goodell was worse to excuse Wells frame job is ignorant.

Well at least it should.

Unfortunately Goodell has claimed he can do whatever he wants under article 46, and Kraft is perfectly happy to roll over for the good of the 31.

 

[MassPats38]

Useful to know: can anyone verify this is the case?

Trial and appellate advocacy are very different. Trials have objections. In appeals, the appellant and appellee have turns and time restrictions. If one side is on and the other is sitting, then any misstatements or mischaracterizations are not corrected in argument (unless there is time remaining for a reply after the misstatement). Supplemental briefing is a possibility, but appellate judges do not want or invite ongoing dialogue after argument unless the specific issue is a matter of concern to resolving the case that arose after the initial briefing. Generally, factual matters thrown out in argument are not a part of the process as the court does not typically investigate matters or make findings of fact - it looks to the cold trial court record on appeal.

 

[PatsWSB47]

Trial and appellate advocacy are very different. Trials have objections. In appeals, the appellant and appellee have turns and time restrictions. If one side is on and the other is sitting, then any misstatements or mischaracterizations are not corrected in argument (unless there is time remaining for a reply after the misstatement). Supplemental briefing is a possibility, but appellate judges do not want or invite ongoing dialogue after argument unless the specific issue is a matter of concern to resolving the case that arose after the initial briefing. Generally, factual matters thrown out in argument are not a part of the process as the court does not typically investigate matters or make findings of fact - it looks to the cold trial court record on appeal.

So the lawyers can throw out whaterver BS they want because it won't be checked it challenged?

 

[MassPats38]

So the lawyers can throw out whaterver BS they want because it won't be checked it challenged?

No. Every lawyer has an ethical obligation of candor before the tribunal. That means you can be brought before the court and subject to disciplinary sanctions up to and including disbarment. I haven't seen it done other than with briefs, but I suspect a motion could be filed for sanctions from the court as well. What you cannot do is interrupt the argument and/or cut off a judge on the panel to say the other guy is deceiving the court.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

So the lawyers can throw out whaterver BS they want because it won't be checked it challenged?

In practice, that depends on what lawyer is "BS"ing. If I did that in court, they would put my ass in a grinder. With Clement, absolutely nothing will happen.