NFL Appeal oral arguments thread

[neuronet]

Wells did what his client told him to do.....which was to make a pile of **** look like something else......given what Wells had to work with, he did a halfway decent job for his boss......it also helps that he looks like snidely whiplash

Someone with backbone and morals would say "Sorry there's nothing here, I can't do that for you. I can't do that to someone. My report will have to reflect it." It's not like he was a criminal defense attorney where he was morally obligated to to everything in his power to defend the NFL. He was basically paid to give an impartial looking hit piece. I absolutely have no qualms with holding him morally accountable, and calling him a sleazebag. There are lawyers who would never do that because they aren't scumbags and couldn't sleep at night.

 

[Froob]

Someone with backbone and morals would say "Sorry there's nothing here, I can't do that for you. I can't do that to someone. My report will have to reflect it." It's not like he was a criminal defense attorney where he was morally obligated to to everything in his power to defend the NFL. He was basically paid to give an impartial looking hit piece. I absolutely have no qualms with holding him morally accountable, and calling him a sleazebag. There are lawyers who would never do that because they aren't scumbags and couldn't sleep at night.

Here's one guy that would...

 

[ReverendMaynard]

Someone with backbone and morals would say "Sorry there's nothing here, I can't do that for you. I can't do that to someone. My report will have to reflect it."

The NFL would have no use for such a person.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

These are not Amicus briefs. They are filings informing the court that Clement lied. And they are obligated to review them. .

Well, you mentioned "friends of the court" in your original post so I thought you were talking about Amicus Curiae briefs.

 

[IllegalContact]

Someone with backbone and morals would say "Sorry there's nothing here, I can't do that for you. I can't do that to someone. My report will have to reflect it." It's not like he was a criminal defense attorney where he was morally obligated to to everything in his power to defend the NFL. He was basically paid to give an impartial looking hit piece. I absolutely have no qualms with holding him morally accountable, and calling him a sleazebag. There are lawyers who would never do that because they aren't scumbags and couldn't sleep at night.

it takes backbone to stand there and call this **** real

as for morals, they don't to look past the fact that the fandom is addicted to a sport that inflicts substantial harm on its participants

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

Someone with backbone and morals would say "Sorry there's nothing here, I can't do that for you. I can't do that to someone. My report will have to reflect it." It's not like he was a criminal defense attorney where he was morally obligated to to everything in his power to defend the NFL. He was basically paid to give an impartial looking hit piece. I absolutely have no qualms with holding him morally accountable, and calling him a sleazebag. There are lawyers who would never do that because they aren't scumbags and couldn't sleep at night.

Do you really believe that there are a lot of lawyers out there that would turn down a seven figure retainer to write a slanted report against anybody?

For that money, most posters on here would write a report saying it's more probable than not that the Patriots are funding ISIS.

 

[Ring 6]

Someone with backbone and morals would say "Sorry there's nothing here, I can't do that for you. I can't do that to someone. My report will have to reflect it." It's not like he was a criminal defense attorney where he was morally obligated to to everything in his power to defend the NFL. He was basically paid to give an impartial looking hit piece. I absolutely have no qualms with holding him morally accountable, and calling him a sleazebag. There are lawyers who would never do that because they aren't scumbags and couldn't sleep at night.

Exactly
We seem to be championing the rapist for not murdering the victim and saying it's ok because of peer pressure.

 

[IllegalContact]

Exactly
We seem to be championing the rapist for not murdering the victim and saying it's ok because of peer pressure.

not at all, but I am not surprised this is how you see it

 

[363839]

it takes backbone to stand there and call this **** real

Backbone? More like unmitigated gall!

 

[Sicilian]

Do you really believe that there are a lot of lawyers out there that would turn down a seven figure retainer to write a slanted report against anybody?

For that money, most posters on here would write a report saying it's more probable than not that the Patriots are funding ISIS.

Just because a lot of people would do it, doesn't mean we should condone it.

 

[IllegalContact]

Backbone? More like unmitigated gall!

I know.....in this instance, isn't that what you pay the lawyer for?

 

[Ring 6]

Do you really believe that there are a lot of lawyers out there that would turn down a seven figure retainer to write a slanted report against anybody?

For that money, most posters on here would write a report saying it's more probable than not that the Patriots are funding ISIS.

It's sad that you have that view of people and the greed of the average man. There is integrity left in the world if not in your corner of it.

 

[IllegalContact]

It's sad that you have that view of people and the greed of the average man. There is integrity left in the world if not in your corner of it.

please.......you're just as empty on the inside

in fact, you sound more like goodell than anyone here

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

It's sad that you have that view of people and the greed of the average man. There is integrity left in the world if not in your corner of it.

Please let me know where this magical place full of wonderful people who can't be bought is so I can pack my bags and move there at once!

 

[DaBruinz]

Well, you mentioned "friends of the court" in your original post so I thought you were talking about Amicus Curiae briefs.

My point of calling them "friends of the court" was to point out that they were already involved in the process.

I don't understand how you could come to the conclusion that I was talking about an Amicus Curiae brief when I specifically said that it was in regards to Clement lying in court. I didn't know the specific lawyer jargon to reference so I made it a point to explain it.

 

[Clonamery]

I know.....in this instance, isn't that what you pay the lawyer for?

Yeah but it doesn't mean you have to show respect or say the guy is worthy for the Supreme Court when he's nothing more than a two-bit whore.

All right, a $1000 whore.

 

[IllegalContact]

Yeah but it doesn't you have to show respect or say the guy is worthy for the Supreme Court when he's nothing more than a two-bit whore.

All right, a $1000 whore.

who's showing respect? he did his job and that's it.........he's no different from 90% of the rest of the lawyers in this country.......

 

[XLIX]

My point of calling them "friends of the court" was to point out that they were already involved in the process.

I don't understand how you could come to the conclusion that I was talking about an Amicus Curiae brief

Amicus Curiae literally translates to "Friend of the court".

And maybe that's how, when you said "friends of the court," people understood that to mean Amicus Curiae.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

My point of calling them "friends of the court" was to point out that they were already involved in the process.

I don't understand how you could come to the conclusion that I was talking about an Amicus Curiae brief when I specifically said that it was in regards to Clement lying in court. I didn't know the specific lawyer jargon to reference so I made it a point to explain it.

I was confused because Amicus Curiae literally means "friend of the court" in latin. And i don't believe anything filed by a third party HAS to be reviewed by the court.

 

[neuronet]

Basically the upshot is lawyers are scumbags. Some people's optics are distorted to the point where it doesn't bother them, because relative to other scumbags, if he isn't bad, then he's fine. That is, you are looking through a distorting lense, and either have forgotten it is on your face or don't care any more. Other people see the scumbag for what he is, because we aren't looking through the distorting lens of lawyer apologetics.

I actually call BS on this. I knwo many lawyers who would never take these kinds of cases because it would make them hate themselves.