NFL Appeal oral arguments thread

[letekro]

So let me understand.
If wells truly acted as an independent investigator and hired a legitimate scientific organization to do the study and it found that weather was beyond the shadow of a doubt solely responsible for the deflation if the footballs and therefore the patriots did nothing wrong you still believe we would have lost picks and Brady would have been suspended?
seriously?

Two points here:

1. There is no way to prove that weather "beyond the shadow of a doubt" was "solely responsible" for the deflation. Given that no one knows the conditions under which the balls were tested at halftime or the original PSI, there is ZERO WAY TO PROVE GUILT OR INNOCENCE BASED ON THE "SCIENCE." Let this point sink in, and let's move on from the dreamworld where this is a possibility.

2. More importantly, if you had actually read the Wells Report, you would know that Wells said the "science" was based on a particular set of assumptions and was therefore not worthy of significant weight in his analysis. Moreover, the Wells Report, in its conclusion (which is only a few pages and holds all of the meat of the Report, yet which you still failed to read), states as follows:

"Even putting aside the experimental results, we believe that our conclusions are supported by the evidence in its entirety." pp. 131-132.

So, Wells states the science was supportive, but ultimately irrelevant to his decision. The remainder of the conclusion section details all of the text messages and other "evidence" on which Wells relied. Of course that evidence was not very strong, but you are just indisputably wrong that a focus on science or the hiring of a "legitimate scientific organization" (um, there is no such thing, if they are getting paid--again, you are incredibly naive) would have changed a single thing. This thing was so obviously a fait accompli from the moment Bob Kravitz hysterically broadcast it to a bloodthirsty nation.

 

[XLIX]

Why do you insist on lying?

Everything I wrote is true, and you know it.

 

[DaBruinz]

Two points here:

1. There is no way to prove that weather "beyond the shadow of a doubt" was "solely responsible" for the deflation. Given that no one knows the conditions under which the balls were tested at halftime or the original PSI, there is ZERO WAY TO PROVE GUILT OR INNOCENCE BASED ON THE "SCIENCE." Let this point sink in, and let's move on from the dreamworld where this is a possibility.

2. More importantly, if you had actually read the Wells Report, you would know that Wells said the "science" was based on a particular set of assumptions and was therefore not worthy of significant weight in his analysis. Moreover, the Wells Report, in its conclusion (which is only a few pages and holds all of the meat of the Report, yet which you still failed to read), states as follows:

"Even putting aside the experimental results, we believe that our conclusions are supported by the evidence in its entirety." pp. 131-132.

The remainder of the conclusion section details all of the text messages and other "evidence" on which Wells relied. Of course that evidence was not very strong, but you just indisputably wrong that a focus on science or the hiring of a "legitimate scientific organization" (um, there is no such thing, if they are getting paid--again, you are incredibly naive) would have changed a single thing. This thing was so obviously a fait accompli from the moment Bob Kravitz hysterically broadcast it to a bloodthirsty nation.

1) The science shows that it is more probable than not that the weather is what caused the deflation of the balls than some scheme. Especially when you consider the lack of time to accomplish said task.

2) The fact that the Wells report discarded their own science results which actually lend credence to the idea that it was the weather should tell you everything you need to know.

 

[letekro]

1) The science shows that it is more probable than not that the weather is what caused the deflation of the balls than some scheme. Especially when you consider the lack of time to accomplish said task.

2) The fact that the Wells report discarded their own science results which actually lend credence to the idea that it was the weather should tell you everything you need to know.

1. Again, what "science" are you referring to? We know none of the inputs that went into the measurements of the balls at halftime. So, how on earth do we design a "scientific" experiment that tests those results? Everything is based on assumptions on top of assumptions which may or may not be accurate. Wells was right not to rely on Exponent's report. He would've been equally wrong to rely on a "scientific" report that exonerated McNally and Jaz.

2. It tells me that Wells is an excellent lawyer and knew the "science" was junk and would be hotly disputed, so he relied on things that were in black and white--the text messages. He knew that, while difficult to know what they really meant, he could use them as a basis for his (weak) conclusion because they used "deflate" language in them and the public would eat that up. Again, Wells did an excellent job and earned his paycheck here.

 

[neuronet]

Not sure how someone with a JD/MBA from Harvard is a bottom feeding JD who eked out a pass on the bar, but OK.

If you do well in law school and go to work in a law firm named after dead people, you -- heaven forbid -- occasionally end up representing the NFL or other corporate clients that may be morally objectionable, take positions that you disagree with personally, etc. Thousands upon thousands of people do this -- some are d-bags, some are truly good people, some are somewhere in between.

If going into public service is what you want to do with a law degree, then that's terrific. But all the vitriol that applies to just about every Big Law lawyer, including those not named Wells, just sounds like the song and dance one hears from lawyers who truly are bottom feeding JD's that couldn't get a high paying legal job even if they wanted to. To me that always sounded more like sour grapes and less like taking the moral high ground.

Wells didn't have to take that case, and do that press conference where he basically lied and said he was independent. That is not ethical behavior. If that is normal for a certain type of lawyer, then that certain type of lawyer does not behave ethically. People can rationalize, confabulate, and start whipping out wads of cash all they want to justify it, but they are still just saying "Look how much money that whore makes, he's awesome at being a whore!" If thousands and thousands of people do it, then thousands and thousands of people are whores. THis is not news: why do you think there are so many lawyer jokes, and why they are so despised? Because thousands and thousands of them will do morally objectionable things for money, even if it hurts innocent people. Like Tom Brady.

Obviously there are crappy lawyers that do pro bono work too. But Wells is a special kind of piece of **** who under a patina of objectivity wrote a non-independent hit-piece of Tom Brady. Because thousands of others would have done it doesn't make it right. It means thousands of others are also pieces of ****.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I don't get what you guys are arguing about. Wells was hired purely to find guilt with the NEP.

It's obvious his main target was BB, and after that proved pointless, he proceeded to harass the NEP employees until Kraft stopped it, all as a ploy to assign the term uncooperative.

He then stitched together a serious of circumstantial texts and led Brady to believe he was only after the truth and that his cell phone didn't matter. Only to use the cell phone issue as evidence of being uncooperative and therefore untrustworthy as a witness.

It's semantics to argue that if wells acted honestly and independently that the NFL still would have penalized tlBrady and the patriots. For all you know Wells initially did find Brady and the Patriots completely innocent in his initial notes and only altered his opinion after persuasion from Goodel.

Well said. You summarize a lot in a few brief sentences.

 

[DaBruinz]

1. Again, what "science" are you referring to? We know none of the inputs that went into the measurements of the balls at halftime. So, how on earth do we design a "scientific" experiment that tests those results? Everything is based on assumptions on top of assumptions which may or may not be accurate. Wells was right not to rely on Exponent's report. He would've been equally wrong to rely on a "scientific" report that exonerated McNally and Jaz.

2. It tells me that Wells is an excellent lawyer and knew the "science" was junk and would be hotly disputed, so he relied on things that were in black and white--the text messages. He knew that, while difficult to know what they really meant, he could use them as a basis for his (weak) conclusion because they used "deflate" language in them and the public would eat that up. Again, Wells did an excellent job and earned his paycheck here.

Fact is that we know what the temperature and relative humidity is typically in the official's locker-room. That's not an assumption. The IDL is not an assumption. The temperature on the field during the game is not an assumption. You claiming they are is absurd. And we have the measurement data that they recorded.

So, no. Everything is not based on assumption after assumption after assumption. Your claims that Wells was right not to rely on the Exponent report is ridiculous. Wells chose not to rely on it because it actually showed that science could account for the PSI differences. Not because it was "junk". The fact that he claimed it supported their conclusions was an outright lie.

There is no evidence at all that McNally tampered with the balls. None.
The texts? You mean the ones from 10 months prior to the incident? Nope. That's not evidence of anything.

McNally going to the bathroom for 100 seconds. Nope. No evidence there.

Claiming that Wells did an excellent job in earning his paycheck is laughable. He, quite literally, said 1+1=3. And you think that he did a good job.. SMH..

 

[PatsFanSince74]

People seem to be misconstruing my comments. When I said the 2CA doesn't broadcast these sorts of things, what I mean was that the 2CA isn't going to call a press conference and say "XYZ and RST have filed such and such in the Tom Brady case." That's not how things work.. They could care less about letting the public know that they received filings on the case.

And with free agency going on, it's not like all the local reporters aren't focused elsewhere.

No disagreement or misconstruing here. Just wanted to know if they were a matter of public record and could be accessed openly or whether an FOIA request was needed.

 

[Nehalem]

"Therefore lets level incredibly draconian and unprecedented penalties on the entire Patriots organization."

The harsh punishment for the Pats because they were seen as "repeat offenders" because of Spygate which happened 7 years prior.

Yeah I didn't mention.

Besides for 2 low level the Pats were exonerated by the Wells Report. And yet Goodell still branded the Pats as "repeat offenders". Seems rather silly doesn't it? Which I think adds to the idea that even if Wells had said, "it was the IGL", Goodell would have still found an excuse to punish the Patriots.

 

[IllegalContact]

Fact is that we know what the temperature and relative humidity is typically in the official's locker-room. That's not an assumption. The IDL is not an assumption. The temperature on the field during the game is not an assumption. You claiming they are is absurd. And we have the measurement data that they recorded.

So, no. Everything is not based on assumption after assumption after assumption. Your claims that Wells was right not to rely on the Exponent report is ridiculous. Wells chose not to rely on it because it actually showed that science could account for the PSI differences. Not because it was "junk". The fact that he claimed it supported their conclusions was an outright lie.

There is no evidence at all that McNally tampered with the balls. None.
The texts? You mean the ones from 10 months prior to the incident? Nope. That's not evidence of anything.

McNally going to the bathroom for 100 seconds. Nope. No evidence there.

Claiming that Wells did an excellent job in earning his paycheck is laughable. He, quite literally, said 1+1=3. And you think that he did a good job.. SMH..

you're trying to hang your hats where there are no hooks

you are 100% correct with the facts and the evidence

problem is that the facts didn't matter in the finding and never did, at least not to those in power. with that in mind, they hired the perfect guy for the job, and it doesn't matter how many people find Wells immoral or otherwise, the fact is that if he didn't do it, someone else would have.......because there are countless lawyers out there who will be unflinchingly loyal to their clients agenda.....no different than an ambulance chaser.

 

[Ring 6]

Everything I wrote is true, and you know it.

You know you lied. Your obsession with me is getting creepy.

 

[IllegalContact]

You know you lied. Your obsession with me is getting creepy.

LMFAO......projecting with the obsession ******** again

 

[Ring 6]

Two points here:

1. There is no way to prove that weather "beyond the shadow of a doubt" was "solely responsible" for the deflation. Given that no one knows the conditions under which the balls were tested at halftime or the original PSI, there is ZERO WAY TO PROVE GUILT OR INNOCENCE BASED ON THE "SCIENCE." Let this point sink in, and let's move on from the dreamworld where this is a possibility.

2. More importantly, if you had actually read the Wells Report, you would know that Wells said the "science" was based on a particular set of assumptions and was therefore not worthy of significant weight in his analysis. Moreover, the Wells Report, in its conclusion (which is only a few pages and holds all of the meat of the Report, yet which you still failed to read), states as follows:

"Even putting aside the experimental results, we believe that our conclusions are supported by the evidence in its entirety." pp. 131-132.

So, Wells states the science was supportive, but ultimately irrelevant to his decision. The remainder of the conclusion section details all of the text messages and other "evidence" on which Wells relied. Of course that evidence was not very strong, but you are just indisputably wrong that a focus on science or the hiring of a "legitimate scientific organization" (um, there is no such thing, if they are getting paid--again, you are incredibly naive) would have changed a single thing. This thing was so obviously a fait accompli from the moment Bob Kravitz hysterically broadcast it to a bloodthirsty nation.

None of this conflicts with the main point, which is that if Wells conducted a truly independent investigation, aimed at finding the truth, the Patriots would not have been penalized at all.
The science is just one example of how he threw the investigation, but what is clear is that he did, and if he had not, there would have been no penalties.

 

[Froob]

lol anyone else remember people saying that Kraft probably was the one who hired Wells?

 

[Ring 6]

LMFAO......projecting with the obsession ******** again

What would you call it when people such as you that I have no interest in the opinion of, follow me around and make childish posts? Stop and there is nothing to talk about.

 

[Froob]

1. Again, what "science" are you referring to? We know none of the inputs that went into the measurements of the balls at halftime. So, how on earth do we design a "scientific" experiment that tests those results? Everything is based on assumptions on top of assumptions which may or may not be accurate. Wells was right not to rely on Exponent's report. He would've been equally wrong to rely on a "scientific" report that exonerated McNally and Jaz.

2. It tells me that Wells is an excellent lawyer and knew the "science" was junk and would be hotly disputed, so he relied on things that were in black and white--the text messages. He knew that, while difficult to know what they really meant, he could use them as a basis for his (weak) conclusion because they used "deflate" language in them and the public would eat that up. Again, Wells did an excellent job and earned his paycheck here.

I don't understand why Goodell and Wells didn't just make the whole thing up. If you're going to ******** why not ******** the whole thing? Make up that they were 4 lbs under inflated.

 

[letekro]

None of this conflicts with the main point, which is that if Wells conducted a truly independent investigation, aimed at finding the truth, the Patriots would not have been penalized at all.
The science is just one example of how he threw the investigation, but what is clear is that he did, and if he had not, there would have been no penalties.

This is an "if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle" argument. I mean, yes, an independent investigation would have been more neutral and the conclusions would have been even weaker, likely concluding that there is not sufficient evidence of anything improper. But....the person paying for it didn't want an independent investigation. The leaks to ESPN were incontrovertible proof of that. That's the whole point here.

 

[letekro]

you're trying to hang your hats where there are no hooks

you are 100% correct with the facts and the evidence

problem is that the facts didn't matter in the finding and never did, at least not to those in power. with that in mind, they hired the perfect guy for the job, and it doesn't matter how many people find Wells immoral or otherwise, the fact is that if he didn't do it, someone else would have.......because there are countless lawyers out there who will be unflinchingly loyal to their clients agenda.....no different than an ambulance chaser.

Attorney ethical rules require loyalty to the client. So, villifying Wells makes zero sense. There is no ethical requirement that he be fair to a third party. He can't commit fraud or help his client commit fraud, but, as bad as the NFL's conduct has been, it is not actionable fraud.

 

[Ring 6]

This is an "if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle" argument. I mean, yes, an independent investigation would have been more neutral and the conclusions would have been even weaker, likely concluding that there is not sufficient evidence of anything improper. But....the person paying for it didn't want an independent investigation. The leaks to ESPN were incontrovertible proof of that. That's the whole point here.

That does not change the fact that Wells knowingly presented a false report. I do not understand the logic that since we believe the NFL asked him to find guilt that he did nothing wrong by manufacturing it.
If you hire me to go convince your neighbor that some guy is banging his wife, and I make up evidence to make him think its true and he beats the crap out of the guy and his wife, I am not blameless because I did the job you hired me to do.

 

[IllegalContact]

What would you call it when people such as you that I have no interest in the opinion of, follow me around and make childish posts? Stop and there is nothing to talk about.

I'm posting in the same thread as you.......you give yourself way way way too much credit if you think its about following you around

the only thing this is about......just as with wells, just as with kraft, is the notion of what is right or wrong being strictly bound to the matter of your opinon, and then trying to reason out an insult of another because they call you out for it

you don't know more about anything than anyone else here.......you really need to stop acting like you know better or you live by a higher set of values because honestly, the majority sees right through that ********