NFL final appeal brief filed

[SLGDEV]

A page turner from beginning to end. The man and his office, the owners and media minions make me sick in their utter lack of honesty/fair play. They're scum.

The NFL submission is pretty simple as I read it. (a)Goodell acted entirely reasonable, (b) he is well within his rights to invoke 46, (c) the courts must affirm that the courts have no business meddling in an affair that is entirely reasonable and clearly within the rights afforded in the CBA.
Put another way, Berman said it was unreasonable, unfair and not within the CBA. The NFL appeal is entirely "d%#*!@t Judge! look again, it is reasonable, fair, and within the CBA! So you judges must decide you should butt out".
Oh, and Tom Brady the ''fine young man" (according to Goodell)? he is now inching closer and closer to being the NFL's version of Whitey Bulger. Hilarious if it wasn't so sick....

Question: How is it possible for the NFL to state that court has no business in this situation when it was the NFL, not the NFLPA, that brought the suit in the first place. Logic dictates that they have already rebutted their own argument. However, we are talking about Badell here, so logic has no place.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Don't forget threatening an opponent with Baseball bats whilst hurling homophobic insults at them. Or a WR launching himself at an opponents head after the play is dead.

We can't have people talking about that now, can we?!

And if the court reverses Berman then Goodell can suspend anyone involved in this for an entire year if he feels like the incidents are getting lots of play in the media.
An overturn of Berman and giving Goodell carte blanche would be chilling to say the least.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Question: How is it possible for the NFL to state that court has no business in this situation when it was the NFL, not the NFLPA, that brought the suit in the first place. Logic dictates that they have already rebutted their own argument. However, we are talking about Badell here, so logic has no place.

You are correct. And SLG, if you can completely explain that paradox you get a free NFL coffee mug (in reality the NFL did it to gain venue and preempt the NFLPA in order to say 'hey judge, the NFLPA guys will be filing a motion later today. So we are filing now to say whatever they say shouldn't have been said in the first place).

 

[sb1]

"this Court should resolve the case without a remand, as it has in similar circumstances"

Translation: Pleeeeease don't send this back to Judge Berman. It won't end well for us there.

LOL

 

[XLIX]

I've gotten hold of an excerpt that will be in the next brief, if the court asks for more by the parties:

Alderaan got what it deserved.

 

[Wheelman]

Pats should really hire Polian just to use him as a shield against the league.

Only if it's a human shield

 

[DaBruinz]

I have to say that I am utterly amazed that lawyers would flat out LIE to judges in an appeal.

Goodell found no such evidence that Brady schemed to defraud the league.
Brady did not destroy any evidence.
Brady did not obstruct the league.
The League did not have any "testing protocol" for the balls.

Protocols would have been more than "just stick the needle in and make sure it's above 12.5". Protocols would have required the referees to record the date, time, temperature and relative humidity of when the testing occurred. It would have also required the referee to mark each ball with a number and then record the PSI that he got for each ball. And he'd have had to do this for ALL the balls being used..

 

[farn]

Future historians will mock us, as humans, for the amount of time and resources used on this particular issue.

"...so there were several conflicts in the world and many children were at risk, yet for 3/4 of a year this amount of money and propaganda.... ?"

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Question: How is it possible for the NFL to state that court has no business in this situation when it was the NFL, not the NFLPA, that brought the suit in the first place. Logic dictates that they have already rebutted their own argument.

Easy. The NFL is saying that the law requires the court to uphold Goodell-as-arbitrator's decision. And since the reason the NFL went to court in the first place was to get a declarative judgement doing exactly that (and to forum-shop, of course), they are not being inconsistent at all.

From the NFL's point of view it's no different from the following:

• You sign an arbitration contract saying you owe me $10 if you do X, Y, or Z
• I believe you did X, and I think you're going to try not to pay me, so I go to court to get a judge to rule the contract is valid and order you to pay me $10.
• You counterclaim, saying that even if you did do X you don't owe me the $10 because of whatever.
• I answer saying that because of the law and the terms of the contract, the court has no business to allow you to not pay and that the only thing the court is allowed to do is order you to pay the $10.

The NFL is not saying the court has no business being involved in the case. It is saying the court has no business second-guessing Goodell's decision. Those aren't the same thing and there is no inconsistency between the two.

 

[Deus Irae]

The NFL is not saying the court has no business being involved in the case. It is saying the court has no business second-guessing Goodell's decision. Those aren't the same thing and there is no inconsistency between the two.

Except that the way the NFL is framing the situation, it pretty much is saying that the courts have no business being involved in the case. It's saying that the courts have no business beyond being a rubber stamp for the NFL.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Except that the way the NFL is framing the situation, it pretty much is saying that the courts have no business being involved in the case. It's saying that the courts have no business beyond being a rubber stamp for the NFL.

And the NFL went to court in the first place to ask for that very rubber stamp. Again, there is zero inconsistency between the NFL going to court first and saying in the appeal the court should rubber-stamp Goodell.

 

[Deus Irae]

And the NFL went to court in the first place to ask for that very rubber stamp. Again, there is zero inconsistency between the NFL going to court first and saying in the appeal the court should rubber-stamp Goodell.

Yes, actually, there is, since the NFL is asking the NFL to be proactive in the one sense, and absolutely passive in the other.

 

[SVN]

Bill Simmons ?@BillSimmons 4h4 hours ago
Nice job by the NFL burying its latest anti-Brady DeflateGate legal brief until a holiday week. These guys are such cowards.
Stephanie Stradley ?@StephStradley 4h4 hours ago
@BillSimmons Most cowardly thing? All the worst Brady claims in the briefs...never spoken by Goodell. Why? To shield from defamation suits.

 

[NJPatsfan26]

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Bill Simmons ?@BillSimmons 4h4 hours ago
Nice job by the NFL burying its latest anti-Brady DeflateGate legal brief until a holiday week. These guys are such cowards.

As I recall, the briefing schedule (which had the final NFL brief due on the 21st all along) was jointly agreed to by the NFL and NFLPA (or at a minimum, the NFLPA did not object).

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Yes, actually, there is, since the NFL is asking the NFL to be proactive in the one sense, and absolutely passive in the other.

We'll have to agree to disagree. They are asking the court to be "passive" in the context of Brady's counterclaim, thus rubber-stamping Roger as they had originally asked when they first went to court.

 

[Deus Irae]

We'll have to agree to disagree. They are asking the court to be "passive" in the context of Brady's counterclaim, thus rubber-stamping Roger as they had originally asked when they first went to court.

Inconsistent is not illegal. Inconsistent is not unique. It happens with frequency.

In this case, the NFL practically ran to the courthouse in order to forum shop and get a court to take action by doing their specific bidding. The NFL then proceeded to cry about the court once it did take action, but did not do their bidding. In other words, they wanted an interventionist court, right up to the point where the intervention went against them, and then they wanted a completely non-interventionist court.

It doesn't get much more inconsistent than that.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Inconsistent is not illegal. Inconsistent is not unique. It happens with frequency.

In this case, the NFL practically ran to the courthouse in order to forum shop and get a court to take action by doing their specific bidding. The NFL then proceeded to cry about the court once it did take action, but did not do their bidding. In other words, they wanted an interventionist court, right up to the point where the intervention went against them, and then they wanted a completely non-interventionist court.

It doesn't get much more inconsistent than that.

Consistently idiotic.

The NFL.

 

[Huckleberry1]

YOU WILL

RESPECT

MY AUTHORITI!

 

[Koma]

Ultimately this one text from the May before is what they hung everything on.

The scary thing is that Wells said he thought his investigation was enough for him to vote guilty if he was a juror and this was evidence in a criminal case. Obviously, he's not going to say anything to undermine his own report, but that's not the only analogy he could have made. The fact that he would send someone to jail based on one text message, when the rest of the evidence showed that, worst case scenario, it was questionable a crime even took place, is a kind of disturbing.