Nice legal summary by Michael McCann

[Hoodie]

For those of you who missed it. This is a nice summary. http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/08/12/deflategate-federal-hearing-tom-brady-roger-goodell-patriots

1. Judge Berman seemed very skeptical of the NFL’s core allegation that Brady participated in an alleged ball deflation scheme.

The legal question in Brady’s case is not whether Brady “did it.” It’s whether the NFL lawfully applied Article 46 of the collective bargaining agreement in investigating and punishing Brady. Yet on Wednesday Judge Berman appeared unexpectedly interested in whether, in fact, Brady “did it.”

 

[Schmo]

I keep hearing that this is purely about whether the NFL followed CBA rules (essentially Goodell is god of the NFL and he can do what he wants). So does Berman have to abide by the NFL rules? What I mean is, just like Goodell rules his domain, doesn't Berman rule the courtroom? As the NFL was unfair to Brady, couldn't Berman turn the tables and say, "What I say goes, and I say the NFL is full of ****. Brady doesn't deserve any of this. Forget CBA procedure."

Essentially it would be a case-in-point example to Goodell showing him exactly how he abuses his power.

 

[Bill Lee]

As the NFL was unfair to Brady, couldn't Berman turn the tables and say, "What I say goes, and I say the NFL is full of ****. Brady doesn't deserve any of this. Forget CBA procedure."

The article tells us:

Brady and the NFLPA hope that Judge Berman finds the NFL’s case against Brady so devoid of evidence that the judge can’t bring himself to conclude that the NFL lawfully punished him. While there is always risk in predicting how a judge will rule based on a judge’s line of questioning, Judge Berman’s noticeable skepticism of the NFL’s alleged facts is clearly an encouraging sign for the Brady camp.

So, yeah!

 

[JoeSixPat]

For those of you who missed it. This is a nice summary. http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/08/12/deflategate-federal-hearing-tom-brady-roger-goodell-patriots

Damn! I've been following this guy but this great - the insights into Kessler's strategy here

And while I'm sure many will take his "even if it did happen - and I can't say for sure what anyone else did" as an admission of the possibility of guilt, his point is, it's not guilt on Brady's part

This is just posturing as Kessler doesn't need to defend Jastremski or McNally - so he writes them off to further clarify his position in defense of BRADY'S actions

It's effectively Kessler admitting that he can't disprove a negative

Thank for bringing this to our attention so quickly

Mandatory reading for all

 

[Fencer]

I keep hearing that this is purely about whether the NFL followed CBA rules (essentially Goodell is god of the NFL and he can do what he wants). So does Berman have to abide by the NFL rules? What I mean is, just like Goodell rules his domain, doesn't Berman rule the courtroom? As the NFL was unfair to Brady, couldn't Berman turn the tables and say, "What I say goes, and I say the NFL is full of ****. Brady doesn't deserve any of this. Forget CBA procedure."

Essentially it would be a case-in-point example to Goodell showing him exactly how he abuses his power.

LOL. It doesn't work that way.

HOWEVER, a judge can find that the process was so screwed up that it went even beyond the arbitrator's nearly unlimited authority. In fact, it's easier for him to say that in Berman's district than in Doty's.

Further, Doty and the others who handed losses to Goodell recently found that his authority was more limited than he likes to claim, because it was limited by labor law and/or the NFL's own precedents.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

The best part of this piece:

Attorney Alan Milstein, who has litigated against the NFL and tried cases before Judge Berman, told SI.com Wednesday night: “After what we heard today, I think Judge Berman will absolutely vacate Brady's suspension.”

 

[Bill Lee]

as an admission of the possibility of guilt

That isn't what happened. The judge asked one way to explain the Dorito's behavior. That's all it is. AFAIK there is no admission of the possiblity of Brady's guilt, there's just an explanation of why Dorito might have done something independently of Brady, and even then, it's just a possible explanation. Those who think it's an explanation of guilt aren't reading it correctly.