Robert Blecker's Amicus Curiae Brief on behalf of NFLPA/Brady

[phil112]

I was wondering why this wasn't discussed. After all, it is deflategate and it wasn't in deflategate.
At any rate, being a poor mechanic, my legal knowledge (mostly gained by personal experiences) is limited and I went to the WWW.com to learn about it.
Read this definition and sit and consider the ramifications. What is in it for Blecker? Don't know.
Who sponsored(so to speak) him? The other parties have to sign off and we know goodell would never do that. So, is he government sponsored? What, exactly, does Blecker have at stake? The way I understand this is the judges decision on this case must affect him for him to become involved. Is he merely filing it as a football fan that thinks(as most of them do) that goodell has defrauded him, as a fan?
May never know, I guess.

"A brief of an amicus curiae may be filed only if accompanied by written consent of all parties, or by leave of court granted on motion or at the request of the court, except that consent or leave shall not be required when the brief is presented by the United States or an officer or agency thereof, or by a State, Territory or Commonwealth. The brief may be conditionally filed with the motion for leave. A motion for leave shall identify the interest of the applicant and shall state the reasons why a brief of an amicus curiae is desirable. Save as all parties otherwise consent, any amicus curiae shall file its brief within the time allowed the party whose position as to affirmance or reversal the amicus brief will support unless the court for cause shown shall grant leave for a later filing, in which event it shall specify within what period an opposing party may answer. A motion of an amicus curiae to participate in the oral argument will be granted only for extraordinary reasons." Rule 29. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure."

Definition: Amicus Curiae.

 

[Joker]

I was gonna ask Marie Curie...but she's dead...

 

[venecol]

Isn't Blecker a Rats fan?

Adds more credibility to his argument

I know he is not a Pats fan.

Dude went to Haavaad I think.

 

[venecol]

All reading that did for me was make me even more angry that Kraft agreed to losing those draft picks. It is beyond obvious that no deflating took place and that the NFL sought to take down the Pats, yet those picks will never come back.

It's also clear that the media won't give this report the attention it deserves.

Found an article about this in Yahoo, with headline brief accuses NFL of fraud. Don't know if it's anywhere else. Wonder what Stephanie Stradley has to say about it.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Dude went to Haavaad I think.

Thought he said he was a Giants fan, he's definateley not a Pats fan, he was clear about that. I was hoping one of the lawyers would chime in on this thread and hear their thoughts.

 

[BTTA]

The draft pick was simply forfeited, not distributed among the other teams (obviously). I don't know what you think the other owners stand to lose if the Patriots won a case to reinstate their draft pick and return the fine money.

Any time a team is taken out of the draft order, it increases the value of every draft pick that follows. If the Pats are scheduled to pick at #30, and that pick is taken away from them, then every pick from #31 on is more valuable. By definition, the other teams are strengthened, which translates to financial value, which is the mission of an NFL team (to create financial value for its ownership).

If the Pats are fined, that is value taken out of their franchise that would otherwise be used to either strengthen the organization or reward its owners with more value/profit.

 

[PatriotsReign]

It is true that there are some suing rights you can't give up. However, agreements certainly can and do enforceably raise the bar a lot more than merely eliminating "frivolous, petty, and minor suits". For example, I'm pretty sure that in MA agreements to not sue for negligent acts (hardly "frivolous, petty, and minor suits") are enforceable, though agreements not to sue for acts of gross negligence are not.



You're putting the cart before the horse. Why are you assuming NE had any right to receive exculpatory evidence? Prosecutorial requirement turn over exculpatory evidence is a criminal law thing. In a civil case there's no requirement for a plaintiff to turn over something he finds that helps the defendant (though if a discovery request is made and the exculpatory evidence falls within the parameters of the discovery request there will be problems if it's not turned over). And this isn't even a civil case! If the NFL bylaws & constitution and the legal agreements between the teams and the league don't require the NFL to turn over exculpatory evidence in team discipline proceedings, they're not going to have to.



Dream on. I'm sure Kraft has for months known everything that's in Blecher's brief. He's not going to do a thing. (Other than occasionally update the Wells Report In Context website so that he can try to look good to naive fans).



And precisely who is going to be doing all this asking? The national media in the tank for the NFL? The local media who hates the team, and wouldn't be taken seriously nationally anyway? And "groundswell of demand"? HA! Remember -- people are happy NE got screwed. Hell, they'll probably like it even more than NE got screwed for something they didn't even do than if they got punished for doing something. There's not going to be any groundswell. At most you'll get "Roger is a P.O.S. liar, but he screwed NE, so that's at least one good thing he's done while commissioner."



Reread the brief. While Blecher asserts fraud here and there, the only thing actually comes right out and calls fraud are the pictures of the gauge needles. Slimy? Sure. Fraud? Seems like pretty weak sauce to me. Surely you don't think that even in an actual court (let alone a private, internal proceeding) litigants lay out the bright, unvarnished, objective truth? Witnesses are coached to word things in ways that aren't lies, but which massively shade things and try to obscure the truth, for crying out loud. I'm willing to bet than when pictures are put into evidence they are often composed, lit, etc. to favor as much as possible the party entering them as evidence. And none of that is fraud.

And despite all the above, the NFL will lose and the decision will be upheld

 

[JJDChE]

Any time a team is taken out of the draft order, it increases the value of every draft pick that follows. If the Pats are scheduled to pick at #30, and that pick is taken away from them, then every pick from #31 on is more valuable. By definition, the other teams are strengthened, which translates to financial value, which is the mission of an NFL team (to create financial value for its ownership).

If the Pats are fined, that is value taken out of their franchise that would otherwise be used to either strengthen the organization or reward its owners with more value/profit.

You're really reaching there. Those things have an absolutely negligible affect on the value on indivdual franchises.

Also, as I already stated, fines don't go to the teams or NFL operations. They go to charitable organizations.

More importantly, even if you accept the value isn't negligible, if it was taken from the Patriots via negligence or fraud the other teams only acquired that value through an illegal transaction. Kinda like someone giving you something they stole. You don't get to keep it when the police come knocking.

Do you work for the NFL? Your take on this is amazingly biased.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Question to the "Fraud! Fraud!" people...

What specifically do you claim the fraudulent acts are? If Kraft were ever to sue (not that he will) he would have to make specific claims. Pretend you're writing the complaint -- what specifically will you be alleging?

Sure the NFL did plenty of shady things in this. But the shadiness is right there to be seen. For example...

Some people say the needle pictures are fraud. Sure they are designed to misrepresent and distract, but what's the fraud? If you take the time to examine the pictures you can see exactly what the true length of the needles are. It's not like they clipped off the end of one of the needles or used a ruler whose 1/4-inch marks were really only 1/8-inch apart, etc.

Some people say what Exponent did was fraud. Sure, they made lots of crappy/bogus assumptions. But they didn't hide the assumptions.

Wells and Roger drew crappy inferences from McNally's actions. That's not fraud.

And so on.

Don't get me wrong -- Roger and the NFL behaved terribly and if they were gibbeted tomorrow I'd love it. The team and Brady did nothing wrong and they got screwed. No question about that. But I'm not seeing fraud (at least not in a legal sense).

 

[venecol]

Question to the "Fraud! Fraud!" people...

What specifically do you claim the fraudulent acts are? If Kraft were ever to sue (not that he will) he would have to make specific claims. Pretend you're writing the complaint -- what specifically will you be alleging?

Sure the NFL did plenty of shady things in this. But the shadiness is right there to be seen. For example...

Some people say the needle pictures are fraud. Sure they are designed to misrepresent and distract, but what's the fraud? If you take the time to examine the pictures you can see exactly what the true length of the needles are. It's not like they clipped off the end of one of the needles or used a ruler whose 1/4-inch marks were really only 1/8-inch apart, etc.

Some people say what Exponent did was fraud. Sure, they made lots of crappy/bogus assumptions. But they didn't hide the assumptions.

Wells and Roger drew crappy inferences from McNally's actions. That's not fraud.

And so on.

Don't get me wrong -- Roger and the NFL behaved terribly and if they were gibbeted tomorrow I'd love it. The team and Brady did nothing wrong and they got screwed. No question about that. But I'm not seeing fraud (at least not in a legal sense).

I would start with:

GOODELL IS A FRAUD.

Case closed.

 

[Ivan]

Question to the "Fraud! Fraud!" people...

What specifically do you claim the fraudulent acts are? If Kraft were ever to sue (not that he will) he would have to make specific claims. Pretend you're writing the complaint -- what specifically will you be alleging?

Sure the NFL did plenty of shady things in this. But the shadiness is right there to be seen. For example...

Some people say the needle pictures are fraud. Sure they are designed to misrepresent and distract, but what's the fraud? If you take the time to examine the pictures you can see exactly what the true length of the needles are. It's not like they clipped off the end of one of the needles or used a ruler whose 1/4-inch marks were really only 1/8-inch apart, etc.

Some people say what Exponent did was fraud. Sure, they made lots of crappy/bogus assumptions. But they didn't hide the assumptions.

Wells and Roger drew crappy inferences from McNally's actions. That's not fraud.

And so on.

Don't get me wrong -- Roger and the NFL behaved terribly and if they were gibbeted tomorrow I'd love it. The team and Brady did nothing wrong and they got screwed. No question about that. But I'm not seeing fraud (at least not in a legal sense).

If their findings aren't fraudulent why are they hiding the notes from the Wells Investigation?

 

[Ivan]

And despite all the above, the NFL will lose and the decision will be upheld

That still depends upon who they draw for appellate judges. 2 anti Labor right wing justices could overturn it based solely upon their ideological beliefs.

 

[venecol]

That still depends upon who they draw for appellate judges. 2 anti Labor right wing justices could overturn it based solely upon their ideological beliefs.

Do you know the make up of that court? How many and who they were appointed by?

 

[venecol]

@QuantumMechanic

Jesus don't take this stuff so seriously. Best way to show Goodell what a douche he is, is to win another SB. The legal stuff will sort itself out. I'm going to enjoy the season as much as I can. Go Pats.