So. Read that the NFL won this round - what happens now?

[cupofjoe1962]

I heard these judges from clown college found the Wells report credible.

Well that is enough to show me the fix is in.

What about Wells reporting that the ref may have been wrong when he reported what gauge he used.

That is impartial ?????

What about Goodell lying about Brady testimony about his conversations with the ball boy?

Judges rule based on their own agenda. The biggest joke is that the constitution has anything to do with their decisions.

The fix is in.....

I hope we go 4-0 with Garrappalo & then trade him for a 1st & 4th in 2017.

 

[TheFlyingWedge]

It's hard to imagine what, specifically, the judge was referring to, when he says "overwhelming evidence". This is phenominally stupid.

 

[supafly]

Bingo. There is no defending Chin and his comments should raise the eyebrow of any judicial oversight committee/people he has ruled against. If he's that reckless with something as trivial as this then oh boy. I was stunned when I heard he said that. In a normal world, one of the other Justices would have called a recess to have him checked. Maybe he had an episode or something.

Now we will see how he rules. It may have zero impact. That being said, to have a federal judge of any level state such a thing is troubling at best.

I don't know how it could be seen as defending anyone by pointing out that Chin saw things differently than Berman, and has every right to voice his opinion. That isn't going to prove that he's a liar or that he needs to be disbarred.

It simply proves that he interpreted what he deemed as "facts" differently than the last person to rule. It happens all the time. If you're so up in arms over this, you should check out some famous cases where people have been executed or are spending the rest of their lives behind bars.

 

[supafly]

See Primes post. The facts are indisputable. Berman "Do you have an direct evidence that Brady participated in a scheme to deflate footballs". Pash- "No your Honor we don't".

How is that not a fact? If the NFL says they isn't there isn't. Again it was about the AFCCG. Period. That's what the case is centered around. The texts are irrelevant. The phone is irrelevant. Anything prior to the AFCCG is worthless. There is zero connection to Brady. Zero. Hence the "generally aware".

F-it. I'm taking my GI bill and going to law school. Been waffling for months now and Chin has decided it for me.

Oh and facts can't be interpreted. Hypotheses can, ideas can, thoughts can. Facts are facts. To say otherwise is pure folly

Viper---the loosely based term of "facts" is highly disputable and obviously open to interpretation in a court of law. This is my only point. One judge sees something as "factual" and rules one way, while another does the opposite. There is obviously going to be some gray area involved.

It doesn't prove that the judge is a liar. Hell, the majority of the rest of the world thinks that there was plenty of incriminating evidence, and that's been for over a year now.

 

[Joey007]

Something really f'ed up is going on under the scenes in this. Maybe we should have known all along that the NFL knew what they were doing in appealing this.

Like they had a plan set out for this.

 

[VectorPrime]

I am not claiming at all that Chin is corrupt and should be disbarred. I just think he's f.ucking stupid and based on that I think there is convincing if not overwhelming evidence that he's an alcoholic.

 

[supafly]

LOL that's laughable.

Tanguay is the biggest joke in Boston.

Yeah, that's why I included the word naturally in parentheses, because he wouldn't have a scoop had it been the other way around.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Tanguay claims that he's hearing from sources that the ruling will go to the NFL (naturally). It seems a bit premature to come to that conclusion, but here's the link in case anyone wishes to view it:

Tanguay: Hearing Brady suspension could be upheld

Tanguay is as dumb as a rock. Literally. He has no "sources" that could give him any insight at all on this. The best bet is the kid at the Wendy's drive through said "tough day for Brady" and Tanguay ran with it.

 

[supafly]

It's hard to image what, specifically, the judge was referring to, when he says "overwhelming evidence". This is phenominally stupid.

Jeez...I hate to even be the one responding to this post, but let's look at things from the other side of the coin, to try and assume what Chin saw as damning or "overwhelming" evidence. Please note that I am not claiming that anything nefarious occurred, and that I personally believe that there are good retorts to most of these bullet points that would show Brady as being innocent. That said, just for the sake of discussion, let's look at how Chin (and others) may have come to this conclusion:

1) Indy raises their concerns to the NFL that the Pats have been deflating footballs. This concern is brought up during the week of the AFCCG, days before the game.

2) As the league is on high alert, coincidentally--for the first time ever (according to the head ref), the balls cannot be located prior to the start of the game. They are missing.

3) There is camera evidence showing that the equipment guy brought the missing balls into a locked bathroom, and was in there for over 1:30 minutes, providing him opportunity that some believe is hard to tie to sheer coincidence. While not damning in and of itself, combined with #1 and #2, it's starting to be enough to open up some eyes.

4) They measure the balls, and luckily for them, one of the gauges shows that they are indeed, underinflated. Now things are fitting their agenda.

5) For the first time ever, Brady meets up with the equipment guy in the QB meeting room. There are plenty of phone calls and text exchanges that appear to be odd to some outside of N.England. Brady admits that this is not the ordinary procedure, so some may see this as another odd step in the process. Messages show Brady repeatedly asking him "are you good?" over and over again.

6) Text messages are discovered calling one of the equipment guys the "deflator," with another one mentioning the word "deflate" in it as well. Not a good look for those involved.

7) Another text message can be seen as potentially damning by claiming that "it will be hard for him to get them all done in time for the SB" (slight paraphrasing).

8) There is proof/mention that Brady has left signed memorabilia in his locker/locker room, and there's an insinuation that this may have been done for the purpose of keeping the equipment personnel happy and content, so that the balls will remain in the range that Brady prefers them.

9) Tom Brady makes the decision to destroy his phone, which was brought up by 2 of the 3 judges yesterday as signs that he is untrustworthy and that "his story makes no sense whatsoever."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I'm not going to get into debates with others about every little last point, since I tend to agree with them that Brady is innocent, but if we're honestly going to wonder why a person like Chin may come to the conclusion that there was "overwhelming evidence," it's not too difficult to figure out some of the reasoning behind his statements. He's seeing things in a vacuum and failing to take the entire context of the situation into account.

To be honest, I think his choice of phrasing was very poor. None of these things necessarily equate to "overwhelming evidence" to me, although they certainly qualify as evidence. It seems like a lot of circumstantial evidence, so perhaps that is where he got his opinion from.

 

[supafly]

Yeah, that's why I included the word naturally in parentheses, because he wouldn't have a scoop had it been the other way around.

Tanguay is as dumb as a rock. Literally. He has no "sources" that could give him any insight at all on this. The best bet is the kid at the Wendy's drive through said "tough day for Brady" and Tanguay ran with it.

Agreed--from my experience on the forum and reading/viewing some of his other comments over the years.

 

[supafly]

I am not claiming at all that Chin is corrupt and should be disbarred.

The poster to which I responded to, @ViperGTS made these claims, so that's where I jumped in the conversation. He and I see this issue a bit differently, and that is to be expected when debating certain points on a forum.

I just think he's f.ucking stupid and based on that I think there is convincing if not overwhelming evidence that he's an alcoholic.

I agree that his comments yesterday seem to be over the top and even stupid (or more appropriately, f.ucking stupid ). I don't know anything about him being an alcoholic, nor do I think it's relevant--unless he was drunk when he made them, and/or has wet brain.

 

[DarrylS]

"Tanguay says"..

 

[MassPats38]

However, the Justices outright said that Brady cheated: "overwhelming evidence of tampering". There is no conceding of points here. They are convinced Brady tampered. This isn't from the attorneys, this is from the justices themselves.

First, and just a technical point, they are referred to as "Judge" on the Court of Appeals. 'Justice' is a title in federal courts held only by members of the Supreme Court.

Second, as to "The evidence of ball tampering is compelling, if not overwhelming," these guys are not trying the facts of the case. They are addressing procedures employed in the case. They may say a similar thing in a criminal appeal, "there is overwhelming evidence of guilt," however when the issue is the guy repeatedly asked for an attorney and got none prior to a conviction, the weight of the evidence is not the real concern. Falling on the 'right' answer under incorrect procedures when procedures are the issue is not how appellate courts work. They get the boring questions to establish procedures for use in future procedures.

I would look at any comment made by those judges in this light: (1) Did the judges say nothing? (if they have decided an issue, often times they say nothing at all and just let the attorneys present the argument - that can be bad or good depending on what side you fall on); (2) What was the context of the comment? (hypothetical, attempt to elicit a response relevant to a legal point indirectly, a discussion of a factual or legal standard, etc.); (3) Was it an attempt, directly or indirectly, to get an attorney to concede a point? (These guys are the best appellate attorneys on the market and the judges are equally intelligent. Not every attempt will open with "Do you agree . . . " or "Would you concede . . . ").

Regardless of the statement, I have never heard an appellate judge walk out on the bench during argument and say they have decided the issue. There can be colorful exchanges, but if they absolutely do not need argument, then they don't have argument (many cases do not see argument at the court). They already read the briefs and full record on appeal. They will issue a public statement in the written decision. There is enough work that they don't have time to hear all cases. And the parties do not supplement the world of that record with argument. It is simply discussion, and those judges are more swayed by each other than they ever would be a statement at oral argument. That is why many judges (and some justices) ask nothing during oral argument. Any attempt to "read the tea leaves" based on what is said during oral argument is more often than not just that - pure speculation without a foundation in reality of the process. My suggestion would be to listen to other arguments in the Courts of Appeals (they offer recordings on the Web sites) and get a sense of how they work before you react to this oral argument in isolation.

 

[ViperGTS]

The poster to which I responded to, @ViperGTS made these claims, so that's where I jumped in the conversation. He and I see this issue a bit differently, and that is to be expected when debating certain points on a forum.

I agree that his comments yesterday seem to be over the top and even stupid (or more appropriately, f.ucking stupid ). I don't know anything about him being an alcoholic, nor do I think it's relevant--unless he was drunk when he made them, and/or has wet brain.

I agree with your statement about miscarriages of justice. So much wrong with the judicial systems it isn't funny. However, if you can't get his right, then how can I trust you on serious matters? That's my main point of disbarment. Sometimes someone outs themselves as not too smart after years of posing as such. Don't need judges having that specific quality.

My main question is if he was this loose with the facts over stupid .5 psi, how loose is he with real facts in real cases? If he had ruled against me in the past, I'd have attorneys reviewing every single detail to find out how loose he was.

 

[RecoveringCowboy]

Let's just say Brady ultimately loses this.

Long term, I would take satisfaction if the handling of this, CTE, etc. creates a massive backlash on Goodell and the NFL.

 

[Mr. Plow]

Jeez...I hate to even be the one responding to this post, but let's look at things from the other side of the coin, to try and assume what Chin saw as damning or "overwhelming" evidence. Please note that I am not claiming that anything nefarious occurred, and that I personally believe that there are good retorts to most of these bullet points that would show Brady as being innocent. That said, just for the sake of discussion, let's look at how Chin (and others) may have come to this conclusion:

1) Indy raises their concerns to the NFL that the Pats have been deflating footballs. This concern is brought up during the week of the AFCCG, days before the game.

2) As the league is on high alert, coincidentally--for the first time ever (according to the head ref), the balls cannot be located prior to the start of the game. They are missing.

3) There is camera evidence showing that the equipment guy brought the missing balls into a locked bathroom, and was in there for over 1:30 minutes, providing him opportunity that some believe is hard to tie to sheer coincidence. While not damning in and of itself, combined with #1 and #2, it's starting to be enough to open up some eyes.

4) They measure the balls, and luckily for them, one of the gauges shows that they are indeed, underinflated. Now things are fitting their agenda.

5) For the first time ever, Brady meets up with the equipment guy in the QB meeting room. There are plenty of phone calls and text exchanges that appear to be odd to some outside of N.England. Brady admits that this is not the ordinary procedure, so some may see this as another odd step in the process. Messages show Brady repeatedly asking him "are you good?" over and over again.

6) Text messages are discovered calling one of the equipment guys the "deflator," with another one mentioning the word "deflate" in it as well. Not a good look for those involved.

7) Another text message can be seen as potentially damning by claiming that "it will be hard for him to get them all done in time for the SB" (slight paraphrasing).

8) There is proof/mention that Brady has left signed memorabilia in his locker/locker room, and there's an insinuation that this may have been done for the purpose of keeping the equipment personnel happy and content, so that the balls will remain in the range that Brady prefers them.

9) Tom Brady makes the decision to destroy his phone, which was brought up by 2 of the 3 judges yesterday as signs that he is untrustworthy and that "his story makes no sense whatsoever."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I'm not going to get into debates with others about every little last point, since I tend to agree with them that Brady is innocent, but if we're honestly going to wonder why a person like Chin may come to the conclusion that there was "overwhelming evidence," it's not too difficult to figure out some of the reasoning behind his statements. He's seeing things in a vacuum and failing to take the entire context of the situation into account.

To be honest, I think his choice of phrasing was very poor. None of these things necessarily equate to "overwhelming evidence" to me, although they certainly qualify as evidence. It seems like a lot of circumstantial evidence, so perhaps that is where he got his opinion from.

Thank you for taking the time to post this. For another perspective:

NFL May Be Permitted to Impose Indefensible Suspension - Lawyers, Guns & Money

Don't read the comments unless you want your brain to melt.