Schefter: Source says Bradys legal team is so good "= Won't miss a game."

[NEPatsfan]

No Hall of Fame for Tom

You can't be that dumb.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Brady didin't give up the phone under advice of counsel by people I suspect are substantially more knowledgeable than yourself.

Says the guy that has spent 4 days providing legal analysis of the Wells report because his favorite football player stinks

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

You can't be that dumb.

In the Pete Rose wing

 

[Wazmankg]

Well this source and its $1000 SportsHoopla Bookie bucks says Brady's crack legal team gets it knocked down to 2 games AT BEST... a cut from 4 to 2 games being pretty much standard operating procedure on these appeals.

 

[NEPatsfan]

Says the guy that has spent 4 days providing legal analysis of the Wells report because his favorite football player stinks

Couldn't refute any of it huh?

 

[BHF]

no, he can. study up.

you must have missed bounty gate...

You must have missed Tags arbitrating the player suspensions. Or the out o court appeals panel the NFL set up for that case.

 

[BHF]

Yes I have pointed it out in previous posts and threads.

This will likely go before the NLB and an arbitrator will be appointed, although Brady does have the option of filing civi case.

Good. Now why are you comparing a civil case to the Rice and Peterson situations?

 

[Rock Strongo]

You must have missed Tags arbitrating the player suspensions. Or the out o court appeals panel the NFL set up for that case.

sigh...

However on July 26, 2012, Vilma and seven witnesses from the Saints testified in front of a federal judge in New Orleans that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell got his facts wrong in the bounty scandal."Everybody was sworn in under oath in front of a judge with the risk of perjury and jail time if we were lying, and categorically denied there was a bounty," Vilma said in a text message to ESPN's Ed Werder. "Seven people testified, 2 sworn affidavits (one by Drew Brees) all saying the same thing. I ask that you and ESPN report the facts. No more bias or b.s. or hearsay. I gave you facts that you can report if so choose."Tulane University Sports Law Program Director Gabe Feldman (who attended the hearing in court) said, "Clearly the judge, by her questions, indicated she thinks Goodell overstepped his authority, and this case was always going to be about if he executed his power fairly... The NFL's retort is that with all due deference, you don't get to second guess (commissioner Roger Goodell). Judges only have limited jurisdiction over arbitration issues."

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Couldn't refute any of it huh?

I honestly didn't care enough to

I'm having a tough enough time trying to figure out why Collin Farrell and Vince Vaughn are the 2 new guys on "True Detective"

 

[Rock Strongo]

in dirts defense, you should see his wife.

i dont think he gives a fuck about what we think.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

in dirts defense, you should see his wife.

i dont think he gives a fuck about what we think.

I'll take her back now

 

[BHF]

sigh...

However on July 26, 2012, Vilma and seven witnesses from the Saints testified in front of a federal judge in New Orleans that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell got his facts wrong in the bounty scandal."Everybody was sworn in under oath in front of a judge with the risk of perjury and jail time if we were lying, and categorically denied there was a bounty," Vilma said in a text message to ESPN's Ed Werder. "Seven people testified, 2 sworn affidavits (one by Drew Brees) all saying the same thing. I ask that you and ESPN report the facts. No more bias or b.s. or hearsay. I gave you facts that you can report if so choose."Tulane University Sports Law Program Director Gabe Feldman (who attended the hearing in court) said, "Clearly the judge, by her questions, indicated she thinks Goodell overstepped his authority, and this case was always going to be about if he executed his power fairly... The NFL's retort is that with all due deference, you don't get to second guess (commissioner Roger Goodell). Judges only have limited jurisdiction over arbitration issues."

And his defamation case was thrown out of court because the statements made by Goodell were made in the context of his investigation, the guidelines for which were outlined in the CBA. So. Again. If you're going after the NFL for defamation, you're going to have to make arguments about what is, and isn't, allowed under the CBA. And that isn't going to trial.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

you act like you have rights on a free private site .. you aint too smart are ya ?

So you want at least a 2000 page report instead of the summary? Jesus people. Damn.

Every word of every interview would end up looking like one of those massive piles of shit from capital hill.

Reports aren't meant to be all inclusive. At 243 pages it wasn't exactly a brief either.

People have been going back and forth about smoking guns, turning over private cell phones, witholding info that could clear you...

Now this is just me. If I wrote a 243 page report, and I had discoverd a "smoking gun", after spending millions to produce it, I think I would've put that evidence in the report. Maybe then the report wouldn't have needed to have been 243 pages and certainley not 2000. BLUF would've been on page # 1. Or are we to agree that the NFL found a smoking gun but it also implicated the NFL? Why wouldn't you find one page in 243 to put it on?

This isn't meant to say Brady or the Past didn't do anything wrong. Just opening up a debate that isn't over run by opinion I hope?

 

[MISKO]

People have been going back and forth about smoking guns, turning over private cell phones, witholding info that could clear you...

Now this is just me. If I wrote a 243 page report, and I had discoverd a "smoking gun", after spending millions to produce it, I think I would've put that evidence in the report. Maybe then the report wouldn't have needed to have been 243 pages and certainley not 2000. BLUF would've been on page # 1. Or are we to agree that the NFL found a smoking gun but it also implicated the NFL? Why wouldn't you find one page in 243 to put it on?

This isn't meant to say Brady or the Past didn't do anything wrong. Just opening up a debate that isn't over run by opinion I hope?

sounds like you are an anal retentive asshole to include everything for public viewing .. when it isnt the public's business because the nfl is a private company and not a government agency

 

[NWPATSFAN]

Ok, listen closely because this has been discussed over and over and over again...

THEY DID NOT ASK FOR HIM TO TURN OVER HIS PHONE. HE DID NOT HAVE TO GIVE IT TO THEM TO COMPLY.

I'm really not sure how to make this easier for you. They said his own lawyer could select the information they wanted and send it to them. That's it. Just go through it yourself and send us anything related. It is the most tame and accommodating request I've ever heard of.

Would I do THAT to save my ass if I was actually innocent and had nothing to hide? ALL DAY LONG. ANYTIME. 1000000% YES YES YES YES YES.

Can I be more clear?

What I still need clarification on is first, did anyone from the Pats organization say that is how Wells posed the question? Or have we only heard that from Wells?

Second doesn't it seem a little odd the way the report reads that the lawyer could pick and chose what was relevant? I guess Yee could've opened Brady's phone and said Mr. Wells no texts that deal with this investigation. we're done here. We cooperated.

Third if Yee turned over "X" number of messages who would believe he didn't just avoid sending others that could be incriminating?

This was a no win for Brady. Even though others like to bring up the "what if" Brady had said in a text drop the pressure to the legal limit. Really? That's what they are banking on? Thye make it sound like Brady should've texted something like that at some point. Why and big deal if he didn't.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

sounds like you are an anal retentive asshole to include everything for public viewing .. when it isnt the public's business because the nfl is a private company and not a government agency

Ok if you say so boss.

I'll refrain from calling you childish names because I assume it's ok for you to write "anal retentive asshole" but I can't call individuals inanimate objects? I don't want to get banned again.

Maybe you missed the part where I said the report could've been much shorter if the NFL had a smoking gun? So no i don't everything. I'm just wierd that if I'm accused of something and you have evidence of it. I feel you should show me at least that instead of a bunch of non scientific reports and legal jargon.

Can you honestly (note I said honestly) say if you had written that report you wouldn't have put that piece of evidence in there? Please... If you had Brady red handed it would've been the title page.

So I say again it's opened up for factual debate not opinions. We know about opinions. Especially with the some of posters on this site.

 

[PatsFan2003]

Oh how sweet it is !!!!
Eat your heart out Cheaters.....

Where the h*ll is the fire coming from? Not the best symbolism these days.

 

[MISKO]

Ok if you say so boss.

I'll refrain from calling you childish names because I assume it's ok for you to write "anal retentive asshole" but I can't call individuals inanimate objects? I don't want to get banned again.

Maybe you missed the part where I said the report could've been much shorter if the NFL had a smoking gun? So no i don't everything. I'm just wierd that if I'm accused of something and you have evidence of it. I feel you should show me at least that instead of a bunch of non scientific reports and legal jargon.

Can you honestly (note I said honestly) say if you had written that report you wouldn't have put that piece of evidence in there? Please... If you had Brady red handed it would've been the title page.

So I say again it's opened up for factual debate not opinions. We know about opinions. Especially with the some of posters on this site.

but did I spell anal retentive asshole ,properly ?

but you still dont get the main point its not the general public's business

 

[WizardHawk]

I don't expect you to change your opinion of this whole debacle. But those phone records are none of Wells' business, either. Brady didn't HAVE to give them anything. His lawyer probably said you are going to have to show us a subpoena for that, which, of course, they don't have. Brady cooperated, just not as much as the NFL required. I'm just saying that lacking the willingness to give the NFL your personal property does not make you automatically guilty.

So you work off your own assumptions in dismissing what direct words were given in this case and continue to dismiss them?

No one asked him to 'give the NFL their personal property' and no matter how many times you say otherwise it's just not going to magically be true. There is a MAJOR difference in asking for a phone so they can dig through it, and asking him to have his own attorney sift through and simply send them a list of communications that covered these events. I'm really not sure why you guys keep saying the one when all indications are it was the other.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

but did I spell anal retentive asshole ,properly ?

but you still dont get the main point its not the general public's business

We can agree to disagree then? Because you don't seem to get my main point. Which I would have to say the majority of people interested in this case would've preferred a single piec of paper from Wells that said.
Brady caught on tape, Brady phone records show, tweedle dee and dumb said Brady made us do it...
No instead 243 pages of speculation is much better and thus the resaon we're still talking about this.