Brady gears up for a fight: Adds lawyer with SC experience, asks for appeal extension.

[Broncos6482]

Wouldn't they have to prove unequivocally that he didn't cheat in order for it to be a defamation case? I don't think you can technically file defamation if you can't prove you weren't actually defamed.

Not only that, since Brady is a public figure, they would have to prove it was done with "actual malice." It's an incredibly high bar, and one Brady is extremely unlikely to win.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

Who are Squealer fans?

Deflection? Just own it already.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Our Mets lookin good, right?

My regards to the Missuz

Likewise!

Go Mets!

 

[Delphic1]

Deflection? Just own it already.

You do realize you changed the topic from the Patriots to the Squealers, right?

 

[Broncos6482]

Not really. I believe you can just prove you were acting in good faith or believed what you said. Kind of the old Al Sharpton, Tawana Brawley matter defense. But really, what specifically has Goodell said that is slanderous. You yourself say you believe he did it.

It actually goes even further than that because Brady is a public figure. So not only does he have to prove that Goodell said is untrue, he'd have to prove that Goodell knew it was untrue, and that Goodell said it with actual malice. It's a very high standard and makes defamation suits from public figures extremely difficult to win, which is why you don't see many of them.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Because everyone in here seems very interested

Leicester City is about to win the EPL

 

[NWPATSFAN]

You do realize you changed the topic from the Patriots to the Squealers, right?

You do realize I wasn't the first one, right?

 

[Delphic1]

Because everyone in here seems very interested

Leicester City is about to win the EPL

More surprising this year than Pats and Brady* playing a clean season without cheating.

 

[Delphic1]

You do realize I wasn't the first one, right?

You were.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

More surprising this year than Pats and Brady* playing a clean season without cheating.

5000-1 Odds

Same Odds Hampton and Holy Cross had of winning the national title in Basketball

 

[NWPATSFAN]

It actually goes even further than that because Brady is a public figure. So not only does he have to prove that Goodell said is untrue, he'd have to prove that Goodell knew it was untrue, and that Goodell said it with actual malice. It's a very high standard and makes defamation suits from public figures extremely difficult to win, which is why you don't see many of them.

Many of them don't have a $5 million debunked investigation to help support the claim. Assuming TB was guilty imposing a 4 game suspension for what was a $25k fine (because of past discretions) to set an example (not my words but the NFL), yeah I think he has a chance.

 

[Delphic1]

5000-1 Odds

Same Odds Hampton and Holy Cross had of winning the national title in Basketball

Or same odds as Brady* winning his re-appeal.

 

[Indrid Cold]

Because everyone in here seems very interested

Leicester City is about to win the EPL

Extreme Pron Lords?

 

[NWPATSFAN]

You were.

I know this thread didn't have many pictures but try reading it again. This time try comprehending what you read. If you get past page 2 and don't find at least 4 other off topics, I suggest you purchase hooked on phonics.

 

[Broncos6482]

Many of them don't have a $5 million debunked investigation to help support the claim. Assuming TB was guilty imposing a 4 game suspension for what was a $25k fine (because of past discretions) to set an example (not my words but the NFL), yeah I think he has a chance.

Let's assume for a moment that Goodell admits that he knew the investigation was bunk (extremely unlikely, but just for the sake of argument), then he says, "But it wasn't done with actual malice to Tom Brady. It could have been anyone, but I did it because the owners wanted me to impose harsher penalties for these kinds of things going forward."

Now how do you prove actual malice in that case? Actually proving someone's intent is very hard to do, because unless you've got some kind of video where Goodell says, "Screw Tom Brady! I hate that guy, I'm going to hand down a ridiculously harsh penalty just because I hate him so much," how do you prove what someone's intent was?

 

[NWPATSFAN]

Let's assume for a moment that Goodell admits that he knew the investigation was bunk (extremely unlikely, but just for the sake of argument), then he says, "But it wasn't done with actual malice to Tom Brady. It could have been anyone, but I did it because the owners wanted me to impose harsher penalties for these kinds of things going forward."

Now how do you prove actual malice in that case? Actually proving someone's intent is very hard to do, because unless you've got some kind of video where Goodell says, "Screw Tom Brady! I hate that guy, I'm going to hand down a ridiculously harsh penalty just because I hate him so much," how do you prove what someone's intent was?

Well by the way you just explained it, he was influenced by the owners who employ him.
Then again don't forget that all evidence is in play. Who knows what was said between the owners, Goofball, Vincent... better start purging all those texts, e-mails and hope not one person turns on Roger.

 

[Broncos6482]

Well by the way you just explained it, he was influenced by the owners who employ him.
Then again don't forget that all evidence is in play. Who knows what was said between the owners, Goofball, Vincent... better start purging all those texts, e-mails and hope not one person turns on Roger.

If the owners told him to start imposing harsher penalties because that's what they wanted going forward, that doesn't prove actual malice.

And the only chance Brady would have in a case like that would be if there was a smoking gun video or text or email like I described above. Otherwise the case would have no chance. But my guess is we'll never see Brady sue for defamation because he's smart enough to know how extremely unlikely he is to win, and it's not like he needs the money or the headache, and it's not like it would help him in the court of public opinion either (if he even cares about that).

 

[NWPATSFAN]

If the owners told him to start imposing harsher penalties because that's what they wanted going forward, that doesn't prove actual malice.

And the only chance Brady would have in a case like that would be if there was a smoking gun video or text or email like I described above. Otherwise the case would have no chance. But my guess is we'll never see Brady sue for defamation because he's smart enough to know how extremely unlikely he is to win, and it's not like he needs the money or the headache, and it's not like it would help him in the court of public opinion either (if he even cares about that).

Ok ok you win. I didn't realize I was debating with the Hoop House lawyer.

 

[Broncos6482]

Ok ok you win. I didn't realize I was debating with the Hoop House lawyer.

I'm no lawyer, however I do work in media so I know a little about libel, slander, and defamation.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

I'm no lawyer, however I do work in media so I know a little about libel, slander, and defamation.

I slept in a Holiday Inn Express so we're even