orangenirvana
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 8,133
- Like
- 12,448
Rex at it again
- Thread starter GoSU96
- Start date
I would throw an insult at your beloved team but there are other people in this thread I respect and have done nothing to deserve that. I hope you have a nice day and glad you either don't care about the actual facts or just enjoy not caring about the truth.
Also, I hope you didn't say anything about NCAA railroading Jim Boeheim. I don't care to see if you did.
Tobias Funke
All Conference
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,646
- Like
- 4,024
TheCusian
Living Legend
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2012
- Messages
- 22,784
- Like
- 33,679
Alsacs said:
People are uniformed because it's a bigger story than it deserves to be thanks to both parties not willing to back down.
I have limited interest in a story that should have at best never started or at worst ended with "oops, my bad."
And that's why Brady's fight perception wise will not get better. Snap judgement, done.
orangenirvana
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 8,133
- Like
- 12,448
Thinking your perspective is "the truth" is about as arrogant as any typical *Patriots fan. Huge difference between innocent and "can't prove it, can't punish." Where there's smoke there's fire and there has been smoke surrounding that entire organization for nearly two decades now.
orangenirvana
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 8,133
- Like
- 12,448
ESPN: Don't be fooled by judge in Deflategate case; NFL will win in end over New England Patriots' Tom Brady
Excerpts...
While Brady and his supporters no doubt find some comfort in Berman's attack on Goodell's reasoning, they shouldn't try to read into Berman's statements and questions from the bench. Why? Because the judge is not leaning in Brady's direction. He has been, instead, doing what hundreds of judges do in American courtrooms each day: trying to push the side with the stronger legal position into consideration of a settlement.
In this case, recognizing that the NFL has convincing evidence and significant legal precedents on its side, Berman knows the only way he can produce a settlement is to show the league that there is a possibility it could lose a case that it should win. That is why he devoted most of a hearing Wednesday to picking apart the Goodell opinion and the league's legal position.
The strength of the NFL position in the litigation is indisputable. It is based on powerful legal precedents that severely limit a federal judge's review of an arbitration decision and on the convincing evidence gathered for the Wells report and described in surprisingly powerful terms in Goodell's decision.
The weakness of Brady's legal position is clear in any consideration of the arguments offered by Brady, the union, and the union lawyers. Jeffrey Kessler and his team of lawyers from the firm of Winston and Strawn are the most resourceful advocates I have seen in 25 years of reporting on legal issues in sports. The best they have come up with in their briefs and arguments in support of Brady are vague assertions of "fundamental fairness" and the "evident partiality" of Goodell as the arbitrator.
The problem with these assertions is that the NFLPA agreed in collective bargaining that Goodell would be the final authority in conduct detrimental cases, and, as the arbitrator, Goodell decides on all issues of fairness. They agreed to a partial arbitrator, and they agreed to his notions of fairness.
Excerpts...
While Brady and his supporters no doubt find some comfort in Berman's attack on Goodell's reasoning, they shouldn't try to read into Berman's statements and questions from the bench. Why? Because the judge is not leaning in Brady's direction. He has been, instead, doing what hundreds of judges do in American courtrooms each day: trying to push the side with the stronger legal position into consideration of a settlement.
In this case, recognizing that the NFL has convincing evidence and significant legal precedents on its side, Berman knows the only way he can produce a settlement is to show the league that there is a possibility it could lose a case that it should win. That is why he devoted most of a hearing Wednesday to picking apart the Goodell opinion and the league's legal position.
The strength of the NFL position in the litigation is indisputable. It is based on powerful legal precedents that severely limit a federal judge's review of an arbitration decision and on the convincing evidence gathered for the Wells report and described in surprisingly powerful terms in Goodell's decision.
The weakness of Brady's legal position is clear in any consideration of the arguments offered by Brady, the union, and the union lawyers. Jeffrey Kessler and his team of lawyers from the firm of Winston and Strawn are the most resourceful advocates I have seen in 25 years of reporting on legal issues in sports. The best they have come up with in their briefs and arguments in support of Brady are vague assertions of "fundamental fairness" and the "evident partiality" of Goodell as the arbitrator.
The problem with these assertions is that the NFLPA agreed in collective bargaining that Goodell would be the final authority in conduct detrimental cases, and, as the arbitrator, Goodell decides on all issues of fairness. They agreed to a partial arbitrator, and they agreed to his notions of fairness.
Good thing the author of that article isn't suspended from practing the law or else people would believe him. Oh wait Lester was disbarred?
You show how wrong you are citing "Attorney" Lester Munson is at it again!
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/st...
"The rule that judges should not tamper with an arbitrator's decision is so well recognized and obvious that a U.S. Supreme Court opinion involving Steve Garvey was issued in 2001 as a per curiam decision. That means the ruling was not only unanimous, it should have been clear to all concerned that there was no reason for the case to be considered at the high court level."
Well, it was unanimous... except for Justice Stevens' dissent, of course.
https://supreme.justia.com/cas...
Lester, as usual, lacks basic comprehension skills here. Per curiam decisions are ultimately just unsigned decisions that represent the Court as a unified body. There's a separate phrase for opinions where the Court wants to make it clear to all concerned that there is no reason for the case to be considered at the high court level: it's called "denial of the petition for certiorari." Per curiam decisions are (in theory) supposed to be used when there's no need for an extensive discussion of the facts or law underlying the case; i.e. where there's a clear disposition in the view of the Court. If, for some ungodly reason, the 9th Circuit found that California could negotiate its own treaties with foreign countries, the overturning of that decision by the Supreme Court would very likely be a per curiam opinion. (Were I on the court, the entirety of the opinion would be "NO! BAD STATE! NO!". But I digress.) And in Garvey, the facts weren't in dispute, and the question of law was (to be frank) pretty easy. The 9th Circuit super overstepped its authority (again, WAY WAY WAY more than the NFLPA is asking for in this case), and the SupCt put them in their place.
Once again, Lester's analysis isn't worth the paper it's not written on.
One more thing -- Lester mis-cites the rule, too. The rule expressed (firmly) in Garvey is that a court should not tamper with the arbitrator's FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS, not that the court should not tamper with the award. There's a difference. And you'd think that, you know, a legal analyst's job would be to explain to people that subtlety that's not readily apparent to non-lawyers.
I'm sorry, I just can't let this Munson crap go. Another especially egregious misstatement:
"To make sure everyone understood its ruling, the Supreme Court went so far as to say in the Garvey decision that even when the arbitrator's "procedural aberrations rise to the level of affirmative misconduct," a federal judge may not "interfere with an arbitrator's decision that the parties [players and owners] bargained for.""
Yes, yes it did. Now let me show you the whole quote from the opinion.
---
Consistent with this limited role, we said in Misco that "[e]ven in the very rare instances when an arbitrator's procedural aberrations rise to the level of affirmative misconduct, as a rule the court must not foreclose further proceedings by settling the merits according to its own judgment of the appropriate result." 484 U. S., at 40-41, n. 10. That step, we explained, "would improperly substitute a judicial determination for the arbitrator's decision that the parties bargained for" in their agreement. Ibid. Instead, the court should "simply vacate the award, thus leaving open the possibility of further proceedings if they are permitted under the terms of the agreement." Ibid.
---
Here, let me repeat that sentence for you, Lester:
Instead, the court should "simply vacate the award, thus leaving open the possibility of further proceedings if they are permitted under the terms of the agreement."
One more time, with feeling?
Instead, THE COURT SHOULD "SIMPLY VACATE THE AWARD, thus leaving open the possibility of further proceedings if they are permitted under the terms of the agreement."
Some days I'm embarrassed by my chosen profession.
"To make sure everyone understood its ruling, the Supreme Court went so far as to say in the Garvey decision that even when the arbitrator's "procedural aberrations rise to the level of affirmative misconduct," a federal judge may not "interfere with an arbitrator's decision that the parties [players and owners] bargained for.""
Yes, yes it did. Now let me show you the whole quote from the opinion.
---
Consistent with this limited role, we said in Misco that "[e]ven in the very rare instances when an arbitrator's procedural aberrations rise to the level of affirmative misconduct, as a rule the court must not foreclose further proceedings by settling the merits according to its own judgment of the appropriate result." 484 U. S., at 40-41, n. 10. That step, we explained, "would improperly substitute a judicial determination for the arbitrator's decision that the parties bargained for" in their agreement. Ibid. Instead, the court should "simply vacate the award, thus leaving open the possibility of further proceedings if they are permitted under the terms of the agreement." Ibid.
---
Here, let me repeat that sentence for you, Lester:
Instead, the court should "simply vacate the award, thus leaving open the possibility of further proceedings if they are permitted under the terms of the agreement."
One more time, with feeling?
Instead, THE COURT SHOULD "SIMPLY VACATE THE AWARD, thus leaving open the possibility of further proceedings if they are permitted under the terms of the agreement."
Some days I'm embarrassed by my chosen profession.
NateW
Living Legend
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2013
- Messages
- 11,363
- Like
- 16,201
Hey man, Let's Go Orange!
Not trying to ruin your day, just having a little fun with the situation. It's fun to poke the bear sometimes. Just sit back and relax and enjoy the 4 rings, especially if you think the whole thing is hogwash. Although I know where you're coming from, I've had shouting matches with one of my best friends over the Cuse sanctions. I respect your passion.
As a Bills fan I certainly would trade positions with you in a heartbeat!
We'll see ya week 2, hopefully Brady is there so we can see just how much ground we've gained on you guys.
I can take teasing if people just want to hate the Patriots. I just want the truth of this case to bee seen for what it is.
I mean I am decent lawyer and it took me 30 minutes to dress down what a "legal expert" for ESPN wrote. That piece is a disgrace to lawyers with how many mistakes factual and law were included. ESPN is giving that "piece with all the mistakes" a national platform.
Tobias Funke said:
I agree with all this.
I think he made a mistake (perhaps/probably repeatedly) and then compounded it by lying (my read of the evidence)
No one myself included would care if he'd manned up on the minor issue at the start.
It would be confirmatory about my view that they bend the rules in many ways and the NFL helps them win, but no one seems to care and most attached to the NFL are laughing all the way to the bank.
shandeezy7
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 15,011
- Like
- 37,901
