OT: Brady out for 4 and Pats lose a first round pick. Nm | Page 19 | The Boneyard

OT: Brady out for 4 and Pats lose a first round pick. Nm

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmm, methinks Boney doesn't like the Judge Berman quotes to date. He's working hard to trying milk this bogus scandal while he can.
 
CL82 said:
Hmm, methinks Boney doesn't like the Judge Berman quotes to date. He's working hard to trying milk this bogus scandal while he can.
Expand ...
I am trying to milk this bogus scandal...

You can go back a few pages and see discussion with Husky25...I really don't care either way about this but its way too easy to rile Pat fans up a bit about their 'alleged checkered' recent history. I stated recently that the punishment doesn't match the crime. I do not hate the Pats or Brady, watch a lot of their games with wife who is a diehard, respect them tremendously, and as a Vikings fan could care less what they do.


upstater said:
Im not defending anyone at the moment. Judge Berman is.

Still confused about things?
Expand ...

Very much so...

Words don't always match actions.

I didn't hear Judge Berman defend anyone but you are much more absorbed about and into this than I am...I heard him ask questions and make comments but I missed where the judge defended Mr. Brady during his appeal.

upstater said:
You're apparently confused that stealing signals is illegal. It's not.
Expand ...
Is this link accurate in its information to clear up my perceived confusion on spygate?
I would like to become unconfused but not by your rhetoric so I am looking for a link you and I agree with to clear up my confusions.
 
Bonehead said:
I didn't hear Judge Berman defend anyone but you are much more absorbed about and into this than I am...I heard him ask questions and make comments but I missed where the judge defended Mr. Brady during his appeal.
Expand ...

He did. He backed Brady's assertion against Pash when Brady stated he only ever asked for the balls at the legal minimum.

It wasn't enough when Kessler said that Brady made the exact same comment that the Judge did, but then Berman topped it by saying, "Exactly," and then he even insisted that Kessler read Brady's testimony verbatim into the record. The Judge asserted that there was no evidence Brady wanted anything other than the balls set to legal limits. The Judge said that.

Still waiting on you to get to the bottom of this "it's illegal to steal signals" stuff. You haven't given us any proof that it's illegal to steal signals. Sounds like something you just made up.
 
intlzncster said:
This is what I'm afraid of. Here's another lawyer's take. Granted, it's ESPNs guy, and they've been fanning the flames of this for all it's worth.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...se-nfl-win-end-new-england-patriots-tom-brady
Expand ...

Fair and Balanced Post

:-)

Some tidbits -

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 limits on a federal judge's authority over an arbitration decision are well established. Brady and the union lawyers want Berman to reconsider everything in Goodell's 20-page opinion. The legal term for the Brady demand is a hearing "de novo." It means a do-over, and a do-over is exactly what Berman is not permitted to do under American law.

NFL attorneys needed only nine pages in a brief they filed this past Friday to describe the unquestioned legal doctrine that limits what Berman can do. It may be the shortest brief the NFL has filed in its massive history of litigation.

It all seems very desperate, but Brady and Pats fans shouldn't entirely lose hope. Berman has not ruled yet, has called Brady and Goodell back to court on Aug. 31 and could find a way to rule for Brady. It has happened previously in litigation involving celebrity athletes.

But even if that happens, it's unlikely Berman's decision would stand.

Shira Scheindlin, another federal judge in the same building where Berman is considering the Brady dispute, ruled in favor of Maurice Clarett in 2004, allowing him to enter the NFL draft even though legal precedents supported the collective bargaining position that a player was not eligible for the draft until his college class has completed its third year.
 
.-.
upstater said:
Still waiting on you to get to the bottom of this "it's illegal to steal signals" stuff.
Expand ...
Depending on where you are when you do it.
Is this your method to get me off Brady topic...focusing on other Patriot 'scandals'?
 
Last edited:
intlzncster said:
This is what I'm afraid of. Here's another lawyer's take. Granted, it's ESPNs guy, and they've been fanning the flames of this for all it's worth.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...se-nfl-win-end-new-england-patriots-tom-brady
Expand ...


grain-of-salt.jpg
 
Bonehead said:
Depending on where you are when you do it.
Is this your method to get me off Brady topic...focusing on other Patriot 'scandals'?
Expand ...

Hilarious coming from the guy who posts links to bugged locker room rumors.

I'll take this last post as an admission you were either wrong or that you just make stuff up and fail to back it.
 
upstater said:
Hilarious coming from the guy who posts links to bugged locker room rumors.

I'll take this last post as an admission you were either wrong or that you just make stuff up and fail to back it.
Expand ...
glad to make you laugh ...

You can take the post in whatever manner you want. You spend an awful lot of time defending the innocent - I see why you weren't hired for either appeal.
 
Bonehead said:
glad to make you laugh ...

You can take the post in whatever manner you want. You spend an awful lot of time defending the innocent - I see why you weren't hired for either appeal.
Expand ...

Supposing I had expertise here and was a lawyer who could potentially be hired, the reason I wouldn't be hired is that my services wouldn't be needed. This is a slam dunk.

But if you want to educate yourself more, try this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...4f8a26-4747-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html
 
upstater said:
Hilarious coming from the guy who posts links to bugged locker room rumors.

I'll take this last post as an admission you were either wrong or that you just make stuff up and fail to back it.
Expand ...

the New England Patriots were disciplined by the league for videotaping New York Jets' defensive coaches' signals during a September 9, 2007 game. Videotaping opposing coaches is not illegal in the NFL but there are designated areas allowed by the league to do such taping. The Patriots were videotaping the Jets' coaches from their own sideline which is not allowed. The act was deemed by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to be in violation of league rules, causing him to say when penalizing the Patriots that this episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field.

Depending on where you are when you do it.

I will assume they were video taping the defensive coaches in an effort to steal their signals or add their picture to Ashley Madison profiles...The Patriots were videotaping the Jets' coaches from their own sideline which is not allowed.

If they were standing in the stands they were within their rights to videotape the defensive coaches for the purpose of Ashley Madison profiles (stealing defensive signs/signals) - If they are standing on their sidelines it is illegal. Please correct if I am wrong.
 
.-.
Bonehead said:
the New England Patriots were disciplined by the league for videotaping New York Jets' defensive coaches' signals during a September 9, 2007 game. Videotaping opposing coaches is not illegal in the NFL but there are designated areas allowed by the league to do such taping. The Patriots were videotaping the Jets' coaches from their own sideline which is not allowed. The act was deemed by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to be in violation of league rules, causing him to say when penalizing the Patriots that this episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field.

Depending on where you are when you do it.

I will assume they were video taping the defensive coaches in an effort to steal their signals or add their picture to Ashley Madison profiles...The Patriots were videotaping the Jets' coaches from their own sideline which is not allowed.

If they were standing in the stands they were within their rights to videotape the defensive coaches for the purpose of Ashley Madison profiles (stealing defensive signs/signals) - If they are standing on their sidelines it is illegal. Please correct if I am wrong.
Expand ...

So... how does this address what I wrote earlier? It doesn't. The Patriots had never played the John Fox Panthers before, so they never even had an opportunity to steal signals from the sidelines. That's why I wrote they might have LEGALLY stolen signals. Which is what you took issue with.

And, really, we know the Jets were also taping the Patriots from the sidelines as well the previous year (2006), but the NFL protected them.
 
upstater said:
So... how does this address what I wrote earlier? It doesn't. The Patriots had never played the John Fox Panthers before, so they never even had an opportunity to steal signals from the sidelines. That's why I wrote they might have LEGALLY stolen signals. Which is what you took issue with.
Expand ...

You cant prove that they did or didn't have any persons, officially or unofficially, on sidelines at Panthers games, home or away, vs the Pats or any other team, that could have taken action deemed illegal by the NFL.

The Pats are sneaky.


:rolleyes:
 
Bonehead said:
You cant prove that they did or didn't have any persons, officially or unofficially, on sidelines at Panthers games, home or away, vs the Pats or any other team, that could have taken action deemed illegal by the NFL.

The Pats are sneaky.

:rolleyes:
Expand ...

Why would they put people on sidelines when they can see the signals from the coaches' tapes?

Heck, why put people on the sidelines at all? You could easily steal signals legally from the 10th row or any seat in the stadium facing the Panthers' benches.
 
upstater said:
So... how does this address what I wrote earlier? It doesn't. The Patriots had never played the John Fox Panthers before, so they never even had an opportunity to steal signals from the sidelines. That's why I wrote they might have LEGALLY stolen signals. Which is what you took issue with.

And, really, we know the Jets were also taping the Patriots from the sidelines as well the previous year (2006), but the NFL protected them.
Expand ...
upstater said:
Why would they put people on sidelines when they can see the signals from the coaches' tapes?
Expand ...
that is a great question and I don't know the answer.
The same reason why they did during the Jet game??
 
Bonehead said:
that is a great question and I don't know the answer.
The same reason why they did during the Jet game??
Expand ...

No. Can't be the same reason. At the Jets game the Patriots filmed from THEIR sidelines. Very easy. During an opponent's game, they would have to surreptitiously gain access to the opponent's sidelines. Much easier to film from the stands.

Cameramen are conspicuous. They look like this:

Jets-Videotaping.jpg
 
Husky25 said:
grain-of-salt.jpg
Expand ...

On the plus side:

Munson had his law license suspended twice. Once for three years in 1986 for what the Illinois State Bar called misconduct and "actions prejudicial to the administration of justice". And again in 1991 for four months, at which point he said he had "no intention of returning to the practice of law".

He's a certified asshat.
 
.-.
 
It will be interesting to read Berman's decision. Now that the matter is out of the NFL's hands, it seems that a bit more than baseless speculation will be needed to sanction Brady.

The NFL and Goodell handled this unbelievably poorly. This result isn't surprising.
 
Last edited:
.-.
Let the Fall of '07 Redeux commence.
 
upstater said:
The balls were never even deflated or messed with for the Colts game.
Expand ...

The judge didn't say that, that I have seen. I agree with CL82 to see where this goes. Outside of Patriot land, public opinion is with the NFL and not Brady - whether right or wrong.

U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman said NFL commissioner Roger Goodell went too far in affirming punishment of the Super Bowl-winning quarterback.


 
Bonehead said:
The judge didn't say that, that I have seen. I agree with CL82 to see where this goes. Outside of Patriot land, public opinion is with the NFL and not Brady - whether right or wrong.

U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman said NFL commissioner Roger Goodell went too far in affirming punishment of the Super Bowl-winning quarterback.
Expand ...
Who cares? Dynasties are always hated by fans of opposing teams in sports.
 
Butch said:
Who cares? Dynasties are always hated by fans of opposing teams in sports.
Expand ...


Tom does - he is worried about the Tom Brady legacy.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,642
Messages
4,587,545
Members
10,497
Latest member
Orlando Fos


Top Bottom