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

[upstater]

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.

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

 

[Bonehead]

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.

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.

 

[upstater]

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.

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.

 

[Bonehead]

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.

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.

 

[upstater]

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.

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.

 

[Bonehead]

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.

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

that is a great question and I don't know the answer.
The same reason why they did during the Jet game??

 

[upstater]

that is a great question and I don't know the answer.
The same reason why they did during the Jet game??

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:

 

[intlzncster]

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.

 

[Husky25]

If the NFL hadn’t won the race to the courthouse (thanks to the head start that Arbitrator Roger Goodell provided to Commissioner Roger Goodell), the NFL Players Association may have filed the first lawsuit in Minnesota. And lawsuit could have landed on the docket of Judge David Doty. And whatever the outcome in New York before Judge Berman, it could have been worse before Judge Doty.

...
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...s-whether-goodell-understands-there-is-a-cba/
“I’m not sure the Commissioner understands there is a CBA,” Judge Doty said in open court, via Tom Pelissero of USA Today.

If Kessler can somehow get this statement into the record in New York, There is no way that Tom Brady doesn't play in two weeks and the NFL is the party doing the appealing.

 

[Husky25]

Stephen Brown ‏@PPVSRB 4m4 minutes ago New York, USA

Here's the line from Berman vacating the Tom Brady's #DeflateGate suspension. pic.twitter.com/EZpyPMEyRx




10:19 AM - 3 Sep 2015 · Details
535 retweets 252 favorites

 

[Adios]

Super Bowl #5!

 

[upstater]

The balls were never even deflated or messed with for the Colts game.

 

[upstater]

What a bizarre episode. I told you Mau.

 

[CL82]

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.

 

[upstater]

 

[Husky25]

Let the Fall of '07 Redeux commence.

 

[Bonehead]

The balls were never even deflated or messed with for the Colts game.

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.

 

[Adios]

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.

Who cares? Dynasties are always hated by fans of opposing teams in sports.

 

[Bonehead]

Who cares? Dynasties are always hated by fans of opposing teams in sports.

Tom does - he is worried about the Tom Brady legacy.

 

[Adios]

Tom does - he is worried about the Tom Brady legacy.

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity...chen-threatened-tom-brady-with-divorce-201529

So is Gisele! We're brands now. Butch™.

 

[intlzncster]

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.

No, but actual science did. Yours and upstater's opinion don't really matter.

 

[intlzncster]

Tom does - he is worried about the Tom Brady legacy.

Every person who feels they are unjustly accused/prosecuted cares. If you don't, you're not human. To think otherwise is lunacy.

 

[StoweD210]

Lester Munson, right again.

 

[intlzncster]

NFL:

 

[upstater]

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.

The judge said it during questioning. He said it repeatedly. He embarrassed Pash with it. He kept saying the texts from May had nothing to do with the Champ game.