• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

The real threat of a Brady Law suit...

wig

wig

Well-known member
Forefather
Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
11,072
Reaction score
13,225
Points
113
This may be a merge-worthy thread, but I thought it deserved it's own line of reasoning.

Here's where the dilemma lies with Brady going to the mattresses with Goodell on this suspension. Rice and Peterson had some cause to contest Goodell's decision in their cases. Rice's case, for example was pretty clear cut. There was a double-jeopardy thing going from the start.

Brady however has a totally different situation on his hands. Goodell has heard the situation and made a ruling based on the personal conduct clause. He's backed it up with reasonable evidence and given really decent documentation on why he's ruled as he has.

Now, let's just say, for the sake of argument that Brady goes to court and manages somehow to win. Let's say he goes into a Federal Court and gets a judge to overturn Goodell's ruling on the Collective Bargaining agreement clause that allows him to assign and enforce suspensions for various infractions.

If I were an owner I would see this as an opportunity to take a long hard look at the collective bargaining agreement and see just what else I'm not happy with because clearly a federal judge has already ruled that it is invalid. So, the owners would be in a position to say (since the NFLPA has successfully undermined their own CBA,) that they also can modify the terms of the CBA in instances that they feel are not advantageous or beneficial to the league in general.

IE, Y'all are ******.

And I'm enough of a dick, if I were an owner, that's exactly what I'd be telling the NFLPA reps quietly right now. "You negotiated for the CBA, you want to throw it all away? By all means. There's no reason we need to comply with a BUNCH of that ****."
 
in view of that, the NFL should be glad Al Davis is dead.
 
What this thread needs is titties



Gisele Bündchen 'donned a burqa to secretly visit Paris plastic surgeon'

Sources tell the New York Post that the recently-retired supermodel underwent an $11,000 surgery in Paris to fix her 'sagging' breasts and eyes

2AEF95ED00000578-3178555-image-a-10_1438181886663.jpg


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...operation.html
 
I'd still be surprised if a court hears the case since his complaint is based on the CBA that his union agreed to. I also think that Tom Brady doesn't give a **** about any of that and he only cares about Tom Brady. Upside is that if as Stephen A. Smith said, more evidence in court might lead to a lifetime ban of Belicheat, then I'm all in favor of Tommy getting his day in court.
 
Sounds like he might argue asking for his cell phone violated his privacy. So if he has texts to a gay lover or whatever, the NFL would have had access to them as well.
 
This should be merged. We're discussing this in the other thread. And there's no way a reasonable judge would touch this.
 
someone say titties?

Denise-Milani-denise-milani-28735840-1015-1600.jpg
 
There was a very good article on the other thread written by someone who clearly had a lot of knowledge not only about the legal system, but how it pertains to the NFL and labor in general. First off, judges don't want to hear arbitrated cases. Because the term arbitration means that a qualified individual has already judged the case. The new CBA gave that privilege rightly or wrongly to Roger Goodell. Furthermore, the decision is very well researched, thoroughly written and cited (in his opinion and my own from having read the 20 pages myself). Now there is some type of judge the NFLPA seems to continuously go to in Minnesota (I believe that started with the Wlliams challenging their PED suspension). He would likely give the injunction if the NFL didn't already appeal to Federal Court in another jurisdiction to check the validity of their decision and thus block this particular judge. Either way, this could never see the courtroom because it isn't a criminal case and thus he would have to make a sworn oath that he had nothing to do with it and so would the TWO locker room attendants. Plus at that point the texts could be subpoenaed which clearly he didn't want.
 
The political system in some states promotes various tainted outcomes. I believe for example the most corrupt state according to some criminal investigators is Illinois and I suspect Minnesota is also close, if I am not mistaken in a recent election they had more votes than registered voters, and kept finding them until the democrat won, generally in car trunks. I am suspect of anything that only gets a favorable verdict in certain jurisdictions, that should be a red flag to anyone. The election was for al franken and that might be the biggest joke ever.
 
Troglodyte said:
Sounds like he might argue asking for his cell phone violated his privacy. So if he has texts to a gay lover or whatever, the NFL would have had access to them as well.
Click to expand...

The fact is they did not ask for the cell phone -- just the message pertaining to the issue, which he refused to do . (according to the Wells Report)
The cell phone has only come into play because he destroyed it .. in what appears to be an attempt to hide the requested messages .

That is what is bothering me -- all the talking heads are making it out that he was asked for his cell -- and his refusal was the reason -- but in reality it wasn't
 
Bring it on t*mmy b*y..!!!! This "law suit" would be great. Supeana, testimony under oath, time frames to adhere to, NONE of these would be t*mmy's friend........ yaz dig??? The beginning of the end of the cheating SOB(s). Maybe even get as far back as "spygate". NAIL em




Salute the nation
 
He absolutely has the right not to turn over his phone and the NFL absolutely has the right to suspend him for hindering an investigation because of it... newsflash people, you have the right to free speech, yet what you say can get you fired. Private enterprise isn't beholden to a lot of rights and rules that the government must adhere to.
 
madinsomniac said:
He absolutely has the right not to turn over his phone and the NFL absolutely has the right to suspend him for hindering an investigation because of it... newsflash people, you have the right to free speech, yet what you say can get you fired. Private enterprise isn't beholden to a lot of rights and rules that the government must adhere to.
Click to expand...

Unless you're religious, own a bakery and are opposed to gay marriage. Just sayin' . . . .
 
madinsomniac said:
He absolutely has the right not to turn over his phone and the NFL absolutely has the right to suspend him for hindering an investigation because of it... newsflash people, you have the right to free speech, yet what you say can get you fired. Private enterprise isn't beholden to a lot of rights and rules that the government must adhere to.
Click to expand...

Or unless it was used to commit illegal acts, conspire with others to do the same, etc. Free speech does not allow one to be protected from having written or other forms of speech subpoenaed or be otherwise produced when one enters into a collective bargaining agreement to produce such items. By your logic hiring someone to be a contract killer is protected free speech, not the case. There are very few types of communication under the law not subject to disclosure. Attorney client privilege is one example, a confession to a priest is another, his cell phone communication with a co-conspirator is not.
 
Wingman said:
Or unless it was used to commit illegal acts, conspire with others to do the same, etc. Free speech does not allow one to be protected from having written or other forms of speech subpoenaed or be otherwise produced when one enters into a collective bargaining agreement to produce such items. By your logic hiring someone to be a contract killer is protected free speech, not the case. There are very few types of communication under the law not subject to disclosure. Attorney client privilege is one example, a confession to a priest is another, his cell phone communication with a co-conspirator is not.
Click to expand...

totally missing my point... I actually have no clue how you got any of your points from that post....

The NFL cannot compel Brady to release his text messages. They aren't a law entity. They can, however suspend or fire him for not complying with that request... Im stating at people are confusing legal private rights and legal corporate rights...
 
madinsomniac said:
totally missing my point... I actually have no clue how you got any of your points from that post....

The NFL cannot compel Brady to release his text messages. They aren't a law entity. They can, however suspend or fire him for not complying with that request... Im stating at people are confusing legal private rights and legal corporate rights...
Click to expand...

If the organization deems that communication is evidence of collusion between him and others and is in the spirit of cooperating with the investigation they can use his refusal as failure to comply with his contract. Civil courts will subpoena things like this in many different civil matters. Free speech is not the right to conceal communications it is the right to make them. It sounds like you are mixing the right to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures with free speech. Under the circumstances I outlined above the searches would likely be deemed reasonable by a court having jurisdiction either civil or criminal depending on the matter at hand.
 
I think many people confuse criminal and civil justice. In criminal justice they have to prove you are guilty. You have to produce nothing to prove your innocence. In civil court you have to prove you are more right then they are. So in this case when you destroy your cell phone their is a logical and reasonable presumption that it was to hide something. If your defense to that is that it was broken, but you didn't tell them that until 4 months later that is pretty weak.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wingman said:
If the organization deems that communication is evidence of collusion between him and others and is in the spirit of cooperating with the investigation they can use his refusal as failure to comply with his contract. Civil courts will subpoena things like this in many different civil matters. Free speech is not the right to conceal communications it is the right to make them. It sounds like you are mixing the right to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures with free speech. Under the circumstances I outlined above the searches would likely be deemed reasonable by a court having jurisdiction either civil or criminal depending on the matter at hand.
Click to expand...

The point about free speech was just that a private corporation doesn't have to abide by it, not that it applies here... much like if the company you work for demands to search your backpack or car trunk on their property, and you decline, they can suspend or fire you for it... the police couldn't arrest you for that unless they had a warrant or reasonable suspicion, but a company can assume that you are stealing or doing something illicit and punish you for it... this isn't a court case here... its a private company handling an internal matter that has brought negative publicity on them. The Union has a cba that was followed, whether they like it or not the courts aren't in a position to interject because they don't approve of the result.
 
madinsomniac said:
The point about free speech was just that a private corporation doesn't have to abide by it, not that it applies here... much like if the company you work for demands to search your backpack or car trunk on their property, and you decline, they can suspend or fire you for it... the police couldn't arrest you for that unless they had a warrant or reasonable suspicion, but a company can assume that you are stealing or doing something illicit and punish you for it... this isn't a court case here... its a private company handling an internal matter that has brought negative publicity on them. The Union has a cba that was followed, whether they like it or not the courts aren't in a position to interject because they don't approve of the result.
Click to expand...

Freedom speech only means the government can't restrict what you say, not that your employer can tell you what you can and can't say or do.
 
madinsomniac said:
The point about free speech was just that a private corporation doesn't have to abide by it, not that it applies here... much like if the company you work for demands to search your backpack or car trunk on their property, and you decline, they can suspend or fire you for it... the police couldn't arrest you for that unless they had a warrant or reasonable suspicion, but a company can assume that you are stealing or doing something illicit and punish you for it... this isn't a court case here... its a private company handling an internal matter that has brought negative publicity on them. The Union has a cba that was followed, whether they like it or not the courts aren't in a position to interject because they don't approve of the result.
Click to expand...

When a suit has been filed it is a court case. A suit has been filed in this matter. It is a court case. Freedom of speech is one of the amendments to the constitution everyone must abide by it unless it has been modified by contractual agreement entered into by both parties. Common examples are non disclosure agreements regarding information that is deemed to belong to one of the parties, information classified as secret by the government, information protected by a gag order issued by a court. In those instances as well as others information can be protected and excluded from free speech. With regard to your comment about it not applying here I am still not sure what point you are trying to make with your original comment about free speech having anything at all to do with a point you were trying to make. My point was free speech has nothing to do with concealing evidence. The only protections one has regarding protected speech is provided under the search and seizure laws that I mentioned above and they do not apply in this instance. It is just more bullshit from the marsha** camp in an effort to confuse public opinion and nothing more. This is the bill clinton approach to honesty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top