Kelly the Dog Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 however it could just as easily end in december and sit him for playoff games, if the judge wants to pace it that way. That is one way that he may be able to get them to settle although I very much doubt it will come to this. He can say sure, go ahead, take this as far as you want, but I will make sure that we only go by the luck of the draw and I will not allow extensions from your lawyers to get this heard after the season is over. If it comes up in November or December or January, that is when we do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I think that's a wild conjecture with zero basis in reality and is totally counterproductive to what the judge is trying to prove and is therefore ridiculous. You're saying, in effect, that since the judge cannot get these two parties to settle out of court so the court doesn't have to put up with this nonsense any more or any longer than it already has, that the judge is going to intentionally rule to keep this case in court for as long as he can as punishment. In the finest sense of the words, in the highest TSW tradition, and with no disrespect whatsoever... Your an idiot. This case is going to be tried in a civil court. The time lines are very long, especially with the pre-trial requirements. This case is not going to be a priority case for him. Civil trials can end up taking years before they get to the actual trial stage. I was victimized by a credit card theft case more than a year ago. Arrests were made more than nine months ago. The case still has not gone to trial. That was a criminal case in which scheduling is quicker than civil cases. In the Brady case you have two sides with high powered attorneys who are involved in a scorched earth strategy. If you think this case is going to go to trial sooner than a year you are wrong. It is not unusual for civil cases with numerous motions filed can take years before they are heard in a trial setting. Your an idiot. Your childish response is not surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 That is one way that he may be able to get them to settle although I very much doubt it will come to this. He can say sure, go ahead, take this as far as you want, but I will make sure that we only go by the luck of the draw and I will not allow extensions from your lawyers to get this heard after the season is over. If it comes up in November or December or January, that is when we do it. set the final hearing date the the friday before the super bowl - neither side would be able to handle the potential drama! could you imagine.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) The last part depends on whether or not Brady is able to play while the case is still going on. If the case goes for a year or two, Brady will play and then could possibly retire before the case is even over. Granted I'm sure it will cost him some coin to keep the case going but I'm sure he can afford it. If this case goes to trial an injunction would be granted by the judge. Edited August 12, 2015 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 This case is going to be tried in a civil court. The time lines are very long, especially with the pre-trial requirements. This case is not going to be a priority case for him. Civil trials can end up taking years before they get to the actual trial stage. I was victimized by a credit card theft case more than a year ago. Arrests were made more than nine months ago. The case still has not gone to trial. That was a criminal case in which scheduling is quicker than civil cases. In the Brady case you have two sides with high powered attorneys who are involved in a scorched earth strategy. If you think this case is going to go to trial sooner than a year you are wrong. It is not unusual for civil cases with numerous motions filed can take years before they are heard in a trial setting. Your an idiot. Your childish response is not surprising. There is no civil case. And won't be. This is over before the season on settlement or Berman ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 On this issue I am almost diametrically opposed to your position. However, I agree with your assessment that the judge is strenuously doing his best to get the parties to settle to avoid a trial. If this case gets to a trial the terms of the CBA, imbalanced as they are, would compel the judge to side with the league. The judge is signalling to the league that although they might be in a stronger position because of the CBA he can punish their side by delaying their punishment and then take his time scheduling and re-scheduling the trial dates. The reason that the judge is directing a little more attention to the league is not because they are in a weaker legal position but because they are in a stronger position from the legal procedural standpoint. He is indirectly telling them that although your bargaining position is stronger that doesn't mean that your case isn't flawed. This is not a criminal case where trial dates are scheduled on a faster pace. This is a civil issue that could result in trial dates years down the road. Even if a date is scheduled within a year or so the preliminary proceedings could result in the actual trial being scheduled years down the road. This judge is a no nonsense judge who is dealing with two entrenched sides who are willing to take a scorch earth approach.He is not going to be party to such foolishness, at least not in his court. This savvy judge can't make the parties come to an agreement. What he can do and is clearly signal to them that if they don't come to an acceptable agreement he will punish both recalcitrant sides with an open ended process that benefits no one. Respectfully, John, this makes no sense to me. That's not what's going down right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Respectfully, John, this makes no sense to me. That's not what's going down right now. Unless there is a settlement between the parties (which I don't see) I don't see a quick settlement. If you disagree I can respect your view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Unless there is a settlement between the parties (which I don't see) I don't see a quick settlement. If you disagree I can respect your view. I thought there was going to be a ruling by Sept. 4th? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I thought there was going to be a ruling by Sept. 4th? On the injunction, surely, but the whole thing? That would surprise me honestly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I've been trolling Pats fans on PFT. one one them accused me of making leaps of logic with the evidence and I was proud of this one: If while investigniting a Ponzi scheme you found that 11 out of the last 12 earnings reports didnt match up, a forensic accountant runs tests and finds that the companys explanations make no srnse, you find company emails where two guys joke about bonuses they get for extra duty and one calls himself the inflator and when asked for records the CEO first says theyre trade secrets and then tells you that hes burned them Yeah, thats hardly a major leap on logic to make 9 out of 12 people think that its more likely than not that the CEO is likely cooking the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I thought there was going to be a ruling by Sept. 4th?There is. Who knows what he is talking about. Brady is not going to take the league to court on a separate legal civil case. That would be potentially career suicide. He wouldn't be able to hide behind his implausible explanations and especially Jastremski and McNally called as witnesses under cross examination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 There is. Who knows what he is talking about. Brady is not going to take the league to court on a separate legal civil case. That would be potentially career suicide. He wouldn't be able to hide behind his implausible explanations and especially Jastremski and McNally called as witnesses under cross examination. didnt you already use that argument before this filing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 didnt you already use that argument before this filing? I said there was not a chance in hell he is going to court about the case 100 times from day one. Numerous tlimes I said they could go about orocess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I said there was not a chance in hell he is going to court about the case 100 times from day one. Numerous tlimes I said they could go about orocess You initially said that there was no chance he'd take it to court. The qualifiers came later, if I recall correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 You initially said that there was no chance he'd take it to court. The qualifiers came later, if I recall correctly.No. Untrue. I always always always talking about going to court with the idea that it was about the case and where McNally and Jastremski could be witnesses. That is what I always said and meant. It was always 100% about those two guys testifying under oath. The process issue came later and I said immediately they could go to court over process but no way in hell about the case. If the process stuff came up earlier I would have said the exact same thing. The ONLY reason I ever said he would never go to court was because of the witnesses and he would have to take stand about his lies with those guys having to respond to them for the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odon59 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I'm a lawyer and I read the briefs filed by Brady and the league last week. I think Brady's arguments are very strong compared to the league's. I'd say 70/30 chance that the judge grants Brady's motion to vacate the suspension. Also, Kelly the Dog, the procedural posture of the federal court litigation doesn't really make the ball boys' testimony relevant. It's all about whether the NFL followed its own policies and the CBA in dishing out this punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I'm a lawyer and I read the briefs filed by Brady and the league last week. I think Brady's arguments are very strong compared to the league's. I'd say 70/30 chance that the judge grants Brady's motion to vacate the suspension. Also, Kelly the Dog, the procedural posture of the federal court litigation doesn't really make the ball boys' testimony relevant. It's all about whether the NFL followed its own policies and the CBA in dishing out this punishment. I know that inside and out. That's not what we were talking about. Another poster said Brady wax going to sue the league in a civil case not the process thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Judge Berman: “It looks like they…deflated the game balls? Why would either one of them do that without Mr. Brady’s consent?” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odon59 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I know that inside and out. That's not what we were talking about. Another poster said Brady wax going to sue the league in a civil case not the process thing. Well to that end, this is THE CIVIL CASE. Brady doesn't have any other recourse. The CBA bars players from filing some end-around lawsuit to relitigate the underlying facts. Also, in regards to the speculation that the judge could just delay delay delay - that's true but Brady could just file an application for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, which would force the judge to rule quickly. All of this is moot because the judge said he would rule by Sept. 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts