Dorkington Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I find it very troubling unqualified people are reading judicial decisions and commenting as if they understand it. Until somebody takes a lesson on Civil Procedure and Personal Jurisdiction specifically on minimum contacts you will not understand one iota what the judge wrote there. Understanding the plain English meaning is pointless without understanding the case law for statutory and constitutional limitation in this regard. We're unqualified when it comes to football, and we have opinions on that all the time. It's the internet, it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I find it very troubling unqualified people are reading judicial decisions and commenting as if they understand it. Until somebody takes a lesson on Civil Procedure and Personal Jurisdiction specifically on minimum contacts you will not understand one iota what the judge wrote there. Understanding the plain English meaning is pointless without understanding the case law for statutory and constitutional limitation in this regard. Um ... it's a message board. I wouldn't be "troubled" about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 I find it very troubling unqualified people are reading judicial decisions and commenting as if they understand it. Until somebody takes a lesson on Civil Procedure and Personal Jurisdiction specifically on minimum contacts you will not understand one iota what the judge wrote there. Understanding the plain English meaning is pointless without understanding the case law for statutory and constitutional limitation in this regard.we aren't involved in the ruling so I think it's ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 That's a pretty big feather in Brady's cap, imo. you said it about Peterson! I absolutely agree. It's not insignificant. At first glance, yes. Not sure if that pre-dates the current CBA and Personal Conduct Policy though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I find it very troubling unqualified people are reading judicial decisions and commenting as if they understand it. Until somebody takes a lesson on Civil Procedure and Personal Jurisdiction specifically on minimum contacts you will not understand one iota what the judge wrote there. Understanding the plain English meaning is pointless without understanding the case law for statutory and constitutional limitation in this regard. Why don't you enlighten us plebeans, counselor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 At first glance, yes. Not sure if that pre-dates the current CBA and Personal Conduct Policy though. Yeah, I'm not nearly educated enough to know what the actual impact is... but just being able to say "hey, look, a similar thing happened, and it wasn't a huge deal" just comes off as "you know, good point" haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Why don't you enlighten us plebeans, counselor? go get'em tiger! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Yeah, I'm not nearly educated enough to know what the actual impact is... but just being able to say "hey, look, a similar thing happened, and it wasn't a huge deal" just comes off as "you know, good point" haha It starts out similar, but the article doesn't link to any other relevant information. We don't know if the Kicker denied all accusations or accepted them. Or if he destroyed a cell phone the day he was set to be interviewed that may or may not have had relevant information on it. The Jets certainly didn't publicly demand an apology from the league because of it. The differences just go to show you that Tom and the Pats* really were the ones to blow this whole thing out of proportion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Bills Fan Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I find it very troubling unqualified people are reading judicial decisions and commenting as if they understand it. Until somebody takes a lesson on Civil Procedure and Personal Jurisdiction specifically on minimum contacts you will not understand one iota what the judge wrote there. Understanding the plain English meaning is pointless without understanding the case law for statutory and constitutional limitation in this regard. In Canada all we have to do is take a 30 minute multiple choice exam and we can become a supreme court judge I am presiding over a case tomorrow morning at 9 CBF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Not sure if this was posted or not...but go old Mark Cuban comments on this matter...pretty surprising: http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/mark-cuban-on-tom-brady-four-game-suspension-for-deflategate-is-actually-lite/ar-AAdGHeY "As far as 4 games being upheld, the NBA owner in me is surprised it wasn't extended. The old saying 'the cover up is always worse than the crime' applies here. Once he destroyed his phone this all went from did he break the rules of the game, to 'can he get away with deceiving the commissioner.' We can argue whether 4 games was too much for deflating the ball. You can't argue whether 4 games is enough for trying to make a fool out of the commissioner of the NFL. The NFL can't have players, their agents and Lawyers thinking that if you do wrong and just destroy the evidence it will all be OK. That can undermine the integrity of the league. If this was the NBA, I truly think the suspension would have been more than 25pct of the season. So while the Pats fans I'm sure will disagree, I think the punishment of 4 games for trying to destroy evidence is actually lite." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 It starts out similar, but the article doesn't link to any other relevant information. We don't know if the Kicker denied all accusations or accepted them. Or if he destroyed a cell phone the day he was set to be interviewed that may or may not have had relevant information on it. The Jets certainly didn't publicly demand an apology from the league because of it. The differences just go to show you that Tom and the Pats* really were the ones to blow this whole thing out of proportion. Yeah, I get the idea a big part of the penalty is Tom/the Patriots (accused) lack of cooperation... is that correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 In Canada all we have to do is take a 30 minute multiple choice exam and we can become a supreme court judge I am presiding over a case tomorrow morning at 9 CBF well, when you have TBD Mod on your resume... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 At first glance, yes. Not sure if that pre-dates the current CBA and Personal Conduct Policy though. That's a yes on both counts. The incident took place in 2009, and the CBA was ratified in 2011 I believe. The Personal Conduct Policy was unanimously sponsored on December 2014, a month at least before Deflategate. The CBA can certainly bring up the incident but it was enforced at a time when commissioner had vastly different levels of authority in cases like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Not sure if this was posted or not...but go old Mark Cuban comments on this matter...pretty surprising: http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/mark-cuban-on-tom-brady-four-game-suspension-for-deflategate-is-actually-lite/ar-AAdGHeY "As far as 4 games being upheld, the NBA owner in me is surprised it wasn't extended. The old saying 'the cover up is always worse than the crime' applies here. Once he destroyed his phone this all went from did he break the rules of the game, to 'can he get away with deceiving the commissioner.' We can argue whether 4 games was too much for deflating the ball. You can't argue whether 4 games is enough for trying to make a fool out of the commissioner of the NFL. The NFL can't have players, their agents and Lawyers thinking that if you do wrong and just destroy the evidence it will all be OK. That can undermine the integrity of the league. If this was the NBA, I truly think the suspension would have been more than 25pct of the season. So while the Pats fans I'm sure will disagree, I think the punishment of 4 games for trying to destroy evidence is actually lite." Damn Mark, tell us how you really feel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 That's a yes on both counts. The incident took place in 2009, and the CBA was ratified in 2011 I believe. The Personal Conduct Policy was unanimously sponsored on December 2014, a month at least before Deflategate. The CBA can certainly bring up the incident but it was enforced at a time when commissioner had vastly different levels of authority in cases like this Gotcha...looks like it may not be as big a help to Brady as initially thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Yeah, I get the idea a big part of the penalty is Tom/the Patriots (accused) lack of cooperation... is that correct? I mean I can't say for certain, but I have to believe if Tom just came out and said, "Yeah, my bad, I won't do it again" then he'd have been fined 25-50k and life would've moved on. Their denial of all wrongdoing sparked the investigation that cost the league $5M. Without the investigation there is no lack of cooperation and nobody gives a lick about Tom Brady's cell phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 It starts out similar, but the article doesn't link to any other relevant information. We don't know if the Kicker denied all accusations or accepted them. Or if he destroyed a cell phone the day he was set to be interviewed that may or may not have had relevant information on it. The Jets certainly didn't publicly demand an apology from the league because of it. The differences just go to show you that Tom and the Pats* really were the ones to blow this whole thing out of proportion. right but if you pair that with lack of cooperation not being previously penalized (as also cited in the tagliabue ruling in the bountygate case), it starts to strip down the argument to him being penalized for press conferences. i know the sum can be bigger than individual pieces, but if none of the individual pieces have been suspensions previously, you start to get to what i was saying about an argument regarding the arbitrator being fair and consistent, as the cba calls for. itll be an interesting case, potentially, that the draw of the judge could widely effect. ive read a few comments from links in the thread saying that he really strongly pushes for settlements. i still suspect we see an injunction on the suspension, and then a push to get this into a 3rd party appeal process instead of the courts -- but we will see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I mean I can't say for certain, but I have to believe if Tom just came out and said, "Yeah, my bad, I won't do it again" then he'd have been fined 25-50k and life would've moved on. Their denial of all wrongdoing sparked the investigation that cost the league $5M. Without the investigation there is no lack of cooperation and nobody gives a lick about Tom Brady's cell phone. That's kind of how I feel about the whole thing. I think most everyone knows players try to game the system as best they can, in every sport, to get whatever advantage is available. It's kind of like getting caught speeding... "everyone does it" isn't an excuse and yelling at the cop "no I didn't! you apologize to me!!!!" won't really fly either. But if you are up front about it and cordial/apologetic, you can often times get away with a warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 right but if you pair that with lack of cooperation not being previously penalized (as also cited in the tagliabue ruling in the bountygate case), it starts to strip down the argument to him being penalized for press conferences. i know the sum can be bigger than individual pieces, but if none of the individual pieces have been suspensions previously, you start to get to what i was saying about an argument regarding the arbitrator being fair and consistent, as the cba calls for. itll be an interesting case, potentially, that the draw of the judge could widely effect. ive read a few comments from links in the thread saying that he really strongly pushes for settlements. i still suspect we see an injunction on the suspension, and then a push to get this into a 3rd party appeal process instead of the courts -- but we will see. This sounds right to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 go get'em tiger! Vince aut morere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts