GoSkins0721 Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Brady had no obligation under any contract or agreement to give up his cell phone because any such contract would have violated his rights. Basically the cba gives Goodell the same power the cops have when they throw somebody on the ground and rough them up and claim that they resisted arrest because he can decide based on whether or not Brady "cooperated" or not. Brady, under no obligation to do so, refused to give Goodell his cell phone therefore he was uncooperative. Guilty!!! See, here's the thing: Brady DID, in fact, hand over his cell phone. It was the one that was used PRIOR to the one being used during the time of the Colts game. Then he told the investigators he changes his cell phone frequently and when he does he gives it to someone who then destroys it. What's that you say, his old phone wasn't destroyed? Yeah, a little inconsistency in Brady's story, huh? People keep saying he didn't turn over his phone, but he did turn over one of his phones. Just not the one in use in January around the time of the Colts game. That phone was replaced the day before he was interviewed. And that's the one the investigators wanted to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 I hate Goodell 10000000x more than I could ever hate the Patriots or brady. Anything that embarrasses him, I'm rooting for. When the lights went off during the super bowl my first thoughts were 'Hah Goodell, eat that you <stuff>' Screw that dude My point is, I'm not siding on either side at this point. I just want a final decision and let's all move on from this and get this off the front page of the NFL headlines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Goodell is an embarrassment. The fact he remains commissioner raking in nearly $40 mil a year is beyond absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/08/cellphone-privacy-the-workplace-and-nfl-superstar-tom-brady/ "If this sounds like a Fourth Amendment issue, the concept is related. The amendment famously states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” and such information can only be inspected via a warrant. But as Goodell would be the first person to acknowledge, the Brady investigation as a civil workplace matter doesn’t give the NFL any direct legal power to compel Brady to surrender evidence, such as cellphone records. In Goodell’s 20-page statement on the Brady matter, Goodell said that “neither the NFL or any NFL member club has subpoena power or other means to compel production of relevant materials or testimony.” However, Goodell also said that under the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and the player’s union, the NFL can consider the extent of cooperation of league or club employees during a workplace investigation in evaluating sanctions." You forgot this part. The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people’s right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary governmental intrusions. Private intrusions not acting in the color of governmental authority are exempted from the Fourth Amendment. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 You forgot this part. The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people’s right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary governmental intrusions. Private intrusions not acting in the color of governmental authority are exempted from the Fourth Amendment. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment That doesn't mean what you apparently think it does. The league still has no claim to Bradys private property no more than your own employer can enter and search your house whenever he feels like it. That would fall under slightly more criminal offenses, not 4th amendment rights, but I'm sure you knew that already. See, here's the thing: Brady DID, in fact, hand over his cell phone. It was the one that was used PRIOR to the one being used during the time of the Colts game. Then he told the investigators he changes his cell phone frequently and when he does he gives it to someone who then destroys it. What's that you say, his old phone wasn't destroyed? Yeah, a little inconsistency in Brady's story, huh? People keep saying he didn't turn over his phone, but he did turn over one of his phones. Just not the one in use in January around the time of the Colts game. That phone was replaced the day before he was interviewed. And that's the one the investigators wanted to see. He could have turned over 2 cans and a string, called it his cell phone. How does that change the fact that the nfl has no legal ability to demand Brady to give them his private property? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 It actually means your or my opinion doesn't mean crap. It means it depends on what is written in his contract and the CBS and how it is interpreted. You don't think Brad's team of lawyers would have thought of that if he wasn't required to turn over his phone? Or you just think you are a better lawyer than his whole team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 I think maybe you missed the part, quote above, then requoted by you, where even Goodell admitted that he can't require Brady to fork over his phone. But don't let facts slow down the hate train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Again, I'm not a lawyer so I can't argue it to much but have full faith in Brady's lawyers to mount a good defense. I was pointing out that the 4th didn't apply. My understanding is that the CBA doesn't give the power to demand his cell phone. But it does give far reaching power in disciplining. So the conversation would have been: RG: I think you cheated. I feel confident enough that you are going to get punishment X. You can turn over your phone and that may reduce your punishment if we don't find anything. But if you don't, we are going to stick with our original assumption. TB: Nope. You aren't getting the phone that you want. Here are some other unrelated phones. RG: That's not what we wanted. You get punishment X. I have that power as per the CBA. Union: Crap. Why did we agree to that again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins0721 Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 He could have turned over 2 cans and a string, called it his cell phone. How does that change the fact that the nfl has no legal ability to demand Brady to give them his private property? Hey, I'm no lawyer, but the ****ing & moaning has been that Brady didn't need to turn over his cell phone. But, he did, in fact, turn over his cell phone. Just not the one that was in use at the time of the NE vs. IND game. Call it 2 cans & a string, but it was, in fact, his phone that he turned over to the Wells investigation team. Why turn over 1 and not the other? Update July 13 - Game over unless he chooses to tryc & take this to the next level: http://cnb.cx/29D0zil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audible_Red40 Posted July 13, 2016 Author Share Posted July 13, 2016 And back in the news...... SportsCenter (@SportsCenter) 8 mins ago - View on Twitter THIS JUST IN: Federal appeals court rejects Tom Brady's latest attempt to overturn 4-game Deflategate suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 i know I heard Sheehan on the radio this morning say 'the wells report proved brady didn't cheat'. did he misspeak, or did I miss something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Update July 13 - Game over unless he chooses to tryc & take this to the next level: http://cnb.cx/29D0zil Its not game over. He will apply for a stay on the ruling waiting for the SC to decide if they will hear the case. Its highly unlikely the SC will hear the case but it will also take them quite a while to formally decide that. Its very likely a stay will be granted - Brady will be able to argue its unfair he is not allowed to continue to work until the legal process is exhausted. That means unless Brady and the NFLPA decide enough is enough that Brady will play this whole season under a stay. Its next year that any suspension will apply assuming Brady is playing next season of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Whole thing is so ridiculous. Would only happen under this commish... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Brady should just retire the week before he finally has to serve his suspension. I'm sure that Goodell and the owners who want him making decisions like this would regret it then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooleyfan1993 Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Hello 0-4 hole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 I've said all along, he's not being punished for deflating footballs. He's being punished for lying/covering it up.He should have been given an additional suspension after he destroyed his phone. The NFL does not have subpoena power. If employees refuse to cooperate, the system breaks down.Funniest possible scenario is if Justice Ginsberg grants a stay and the Supreme Court denies cert in December. Brady could miss 2 games at the end of the season, their only playoff game and the opener next year. That would be so fitting for the whiny cheaters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins0721 Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Its not game over. He will apply for a stay on the ruling waiting for the SC to decide... Brady will be able to argue its unfair he is not allowed to continue to work until the legal process is exhausted. Hmmm...yeah, sure, just like Ray Rice was afforded that same option. But, hey, we're talking Tommy Boy & NE. They've never been given a break maybe it's time for the NFL to turn the other cheek.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Hmmm...yeah, sure, just like Ray Rice was afforded that same option. But, hey, we're talking Tommy Boy & NE. They've never been given a break maybe it's time for the NFL to turn the other cheek.. There is no parallel between the Brady case and the Ray Rice case. However I just read a couple of legal opinions that say getting a stay might not be that easy - so maybe we do see Brady suspended for the first 4 games this year after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Hmmm...yeah, sure, just like Ray Rice was afforded that same option. The fact that Ray Rice took no action in his case matters how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins0721 Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Can't do the multi-quote on my phone or maybe just tech-challenged.. My point about Rice was that he was suspended, pending outcome of his legal case. His suspension was legally vacated by the courts. To quote the judge "the indefinite suspension was arbitrary". He should have been allowed to keep playing. For the record, this is not a support of what rice did. It's about the process.as much as its about the rules about altering official approval of game day footballs & then altering them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins0721 Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 The fact that Ray Rice took no action in his case matters how? Back to the laptop where I can quote: Not sure what you mean "Ray Rice took no action"? He appealed his indefinite suspension in court. And it was overturned. But he was suspended during that period of time by the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 However I just read a couple of legal opinions that say getting a stay might not be that easy - so maybe we do see Brady suspended for the first 4 games this year after all.Praise <your deity> here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsGuy Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 There is no parallel between the Brady case and the Ray Rice case. However I just read a couple of legal opinions that say getting a stay might not be that easy - so maybe we do see Brady suspended for the first 4 games this year after all. I thought I read somewhere that the Supreme Court only hears about 1% of the cases put before them (they must get A LOT of requests for hearings ). This seems too frivolous for the SC. They usually deal with Constitutional issues, as well as executive (president) versus legislative (congress) issues. Since Brady's Constitutional rights aren't being violated, I can't see the SC taking this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Sheehan going down a delusional path regarding a known cheater in Tom Brady and the Patriots - much like he does whenever Mike Shanahan is brought up. I'd say he's going down a shanahole. He's off the rails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 I thought I read somewhere that the Supreme Court only hears about 1% of the cases put before them (they must get A LOT of requests for hearings ). This seems too frivolous for the SC. They usually deal with Constitutional issues, as well as executive (president) versus legislative (congress) issues. Since Brady's Constitutional rights aren't being violated, I can't see the SC taking this up. I read they take up about 10% but that the odds of Brady's case being taken up are far lower than that because the ruling is consistent with how courts treat this kind of issue. The real question is will he be able to get a stay which will allow him to play while the SC decide if they will take the case. I've heard different lawyers asked for 'expert' analysis say that a stay is both likely and unlikely ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.