#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
I caught only the tail end of it, but Sal also cited a source that Brady would be more forthcoming ( or open, or some such term) in the hearing than he was previously.ifmanis5 said:
Mort was abused twice by NFL insiders, first on Rice, then on this. He gets a pass for the first; he should have known better on the second. That's why he is in hiding; his cred is shot.
You might as well read Pravda in the library as watch the NFLN on this.
And Volin is a joke.
People need to understand the hotsportztake on this:
1. They killed Kraft for not appealing because they want to paint him as throwing the team over the side to preserve his chair in the insider's club. This even though Kraft had virtually no chance of winning, and fighting would have come at grave cost.
2. They will kill Brady for appealing because they want to paint him as selfish. This even though he has an excellent chance of winning.
This douchebaggery is right out of the Borges/CHB/F & M playbook.
You might as well read Pravda in the library as watch the NFLN on this.
And Volin is a joke.
People need to understand the hotsportztake on this:
1. They killed Kraft for not appealing because they want to paint him as throwing the team over the side to preserve his chair in the insider's club. This even though Kraft had virtually no chance of winning, and fighting would have come at grave cost.
2. They will kill Brady for appealing because they want to paint him as selfish. This even though he has an excellent chance of winning.
This douchebaggery is right out of the Borges/CHB/F & M playbook.
Ralphwiggum said:
This has been the most mind-boggling part of all of this, and really displays the "people believe whatever the fuck they want" aspect of society. The Patriots, under Kraft, have received the two largest penalties in NFL history from Goodell for the equivalent of jaywalking, one of which is only "probably" jaywalking.
And people still say things like that. It's unbelievable, really.
The only element of drama for me is how Goodell will explain his decision to uphold the four games or reduce it by a game or two. I am also curious to read accounts of Wells getting shredded in the same way that I sometimes looks at traffic accidents. But in the end, today is about as predetermined as anything could be.
The notion that Roger Goodell is approaching this with an open mind is a joke. And the notion that Tom Brady is going to have an epiphany and decide to handle himself differently than he did with Wells is an even bigger joke. Neither is going to move today and my money is on no change in the penalty.
We're onto Federal Court.
The notion that Roger Goodell is approaching this with an open mind is a joke. And the notion that Tom Brady is going to have an epiphany and decide to handle himself differently than he did with Wells is an even bigger joke. Neither is going to move today and my money is on no change in the penalty.
We're onto Federal Court.
I agree with this. I said as much at the time, Kraft had zero chance of winning, and fighting would have killed his influence at a point in time where the other owners were begging him to put the story to bed because the commissioner wasn't smart enough to. He did what he had to to protect his investment, as he should have.dcmissle said:
Brady is doing the exact same thing, more or less. He's invested his life in football and he has no intention of letting the NFL trash his legacy to cover up league malfeasance. And he shouldn't. When this goes to the courts the NFL is going to get laughed out, and in two decades time this will be remembered as the time when the NFL's boneheaded commissioner tried to tarnish one of the league's greatest players over nothing.
While watching the NFL Network here in the office and I saw some B role footage of TB walking into the NFL Bldg accompanied by a blonde woman with really bad hair (think Phyllis Diller after a long motorcyle ride.) It turns out that woman is pretty bad ass, works for the NFLPA and successfully helped Ray Rice through his appeal process. Her name is Heather McPhee.
http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/12237820/meet-heather-mcphee-woman-took-nfl-won
This article about the Rice appeal before Judge Jones (by Florio from November) is pretty damning about the shoddy note taking by NFL personnel including a few VP's and Goodell himself and the Judge dismissed their recollections and put major weight on the verbatim notes taken by McPhee and thus ruled in Rice's favor:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/28/judge-jones-rejected-nfls-testimony-focused-on-notes-from-june-meeting/
This article seems to imply that there was no recording or any official transcript taken when Rice went before Goodell. Is it safe to say, they learned from that and there are a few recording devices being used?
http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/12237820/meet-heather-mcphee-woman-took-nfl-won
This article about the Rice appeal before Judge Jones (by Florio from November) is pretty damning about the shoddy note taking by NFL personnel including a few VP's and Goodell himself and the Judge dismissed their recollections and put major weight on the verbatim notes taken by McPhee and thus ruled in Rice's favor:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/28/judge-jones-rejected-nfls-testimony-focused-on-notes-from-june-meeting/
This article seems to imply that there was no recording or any official transcript taken when Rice went before Goodell. Is it safe to say, they learned from that and there are a few recording devices being used?
It's not "people." It's NFL fans, many of whom are far from the brightest bulbs. I'm not sure the demographic watching ESPN is particularly impressive either.Hendu for Kutch said:
Well one of the ways Roger could blow things up if he completely refuses to follow any norms in his informal process.
See this Vilma link
Surprisingly, Vilma and his attorney Peter Ginsberg cut the linebacker's appeal short after just about an hour and emerged from the NFL headquarters, calling the process a "sham."
LATEST ON THE SAINTS
"The Commissioner had legal obligations and procedural obligations. He failed in those obligations and as far as we're concerned these proceedings are over.According to Ginsberg, it was he and Vilma who decided to shut down the appeals process -- the league attempted to adjourn for the day but Vilma and Ginsberg weren't interested.
"He attempted to adjourn it and we closed the record," Ginsberg said. "The hearing is over as far as we're concerned."
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/19376359/jonathan-vilma-and-attorney-cut-appeal-hearing-short-monday-call-it-a-sham
See this Vilma link
Surprisingly, Vilma and his attorney Peter Ginsberg cut the linebacker's appeal short after just about an hour and emerged from the NFL headquarters, calling the process a "sham."
LATEST ON THE SAINTS
- Freeman: Hands on with NFL's evidence on Saints
- Brinson: Three Saints rip NFL in statement
- Judge: Vilma's complaints aimed in wrong direction
- Freeman: Bountygate coming to a close
- Eye on Football: Latest NFL free-agency news
"The Commissioner had legal obligations and procedural obligations. He failed in those obligations and as far as we're concerned these proceedings are over.According to Ginsberg, it was he and Vilma who decided to shut down the appeals process -- the league attempted to adjourn for the day but Vilma and Ginsberg weren't interested.
"He attempted to adjourn it and we closed the record," Ginsberg said. "The hearing is over as far as we're concerned."
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/19376359/jonathan-vilma-and-attorney-cut-appeal-hearing-short-monday-call-it-a-sham
Rapport - I don't feel like this is a fait accompli.
These legal options aren't good options. Basically capitulate give up phone and prove a negative about awareness.
RG is extremely welcoming for new info and to be convinced.
Such as water carrying num nut. Not really surprised.
These legal options aren't good options. Basically capitulate give up phone and prove a negative about awareness.
RG is extremely welcoming for new info and to be convinced.
Such as water carrying num nut. Not really surprised.
Under what kind of oath? Since this is an NFL proceeding and not a legal proceeding, how could they put him "under oath"?
Although, being that Roger Goodell thinks that Roger Goodell is God, I suppose one could come to the conclusion that by speaking to God, one was speaking under oath.
This just keeps getting better.
Although, being that Roger Goodell thinks that Roger Goodell is God, I suppose one could come to the conclusion that by speaking to God, one was speaking under oath.
This just keeps getting better.
soxhop411 said:
And let's not forget that Team Brady wants to call Goodell as a witness
Does Roger know his right-hand from his left?.
Ugh, espn (http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/13134154/tom-brady-new-england-patriots-appeal-roger-goodell-begins-nfl-hq):
"Tom Brady and representatives from the players' union are meeting with commissioner Roger Goodell at NFL headquarters Tuesday as the New England quarterback appeals his four-game suspension.
Brady is testifying under oath, a source told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter.
Brady was suspended by the league for his role in the use of deflated footballs in the New England Patriots' AFC Championship Game win over the Indianapolis Colts. He arrived at the NFL's Park Avenue offices Tuesday morning, as did attorney Jeffrey Kessler, who is leading Brady's defense."
I mean, come ON. Was Andrew Luck suspended for his role in the use of deflated footballs too? It drive me CRAZY.
"Tom Brady and representatives from the players' union are meeting with commissioner Roger Goodell at NFL headquarters Tuesday as the New England quarterback appeals his four-game suspension.
Brady is testifying under oath, a source told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter.
Brady was suspended by the league for his role in the use of deflated footballs in the New England Patriots' AFC Championship Game win over the Indianapolis Colts. He arrived at the NFL's Park Avenue offices Tuesday morning, as did attorney Jeffrey Kessler, who is leading Brady's defense."
I mean, come ON. Was Andrew Luck suspended for his role in the use of deflated footballs too? It drive me CRAZY.
Michael McCann @McCannSportsLaw 15m15 minutes ago
Michael McCann retweeted Adam Schefter
Tom Brady testifying under oath means he's putting his actual freedom on the line in arguing the NFL got it wrong.
Michael McCann retweeted Adam Schefter
Tom Brady testifying under oath means he's putting his actual freedom on the line in arguing the NFL got it wrong.
"The meeting was moved to the basement of the NFL's Park Avenue headquarters to accommodate the approximately 40 people in attendance." (from ESPN story, mostly from wires)
There are 40 people in attendance? Leaks should start almost immediately then. :: rubbing hands together::
There are 40 people in attendance? Leaks should start almost immediately then. :: rubbing hands together::
So I guess we don't have to worry about no leaks coming from this if the leaks have already started.
What does it mean to testify under oath outside of a court room? If he lied and was caught what would that mean from a legal standpoint?Gash Prex said:
Threat of prosecution, and incarceration upon conviction, for perjury, for lying under oath.Gash Prex said:
bankshot1 said:
Sounds like Harry Potter after the dementors attacked him and Dudley. I wonder if they told him at the last second so he'd be late to his own hearing.
Ed Hillel said:
What? People lie all the time in Court - nobody gets prosecuted unless you lie to the FBI or to Congress. Proving perjury is just about impossible anyway - see Bonds, Barry
See also this article
http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/products/articles/spring2012-perjury-during-depositions.html
bankshot1 said:
Once he lies under oath they will have Kensil bringing him his bread and water.
Gash Prex said:
Not offered to say whether its enforceable.....just the law.....
NH Law (because its the one I have at hand):
I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if in any official proceeding:
(a) He makes a false material statement under oath or affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of a material statement previously made, and he does not believe the statement to be true; or
(b) He makes inconsistent material statements under oath or affirmation, both within the period of limitations, one of which is false and not believed by him to be true. In a prosecution under this section, it need not be alleged or proved which of the statements is false but only that one or the other was false and not believed by the defendant to be true.
II. "Official proceeding'' means any proceeding before a legislative, judicial, administrative or other governmental body or official authorized by law to take evidence under oath or affirmation including a notary or other person taking evidence in connection with any such proceeding. "Material'' means capable of affecting the course or outcome of the proceeding. A statement is not material if it is retracted in the course of the official proceeding in which it was made before it became manifest that the falsification was or would be exposed and before it substantially affected the proceeding. Whether a statement is material is a question of law to be determined by the court.
Federal law:
Whoever—
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
**********************************************************************
(a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b) This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred within or without the United States.
(c) An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify which declaration is false if—
(1) each declaration was material to the point in question, and
(2) each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged under this section.
In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true.
(d) Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration admits such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has been or will be exposed.
(e) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under this section is sufficient for conviction. It shall not be necessary that such proof be made by any particular number of witnesses or by documentary or other type of evidence.
Ed Hillel said:
I assume he knows it's smart to lay out his case in a truthful manner, but this notion of "under oath" in an NFL disciplinary hearing is simply hilarious.
As much as the NFL fancies itself to be an all-powerful entity, any oath sworn at this hearing is meaningless from a legal standpoint.
Ramifications of the decision to go under oath aside, it's at least interesting that we don't even have to wait for the proceeding to wrap up for the day before the leaks start. Is Kensil just sitting there on his phone, texting ESPN as the thing plays out?
'Under oath' can only help the optics of Brady's side no?
Is anyone else going 'under oath'?
If he denies any involvement and the narrative persists that hes lying it really makes the media look like they are all pitchfork and torches.
Is anyone else going 'under oath'?
If he denies any involvement and the narrative persists that hes lying it really makes the media look like they are all pitchfork and torches.
If Kessler had Brady do this himself, then it actually is pretty brilliant. I have no idea if it's binding or whatever, but from a PR perspective it will definitely help the narrative. I would also assume that it would be brought up in District Court when we get there.
He's symbolically looking in everyone's eyes. Somewhere Cris Collingsworth clenches his jaw and nods begrudgingly.
From a PR and media perspective, being able to say that he testified "under oath" is a fascinating move.
Not a terrible attempt to push the storyline to "Brady must have been telling the truth - he was under oath."
Furthermore, if Brady denies all wrongdoing and Goodell keeps even a reduced penalty in place for deflating footballs, it ups the ante. Much harder for Goodell to say "I just didn't find Brady credible."
Of course, he could still penalize him on failure to share cellphone records. Would be interesting if one question from Kessler to Brady under oath is along the lines of: "did you fail to comply with any request from the Wells team?" If reports that Brady thought he had complied in full are true and that he only became aware that the failure to turn over the cellphone records was an issue when the report was released, that would be quite interesting. But that is a lot of ifs.
And all bets are off if Brady actually is hiding something.
Not a terrible attempt to push the storyline to "Brady must have been telling the truth - he was under oath."
Furthermore, if Brady denies all wrongdoing and Goodell keeps even a reduced penalty in place for deflating footballs, it ups the ante. Much harder for Goodell to say "I just didn't find Brady credible."
Of course, he could still penalize him on failure to share cellphone records. Would be interesting if one question from Kessler to Brady under oath is along the lines of: "did you fail to comply with any request from the Wells team?" If reports that Brady thought he had complied in full are true and that he only became aware that the failure to turn over the cellphone records was an issue when the report was released, that would be quite interesting. But that is a lot of ifs.
And all bets are off if Brady actually is hiding something.