The consistent theme emerging from Berman's orders thus far is that he thinks both sides are acting irrationally. Both sides are going to get a talking to at pappy's knee before he hears an argument.
Sons, Sam, and Horn, L.L.P.: Brady Case LEGAL ISSUES Only
- Thread starter WayBackVazquez
- Start date
Settlement is where everyone goes home unhappy. Could be a 2 game deal with no admission of guilt. (what PaulinMyrBch said)
Laddie, I'm not quite sure what your question is. I think that's definitely a possibility that the judge is contemplating as a negotiated outcome.
Could be anything. Always based on your position and whether you feel you'll win the case. But when a judge is involved in the settlement conference, he has a way behind closed doors of nudging the unreasonable party. So say Brady says no games, $50K fine, and you make a statement I didn't do anything wrong. Goodell says, 2 games, no statement. The judge could look at Goodell and say, "If I were you, I'd seriously think about taking that 0 game offer." Or he could look at Brady and say, "If they offer 1 game, no admission of guilt, where do you stand?"
My guess is making the parties attend means he's seriously interested in a resolution that they work out.
BTW, 12th is one day before a preseason game. 19th is one of the days they're in WV with the shared traning camp (Saints, I think).
My guess is making the parties attend means he's seriously interested in a resolution that they work out.
BTW, 12th is one day before a preseason game. 19th is one of the days they're in WV with the shared traning camp (Saints, I think).
The real question is how Goodell acts in the presence of a federal judge. Do we think he'll be intimidated?
He basically got called out for not being credible by the Judge in the Ray Rice case.BroodsSexton said:
Plus we've seen how he acts when reporters question him too hard.
It's really a matter of does Roger think the judge is beneath him. If he's smart (or the person advising him is), they will make sure he realizes the respect you need to show Federal Judges.
Thanks guys. This is interesting. The settlement kind of scares me, but I guess all of this is kinda scary.
I can't believe we've got to this point.
I can't believe we've got to this point.
Fortunately, Roger's not smart. He got flustered when Rachel Nichols asked him questions.
His lawyers are.
He'll be coached to his teeth before he enters chambers.
His lawyers are.
He'll be coached to his teeth before he enters chambers.
CaptainLaddie said:
i would assume that "settlement" could mean "vacate and send to an independent arbitrator instead"...yes?
Doubtful. Settlements end things. He could push them toward a settlement by saying that is what he's inclined to do. But an announced settlement for all purposes should end the litigation and the arbitration matter that started it.AB in DC said:
Because they believe a neutral arbitrator would reject Wells--and the only reason for the judge to say that was his inclination, is if he, too, would have rejected Wells.
Here is what Florio had to say prior to the latest scheduling order. He was touching on what the last page has covered.
I think given the circumstances Brady would take that deal. Misses no games and admits no guilt. He already said he offered a settlement to get it behind him and rumors were that it was a fine-only deal. This is a good deal for him.ivanvamp said:
amarshal2 said:
It's subjective of course, but "good" may not be accurate considering that many folks will look at the largest fine in the history of American sports to a single player for a single incident as strong evidence of guilt. And, I think how NFL fans view his role in this is important to Brady. Yet, there will be others that may be inclined to wonder what all the fuss was about if Brady ultimately will not be serving a suspension of even one game.
If this happens I would LOVE it if Pats immediately reworked Brady's contract to give him a $1.8 million raise.ivanvamp said:
ivanvamp said:
It doesn't matter. A settlement is just trying to get the case resolved, regardless of precedent or anything else -- "What will it take you to get you off my docket?"
As others have suggested, a judge-mediated settlement usually gets done, because if he tells you that he does not think it's a good idea to go forward with your case, you can be sure he is not going to make himself look wrong by ruling differently than he predicted he would (barring extraordinary circumstances). I think this will get wrapped up on that second date for mediation discussions that the judge proposed, since settlements never happen quickly.
In corporate settlements, the mediator starts things at 9 a.m. and they tend to drag on all day. Then once people get sick of being there, the mediator tries to convince each side to take the deal "so we can all go home." I once had a case get settled because the other side's attorney made the mistake of telling the mediator that he was hoping to catch a 4 p.m. flight. So once the clock struck 3, the mediator badgered him into taking our deal so he could catch his plane. True story.
As you said it's subjective. I think the narrative would play out very differently. No suspension and no admission of guilt is way bigger news than 4 game checks to an incredibly wealthy person who does not care about money (at least that's the perception). People would think the NFL lost, big time.riboflav said:
It's a joke at this point, right.Eddie Jurak said:
Marciano490 said:
I'd supplement this just a little bit and add a small point -- the one area where you can sometimes get a judge to make a commitment on timing is when you're trying to spare him from ruling on a preliminary injunction. I've seen this done, and I've seen judges offer it -- I'd agree that it's much better to let the judge offer it than to propose it. But if you're sparing the judge work, it can happen.
Basically in a case where it's clear that one side or the other is going to demand an injunction, the judge will often be proactive and try to get the parties to agree to a proposal that obviates the need for a full blown injunction hearing and procedure. The judge might say to the defendant -- do you really need to prohibit the sale of widgets in Cuba for the next two months, etc.
An especially inside baseball to all this is that orders with respect to injunctions may be immediately appealed. Ordinarily, neither side can go to the court of appeals until the entire case is over and has been decided on the merits on all claims as to all parties. One very important exception is injunctions -- a party can appeal an order granting, denying or modifying an injunction while the rest of the case is going on. The result is that trial court judge can lose a bit of control over the case and possible be reversed while the case is still before him. Judges don't like this. So, if they can find a way to get the parties to agree without actually having to decide on the injunction, it spares them this problem.
I would also state this. Settlement discussions where the attorneys are trading offers, checking with relevant parties, getting back to each other, etc., never gain much steam. Too many people, not the right people in the room. What we'll have here is the correct parties in the room, with authority to make it happen, and a guy who is going to lean on someone.
I have not followed the prior NFL/NFLPA court filings at all, so I don't know if these types of settlement/status conferences are standard or whether Berman is really pushing the settlement issue in front of them. But if this is not standard, my guess is he feels someone is really unreasonable at this point and he has intentions on pushing that party. We're all hoping its Goodell, obviously. But if this pressure to settle is truly unusual, this guy is seeing through the BS and he's going to steer it where he thinks it needs to go.
I have not followed the prior NFL/NFLPA court filings at all, so I don't know if these types of settlement/status conferences are standard or whether Berman is really pushing the settlement issue in front of them. But if this is not standard, my guess is he feels someone is really unreasonable at this point and he has intentions on pushing that party. We're all hoping its Goodell, obviously. But if this pressure to settle is truly unusual, this guy is seeing through the BS and he's going to steer it where he thinks it needs to go.
amarshal2 said:
I think the narrative will be the NFL settled because some (liberal) judge forced them to. The fact that Brady has to pay the biggest fine ever means where there's smoke, there's fire. No admission of guilt is very different from the NFL having to admit he isn't guilty. An absence of an admission will get no headlines.
I would agree with you more if the NFL lost in court instead of there being a settlement though I suspect folks would just claim that Brady won on some technicality.
In any event, I hope you're right and I'm wrong.
PaulinMyrBch said:
It'd almost have to be, correct? Why wouldn't the judge at this point just say to the PA, you're full of shit. Punishment stands. If there's room for settlement, then you'd have to think the judge is starting off with, the NFL is being unreasonable.
Joe D Reid said:
I've had a settlement conference before Berman in a smaller case ~150K, which was needed to wrap up a final larger settlement. He was not a bang heads settlement judge, but rather pulls each side in to chambers (actually jury room) to discuss the merits of the claims, and how he may rule, but not in a threatening manner, more so that everyone recognizes the risks and benefits of a settlement for themselves. (In my case, the bank I represented had strong legal arguments, but pragmatic reasons pushed them to settle.)
I don't think anything he says will make a big impact, as I'm sure Wells and Kessler know that the other side is getting the same talk, and have been around the game long enough, And this is not a case where Berman can require Goddel to be present and then talk to him directly and scare him about the merits of his position -- I'm sure Goddel trusts his lawyers. Therefore, I would not expect Berman to be able to reach an agreement.
As for the injunction, I think a lot of the scheduling issues of alerting the judge to the timing issues is often appreciated by the judge, and could take place in the initial conference. Here, however, he set that for the 13th, and so the parties set their own briefing schedules. Judges hate additional motions if things can be resolved that way, and Berman is pragmatic. I'm sure he would appreciate knowing that the parties could avoid him having to spend time of this scheduling, and I'm sure Kessler and Wells have the ability to phrase a "suggestion" of a ruling deadline without stepping on the judge's perogative.
I think so but I've been surprised at every turn, so who really knows. Once it gets to court, predictions aren't easy.riboflav said:
I am sorry, but if the judge thinks that he can split the difference in the middle then that's a miscarriage of justice, not to mention an incentive for each party to push as far to the extreme as they can.
You are assuming split the difference. I don't get that from what people have said.Nick Kaufman said:
"NFL, you've lost a bunch of CBA related rulings. Do you really want to lose another?" "No judge, but we believe we are correct in this case."
"Brady, am I right in assuming that NOT playing football is perhaps the harshest punishment you could be faced with?" "I love playing football, but they are saying I cheated, and I didn't cheat."
Right there, he's got movement on both sides -- NFL doesn't want to "lose" Brady wants to play football and be exonerated.
"How about a one game suspension for failure to co-operate on a matter that goes to go competitive integrity?" "NFL, can you live with that?" "Brady, you miss a game, but talk of cheating gets shut down."
IANAL but I really don't like the sound of this. Did we draw the wrong judge? A settlement means Brady is compromising and completing the NFL's railroad of him, and there would be no judge's ruling where he possibly talks about the rights and wrongs done by the NFL.Nick Kaufman said:
I hope Steve Dillard's experience with Berman holds true.
I would draw no inferences other than the judge is pushing harder than most, especially at this stage of the proceedings. Guessing whose side he favors, if any, is hazardous.
It IS intriguing that he is pushing this hard. It seems that he WAS paying SOME attention to this as it has unfolded these many months. If you weren't -- and believe me, there are some judges who have no clue what this is about -- you probably woul not be this proactive. Among other things, you would have no sense of the time constraints. In this connection keep in mind that the NFL's confirmation complaint was bare bones -- yet the orders began to fly.
This is not JUST about maintaining the dignity of his courtroom and this proceeding. He could deal with that differently. He plainly did not want things to get worse between the parties, which is curious because they hardly could get worse.
He is clearly motivated to settle and I wonder why.
It is almost as if he dearly loves professional football and wants things that hurt it to stop.
It IS intriguing that he is pushing this hard. It seems that he WAS paying SOME attention to this as it has unfolded these many months. If you weren't -- and believe me, there are some judges who have no clue what this is about -- you probably woul not be this proactive. Among other things, you would have no sense of the time constraints. In this connection keep in mind that the NFL's confirmation complaint was bare bones -- yet the orders began to fly.
This is not JUST about maintaining the dignity of his courtroom and this proceeding. He could deal with that differently. He plainly did not want things to get worse between the parties, which is curious because they hardly could get worse.
He is clearly motivated to settle and I wonder why.
It is almost as if he dearly loves professional football and wants things that hurt it to stop.
A few tidbits from today's filings that I don't know have really been discussed in this thread yet.
First, in the joint letter submitted to the court today by both sides asking for an expedited hearing instead of a preliminary injunction, the parties noted that certain information or documents exchanged in conjunction with the arbitration hearing are subject to a protective order. The NFLPA requested permission to file a public counterclaim, but also to file the protected information under seal. The judge basically told the parties they could do what they want, but that given the public interest in this matter he's going to view any motion to file stuff under seal skeptically.
It's hard to know why stuff was confidential in the hearing. It could have been to protect Brady's privacy. It could have been at the league's request. I'm guessing the later, but there's no way to know. I like that the judge has a seemingly liberal take on the public's right to information, which suggests he's in favor of a transparent process.
Second, his order came out not very long after the parties submitted their letter, which suggests he's reading everything as it is coming in. This case has his attention.
Third, the judge has ordered a full blown settlement conference over which he personally with preside. That's been reported, but I'm not sure how well understood it is from the various legal commentators just how unusual that is. And he has scheduled it a week before oral argument on the motions. He's sending a clear signal here. He's saying, we're going to have a settlement conference. If we don't settle, I'm going to hear arguments and rule, and I'm going to do so in the context of knowing what your positions were with respect to settlement. He's really bringing the hammer down hard here. I posted several pages back why I think this is all better for Brady than the NFL -- a judge doesn't get this hard core about settlement unless he views the case as debatable. When the standard for overturning an arbitration award is so high, this is good news if you're the party trying to get the order vacated.
Fourth, in his order limiting the parties to supplemental briefing of no more than 15 pages, the court notes that it doesn't need long briefs, "because I already have a good understanding of your positions from your submissions to date." When I originally saw this, it concerned me, because at the time he issued his order, the NFLPA had not yet made any substantive filings. The only substantive filing was the NFL's complaint. Accordingly, I was troubled by the judge saying he had a good sense of the issues after only having read the NFL's complain. But I think the more likely explanation -- and his use of the word "submissions" -- is that he actually sought out and read the NFLPLA's filing in the Minnesota case.
Fifth, in his order of earlier today, the judge ordered the parties to continue to engage in good-faith settlement discussions prior to the August 12 settlement conference with the court. He also invited them potentially to use a magistrate judge. His order was clearly in the form of an invitation: He said a magistrate judge "is available to assist if you wish." Later in the day, the Court went on to in fact appoint the magistrate judge for pretrial purposes including "settlement." There are no time stamps on the court's orders on the docket that I'm looking at online, but it's clear that his order appointing the magistrate judge came later in the day, because there were several filings between his initial order today and his order inviting the parties to use the magistrate judge. What does this mean? What's my point? Possible (maybe probably) it means nothing. But it also could mean that the parties contacted the judge's chambers and said that in fact they would like to take him up on his invitation to use the magistrate judge, leading to the order appointing the magistrate. If the Court were simply going to appoint the magistrate as a matter of course, he could have done so in his order earlier in the day, instead of merely inviting the parties to consider it. Or, he could have made the magistrate judge referral at the same time he made his first order. Instead, he issued other orders in between -- technical orders about attorney admission -- and the NFLPA's counterclaim was also filed in between. Again, it could have been 10 minutes or 3 hours -- I'm not sure -- and it could have no significance whatsoever. But it certainly also could mean the parties are saying, "ok we'll give it a try."
First, in the joint letter submitted to the court today by both sides asking for an expedited hearing instead of a preliminary injunction, the parties noted that certain information or documents exchanged in conjunction with the arbitration hearing are subject to a protective order. The NFLPA requested permission to file a public counterclaim, but also to file the protected information under seal. The judge basically told the parties they could do what they want, but that given the public interest in this matter he's going to view any motion to file stuff under seal skeptically.
It's hard to know why stuff was confidential in the hearing. It could have been to protect Brady's privacy. It could have been at the league's request. I'm guessing the later, but there's no way to know. I like that the judge has a seemingly liberal take on the public's right to information, which suggests he's in favor of a transparent process.
Second, his order came out not very long after the parties submitted their letter, which suggests he's reading everything as it is coming in. This case has his attention.
Third, the judge has ordered a full blown settlement conference over which he personally with preside. That's been reported, but I'm not sure how well understood it is from the various legal commentators just how unusual that is. And he has scheduled it a week before oral argument on the motions. He's sending a clear signal here. He's saying, we're going to have a settlement conference. If we don't settle, I'm going to hear arguments and rule, and I'm going to do so in the context of knowing what your positions were with respect to settlement. He's really bringing the hammer down hard here. I posted several pages back why I think this is all better for Brady than the NFL -- a judge doesn't get this hard core about settlement unless he views the case as debatable. When the standard for overturning an arbitration award is so high, this is good news if you're the party trying to get the order vacated.
Fourth, in his order limiting the parties to supplemental briefing of no more than 15 pages, the court notes that it doesn't need long briefs, "because I already have a good understanding of your positions from your submissions to date." When I originally saw this, it concerned me, because at the time he issued his order, the NFLPA had not yet made any substantive filings. The only substantive filing was the NFL's complaint. Accordingly, I was troubled by the judge saying he had a good sense of the issues after only having read the NFL's complain. But I think the more likely explanation -- and his use of the word "submissions" -- is that he actually sought out and read the NFLPLA's filing in the Minnesota case.
Fifth, in his order of earlier today, the judge ordered the parties to continue to engage in good-faith settlement discussions prior to the August 12 settlement conference with the court. He also invited them potentially to use a magistrate judge. His order was clearly in the form of an invitation: He said a magistrate judge "is available to assist if you wish." Later in the day, the Court went on to in fact appoint the magistrate judge for pretrial purposes including "settlement." There are no time stamps on the court's orders on the docket that I'm looking at online, but it's clear that his order appointing the magistrate judge came later in the day, because there were several filings between his initial order today and his order inviting the parties to use the magistrate judge. What does this mean? What's my point? Possible (maybe probably) it means nothing. But it also could mean that the parties contacted the judge's chambers and said that in fact they would like to take him up on his invitation to use the magistrate judge, leading to the order appointing the magistrate. If the Court were simply going to appoint the magistrate as a matter of course, he could have done so in his order earlier in the day, instead of merely inviting the parties to consider it. Or, he could have made the magistrate judge referral at the same time he made his first order. Instead, he issued other orders in between -- technical orders about attorney admission -- and the NFLPA's counterclaim was also filed in between. Again, it could have been 10 minutes or 3 hours -- I'm not sure -- and it could have no significance whatsoever. But it certainly also could mean the parties are saying, "ok we'll give it a try."
any thoughts on how judges deal with waht may seem minor to some, but is important to others? If Brady says - I want Goddell to read the statement that I maintain the PSI was down because of nature, and say nothing more. -- does a judge laugh at that, or does he understand that it has tangible value to one party?splendid splinter said:
It's rather elegant how in his filing in SDNY (slightly modified from the Minnesota filing), Kessler gets right to it in paragraph 3 emphasizing that Judge Doty's "binding" ruling in Peterson "relies heavily" on the precedent
of Judge Jones in Rice--oh yes, Judge Jones until recently of SDNY, your colleague for fifteen years, who found Mr. Goodell not credible as a witness, arbitrary as a hearing officer and his decision had to be vacated.
of Judge Jones in Rice--oh yes, Judge Jones until recently of SDNY, your colleague for fifteen years, who found Mr. Goodell not credible as a witness, arbitrary as a hearing officer and his decision had to be vacated.
A lot of judges push settlement now, but I agree with dcm. There's no way to guess who this favors and it is curious that he is rather adamant this early. Sorry Ivan, but Brady and the union have to be realistic about a settlement. Yes, it's unfair if Brady did nothing wrong, and I believe he did nothing wrong and is a victim of a shitty arbitration system. But some of that blame is on the union for agreeing to the process in the CBA.dcmissle said:
My guess, and it's just a guess, is that Berman wants the parties to tone it down and realize each faces a lot of risk. I think that's somewhat good news for Brady. I don't think Berman would push this hard if he was just going to rubber stamp the arbitration ruling. My guess he wants to tell the league, do you really want a ruling from the souther district critical of RG acting as arbitrator? It was one thing to get adverse rulings in MN where the new CBA no longer dictates jurisdiction. The southern district is our backyard and likely a proper venue going forward. You get an adverse ruling here and it's really going to hurt your power to arbitrate going forward. Likewise he could tell Brady, you're he face of the union and this is the process you bargained for. You want to save face on your reputation. The award gets upheld, you're always considered a cheater. If the league will offer a game or two on obstruction only, I highly recommend you take it.
Like others have said, having the judge ask for a settlement between the two parties is a bad omen for the NFL, because if this becomes about two parties, each with some merit, it's already a victory for the PA since one party was supposed to be the neutral arbiter to begin with. OTOH, a settlement offer aggravates me because as a Pats' fan I ve seen the Pats' good name dragged through the mud in the field of public opinion for 6 months and then on top of that, they got railroaded by two league decisions which were grossly unfair. This is literally their first chance to get the case heard by a genuinely neutral arbiter and they deserve justice and restitution; getting them to settle is akin to being asked to settle with the tormenting bully who fucked you over and over again. What settlement? The bully needs to be punished.
Besides that, were I a lawyer, the way I would approach settlement talks would be by assigning a probability to the chance that I win the case on its merits and then asking an equal share of the settlement. So, let's say the NFLPA thinks it's got 80% chance to win this thing, the settlement should give them 80% of what they would get had they won the case. This would mean that for the two parties to reach settlement, both sides should assign similar probabilities of winning/losing a case. So, in the same example, the NFL should think it only has 20% or less of winning the case.
This way of thinking isn't as clearcut of course. Any probability you assign is your best guess and often times it's tough to make an accurate division so as you do get the share you calculated you need. Moreover, I would guess a good deal of clients and lawyers are prone to discount the probabilistic way of thinking or be risk averse (i.e. settle for less than they think the chances afford them because they prefer something immediately tangible) or risk insensitive (go all the way even if their case is a loser or the deal offered a pretty good one).
Besides that, were I a lawyer, the way I would approach settlement talks would be by assigning a probability to the chance that I win the case on its merits and then asking an equal share of the settlement. So, let's say the NFLPA thinks it's got 80% chance to win this thing, the settlement should give them 80% of what they would get had they won the case. This would mean that for the two parties to reach settlement, both sides should assign similar probabilities of winning/losing a case. So, in the same example, the NFL should think it only has 20% or less of winning the case.
This way of thinking isn't as clearcut of course. Any probability you assign is your best guess and often times it's tough to make an accurate division so as you do get the share you calculated you need. Moreover, I would guess a good deal of clients and lawyers are prone to discount the probabilistic way of thinking or be risk averse (i.e. settle for less than they think the chances afford them because they prefer something immediately tangible) or risk insensitive (go all the way even if their case is a loser or the deal offered a pretty good one).
There is no reason that any of that arbitration record should be under seal absent something really unexpected. There is strong public interest. These fuckers only have their league because of the antitrust exception, and their wallets are paved with the golden bricks of publicly funded stadiums. So absent some confidential medical information, trade secrets, etc judge should tell them to fuck right off.
I also see the pressure for settlement as a positive sign. It's such a deferential standard that the path of least resistance is affirming Goodell's decision.
I also see the pressure for settlement as a positive sign. It's such a deferential standard that the path of least resistance is affirming Goodell's decision.
Different kind of legal question. Suppose the court rules for the NFL and Brady is stuck with the penalty. That would mean that Goodell's punishment would be allowed because he followed the CBA and league rules properly, and as long as he does that, he's ok.
Here's the upshot. We all can agree - even people who think Brady did something wrong - that the punishment handed out is utterly without precedent in league history, on every level. Whether the penalty is for tampering with footballs or not cooperating, or even a combination of both, what the league did by way of penalty to the Patriots and Brady is on a completely different level than ever before seen. And it's not remotely close.
If a court says this is ok, then what we have here is a system where Goodell can, through an "independent" investigator (who worked in direct partnership with the NFL counsel on the investigation), produce precisely NO evidence of any actual wrongdoing, but who could simply determine that he believes some illegal action has been committed. And then he can issue almost literally any penalty he wants, so long as it threatens, in his mind, the "integrity of the game". And then Goodell can appoint himself the one to oversee the appeal, and promptly affirm his penalty. So no matter the crime, no matter the penalty, as long as he "follows the rules", Goodell can hammer anyone in the NFL for almost anything he wants, in almost any way he wants.
So for example, say Goodell chose to penalize the Patriots 5 first round draft picks and $5 million because of a "culture of cheating". The Pats couldn't do anything about it. And say he chose to penalize Brady 8 games and also (on top of his missed game checks) fine him $5 million. As long as he was following the rules, this is all ok?
I'm not being facetious here, though my examples may seem extreme. After all, given what he issued for penalties to Favre and Carolina and San Diego and repeat offenders the NY Jets (in the Revis tampering case), what he penalized Brady and the Patriots IS extreme. So what's stopping him from doing this again, but even more so?
Here's the upshot. We all can agree - even people who think Brady did something wrong - that the punishment handed out is utterly without precedent in league history, on every level. Whether the penalty is for tampering with footballs or not cooperating, or even a combination of both, what the league did by way of penalty to the Patriots and Brady is on a completely different level than ever before seen. And it's not remotely close.
If a court says this is ok, then what we have here is a system where Goodell can, through an "independent" investigator (who worked in direct partnership with the NFL counsel on the investigation), produce precisely NO evidence of any actual wrongdoing, but who could simply determine that he believes some illegal action has been committed. And then he can issue almost literally any penalty he wants, so long as it threatens, in his mind, the "integrity of the game". And then Goodell can appoint himself the one to oversee the appeal, and promptly affirm his penalty. So no matter the crime, no matter the penalty, as long as he "follows the rules", Goodell can hammer anyone in the NFL for almost anything he wants, in almost any way he wants.
So for example, say Goodell chose to penalize the Patriots 5 first round draft picks and $5 million because of a "culture of cheating". The Pats couldn't do anything about it. And say he chose to penalize Brady 8 games and also (on top of his missed game checks) fine him $5 million. As long as he was following the rules, this is all ok?
I'm not being facetious here, though my examples may seem extreme. After all, given what he issued for penalties to Favre and Carolina and San Diego and repeat offenders the NY Jets (in the Revis tampering case), what he penalized Brady and the Patriots IS extreme. So what's stopping him from doing this again, but even more so?
Can we pin this to the top of all of these threads? Great point, succinctly put that I think people need to come to grips with.Bongorific said:
So, lawyers, what stuff in Brady's counterclaim is strong and might lead to a favorable ruling and what stuff sounds nice but isn't relevant or is "too cute"?
Highly doubtful that the settlement conference (as in where the judge beats up the parties and twists arms to get a deal) will be open court.soxhop411 said:
As a general rule, court proceedings are open and judges are barred from "ex parte" communications (ie, communicating with only one party in the absence of the other). This is to prevent impropriety and appearances of conflict or bias.
When parties agree to a judge taking a direct role in settlement efforts, they have to waive that bar on ex parte communications, and the real settlement efforts take place privately. They are not, strictly speaking, court proceedings. They are efforts to settle outside of the judicial process, which both parties have agreed the judge may participate in.
I still may try to go, just for fun.
Now, if they reach a deal it may be put in the record in open court. But by then the fireworks are over. No way the real conversations take place publicly.