Brady 4 game suspension upheld; Will go to court

[Canadian Bills Fan]

@SportsCenter: Court has adjourned in Tom Brady proceedings, and no settlement has been reached. Next court date set for August 19. http://t.co/5RXea9Evpj

 

@BenVolin: Kessler argued that IF McNally and Jastremski deflated the balls, they were freelancing and not doing so under Bradys orders

 

 

He's going to play week 1 I can see it now....

 

 

 

CBF

[NoSaint]

Of course he wants them to settle. But he's also signaling which side he'll favor absent a settlement. That's what happens in these settings.

Could be as simple as trying to soften the nfl to avoid having to rule. If he can give them pause they might go with the middle ground without admission of guilt, for instance, even if he'd be prone to side with them.

 

 

It'll be interesting to see politics vs reality as it shakes out

[Kelly the Dog]

@SportsCenter: Court has adjourned in Tom Brady proceedings, and no settlement has been reached. Next court date set for August 19. http://t.co/5RXea9Evpj

 

@BenVolin: Kessler argued that IF McNally and Jastremski deflated the balls, they were freelancing and not doing so under Bradys orders

Who in their right mind is going to actually believe that?

[dave mcbride]

@SportsCenter: Court has adjourned in Tom Brady proceedings, and no settlement has been reached. Next court date set for August 19. http://t.co/5RXea9Evpj

 

@BenVolin: Kessler argued that IF McNally and Jastremski deflated the balls, they were freelancing and not doing so under Bradys orders

That's not accurate - there will be private discussions with the parties this afternoon.

[Kelly the Dog]

Could be as simple as trying to soften the nfl to avoid having to rule. If he can give them pause they might go with the middle ground without admission of guilt, for instance, even if he'd be prone to side with them.

 

 

It'll be interesting to see politics vs reality as it shakes out

Yup and yup.

That's not accurate - there will be private discussions with the parties this afternoon.

Court however has adjourned, there is no settlement yet, and there are talks for next week. There isn't going to be a settlement today despite talks. Nothing in that tweet is untrue or even misleading, and the chances for a settlement today are minute.

[K-9]

Who in their right mind is going to actually believe that?

Especially in the context of the text messages exchanged between Jastremski and McNally previously.

 

I doubt Kessler actually believes it as it strains credulity, but he has a job to do.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[boyst]

Brady is a cheater. He cheated. He deserves that title and now that of aliar. Where I come from that's a big deal and you can't be called worse.

[Tuco]

Here's my biggest issue with the Brady camp and people who like to argue the Wells report didn't prove anything and the penalty is too severe. Wells, or anyone else the league may have appointed, does not have the power of subpoena during the investigation. They can only rely on the mandatory cooperation of the parties involved. That makes cooperation (and non cooperation) a very big deal.

 

So if I slim the timeline down to it's bones I think it goes something like this. The league appointed Wells. Wells began doing his thing (with the blessing of the Pats* by the way). While doing his thing he discovered a few things. One was that there is evidence this has been going on for longer than one game. Another is that during his first interview, Mr. Brady lied.

 

So being the thorough investigator he is, Mr. Wells goes back to sort these findings out, but is suddenly met with resistance.

 

 

 

"We'd like to talk to Jastremski and McNally again."

"Nope."

 

"Nope? We'll even travel to meet with them."

 

Nope."

 

"Hmm. Well in any event we'd like to interview you again Mr. Brady. A lot of your previous answers don't add up. And we'd like you to give us any pertinent cell phone transmissions. Being mindful of your privacy we'll let you filter them of course, but we know being the good, honest role model you are we trust you will comply under the mandatory cooperation clause."

 

"Nope."

 

"Nope?"

 

Nope."

 

We need your cooperation in order to investigate and find out how extensive this all is. You are required to cooperate via the CBA since we don't have the power of subpoena."

 

"Nope."

 

"Nope?"

 

"Nope.

"Well, we know you were involved so there's that. Now since you won't assist us in getting to the bottom of this we'll have to also mete out punishment for failing to cooperate. Here you go."

 

"Waaahhhh. We're going to appeal!"

 

"Okay."

 

"We don't want the commissioner to hear the appeal."

 

"Too bad. It clearly says in the CBA the commissioner will hear the appeal."

 

"Waaahhh! You don't have any proof. Your investigation was a sham. You didn't go by the CBA. You didn't investigate anything. We gave you all the text records just 6 days before the appeal, and only 3 1/2 months after you asked for them. How dare you claim we didn't cooperate? I destroyed my phone the day I met with you, but not to hide anything. I always have my phones destroyed. Besides, we let you inspect the two phones I had before that one, which I didn't destroy even though I always destroy them. And besides, you didn't tell us we could get in trouble for not cooperating. We just thought is would be like, you know, some guy putting stickum on his gloves."

 

"I've heard the appeal. You're still guilty of cheating and not cooperating."

 

"Waaahhh! We'll see you in court."

 

"Okay, but it won't be that Minnesota court you always run to."

 

"Waaahhh! You don't have any proof. Your investigation was a sham. You didn't go by the CBA. You didn't investigate anything. We gave you all the text records just 6 days before the appeal, and only 3 1/2 months after you asked for them. How dare you claim we didn't cooperate? I destroyed my phone the day I met with you, but not to hide anything. I always have my phones destroyed. Besides, we let you inspect the two phones I had before that one, which I didn't destroy even though I always destroy them. And besides, you didn't tell us we could get in trouble for not cooperating. We just thought is would be like, you know, some guy putting stickum on his gloves."(this argument is repeated as it's pretty much all there is)

 

"Nope"

Edited August 12, 2015 by Tuco

[Kelly the Dog]

Kessler even conceded today that Brady wasn't completely cooperative with the investigation and then said something the judge knows for a fact is not true. Kessler said that when Brady gets a new phone he gives it to his assistant to destroy. But the fact is he didn't with the last TWO. And worse than that, these same last two phones were the ones Brady's camp used to provide info on texts and calls to the league as proof he was cooperating. So it's not as though they didn't know what happened to them. They actually used both of them to defend Brady. The judge cannot like that answer one bit. It's a flat lie right to his face.

[YoloinOhio]

This is no doubt the worst sketch of Tom Brady ever created

[thebandit27]

Kessler even conceded today that Brady wasn't completely cooperative with the investigation and then said something the judge knows for a fact is not true. Kessler said that when Brady gets a new phone he gives it to his assistant to destroy. But the fact is he didn't with the last TWO. And worse than that, these same last two phones were the ones Brady's camp used to provide info on texts and calls to the league as proof he was cooperating. So it's not as though they didn't know what happened to them. They actually used both of them to defend Brady. The judge cannot like that answer one bit. It's a flat lie right to his face.

 

Kessler seemed to concede more than I expected according to the tweets that I read.

 

It makes me wonder if either (a) the judge has given Brady's side some indication that it doesn't look good for them, and that they might benefit from giving some ground, or (b) he thinks the judge is more apt to rule in their favor if they start admitting some of what's obvious to anyone that's followed this case.

[SRQ_BillsFan]

Just walked by the courthouse. A lot of people gathered outside. Took some pictures. No announcements as of yet a reporter told me when I asked him "Any news?"

 

Currently working half a block away, so strolled by over lunch.

[ALF]

I would be interested in having both equipment guys under oath , and a court order to see there bank accounts.

[BuffaloHokie13]

 

This is no doubt the worst sketch of Tom Brady ever created

 

They need to implement mandatory drug testing for court employees

[Kelly the Dog]

Kessler seemed to concede more than I expected according to the tweets that I read.

 

It makes me wonder if either (a) the judge has given Brady's side some indication that it doesn't look good for them, and that they might benefit from giving some ground, or (b) he thinks the judge is more apt to rule in their favor if they start admitting some of what's obvious to anyone that's followed this case.

There are two separate hearings for one pretty good reason. The judge's goal at first is to create worry in both sides that he may rule against them so that they both give in a little and a settlement in the middle ground can be reached. That's why he was harsh today on both and said he hasn't made up his mind yet. Then next week he will likely intimate to one side or the other about which way he will likely rule, trying to get them to give in so a settlement can be reached before he has to rule. I still think neither side gives enough and it stays at four games. Brady's side could possibly find a way the NFL would agree to that kinda implies guilt but leaves him a little out from his side. I don't know what that could possibly be but maybe there is a way.

They need to implement mandatory drug testing for court employees

Gisele just dumped him because of what some people might think her husband actually looks like.

[NoSaint]

I would be interested in having both equipment guys under oath , and a court order to see there bank accounts.

i wouldnt hold my breath on that happening.

[JohnC]

He is trying to get these two sides to settle. He is not ruling on 80% -90% of the issues he is asking about. It's very clear what he is doing. He wants both sides to reconsider their hardline stance. But he's NOT going to rule on whether or not the NFL was right or wrong.

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.

[The Wiz]

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.

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.

[Kelly the Dog]

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.

 

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.

[NoSaint]

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.

however it could just as easily end in december and sit him for playoff games, if the judge wants to pace it that way.