No, there isn't.Nick Kaufman said:
Ok, let's not go overboard. The text between McNally and Yastremski where Yastremski relates that Brady said that McNally must be stressed is a pretty good indication that Brady was aware of what McNally was doing.
There's strong indication that something funny went on. But calling the Pats cheaters is the equivalent of calling both a jaywalker and a murderer as a lawbreaker. It obfuscates the vast difference of proportion between the two infractions.
PedroKsBambino said:
The top white collar guys view this stuff as mortal combat (the actual kind, not the video game kind). They are incredibly invested in their representations. Once he puts his name on the report he owns it, and I do not think he would have done the PC unless he were completely willing to say so publicly.
My personal read of the report is that it is an example of tunnel vision which we often see from prosecutors on high-profile criminal cases; it is possible Wells has info he didn't include in the report, but it is looking less and less likely. Which is bad news for Ted Wells---while he's a highly respected white collar attorney, there's a tier above him and those guys are going to shred this thing into a million embarassing pieces if what we've seen is all there is and they get a chance to do so (e.g. there's serious litigation and discovery).
Stitch01 said:That boat probably sailed before the Wells report was written.
Stitch01 said:He owns the report. To me, at least, there's a truckload of room between a report heavily caveated by assumptions saying "I believe this is more probably than not true" and "I believe from the bottom of my heart that Tom Brady is guilty" with the latter adding much more downside to the firm with pretty much no upside.
You do not hire firms, or at least you shouldn't. You hire lawyers. Kessler is experienced enough at these discipline cases, and bright enough, to tear this report to shreds.dstunbound said:
For those of us that don't know squat about the legal world, is the next tier the lawfirm that Brady and Yee hired to work with them?
E5 Yaz said:Where this goes from here only depends on what you want to see happen:
If you want to see4 the penalties reduced, you have a chance.
If you want to have public perception changed, that boat has sailed.
Does that mean a Colt head in Rodger's bed.Reardons Beard said:Jonathan Kraft is the Sonny Corleone of the New England Patriots.
I understand what you're saying here but I think worrying about what other teams and fanbases think about the Patriots is pointless. They are convinced that we are the scum of the earth and I don't think that taking the foot off of the gas in a blowout is going to do anything to change that.NatetheGreat said:
I'm not sure this actually helps anything. There's a strong argument to be made that the Pats are partially in this position because they are widely disliked and RG bases his punishments entirely on his reading of public perception. "Everyone thinks the Patriots are dirty cheaters" perhaps shouldn't factor into discipline, but it absolutely and demonstrably does, so a plan of "going forward, we will double down on alienating every other team and fanbase" strikes me as a bad way to win what is in many ways a PR battle.
Yeah, I definitely overrated how smart he was. You had him pegged.PedroKsBambino said:
My point was that he would say it, which he did. I've explained why I believe that knowing a little bit about the environment.
I think the absolute best of the best---which I'd say is Brendan Sullivan in this area---wouldn't be at the PC in the first place. Others who I think are spectacular at this game might have done the PC, but wouldn't have let themselves get caught. I'm surprised he wasn't somewhat better.
Agree with the above. Coupled with the fact that he says he would check the box that says proven, if on a jury, it becomes even more confusing. His report seemed to carefully highlight "more probable than not" and "generally aware". He's now applying a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard to it. Is that based on his personal feeling since the report fails to go to those lengths.? And if so, shouldnt it be viewed in a new light that regardless of the facts he was able to uncover he's made up his mind.Stitch01 said:He owns the report. To me, at least, there's a truckload of room between a report heavily caveated by assumptions saying "I believe this is more probably than not true" and "I believe from the bottom of my heart that Tom Brady is guilty" with the latter adding much more downside to the firm with pretty much no upside.
PedroKsBambino said:
The top white collar guys view this stuff as mortal combat (the actual kind, not the video game kind). They are incredibly invested in their representations. Once he puts his name on the report he owns it, and I do not think he would have done the PC unless he were completely willing to say so publicly.
My personal read of the report is that it is an example of tunnel vision which we often see from prosecutors on high-profile criminal cases; it is possible Wells has info he didn't include in the report, but it is looking less and less likely. Which is bad news for Ted Wells---while he's a highly respected white collar attorney, there's a tier above him and those guys are going to shred this thing into a million embarassing pieces if what we've seen is all there is and they get a chance to do so (e.g. there's serious litigation and discovery).
That's who I wanted on this case. Amnesty International would be circulating petitions about genocide by the time it was over.PedroKsBambino said:
My point was that he would say it, which he did. I've explained why I believe that knowing a little bit about the environment.
I think the absolute best of the best---which I'd say is Brendan Sullivan in this area---wouldn't be at the PC in the first place. Others who I think are spectacular at this game might have done the PC, but wouldn't have let themselves get caught. I'm surprised he wasn't somewhat better.
I think with the golden nugget previously posted by Rapoport a jr legal assistant could have a field day. Just an insanely stupid comment from a bright individual, this whole thing revolves around pressure and you are saying that doesn't matter? Dear lord...dcmissle said:You do not hire firms, or at least you shouldn't. You hire lawyers. Kessler is experienced enough at these discipline cases, and bright enough, to tear this report to shreds.
RIFan said:That wasn't clear. He said 3 interviews were done with McNally without him. It would seem odd if only NFL security and no PW attorneys were involved.
PedroKsBambino said:
The top white collar guys view this stuff as mortal combat (the actual kind, not the video game kind). They are incredibly invested in their representations. Once he puts his name on the report he owns it, and I do not think he would have done the PC unless he were completely willing to say so publicly.
My personal read of the report is that it is an example of tunnel vision which we often see from prosecutors on high-profile criminal cases; it is possible Wells has info he didn't include in the report, but it is looking less and less likely. Which is bad news for Ted Wells---while he's a highly respected white collar attorney, there's a tier above him and those guys are going to shred this thing into a million embarassing pieces if what we've seen is all there is and they get a chance to do so (e.g. there's serious litigation and discovery).
And let's be clear ... Whoever hears this appeal WILL hear about this. Many times. This is not going to be a jury trial. "Admissibility" will be almost irrelevant.Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:That gauge answer is amazing to me. Wells (or his lackey who answered) is either lying or doesn't understand one of the most basic evidentiary points in the report. If I'm drafting some kind of appeal regarding flaws in the investigation, that's a point I'm underscoring big time.
MentalDisabldLst said:
Really? All my friends at NYU Law characterized Paul Weiss as the #1 place for litigation, a group you would hire for "bet the firm" cases. I mean, maybe Cravath or Wachtell are viewed as more prestigious for corporate work, but what firms are in this "higher tier" above Paul Weiss in litigation?
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:That gauge answer is amazing to me. Wells (or his lackey who answered) is either lying or doesn't understand one of the most basic evidentiary points in the report. If I'm drafting some kind of appeal regarding flaws in the investigation, that's a point I'm underscoring big time.
dstunbound said:
For those of us that don't know squat about the legal world, is the next tier the lawfirm that Brady and Yee hired to work with them?
MarcSullivaFan said:That is what I was talking about earlier when I mentioned unforced errors. It may not change public perception now, but making that statement about the gauges was idiotic and can only hurt them later.
Nick Kaufman said:
Again. I think the more probable than not that Brady was aware is accurate. I don't think that McNally acts on his own accord to do something illegal. I also don't think that Brady who's meticulous on preparing the balls just the way he likes them, skips on the details of what is done in the last phase. Unless perhaps he understands that he ought to have plausible deniability, in which case, that also really makes him "know".
PedroKsBambino said:
Kessler is an apex-tier litigator on sports antitrust stuff, quite possibly the best there is (obviously a subjective judgment). The white collar stuff is a little different; Kessler's firm has some guys who are (in my mind) very very good. And to be clear, Ted Wells is on everyone's list of upper tier white collar guys with an incredible resume and track record---please do not hear me to say otherwise. My personal view is that there are some better guys, however.
My own bias for this type of issue is towards DC, where the criminal/public issues are most similar to what is going on here. My sincere hope is that TB invested the money (and there are not conflicts preventing him) hiring one of the Williams and Connelly guys---Sullivan, Kendall, etc. Reportedly, Brendan Sullivan says to new criminal clients "I will tell you two things about this representation. First, I am going to get you off. And second, it is going to cost you a lot of money" In something like 30 years of doing it, he's been wrong on the first one exactly one time (and likely never on the second!) Those guys are absolute animals---they are every bit as competitive about winning cases as Tom Brady is about winning football games. There's a few others in that tier who I'd be thrilled to hear TB has on the team. There's also a couple of top guys who are clearly conflicted out because their firm represents the NFL.
We will see. There will be a ton of great lawyers involved in this, and it's not really fair to try and rank them as they all have constraints from the client/the facts/etc. So, my bad there other than noting a personal opinion.
No, it doesn't.Average Reds said:
It's also interesting (to me at least) that the two separate issues are being conflated into one. Because it does appear likely that someone adjusted the balls after the ref looked at them, which is a violation even if the balls were set within the allowable range. So why was/is Wells and the NFL so intent on proving that the balls were below the 12.5 PSI threshold?
dstunbound said:
For those of us that don't know squat about the legal world, is the next tier the lawfirm that Brady and Yee hired to work with them?
he's described by the New York Daily News as a "pain in the butt to the NFL for decades," and no one thinks twice about the characterization.
How is lack of subpoena power relevant when the league can justify any penalty by asserting a lack of cooperation?WenZink said:
I have no evidence that Kraft was stonewalling. But sometimes stonewalling is the optimum strategy if full cooperation would yield something worse. And it's not a sign of bad character, IMO. The NFL has no subpoena power, so it's not breaking any law, even it does break an NFL rule. Sometimes it's the best way to mitigate the damage.
Shelterdog said:
It was reportedly Lorin Reisner, who's not exactly a lackey. (He's a 50 something year old incredibly experienced criminal prosecutor and a paul Weiss partner).
Ed Hillel said:Yee and the rest of Brady's lawyers are masturbating furiously over what just happened. Wells just completely contradicted himself on the science, as written in the report. He also cited to which text, in particular, was the most convincing to him, and it's one that could clearly be taken any number of ways.
kartvelo said:No, it doesn't.
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
All the more reason to consider that answer incredible.
I really wish somebody had asked them, "Can you tell me what evidence shows that Tom Brady wanted the balls specifically deflated below the 12.5 psi threshhold allowable by the league?"
The text from JJ to JM saying that JJ spoke to Tom and he knows how much pressure JM is under to get the balls done.tims4wins said:
I must have missed this - please elaborate?
Average Reds said:
Because it does appear likely that someone adjusted the balls after the ref looked at them, which is a violation even if the balls were set within the allowable range. So why was/is Wells and the NFL so intent on proving that the balls were below the 12.5 PSI threshold?
“I would like to start out by responding to criticisms by Mr. Brady’s agent, Don Yee, about my independence, and his suggestions that the conclusions of the report were somehow influenced by persons in the league office who wanted to find wrongdoing by the Patriots and Mr. Brady.
“The conclusions in the report represent the independent opinions of me personally and my team. And those conclusions were not influenced in any way shape or form by anyone at the league office. We made a fair and reasonable review of the evidence, and we reached conclusions based on the preponderance of the evidence standard, which I was required to apply based on the league’s rules. To the extent Mr. Yee is suggesting that I have some type of conflict because I and my law firm do other work for the NFL, I want to be clear that it is well known that I worked for the NFL in the Miami Dolphins investigation involving Jonathan Martin and Richie Incognito. And also that my law firm is involved in representing the NFL in the concussion cases. Those facts were all publicly known at the time I was appointed. When I was appointed to be the independent investigator, no one at the Patriots, or in Mr. Brady’s camp, raised ANY issues about my independence or my integrity to judge the evidence impartially and fairly. In fact, Mr. Kraft, to my recollection, publicly said he welcomed my appointment. I think it is wrong to criticize my independence just because you disagree with my findings.”
And, given who the titular Willaims was, I wouldn't be surprised that ties between the League and W&C run deep.Marciano490 said:
The problem is, the NFL is like Tony Soprano going around to NJ divorce attorneys - I think a lot of top firms are conflicted out. I'm pretty sure we were doing work for the NFL when I was at Williams and Connolly, though I could be mistaken.
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
All the more reason to consider that answer incredible.
I really wish somebody had asked them, "Can you tell me what evidence shows that Tom Brady wanted the balls specifically deflated below the 12.5 psi threshhold allowable by the league?"
Hoya81 said:The text from JJ to JM saying that JJ spoke to Tom and he knows how much pressure JM is under to get the balls done.
tims4wins said:
I must have missed this - please elaborate?
E5 Yaz said:Where this goes from here only depends on what you want to see happen:
If you want to see4 the penalties reduced, you have a chance.
If you want to have public perception changed, that boat has sailed.
Kenny F'ing Powers said:
Probably a picture of a Jets fan, Colts fan, and Seahawks fan.