#DFG: Canceling the Noise

Is there any level of suspension that you would advise Tom to accept?


  • Total voters
    208

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
18,313
where I was last at
Regarding "pissing off the Judge".
 
Assuming Judge Berman already knows he's going to vacate and is tightening up his decision, (my wishful thinking) how much would he "piss off" the NFL with a Friday afternoon Labor Day week-end decision?
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
bankshot1 said:
Regarding "pissing off the Judge".
 
Assuming Judge Berman already knows he's going to vacate and is tightening up his decision, (my wishful thinking) how much would he "piss off" the NFL with a Friday afternoon Labor Day week-end decision?
This guy does not strike me as small minded. And as much as that might piss idf the NFL, it would screw with BB and the NEP as much if not more.

Friday morning --- "We don't know who is starting at QB in 6 days. Do your job!"
 

Omar's Wacky Neighbor

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
CaptainLaddie said:
 
Oh, I think Brady absolutely appeals it.  I think he appeals anything where he's missing a game or paying more than 50k or admitting any kind of guilt.
 
It's not like Brady can be ORDERED to admit guilt here (what do you guys call that, allocution?).  Better chance of him being ordered to be Goodell's butler for a month.
 

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,293
Providence, RI
Omar's Wacky Neighbor said:
It's not like Brady can be ORDERED to admit guilt here (what do you guys call that, allocution?).  Better chance of him being ordered to be Goodell's butler for a month.
 
We are probably at what 30K deflaetgate posts and this is the first time (to my knowledge) that anyone made a joke about Brady being ordered to be Goodell's butler for a month.  
 
Shame on all of us
 

scott bankheadcase

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2006
940
hoboken
Omar's Wacky Neighbor said:
It's not like Brady can be ORDERED to admit guilt here (what do you guys call that, allocution?).  Better chance of him being ordered to be Goodell's butler for a month.
 
Finally the television show we've been looking for out of this. 
 
He's MY Butler!
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,574
I was listening to Tanguay on the way into the office this morning.  As you know, he is firmly in the "Brady is guilty" camp.  Here is his take on the delay:  Berman feels that he has to rule for the NFL out of deference to the arbitration process.  Berman doesn't want to do that because he thinks the case against Brady is very weak, and is trying to buy time in to see if the parties will settle.
 
My own view is that the delay means that he is working on honing an appeal-proof decision in favor of Brady.  However, it's interesting to see someone read the same tea leaves to arrive at an opposite conclusion.  I guess we all read into them what we want to.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
5,483
scott bankheadcase said:
 
Finally the television show we've been looking for out of this. 
 
He's MY Butler!
 
Or, "Butler THIS", showing the diverging lives of two football players - the former undrafted rookie who's now a star, and the former star quarterback who's now reduced to serving drinks for the odious commissioner...
 

OnWisc

Microcosmic
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2006
3,807
Chicago, IL
Shelterdog said:
Another thing BB has mentioned is that the "communications" break down at the end of the game with all the media and what not getting ready to flood the field. He said on Dale & Holley:
 
"I think its similar to the end of the game in Arizona six years ago when all the TVs and everything get on the field and at the end of the game and then your communication systems that were working OK during the game then breakdown at the end that was the same thing that happened in [2007]."
 
Essentially he knows how fucking hard it is for even the best coach and QB to play well in the hectic minutes of the last second of the superbowl.
 
And he looked across the field and saw Pete Carroll
You're not the first in this thread to mention this and I think we all agree that Berman is well aware of it and it will probably warrant mention in his opinion, if not serve as the fundamental basis for his decision.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Koufax said:
I was listening to Tanguay on the way into the office this morning.  As you know, he is firmly in the "Brady is guilty" camp.  Here is his take on the delay:  Berman feels that he has to rule for the NFL out of deference to the arbitration process.  Berman doesn't want to do that because he thinks the case against Brady is very weak, and is trying to buy time in to see if the parties will settle.
 
My own view is that the delay means that he is working on honing an appeal-proof decision in favor of Brady.  However, it's interesting to see someone read the same tea leaves to arrive at an opposite conclusion.  I guess we all read into them what we want to.
Did he have the goddamn common courtesy to add: " See L. Munson Tr. at __, Aug. __, 2015? And how long does Tanguay think Berman continues to bang his head against this wall?

Bone Chips above offered a more plausible explanation for the Judge's settlement fever, which manifested itself the very day this case was assigned, which immediately drew attention here:

If I have brand new clerks, I probably want the case to settle too.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
Koufax said:
I was listening to Tanguay on the way into the office this morning.  As you know, he is firmly in the "Brady is guilty" camp.  Here is his take on the delay:  Berman feels that he has to rule for the NFL out of deference to the arbitration process.  Berman doesn't want to do that because he thinks the case against Brady is very weak, and is trying to buy time in to see if the parties will settle.
 
My own view is that the delay means that he is working on honing an appeal-proof decision in favor of Brady.  However, it's interesting to see someone read the same tea leaves to arrive at an opposite conclusion.  I guess we all read into them what we want to.
Gary Tanguay is an idiot who is taking a contrarian position in a desperate attempt to be relevant. Do not take anything he says remotely seriously.
 

twothousandone

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 18, 2001
3,976
dcmissle said:
This guy does not strike me as small minded. And as much as that might piss idf the NFL, it would screw with BB and the NEP as much if not more.
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
He issued an order today before close of business, because he knew it wasn't going to be out by the end of the day, because he doubtlessly saw speculation in the press that a decision was coming today, and he's probably getting lots of phone calls.  So, he's being courteous to the press and to interested parties, and he's also doing the NFLPA a bit of a favor by telling them, "don't worry, I still understand that things get complicated if I don't rule by the end of the week and that's my intention."
You guys make it sound as though Berman is channeling "regular season Tito" -- top priority is to make sure his decision says what he wants it to say, but he's not ignorant of the timing and impact on others, including (possibly) his law clerks.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
45,086
dcmissle said:
Did he have the goddamn common courtesy to add: " See L. Munson Tr. at __, Aug. __, 2015? And how long does Tanguay think Berman continues to bang his head against this wall?

Bone Chips above offered a more plausible explanation for the Judge's settlement fever, which manifested itself the very day this case was assigned, which immediately drew attention here:

If I have brand new clerks, I probably want the case to settle too.
It's incredible how many commentators are acting as though this is Berman's first radio--as though he's never had occasion to have to rule on cases where he might have found one or more of the persons involved in the litigation distasteful or something.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,613
Koufax said:
I was listening to Tanguay on the way into the office this morning.  As you know, he is firmly in the "Brady is guilty" camp.  Here is his take on the delay:  Berman feels that he has to rule for the NFL out of deference to the arbitration process.  Berman doesn't want to do that because he thinks the case against Brady is very weak, and is trying to buy time in to see if the parties will settle.
 
My own view is that the delay means that he is working on honing an appeal-proof decision in favor of Brady.  However, it's interesting to see someone read the same tea leaves to arrive at an opposite conclusion.  I guess we all read into them what we want to.
 
Can Tanguay even read?
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,399,735
NY
BusRaker said:
IANAL but ... if the Bermanator vacates and the Pats win the Super Bowl, does he get a ring?
 
Yes.  The precedent is US v. Fishbein.  It's an obscure ruling, but an important one.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
10,374
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Marciano490 said:
Judges - not all - will absolutely go based on feel and whether they can trust an attorney or party.
 
I'd agree - with the caveat that there is a limit, and that there are softer and harder issues out there.  
 
If you get the judge on your side early on, especially if you ease the path for the court, you're far more likely to have the judge to carefully listen to what you have to say on any given issue.  It does not mean you'll win on a hard issue that's strongly against your client, but it may be enough to sway the judge on a softer issue - someplace the court has discretion.   
 
Judge's aren't robots.  I'm sure most of them like to try to do the right thing. Would anyone out there *trust* the legal position of someone who has shown themselves to be a kind of shady manipulator of the facts or law?  I some ways it's more valuable for the clients to be in a situation where their attorney is solid/competent/forthcoming and the opposition completely shady, as opposed to them having a model attorney with the opposition being solid/competent/forthcoming.  
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,713
JP
OilCanShotTupac said:
 
Very difficult to say.  The only rule of thumb is, like dcm said, you can't DVOA this stuff.
 
Most attorneys will decline to predict for this reason.  
Actually, one can DVOA this stuff.

Private equity firms are now investing in litigation. They pay the lawyers and get a share of any award. http://www.gerchenkeller.com/chicago-daily-law-bulletin-chicago-litigation-funder-now-largest-world/

They construct a probabilistic model for the likelihood they will win in court, and they put dollars behind it.


The finance people behind those funds probably looked at lawyers refusing to put numbers on litigation outcomes, and saw an opportunity there. Betting on lawyers' risk aversion, if you will. (Don't hurt me, SoSH lawyers)



Edit: here's an article on the industry: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21575805-fat-returns-those-who-help-companies-take-legal-action-second-hand-suits
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
28,717
AZ
While equity firms are now funding all manner of cases, the primary bread and butter is contingency fee personal injury stuff, although some commercial disputes are getting traction.  Plaintiffs' side damages work is easier to predict.  Plus, it's not so much lawyers' reluctance to put a number on things as it is that the investor firms can buy a portfolio to spread around the risk -- so the risk analysis is a bit different.  The opportunity comes mostly from the fact that the client often cannot pay costs, which can be significant and which the lawyers don't necessarily want to bear with uncertain recovery.  The downside for the equity firms is that many cases settle and most lawyers (or at least many) believe they cannot ethically give the equity firm any say in settlement authority, but that doesn't seem to prevent the practice.  With interest rates so low, I guess there's a really good market for these kind of "investments."  It's still quite lawyer driven, though -- many of the equity firms have developed their stable of lawyers they trust.
 
It's not unlike what the large contingency firms do -- they take a portfolio of cases, some high flyers, some meat and potato insurance matters, etc. to spread the risk around.  
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
crystalline said:
Actually, one can DVOA this stuff.

Private equity firms are now investing in litigation. They pay the lawyers and get a share of any award. http://www.gerchenkeller.com/chicago-daily-law-bulletin-chicago-litigation-funder-now-largest-world/

They construct a probabilistic model for the likelihood they will win in court, and they put dollars behind it.


The finance people behind those funds probably looked at lawyers refusing to put numbers on litigation outcomes, and saw an opportunity there. Betting on lawyers' risk aversion, if you will. (Don't hurt me, SoSH lawyers)



Edit: here's an article on the industry: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21575805-fat-returns-those-who-help-companies-take-legal-action-second-hand-suits
Right, and they hedge their bets and spread their risk.

You want to DVOA this one very closely contested case before this one particular judge, go ahead, the predictions thread is still open.

And if you want to DVOA whether this or that will piss him off -- so much he better.

I said weeks ago there is only one group of "jury consultants" I would listen to in this one particular case. Judge Berman's former law clerks. And they ain't talking.
 

Myt1

the FRESH maker
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
29,673
South Boston
crystalline said:
Actually, one can DVOA this stuff.

Private equity firms are now investing in litigation. They pay the lawyers and get a share of any award. http://www.gerchenkeller.com/chicago-daily-law-bulletin-chicago-litigation-funder-now-largest-world/

They construct a probabilistic model for the likelihood they will win in court, and they put dollars behind it.


The finance people behind those funds probably looked at lawyers refusing to put numbers on litigation outcomes, and saw an opportunity there. Betting on lawyers' risk aversion, if you will. (Don't hurt me, SoSH lawyers)



Edit: here's an article on the industry: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21575805-fat-returns-those-who-help-companies-take-legal-action-second-hand-suits
We're talking about a case in which there's no damages claim. I don't see how any of these posts are at all responsive to the original comments that they're seeking to contradict.

Pretty much the worst thing that could have happened to people's ability to think critically for a moment on this board is the omnipresence of, "But I'll do math to it." You don't even know what you'd be trying to measure.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
5,219
BusRaker said:
 
Funny but Jets and Giants are higher on the list than the Texans.  I'm still rooting for the Texans even if the owner is an ass, mostly because
 
fuck the colts.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
Just read Florio transcript fully defending his seemingly bored out of the blue idea of "well Berman can just ignore everything and issue a 2 game suspension and no one will appeal". 
 
He's done a mostly excellent job, but I fail to see why this ruling would be acceptable or palatable to Brady. The only thing he'd get out of it is limiting it to non cooperation. As Mcnair showed well yesterday there is no difference for many between noncooperation and cheating. The idea that the NFL wouldn't appeal due to public opinion is a stretch and the idea the NFLPA would compare it to Hardy's circumstance and fold up shop and go home is similarly farfetched. 
 
http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2015/09/02/mike-florio-on-dc-judge-berman-might-consider-2-game-suspension-for-tom-brady-as-compromise/
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
23,690
Here
Steve Dillard said:
If Berman cites this it would constitute per se reversible error. This is 1) New evidence gleaned during an appeal to change the underlying record (sound familiar) 2) obtained during settlement talks, so inadmissible evidentiary wise and 3) possibly obtained during a side session meaning the other side had no opportunity to respond or examine.

I hate the fact that Feely is blabbing about this. edit:  to the media.   I get the benefit to letting the judge know this as background.
Feely's treatment is legally relevant to the Law of the Shop arguments. It's not changing the record Goodell was working with during his appeal at all.

Just saw your second point. I assume any "conversation" would have been under oath. I still think Mara may have been given the same treatment. Or could that not have been done in chambers?
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Beyond that, I don't see Berman doing this unless he got buy-in from both sides in advance, that they would not appeal. Because otherwise, he's going to get reversed and look like a jackass after acquitting himself very solidly throughout.

And if the parties have refused to buy-in thus far, why would they buy-in after the fact? Doesn't it seem probable that the court floated the notion of a cut in the suspension with both sides walking away?
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
11,729
New York City
dcmissle said:
Right, and they hedge their bets and spread their risk.

You want to DVOA this one very closely contested case before this one particular judge, go ahead, the predictions thread is still open.

And if you want to DVOA whether this or that will piss him off -- so much he better.

I said weeks ago there is only one group of "jury consultants" I would listen to in this one particular case. Judge Berman's former law clerks. And they ain't talking.
 
I've yet to meet the former clerk who doesn't intimate that they know an awful lot about how their judge would rule.  Not to the wall street journal but you can bet that every former Berman clerk at a big firm is getting peppered with questions by curious partners, and they're all kind of shrugging and giving sphinx like looks and Delphic answers and saying "well on the one side he really cares about the merits, but he also cares about the law."  Also, none of them have any fucking idea what they're talking about.