|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Deflation-gate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
xongsmith writes: A calls B, both have a record. A deletes his, B still has it. When they look at B, there is nothing incriminating there. I think the concern is that if, say, Brady texted McNally, and if McNally deleted that text, then since Brady destroyed his cell phone there would be no record. The counterargument is that if McNally and Jastremski had gone through their texts and deleted the incriminating ones then they would have deleted all the incriminating texts and not just the ones with Brady. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NoNukes writes: How would they have found out which bank the box was in? Would Brady have told them that the phone was in a bank? Was Brady afraid of being rubber hosed, or that enough pressure would be applied to make him change his mind about giving up the phone. I don't think the NFL would have had a chance at getting that phone. At least absent a subpoena. Brady was testifying under oath at the NFL arbitration hearing, so I assume he would have answered questions truthfully. And I think events pretty much bear out the prudence of Brady's actions. The Wells Report describes Brady's refusal to turn over his cell phone:
quote: Yet Goodell didn't make a significant issue of this refusal in his original ruling. Only after learning before the arbitration hearing that the cell phone had been destroyed instead of merely withheld did he become outraged (and still is - so much for managerial temperament). Why would that be, unless he realized it meant he couldn't subpoena it. With the Wells Report and the Exponent analysis discredited and a court fight likely looming, he obviously felt he needed a smoking gun, and what better place than on Brady's cell phone obtained through a subpoena. But with the phone destroyed that option was gone, so to justify his 4-game suspension he falsely claimed the Wells Report proved things it didn't, things beyond the assertions of the Wells Report itself (this was where the charge was elevated, with no additional evidence or revelations, from "generally aware" to something far beyond that), and then added the destruction of the cell phone itself. Do you think the appeals court would, like Goodell, have viewed withholding the cellphone much less negatively than destroying it? If so, why? For the same reason? From the transcript of the NFL arbitration appeal hearing before Roger Goodell, here is Brady in his own words explaining why he wanted to keep the cell phone secure:
quote: I don't believe that the bargaining agreement allows the NFL to issue subpoenas unless the case ends up in court. I didn't mean that Brady was concerned that during the NFL appeals hearing his cellphone could get subpoenaed. I meant that looking forward he could see a court fight brewing and his cellphone being subpoenaed. If the NFL knew the phone still existed, couldn't they have sought a subpoena before Judge Berman's court?
Unlike the NFL, the court could easily have made arrangements to keep secrets out of the public eye. I don't think the courts have any particularly greater expertise at Internet security than any of the other government agencies that have been hacked. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I didn't mean that Brady was concerned that during the NFL appeals hearing his cellphone could get subpoenaed. I meant that looking forward he could see a court fight brewing and his cellphone being subpoenaed. If the NFL knew the phone still existed, couldn't they have sought a subpoena before Judge Berman's court? Yes. Of course they could have done so. That's how the legal system works. Again, we have a fundamental disagreement about what Brady should have done given that knowledge.
I don't think the courts have any particularly greater expertise at Internet security than any of the other government agencies that have been hacked. What makes you think that the phone contents have ended up on the Internet or on a computer connected to the internet? Generally speaking if records are sealed, then they are not made available electronically. What I would expect is that the parties would agree that only the relevant information from the phone would become of record in the case. I've heard of occasional mistakes, but they are extremely rare. If Brady is correct in thinking he can win despite destroying the evidence then he has made the correct decision. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If the court finds that Brady destroyed evidence would this move from being a civil case to possibly a criminal case?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
f the court finds that Brady destroyed evidence would this move from being a civil case to possibly a criminal case?f No. I don't see any way to make a criminal case out destroying evidence in a civil case. In particular, the destroying happened before the case got to court, so I don't think there is any chance of civil contempt escalating to criminal content (something I don't fully understand). I think the only repercussion in this case would be some negative effect on the outcome of the case. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NoNukes writes: Yes. Of course they could have done so. That's how the legal system works. As you might have been able to tell, I draw a distinction between the law and justice. The difference between the two is why there are appeals and ultimately gubernatorial and presidential pardons. The number of cases being overturned on DNA evidence tells us that there is a difference between the way the legal system works and the way we wish it would work.
Again, we have a fundamental disagreement about what Brady should have done given that knowledge. But the reason we disagree is based upon a key point: you believe the cellphone's contents could be kept secure, and I don't. Anybody and anything can be hacked. All that's needed is motivation.
What makes you think that the phone contents have ended up on the Internet or on a computer connected to the internet? Did you mean to say, "...could have ended up...?" Answering that question instead, people aren't robots following rules in exquisite perfection. The more relevant question is why you seem so confident that the contents of Brady's phone couldn't have ended on a device vulnerable to hacking? And then there's just simple accident. An Apple employee once left an iPad prototype in a taxi, and another once left an iPhone prototype in a bar. There's probably rules against putting case information on a laptop and taking it home, but I bet it happens all the time anyway. Perhaps they take it home in a taxi, and perhaps to a home where as soon as the laptop opens it connects to the neighbor's router that has no password. And then there's the possibility of an inside job. Data security is a myth (though Apple seems on the right track).
Generally speaking if records are sealed, then they are not made available electronically. What I would expect is that the parties would agree that only the relevant information from the phone would become of record in the case. And beyond the concerns about security, there's still the problem of reviewing each item on the phone to determine if it's relevant. Won't the NFL, the one with leaks the size of a fire hose, insist on a representative being present during the review? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
s you might have been able to tell, I draw a distinction between the law and justice. Yes. Of course in doing so, you are making that call on the outcome of the case. I am not doing that here. I suspect it also helps that I don't care one way or the other about the New England Patriots. I have absolutely no investment in the outcome of the case. But beyond that, I understand the reasons why the court system works the way it does, and allowing litigants to flaunt court orders does not lead to a court system that is likely to be able to dispense justice or law. I don't see any real reason why Brady cannot follow the same law everyone else has to follow. Civil courts handle secrets far more valuable than those of Brady's and the secrets don't get out despite their tremendous value. Is the risk zero? No. But does is it dwarfed by the risk of getting sanctioned in court? Possibly. It's also possible that the evidence on the phone was exculpatory. Was destroying case winning evidence worth flaunting a court order? That seems unlikely to me.
The more relevant question is why you seem so confident that the contents of Brady's phone couldn't have ended on a device vulnerable to hacking? You talked about hacking via the internet, so that's what I addressed. The problem is that there should not be a target for hacking. Of course mistakes are possible, but courts routinely deal with sealed evidence, and it is extremely rare that such evidence would ever make it onto an internet accessible computer. And only then would it be hacked. No the risks are not zero, but they are small enough that every other litigant can work within the system with secrets more valuable than the ones we are talking about here.
Won't the NFL, the one with leaks the size of a fire hose, insist on a representative being present during the review? If that was how things worked in civil cases, wouldn't litigants always see the other sides trade secrets despite the fact that they are being sealed so they won't see them. No Percy, that is not how things work. But couldn't the powerful NFL simply rig things so that they got their own man on the inside? Yeah, in a movie. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
did he become outraged (and still is - so much for managerial temperament) Where do you get this stuff from? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
I have to guess that you don't read much of the media coverage about Deflategate. If it isn't outrage blinding Goodell's judgement then something certainly is. Maybe it's not outrage, maybe it's just par for the course for Goodell. From Roger Goodell Appeared To Peddle More Deflategate Lies In ESPN Interview:
quote: But this article thinks it goes beyond lying, that Goodell is obsessed, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is biggest loser in DeflateGate debacle:
quote: And some articles describe Goodell's state of mind the same way I do, Deflategate: The Wreck That Could Have Been Avoided says:
quote: And some headlines just state the obvious: A Furious Roger Goodell After Federal Judge Overturned Brady's 4 Game Suspension What causes someone to behave so irrationally that he hurts his own best interests? Outrage, fury, apoplexy, that's my conclusion, but maybe it's just ruthless and vindictive power-mongering. Whatever is behind Goodell's relentless pursuit of Brady, it's hurting the NFL, it's hurting Brady, and all over something that never happened. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I have to guess that you don't read much of the media coverage about Deflategate. If it isn't outrage blinding Goodell's judgement then something certainly is. Maybe it's not outrage, maybe it's just par for the course for Goodell. Right, maybe it's not outrage.
This is a fight about the collective bargaining agreement in the NFL I believe that the fight is primarily about the collective bargaining agreement, and in particular, the commissioner's powers to regulate things including player conduct. I think we can agree that this case is a major test of that section of the agreement that we've debated so often. I suggest that this section of the agreement was purposefully negotiated by the NFL in order to increase management's power. I think my suggestion makes some sense in light of the controversy over the NFL commissioner limits under the previous agreement. But yeah, I'm sure I don't read as much of the media coverage as you do. But I also suspect that we do view differently what we read. Your statements regarding the judges folly are a prime example of that. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NoNukes writes: I have to guess that you don't read much of the media coverage about Deflategate. If it isn't outrage blinding Goodell's judgement then something certainly is. Maybe it's not outrage, maybe it's just par for the course for Goodell.
Right, maybe it's not outrage. Right, maybe it isn't, but you asked, "Where do you get this stuff from?" as if my opinion was unfounded and shared by no one else. My reply strived for balance by quoting several sources indicating a variety of opinion, including ones pretty much the same as mine.
This is a fight about the collective bargaining agreement in the NFL I believe that the fight is primarily about the collective bargaining agreement, and in particular, the commissioner's powers to regulate things including player conduct. Yes, of course, though those aren't my words but are from one of the articles I quoted.
But yeah, I'm sure I don't read as much of the media coverage as you do. But I also suspect that we do view differently what we read. Your statements regarding the judges folly are a prime example of that. Well, we shall see what happens with the appeals court. Looking back, Brady's hearing before Goodell *was* arbitration, and Brady *did* prevail in Berman's court because of issues related to impartiality and fairness, so maybe questions about cell phones *will* turn out to have been off the mark. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Right, maybe it isn't, but you asked, "Where do you get this stuff from?" as if my opinion was unfounded and shared by no one else. My personal opinion is that your conclusion of outrage (outraged to the point of not having managerial temperment) was unfounded. I suppose I could have expressed myself in stronger terms, because apparently, choosing to accept your expression that outrage might not be the only answer just opened me up to more criticism. Well, at least I tried... I don't see why, given other possibilities that don't require it, you have to make denigrating remarks about one party or the other. Is that better? Beyond that, I think asking for sources is always legit.
so maybe questions about cell phones *will* turn out to have been off the mark. Yes, that might happen. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NoNukes writes: My personal opinion is that your conclusion of outrage (outraged to the point of not having managerial temperment) was unfounded. He is, as many in the media have commented, tarnishing and embarrassing the NFL brand and destroying the reputation of one of the best quarterbacks in the history of the league, as well as one of the most upstanding representatives of the league. One would have to be blind not to see such behavior as tainted with vindictiveness and anger.
I suppose I could have expressed myself in stronger terms,... Oh, don't worry, you've been expressing yourself in plenty strong enough terms. Stuff like "You should be telling us what you mean before," and "Where do you get this stuff from?" are stinging criticisms that you pursued relentlessly. Don't chastise yourself for holding back, because it sure doesn't feel like it from this end.
... because apparently, choosing to accept your expression that outrage might not be the only answer... When did I claim, when does anyone claim, or even imply, that their opinions are the only alternative? Sure, perhaps Goodell is just coldly and logically pursuing NFL policy. It's possible. The reason I don't accept that alternative is because someone who is calm and rational wouldn't engage in actions so damaging to the organization they head and their own reputation, and it isn't just Deflategate. There's a reason Goodell gets booed at the NFL draft every year, one of the few times he appears before informed fans. If to you it seems that I don't fill in a lot of the blanks, to me it seems that you're often badly uninformed considering your active participation level.
...just opened me up to more criticism. Disagreement can be misinterpreted as criticism and then taken personally. I mean you no ill. I'm just defending my position. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Percy writes: He is, as many in the media have commented, tarnishing and embarrassing the NFL brand and destroying the reputation of one of the best quarterbacks in the history of the league, as well as one of the most upstanding representatives of the league. I don't think there is any need to tarnish or embarrass the NFL brand when the players and managers are already doing such a good job of that already. When players are always in the news for fights, beating up on their girlfriends, shooting folk in cars and all the other ways they seem to be able to get into the news "Deflation Gate" is at best just a small side-show.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Endorsing Trump should be added to your list.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024