Deflategate merge -- pending appeal results

[amfootball]

From Mike Reiss:

 

What does it mean that Brady testified under oath? This was significant because Brady was "putting his actual freedom on the line in arguing the NFL got it wrong." Specifically, as noted by Michael McCann, Brady "could face criminal charges for perjury if it is later proven (by a prosecutor, not Goodell) that he knowingly lied. At the same time, Brady sends a powerful message that he’s willing to risk criminal charges to prove that he is innocent of the allegations."

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4782460/five-frequently-asked-questions-about-tom-bradys-appeal

[Yehoodi]

I believe I was correct when I said "signing your tax return when you know it's not true is fraud and not perjury." You getting a little tricky on me ? Doesn't perjury on your tax return refer to if you submit a document with your return that you claim to be true under the penalties of perjury ? So when you say signing your tax returns and you know everything stated there is not correct .. I think at most they can make you pay the taxes and add penalties. Could come after you for fraud but perjury for signing your tax return ? I don't think so . Just to refresh you stated...." For example the signing of your tax returns."

 

 

As far as Brady ending up in jail for falsely testifying today .. that's ridiculous. Is it possible ? Yeah I'll take your word for it . But what are the chances of that ? Maybe like the same as me going out with Kate Upton tonight. It's ridiculous to say he's "risking his freedom." Stupid .. ignorant .. silly... take you pick as they all fit the bill.

 

Fraud and perjury are really the same thing and overlap, they both involve lying to gain an advantage of some sort.   They differ in that perjury in a subcategory if you will of fraud in that with perjury you are not only lying but also stating at the same time that you are telling the truth while you are lying. 

 

For instance if I go to a gas station with $100.00 in my wallet and tell the attendant that I have no money and really need $20 in gas can you give it to me for free and he does, that is fraud, this is true even if I wrote down I have no money.  If on the other hand there is some government subsidized program that gas station can give out free gas for folks with no money and I need to fill out some type of financial statement which has at the end above the signature line that I am attesting, under penalties of perjury, that what I am writing is the truth, then that is perjury.  

 

So with the taxes it would be fraud to simply put down I made $40,000 (when you made $60,000) and its another to say not only I am claiming $40,000 but I am saying that its the truth.   I merely brought in the taxes as everyone files taxes and would be familiar with the act, not all folks have made affidavits.

[Swan Ronson]

Putting his freedom on the line. 

 

Edward Bernays would be proud.

[dynasty13]

Exactly...yet you keep going on and on...I don't get it. It's really quite hypocritical on your part.

 

Is it?

 

Hmmm...I don't recall complaining or being surprised by how many pages this thread is up to...keep it going it doesn't bother me one bit.

[bababooey]

soooo what do we all think of 3 on 3 OT in the NHL next year?

[Yehoodi]

The NFL isn't going to have him prosecuted

 

No probably not, and DAs don't go after folks that lie on the stand either.  It is not something that is pursued by officials, but is something that could potentially be pursued. 

[Yehoodi]

soooo what do we all think of 3 on 3 OT in the NHL next year?

 

I like it.  It might favor teams with better offenses, but I rather see a 3 on 3 victory over a shootout, even though a shoot out is fun to watch.  3 on 3 will likely produce more scoring to get the OT over in OT.

[jvan1973]

No probably not, and DAs don't go after folks that lie on the stand either. It is not something that is pursued by officials, but is something that could potentially be pursued.

So we agree, his freedom isn't in jeopardy if he lies

[Yehoodi]

Exactly...yet you keep going on and on...I don't get it. It's really quite hypocritical on your part.

 

I am not so sure that its the pats fans that are doing it as much as the subject matter.  Indeed when this first came out there was like a 60 page thread with not that much pats fan contribution. 

[Bad Morty]

I don't believe a word shefter or his "sources" say, that guys a brady homer.

of course you don't.

[Yehoodi]

So we agree, his freedom isn't in jeopardy if he lies

Yes agreed it is unlikely that anything will happen jail time wise . 

 

My original two cents on the matter was just that one does not have to be in court to be subject to perjury penalties.  I do agree with you though that he will not serve jail time, it however may make the commissor less likely to be sympathetic to Brady's cause if he is found to have lied under oath as opposed to just lying not under oath.

[Bad Morty]

The question now is how will Goodell deal with the internal conflict of knowing that Brady didn't do anything while having to save face on his initial uninformed rush to judgment.

[bababooey]

I like it.  It might favor teams with better offenses, but I rather see a 3 on 3 victory over a shootout, even though a shoot out is fun to watch.  3 on 3 will likely produce more scoring to get the OT over in OT.

Exactly, 3 on 3 leaves a lot more open ice/scoring opportunities although I don't like the idea that an overlapping penalty from regulation could lead to a 3-2 start in OT. I love shootouts but agree the game shouldn't be determined by a skills competition. Can't extend OT either bc you will have the top players playing extra minutes in 13-14% of games during the regular season as well. If they changed the points like eliminating the loser point or awarding 3 points for a regulation victory then maybe you'll see less OT instead of teams playing it safe to at least come away with a loser point.

[dw49]

Fraud and perjury are really the same thing and overlap, they both involve lying to gain an advantage of some sort.   They differ in that perjury in a subcategory if you will of fraud in that with perjury you are not only lying but also stating at the same time that you are telling the truth while you are lying. 

 

For instance if I go to a gas station with $100.00 in my wallet and tell the attendant that I have no money and really need $20 in gas can you give it to me for free and he does, that is fraud, this is true even if I wrote down I have no money.  If on the other hand there is some government subsidized program that gas station can give out free gas for folks with no money and I need to fill out some type of financial statement which has at the end above the signature line that I am attesting, under penalties of perjury, that what I am writing is the truth, then that is perjury.  

 

So with the taxes it would be fraud to simply put down I made $40,000 (when you made $60,000) and its another to say not only I am claiming $40,000 but I am saying that its the truth.   I merely brought in the taxes as everyone files taxes and would be familiar with the act, not all folks have made affidavits.

 

 

I just don't agree that fraud and perjury are the same thing. A perfect example would be the Tom Brady case. He is committing perjury but in no way is it fraud. Not even close... LOL .. just kidding. In any event it was silly for that attorney to state that Brady was putting his freedom on the line yesterday. If I were a NE fan defending Brady (Morty) , I would fell silly posting that in Brady's defense . That's what I pointed out.

[dw49]

From Mike Reiss:

 

What does it mean that Brady testified under oath? This was significant because Brady was "putting his actual freedom on the line in arguing the NFL got it wrong." Specifically, as noted by Michael McCann, Brady "could face criminal charges for perjury if it is later proven (by a prosecutor, not Goodell) that he knowingly lied. At the same time, Brady sends a powerful message that he’s willing to risk criminal charges to prove that he is innocent of the allegations."

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4782460/five-frequently-asked-questions-about-tom-bradys-appeal

 

 

Yeah and so what ? What I said was that he would never be prosecuted . 

 

1) How would they really prove it.

 

2) Who and why would anyone try to prosecute him.

 

Because two *s Reiss and McCan are making a big deal out of pure nonsense doesn't make it any less silly.

[Bad Morty]

Yeah and so what ? What I said was that he would never be prosecuted . 

 

1) How would they really prove it.

 

2) Who and why would anyone try to prosecute him.

 

Because two *s Reiss and McCan are making a big deal out of pure nonsense doesn't make it any less silly.

All it is is further evidence that Brady went in there with the truth on his side and was unafraid in the least to testify under oath. The guy has zero track record of being dishonest, and there's no compelling evidence to suggest he's being dishonest now, unless you think a lengthy phone call and meeting with Jastremski is evidence of a cover up versus evidence of a guy who was told by Chris Mortensen that all of the footballs he used were 2 lbs too light and therefore wanted to grill his equipment guys to make sure they didn't do anything before he started commenting publicly.

[jvan1973]

The question now is how will Goodell deal with the internal conflict of knowing that Brady didn't do anything while having to save face on his initial uninformed rush to judgment.

only pats fans "know" nothing outside the rules occurred

[dw49]

All it is is further evidence that Brady went in there with the truth on his side and was unafraid in the least to testify under oath. The guy has zero track record of being dishonest, and there's no compelling evidence to suggest he's being dishonest now, unless you think a lengthy phone call and meeting with Jastremski is evidence of a cover up versus evidence of a guy who was told by Chris Mortensen that all of the footballs he used were 2 lbs too light and therefore wanted to grill his equipment guys to make sure they didn't do anything before he started commenting publicly.

 

 

IMO it's silly evidence. It's also my opinion that ball boys would not alter balls with the QB having no knowledge of it.

[Bad Morty]

IMO it's silly evidence. It's also my opinion that ball boys would not alter balls with the QB having no knowledge of it.

and the science isn't clear that the balls were altered. The science IS clear that the Mortensen report, which the NFL shamefully allowed to stay out there, was wildly inaccurate. So put yourself in Brady's shoes. He goes on a talk show early Monday morning. They bring up deflated balls. He's obviously caught completely off guard, thinks they are joking, laughs, etc. By the time he hangs up, the story has blown up and the exaggerated condition of the balls gets out there. If you are Brady and you didn't do anything but Mortensen is making this report and the NFL isn't denying it...don't you have to start thinking it's true? So what do you do? You call up your guys and say "what the heck is going on?! Did you guys do anything? You SURE??". I'd want to grill those guys more than Wells grilled him before I started commenting so that I didn't start saying things that would come back at me.

[Yehoodi]

I just don't agree that fraud and perjury are the same thing. A perfect example would be the Tom Brady case. He is committing perjury but in no way is it fraud. Not even close... LOL .. just kidding. In any event it was silly for that attorney to state that Brady was putting his freedom on the line yesterday. If I were a NE fan defending Brady (Morty) , I would fell silly posting that in Brady's defense . That's what I pointed out.

 

Yes there are not the same thing, I was just pointing why they are similar and why the tax return was not fraud.

 

As for Brady's defense, I agree with you, although technically he can be exposed to jail time, he will very likely not, for that attorney to say what he did was over the top, I think he may be trying to make the point that what Brady was doing was the same thing he would have to do if this were a court proceeding, which is really the bigger picture.

[dw49]

and the science isn't clear that the balls were altered. The science IS clear that the Mortensen report, which the NFL shamefully allowed to stay out there, was wildly inaccurate. So put yourself in Brady's shoes. He goes on a talk show early Monday morning. They bring up deflated balls. He's obviously caught completely off guard, thinks they are joking, laughs, etc. By the time he hangs up, the story has blown up and the exaggerated condition of the balls gets out there. If you are Brady and you didn't do anything but Mortensen is making this report and the NFL isn't denying it...don't you have to start thinking it's true? So what do you do? You call up your guys and say "what the heck is going on?! Did you guys do anything? You SURE??". I'd want to grill those guys more than Wells grilled him before I started commenting so that I didn't start saying things that would come back at me.

 

 

No offense but we've heard this account before . Is it possible , yeah . Do I have to buy it ? No and I don't 

[dw49]

Yes there are not the same thing, I was just pointing why they are similar and why the tax return was not fraud.

 

As for Brady's defense, I agree with you, although technically he can be exposed to jail time, he will very likely not, for that attorney to say what he did was over the top, I think he may be trying to make the point that what Brady was doing was the same thing he would have to do if this were a court proceeding, which is really the bigger picture.

 

 

BTW.. I was reading a bit about filing a bad tax return last night and strangely enough .... if you file a dishonest amended tax return .. that one indeed is considered perjury. That's assuming I read it properly. 

[bababooey]

BTW.. I was reading a bit about filing a bad tax return last night and strangely enough .... if you file a dishonest amended tax return .. that one indeed is considered perjury. That's assuming I read it properly. 

 

But if you claim you didn't know it was bad and they believe you then you get away clean (thank you Skylar White)

[SteelCityColt]

All it is is further evidence that Brady went in there with the truth on his side and was unafraid in the least to testify under oath. The guy has zero track record of being dishonest, and there's no compelling evidence to suggest he's being dishonest now, unless you think a lengthy phone call and meeting with Jastremski is evidence of a cover up versus evidence of a guy who was told by Chris Mortensen that all of the footballs he used were 2 lbs too light and therefore wanted to grill his equipment guys to make sure they didn't do anything before he started commenting publicly.

 

While there's nothing that would fall under the quite wide term "dishonest" he has at times shown less than perfect character on the field so let's not paint him as a saint. Again to be clear I'm not singling him out here saying he's terrible compared to his peers but let's not put him on some moral pedestal. 

[dw49]

But if you claim you didn't know it was bad and they believe you then you get away clean (thank you Skylar White)

 

 

This is no doubt true.

[SteelCityColt]

On a side note I've always loved the term "Pious Perjury".

[SteelCityColt]

This is no doubt true.

 

Maybe it's different over there but I always thought ignorance of the law (in this case tax law) was no excuse?

 

So while not as widespread as the US we do have self assessment here as well and if you file it wrongly because you don't understand the various bits of tax legislation than that's on you completely. To expand this to a more serious offence, at best I think your ignorance would be a mitigating factor when it came to sentencing. 

[Bad Morty]

No offense but we've heard this account before . Is it possible , yeah . Do I have to buy it ? No and I don't 

That's fine - you are free to disbelieve it and I'd expect nothing less. But that account is every bit as plausible or implausible as your account that a guy with not a single mark on his record in 13 years is suddenly involved in a preposterous undercover operation to release a fractional amount of air pressure from footballs.

[Bad Morty]

While there's nothing that would fall under the quite wide term "dishonest" he has at times shown less than perfect character on the field so let's not paint him as a saint. Again to be clear I'm not singling him out here saying he's terrible compared to his peers but let's not put him on some moral pedestal. 

oh believe me - I don't put anybody I'm not intimately acquainted with on any pedestals. I'm simply saying that he has never come under any league disciplinary review before (that I'm aware of), which over the course of a 13 year career says something about him.

[dw49]

That's fine - you are free to disbelieve it and I'd expect nothing less. But that account is every bit as plausible or implausible as your account that a guy with not a single mark on his record in 13 years is suddenly involved in a preposterous undercover operation to release a fractional amount of air pressure from footballs.

 

 

Why would you "expect nothing less?" 

[dw49]

Maybe it's different over there but I always thought ignorance of the law (in this case tax law) was no excuse?

 

So while not as widespread as the US we do have self assessment here as well and if you file it wrongly because you don't understand the various bits of tax legislation than that's on you completely. To expand this to a more serious offence, at best I think your ignorance would be a mitigating factor when it came to sentencing. 

 

 

I was just having a bit of fun with him. Yeah ... you are correct on the "ignorance of the law standard." 

[SteelCityColt]

oh believe me - I don't put anybody I'm not intimately acquainted with on any pedestals. I'm simply saying that he has never come under any league disciplinary review before (that I'm aware of), which over the course of a 13 year career says something about him.

 

Can you quantify what you mean by this, I mean he's been fined by the league before...

[SteelCityColt]

I was just having a bit of fun with him. Yeah ... you are correct on the "ignorance of the law standard." 

[SilentHill]

I just disproved the research institutes disapproval of the wells report.

[dw49]

 

 

 

That looks like me when my accountant tallied up what I needed to send to the IRS this year.

[Bad Morty]

Can you quantify what you mean by this, I mean he's been fined by the league before...

ok I don't recall what he's been fined for, but I'm sure it's happened. What I'm trying to say is this...the NFL is filled with offenders of various stripes. You've got your "Rice/Peterson/Hardy/Roethlisburger/etc" off-field stuff...you've got your PED users...and then you've got your "guy who wore his socks too high/had a logo on during a press conference/name the silly minutiae type stuff the NFL fines players for" type of offenders. Brady has been nowhere near the "serious offender" categories. He's never made the league look bad before, and in fact has been an excellent ambassador for the game to date.

[SteelCityColt]

ok I don't recall what he's been fined for, but I'm sure it's happened. What I'm trying to say is this...the NFL is filled with offenders of various stripes. You've got your "Rice/Peterson/Hardy/Roethlisburger/etc" off-field stuff...you've got your PED users...and then you've got your "guy who wore his socks too high/had a logo on during a press conference/name the silly minutiae type stuff the NFL fines players for" type of offenders. Brady has been nowhere near the "serious offender" categories. He's never made the league look bad before, and in fact has been an excellent ambassador for the game to date.

 

I get you and it's a fair point but to play the DA somewhat history is littered with people of previous good character who have done some pretty bad stuff. In the same way we shouldn't prejudge someone for having a criminal record, you shouldn't prejudge someone for not if that makes sense. 

 

In the real world of course we all will, and to some degree it is of some use in assessing people. You should then ask the question.. why would the league be willing to go after one of the squeeky clean megastars of the league? It's not like they've had their hand forced with the Peterson/Rice situation. I'm just saying they wouldn't do it on a whim. 

[cdgacoltsfan]

Per Michael McCann: "Tom Brady testifying under oath mean's he's putting his actual freedom on the line in arguing that the NFL got it wrong"

Good. I hope they catch him in yet another lie and he gets a 5-10 year sentence.

[cdgacoltsfan]

ok I don't recall what he's been fined for, but I'm sure it's happened. What I'm trying to say is this...the NFL is filled with offenders of various stripes. You've got your "Rice/Peterson/Hardy/Roethlisburger/etc" off-field stuff...you've got your PED users...and then you've got your "guy who wore his socks too high/had a logo on during a press conference/name the silly minutiae type stuff the NFL fines players for" type of offenders. Brady has been nowhere near the "serious offender" categories. He's never made the league look bad before, and in fact has been an excellent ambassador for the game to date.

...like the time he pushed Suzie Kolberg (who was just trying to do her job) aside and ran off the field like a 10 year old (after a win no less)...he's quite the amassador!

[Bad Morty]

I get you and it's a fair point but to play the DA somewhat history is littered with people of previous good character who have done some pretty bad stuff. In the same way we shouldn't prejudge someone for having a criminal record, you shouldn't prejudge someone for not if that makes sense. 

 

In the real world of course we all will, and to some degree it is of some use in assessing people. You should then ask the question.. why would the league be willing to go after one of the squeeky clean megastars of the league? It's not like they've had their hand forced with the Peterson/Rice situation. I'm just saying they wouldn't do it on a whim. 

When you are building a circumstantial case against someone, as this clearly is, your past clean (or unclean) track record is as relevant a piece of "evidence" as anything else, since it's all circumstantial. If the murder weapon has your fingerprints and dna all over it and the surveillance camera in the corner got a clear video of you committing the murder, well...your past then becomes irrelevant.