Tom Brady Given Impunity By Celebrity Hobnobbing Judge

2015 08 12_2615During the Whitey Bulger case you may recall that the defense counsel moved that Judge Stearns recuse himself because during the time Whitey was committing crimes he was in the U.S. Attorney’s office. Judge Stearns refused suggesting that the allegation he would be somehow affected by that in his handling of the case was preposterous. Judge David Souter on the Court of Appeals ordered Judge Stearns off the case by writing: a reasonable person might question the judge’s ability to preserve impartiality through the course of this prosecution and the likely rulings made necessary by the immunity claim.”

Stearns, a little more aware of what was happening was on solid grounds in refusing to recuse himself. The situation might have been different if Whitey’s counsel offered an affidavit setting forth some facts concerning what Whitey would testify to about the immunity. They never did. It was all talk without any substance behind it. Judge Stearns recognized this and called them on it.

Sadly, Judge Souter fell for the con about an “immunity claim” since none was ever presented. To this date no one knows what the claim consists of. Judge Stearns was correct in his stance as long as the immunity claim was left up in the clouds.

Judge Souter to remove Judge Stearns had to add something to his decision which was never asserted. He said:“This promise [of immunity]was supposedly given in return for the defendant’s agreement to supply information about the criminal activities of others.” That was totally wrong. Whitey’s lawyers never asserted that. They refused to tell who was to do what in the deal. But one thing they made clear is that it had nothing to do with supplying information. Whitey denied he was an informant. Judge Souter’s statement drawn out of thin air did not fit the facts in any manner.

That was not the only mistake by Judge Souter. He wrote that John Connolly “was later convicted of taking bribes.” That never happened. He was acquitted of those charges.

I know you heard how Bob Kraft and Judge Richard Berman, who overruled the suspension of Tom Brady without in any way exonerating him, met at Discovery Communications chief David Zaslav and his wife Pam’s party at their East Hampton estate, also attended by Oprah Winfrey, Martha Stewart, Harvey Weinstein, Lloyd Blankfein, NY Giants co-owner Jon Tisch and wife Lizzie, Katie Couric, and Hilaria and Alec Baldwin.” Kraft and Berman apparently talked for a couple of minutes exchanging pleasantries. How does that make you feel about the impartiality of the judge’s decision?

I can see Bob Kraft going to such an event. But what in the world is a federal judge doing there hobnobbing with all the celebrities so soon after making a decision in favor of a celebrity? Was this his way of getting accolades? I ask  whether:  “a reasonable person might question the judge’s ability to preserve impartiality through the course of” the Brady hearing if he knew he would be going to this gala party. (Would his invitation have been rescinded if he decided otherwise?) It is doubly difficult to clear him if he knew that Bob Kraft would be there? (Will he be sitting next to Bob in his box at tonight’s game?)

Of course you know Judge Berman’s decision ran against all precedent in reviewing arbitrator decisions. He overruled the Commission by saying: “The Court finds that Brady had no notice that he could receive a four-game suspension for . . . participation in any scheme to deflate footballs, and non-cooperation with the ensuing Investigation.” The judge is suggesting that unless the person knows the penalty for his act it is wrong to punish him in any way for his wrongdoing.

Understand this clearly, Judge Berman avers that even if Brady did deflate the footballs and obstruct the investigation he cannot be punished because he was not told he would be as if he were in a child in kindergarten. I would like to think that even those of you who genuflect when you hear Brady’s name and worship at the altar of Brady, assuming you can be considered reasonable people, find such a conclusion absurd. When a judge makes such nonsensical statements and talks as if Brady is some kind of deity who soars above any punishment for his sins and when you add on to that he was planning to go a weekend shindig knowing he would be communing with celebrities and friends of Tom at a party on Labor Day then his impartiality comes into question.

18 thoughts on “Tom Brady Given Impunity By Celebrity Hobnobbing Judge

  1. I read it as though Judge Berman was ruling on a union agreement that had been set up in their last contract with the NFL.
    and–that Goodell had overstepped that agreement with excessive punishment for Brady, especially when Brady didn’t get a chance to question his accuser, Pash, at the appeal, in June.

    1. P.

      I knew it. I just knew it. Saying anything about your beloved would cause you to up and respond to his defense. It is a good thing I have not said anything about the sainted Red Sox because that would really get you upset since I know on how high a pedestal you have them which is even above Tom Brady. But I understand they are having a bad year so I will not even mention their name.

      You may be right about Judge Berman. I still think it stinks he goes out an hobnobs with the celebrities whether he was correct in his ruling or not. He should have more decency. You, of course, buy into the idea that Brady did not have a chance to question his accusers but do not want to mention anything about him smashing his cell phone or the Patriot’s refusal to make some of its people available to be interviewed. I suggest any judge can come up with a phony reason to do something and that is what we have here but it really does not make much difference since it is only a game that we are supposed to watch for entertainment.
      I understand that you and I may be crossing paths in the near future. We can then discuss this matter in greater detail. If you like, we can even arm wrestle and whoever wins that means that person is telling the truth. It is like your ancestors in New England (or was it your spouse’s) used to do when a person was accused of being a witch. They threw her into the river, (the Kennebec) to see what would happen. If she did not drown that meant the river rejected her so she was guilty and so they burned at the stake; if she did drown that meant the river accepted her so she was innocent.

      1. There’s a sucker born every minute..Matt is today’s sucker. A man who is so quick to look for altered or motives and outright lies in articles written by the Globe toadies, takes the word of the NFL, and PROVEN liar Roger Goodell over Tom Brady. Matt is not big on fact when it comes to yrhe Patriots..he buys into the NFL hyperbole, propaganda and outright bullshvt without question.
        Smashing the phone Matt? Really? And which employees were not made available? I assume this I swear will come soon after you cite the source for the owners on TV “rule”!! Poor Matt…I’ve begged you before..at least keep up with the case if you insist on commenting.

  2. Berman has a knack for these things. Last year, before he sentenced Rudy Kurniawan, a wine counterfeiter, Berman appeared on a panel to discuss wine fraud at the 92nd Street Y. He then accommodated the many wine lovers who wanted a stiff sentence by giving Kurniawan 10 years in jail. So it goes.

  3. Afterthought: The NFL was thought to have beaten the players union to the punch by filing suit in New York before the union could do so in Minnesota, where the federal court was thought to be more union-friendly. But things didn’t work out for the NFL. I think the league could still win on appeal. Well see ….

    1. Dan:

      True – but it does say a lot about our justice system – better chances to win in one court over another seems to make a mockery out of equal justice for all. So does the system in all the federal courts where judges are given the cases by a lottery system.

  4. re: Richard Berman, who overruled the suspension of Tom Brady without in any way exonerating him,

    His job was not to examine the evidence of guilt or innocence. It was to look at the fairness of the Goodell’s process. You are missing a big portion here. That should embarrass you. Does it? It should.

    Second how many people of on New York Second District Court of Appeals did Kraft talk to? These are the people that will review Judge Berman’s decision and Berman had better get it right.

    Nice try at a conspiracy theory though and it will probably work with those that do not think. Maybe you did add to the unfairness of the deflategate. If that was your intention you probably succeeded with some people. Don’t try that with intelligent informed people because it won’t work.

    1. DB:

      In truth Berman was reviewing an arbitrator’s findings and had no right to substitute his own idea of a punishment for that of the arbitrator. The lead case in the area is right on point for this. I did not want to get into the legal technicalities. Are you embarrassed for not knowing that? You should be.

      I expect if the case is heard on appeal in the 2nd circuit the court will reverse it. I also expect the court will never hear it because no one wants to go through it anymore.

      I don’t suggest any conspiracy. I just said Berman was unwise to be going to a shindig and coming down with the opinion that he did which would have made him popular at that affair. I’d certainly hope tht “intelligent informed people” would have understood the point of my post.

      1. “I just said Berman was unwise to be going to a shindig and coming down with the opinion that he did which would have made him popular at that affair”.

        Do you think that The Giants owners, who you mention were also at the Shindig, were happy with his decision? How about the rest of the attendees, the majority of which were New Yorkers. He likely new that his decision would make him UNpopular with many of the attendees. Your logic, as usual, fails.

    2. DB,

      Unfortunately, in contrast to his missives on Bulger, the probation debacle, etc, Matt is woefully uninformed on this subject and acts like the very people he mocks most of the time..in all matters Patriot, he falls in line with the lazy, morally bankrupt media and falls in line with the rest of the sheep who are unwilling or unable to think for themselves. His Achilles heel.

  5. By the way,

    You are going the wrong way when you trust the NFL. That is not “Trekking toward the truth” is following the lie. Same goes for ESPN. Then again, you probably do not care anyway. Sorry.

    1. DB:

      You jump to conclusions too quickly. Look before you leap; or is it don’t cross the bridge until you come to it. Never could figure that out.

  6. I thought Berman’s ruling with respect to ‘notice of potential punishment’ was reasonable. The NFL chose to charge Brady under a vague provision of the rules applicable only to team owners and managers. The potential punishment for the same vague provision found under the rules applicable to players, with which Brady should have been charged, was a maximum $5,000. fine.
    That’s like prosecuting a juvenile murderer in juvenile court and then deciding after the trial that he should get an adult sentence.
    Either the NFL chose to charge Brady under the owners’ rules so they could punish him more severely or they simply made a mistake.
    Berman’s ruling highlighted very substantial and objective evidence that the NFL went out of its way to jam Brady. The most substantial evidence of such bias was contained in Goodell’s written decision. One example is Goodell’s conclusion that Brady knew about and was involved in equipment tampering. The NFL’s own investigators did not find evidence to support that conclusion and they did not reach that conclusion. Goodell intentionally overstated the evidence.
    Such errors suggest that the NFL was not mistaken when they charged Brady with a vague provision under the owners’ set of rules. It seems more likely that this provision was chosen intentionally to mete a severe punishment against Brady because the evidence did not support findings against Brady for any specific violations of the players’ rules.
    To further the juvenile murderer analogy, could you imagine an impartial judge refusing to allow the defense to call one of the two lead homicide investigators on the case? Can you imagine any appellate court upholding such a verdict?
    That all said, it’s a game.

    1. Patty:

      Berman exceeded his authority in overruling the arbitrator’s decision. Disagree with much of what you said because I don’t believe the NFL is intent on doing any harm to Brady. I do believe it had evidence showing the balls were tampered with and decided that was detrimental to the game.

      As I’ve written earlier, it will come down to seeing how Brady performs with a regulation ball when the ice is on the grass in Southern Foxboro. If he throws the ball well, then the idea he was involved in the deflation scheme suffers; if not, then it is given more life. That is the best thing about this because the proof will be forthcoming in the near future.

      1. How did he do in the second half of the Colts game? The Super Bowl? Pittsburgh game? 12 touchdowns and 2 interceptions in 10 quarters of football with the most scrutinized footballs in the history of the game. By the way Matt, not a big believer in science, I guess? Or are you still buying into the stooge Mortensons “original 11 out of 12 were up to 2 pounds low” bullshit?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *