- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ted Wells Interviews with local boston station
Posted on 5/13/15 at 10:29 am to TigerBait1127
Posted on 5/13/15 at 10:29 am to TigerBait1127
quote:
TigerBait1127
quote:
The CBA lists what type of documents that players and clubs have to provide:
The section you quoted refers to tax-related documents. Which is completely irrelevant. Did you mean to copy and paste that part? Because its completely non-germane to the discussion here.
quote:
Didn't the NFLPA advise him not to turn over his cell phone? Personal communication on personal devices should be out of scope in there investigation.
Why should personal communication be out of scope in their investigation? They can ask. Brady doesn't-and didn't-have to turn it over. But on what basis are those communications on a personal device outside the scope?
2
Posted on 5/13/15 at 10:30 am to lsupride87
Oh clearly. What a joke. How about it was embarrassing, sensitive, private, or whatever
Again, why can't we screen your phone? What are YOU hiding. You've been had
If they really wanted Brady to pick and choose then they're stupid and wasting time
But they're not. They arrogantly thought we'd point the finger at Brady, "why wouldn't he just turn over his phone" and when the public reaction was that anyone with at least one brain cell left would tell them to "get fricked" they started spinning it.
These people are so deluded and drunk with authority they constantly misread the room.
Again, why can't we screen your phone? What are YOU hiding. You've been had
If they really wanted Brady to pick and choose then they're stupid and wasting time
But they're not. They arrogantly thought we'd point the finger at Brady, "why wouldn't he just turn over his phone" and when the public reaction was that anyone with at least one brain cell left would tell them to "get fricked" they started spinning it.
These people are so deluded and drunk with authority they constantly misread the room.
Posted on 5/13/15 at 10:30 am to lsupride87
quote:
That is our whole point. Clearly, what ever was on his phone incriminated him, or he would have shared the relevant texts. That is why I think he is afraid of a real court. Those texts will be public to everyone if he goes there
Sounds like the other side of the Collins argument to me
Posted on 5/13/15 at 10:30 am to boom roasted
quote:
That's the confusing part to me. Why not just go back and delete the messages? It's a very simple process on modern cell phones. Was the refusal based on principle alone?
I think they just didn't trust the source of the investigation and the intentions of it (Ted Wells said they didn't himself)
So instead of giving him those messages that you feel he will turn into what answers he wants (see:Walt Anderson), just don't give him anything else and wait for the appeal so you can tear the investigation up with a judge that's not on the NFL payroll
Posted on 5/13/15 at 10:31 am to wildtigercat93
quote:You never truly delete anything. A court can get the deleted messages from the phone provider correct?
If there is anything incriminating in them, they are gone by now. So I don't see how he would be afraid of that either way
Posted on 5/13/15 at 10:32 am to wildtigercat93
It seems the other way is easier and much less damning.
Posted on 5/13/15 at 10:32 am to TigerBait1127
quote:Nope. Collins was dealing with an actual court of law. I would lawyer up and not do shite. However, if my boss comes to me accusing me of something, and I have texts that prove I am innocent, I am not going to hold onto my texts on principle
Sounds like the other side of the Collins argument to me
Posted on 5/13/15 at 10:32 am to GFunk
quote:
Why should personal communication be out of scope in their investigation? They can ask. Brady doesn't-and didn't-have to turn it over. But on what basis are those communications on a personal device outside the scope?
If you have a right to refuse, then refusing it shouldn't be used as a main piece of evidence in your investigation.
Posted on 5/13/15 at 10:33 am to lsupride87
Yup, but they didn't ask for permission to have the provider release the records.
Inly 2 ways you get those, consent or warrant. And They release them all, and then they're reading all of his text messages
Inly 2 ways you get those, consent or warrant. And They release them all, and then they're reading all of his text messages
Posted on 5/13/15 at 10:33 am to lsupride87
quote:Courts can recover text messages. Not sure if they can recover iMessages.
You never truly delete anything. A court can get the deleted messages from the phone provider correct?
Not really relevant here. A court isn't going to subpoena his phone records.
This post was edited on 5/13/15 at 10:33 am
Posted on 5/13/15 at 10:33 am to GFunk
quote:
The section you quoted refers to tax-related documents. Which is completely irrelevant. Did you mean to copy and paste that part? Because its completely non-germane to the discussion here.
Uh, that was my point.
Those are the only documents listed under the Discovery portion of the CBA.
quote:
Why should personal communication be out of scope in their investigation? They can ask. Brady doesn't-and didn't-have to turn it over. But on what basis are those communications on a personal device outside the scope?
Let me rephrase: Outside of a reasonable scope. He can ask for them, but failure to turn over personal electronic evidence on a personal device does not raise a red flag in an investigation. Then again, Wells didn't go into it with a 3rd party audit mindset. He went in as a criminal attorney ready to support his client
Calling that out as not cooperating is absolutely ridiculous. It is not a reasonable request.
This post was edited on 5/13/15 at 10:35 am
Posted on 5/13/15 at 10:34 am to boom roasted
quote:Even if he takes them to "federal court" that the patriot fans say?
Not really relevant here. A court isn't going to subpoena his phone records.
If he personally takes them to court(which he wont) I believe they absolutely will ask for those recordsPosted on 5/13/15 at 10:34 am to boom roasted
Yeah, zero chance of that happening.
Posted on 5/13/15 at 10:34 am to boom roasted
quote:
It seems the other way is easier and much less damning.
Go to court and if you undermine even a little bit of the report, it brings the entire report under scrutiny to the public eye
Posted on 5/13/15 at 10:34 am to lsupride87
(no message)
Posted on 5/13/15 at 10:35 am to wildtigercat93
quote:I dont think it was. I just think to the common fan it adds to the look of guilt
then refusing it shouldn't be used as a main piece of evidence in your investigation.
This post was edited on 5/13/15 at 10:36 am
Posted on 5/13/15 at 10:35 am to lsupride87
I don't think anyone in here said anything about a federal trial
Posted on 5/13/15 at 10:35 am to wildtigercat93
quote:A lot of damage has already been done. The follow-up proceedings will garner much less attention.
Go to court and if you undermine even a little bit of the report, it brings the entire report under scrutiny to the public eye
Posted on 5/13/15 at 10:36 am to wildtigercat93
quote:Dude Jcroyce was all over "federal court" when the suspension broke
I don't think anyone in here said anything about a federal trial
And I am pretty sure you were right there with himPosted on 5/13/15 at 10:36 am to lsupride87
quote:
I dont think it was
Based on the layout of the whole thing the punishment was for "not cooperating".
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News