So Brady wouldn't let em have his phone, eh?

[TommyD420]

This is the thing that intrigues me about the situation - as a supposedly independent investigator I don't see how he can claim attorney-client privilege; to me his independence makes him more of a 'friend of the court'. Then again, I'm not a lawyer.

That's his quandry. Either it's an independent investigation, in which case Wells can't claim privilege - or Wells claims privilege, and the league can't claim it was an independent investigation, because Wells was working as their counsel.

 

[imapig]

That's his quandry. Either it's an independent investigation, in which case Wells can't claim privilege - or Wells claims privilege, and the league can't claim it was an independent investigation, because Wells was working as their counsel.

MAn that Goodell has a dilemma doesn't he?

 

[PatsFanLisa]

That's his quandry. Either it's an independent investigation, in which case Wells can't claim privilege - or Wells claims privilege, and the league can't claim it was an independent investigation, because Wells was working as their counsel.

Exactly. But he said the words today. Can't be taken back. Bought and paid for by "my client".

 

[imapig]

Exactly. But he said the words today. Can't be taken back. Bought and paid for by "my client".

That doesn't sound plural does it?

 

[bishbash]

I wonder if Goodell got a money back guarantee on this fictional report.

 

[anderson]

I honestly think it's as simple as he didn't want things "accidentally leaked" like EVERY ****ING THING ELSE in this whole fiasco.

And the talking heads here going "He's gonna hafta give his phone up in court!"

Yeah, no shit. It also won't be broadcast to the public when he does. Dumbasses. You don't think he knows that?

Not the first time. The league has been habitually leaking immaterial emails/texts/etc for a long long time. **** them. Of course he shouldn't give them his phone. Even if they said please.

 

[Mazz22]

No way should he have handed over his phone to that scum Wells. They had the ball boys phones anyways. I think in a court with an independent judge where his privacy is protected, Brady will hand it over with no issue.

 

[mooseontheloose]

It's funny that so many people are becoming increasingly paranoid regarding personal privacy, especially when it comes to electronics and the internet (ie. NSA shenanigans). Yet, in this case, it apparently defies all reason that Tom wouldn't want to turn over his PERSONAL mobile device.

Why the **** would Tom agree to give his employer access to his phone? I wouldn't, and my employee isn't even a three ring circus that leaks content to the public.

Moreover, the assumption is that there are texts on Tom's phone that implicate him. What is that based on? They had the ball boy's phone and had access to those conversations. Are they assuming that there were other convos that involved Brady but that they were deleted? Why would they only delete the ones with Tom and not with each other? Furthermore, why the **** wouldn't Tom just delete the texts before showing up for that interview? There's absolutely no reason to believe a thorough review of his phone (short of obtaining phone records from the provider) would generate any new evidence. These clowns are just so desperate to establish guilt that ANY sort of resistance automatically equates to guilt.

 

[TommyD420]

It's funny that so many people are becoming increasingly paranoid regarding personal privacy, especially when it comes to electronics and the internet (ie. NSA shenanigans). Yet, in this case, it apparently defies all reason that Tom wouldn't want to turn over his PERSONAL mobile device.

Why the **** would Tom agree to give his employer access to his phone? I wouldn't, and my employee isn't even a three ring circus that leaks content to the public.

Moreover, the assumption is that there are texts on Tom's phone that implicate him. What is that based on? They had the ball boy's phone and had access to those conversations. Are they assuming that there were other convos that involved Brady but that they were deleted? Why would they only delete the ones with Tom and not with each other? Furthermore, why the **** wouldn't Tom just delete the texts before showing up for that interview? There's absolutely no reason to believe a thorough review of his phone (short of obtaining phone records from the provider) would generate any new evidence. These clowns are just so desperate to establish guilt that ANY sort of resistance automatically equates to guilt.

Not only that, a UNION REP would be screaming bloody murder for him not to do it, never mind his AGENT sitting right there.

The report was written for the masses (so no one would actually read it), and slanted the way the league wanted.

Anyone with the most basic of reading comprehension skills knows that.

The league had their turn.

 

[Beaglebay]

No employee is required to cooperate in their defense during an investigation by their employer which seeks punitive results.

 

[gomezcat]

It's funny that so many people are becoming increasingly paranoid regarding personal privacy, especially when it comes to electronics and the internet (ie. NSA shenanigans). Yet, in this case, it apparently defies all reason that Tom wouldn't want to turn over his PERSONAL mobile device.

Why the **** would Tom agree to give his employer access to his phone? I wouldn't, and my employee isn't even a three ring circus that leaks content to the public.

Moreover, the assumption is that there are texts on Tom's phone that implicate him. What is that based on? They had the ball boy's phone and had access to those conversations. Are they assuming that there were other convos that involved Brady but that they were deleted? Why would they only delete the ones with Tom and not with each other? Furthermore, why the **** wouldn't Tom just delete the texts before showing up for that interview? There's absolutely no reason to believe a thorough review of his phone (short of obtaining phone records from the provider) would generate any new evidence. These clowns are just so desperate to establish guilt that ANY sort of resistance automatically equates to guilt.

This is the bit I don't get about the whole debate. Who the hell would turn their phone over to their employer? If it came to it being used against me, I'd insist on going to an employment tribunal and arguing they couldn't do that.

I can't imagine any "Western" country where you would lose that argument.

Also, phone providers would only turn over records to a law enforcement agency and I doubt they'd have details of what a text said. Not sure about this, though.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[deec77]

This is the bit I don't get about the whole debate. Who the hell would turn their phone over to their employer? If it came to it being used against me, I'd insist on going to an employment tribunal and arguing they couldn't do that.

I can't imagine any "Western" country where you would lose that argument.

Also, phone providers would only turn over records to a law enforcement agency and I doubt they'd have details of what a text said. Not sure about this, though.
Posted via Mobile Device

Actually they do. During my son's custody hearing with baby mama he used his phone texts the court wouldn't allow it as they couldn't without a doubt identify who the other person in the conversation was baby mama erased hers.
He went to the phone company and got the texts printed which also contained the phone no of the sender but it contains all the messages sent during that pay period. Now I'm not sure if law enforcement would be able to but I know the owner of the phone can.

I certainly wouldn't give it over willing that's for sure.

~Dee~