Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 74 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 1 mon ae MEMOENDORSED [DECEIVE N Cleek fo Decut AUG teons | Hon. Richard M. Berman. +t € le CMAw cone | United States District Judge RICHARD BERMAN 500 Pear St. TOMB New York, NY 10007-1312 arof! s Judge Berman: Here is the wisdom of a school teacher. Subject: Tom Brady versus the NFL Irrelevant evidence: whether the cheating was effective. Punishment: Since the guy accused will not admit that he Okayed (by words, by shaking his head or by some other subtle means) deflating footballs then the guilt falls on the team. Therefore, the team forfeits the game in which they cheated, They are stripped of their AFC Championship and stripped of the Super Bowl win. Note: If one infers that indianapolis would have won if New England had not cheated, then one is finding ideas that are not in this letter. It is simple; the team cheated therefore they forfeit.Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-ICF Document 75 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 3 sav ECRIVE j MI) anig 17.20°5 1} Arogust 17%, 2018 U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York Su Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street ‘New York, New York 10007-1312 Dear Hon. Richard M. Berman, U.S. District Judge and Magistrate Judge James C. Francis This letter recognizes the integrity of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.). With the Court's best interests in mind, I proactively note administrative matters related to the Docket Sheet in these cases. | was told by the Pro Se Office that corrections to the record require a Judge’s attention. 1 take seriously the presumption that parties provide full and fair disclosure for relevance related to Fed.R.Civ. Pr. 60(a) and 60(b)(1)-(3). | appreciate your time to consider the following items: 1. Docket Sheet ~ NFLPA David Greenspan cannot represent insolvent Dewey & LeBoeuf, 2. Plaintiff Counsel - NFLMC counsel Daniel L. Nash, et al, lists “Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP” in Washington D.C. despite no business license in that district. The Summons (Docket #6) named them as counsel despite no N.Y. license in that name. 3. Docket #3: - Akin Gump disclosed no corporate parent for NFLMC yet it is technically insolvent with negative $12 million in equity at Dec. 31, 2013 per Form 990, inferring a corporate parent or related party with financial resources. Its mandate is: i) labor negotiations on behalf of NFL member clubs’ ii) negotiate and maintain the CBA: and iii) NFL player grievances arbitration, with no mention of member club complaints. In 2013, Akin Gump was paid $4.6 million (43% of legal costs). 4, Docket #4 - The NFLMC Complaint admits jurisdiction of parties but does not name ‘Tom Brady, who has no property recorded with the N.Y.C. Department of Finance. Docket #6 and #9 - The NFLMC counsel named “Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP” with New York address and requested a Summons issued to Defendant NELPA in Washington D.C. Ruby J. Krajick, Clerk of Court, granted issuance of an “Electronic Summons” on July 28, 2015 to the NFLMC to expedite timely service and answer complaint. It was issued to Akin Gump's Washington D.C. office which is not licensed, with a U.K. parent company. The NFL also does not appear to have been served for the transferred case 15-me-00235 from the U.S. District Court of the District of Minnesota. 6. Docket #12 - The Affidavit of Service s the NFLPA as a “domestic corporation authority to ac jows service allegedly made on July 30, 2015 to by Kevin Wallace, a law student and without pt service with a conflict-of interest from need to yain future employ.Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 75 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 3 7. Docket #17 - The Joim Letter Motion was not doable-spaced per Hules of Practivt. 8. Docket #20 ~ Although Docket #25 delegates some duties to Magistrate Judge Francis, this Order requires Mr. Brady and Mr. Goodell to attend an August 19, 2015 conference. 9. Docket #20 - Order states a maximum fifteen (15) pages for parties to enter in support of positions, with NFLMC filing a nineteen (19) page memorandum of law (Docket #35) and NFLPA filing a twenty-one (21) page memorandum of law (Docket #36). Per your Individual Practice Rule 2.C, Docket #40 also exceeds the maximum ten (10) pages. 10. Dockets After #20 - Neither NFLMC nor NFLPA named the proper heading per original filing 15-ev-5982 by your Order. This infers Tom Brady and NFL are not named parties. 11. Docket #28-230 ~ The testimony taken under oath by a Notary may not have authority to do so per Fed.R.Civ.Pr. 28(a)(1)(A) or (B) for: Brady (P47,L5-8); Snyder (P150,L8-11); Vincent (P227,L20-23); and Wells (P261,L3-6) and oath was not taken on-the-record. 12, Docket #28 - The Amended Answer {29-432 appears false based on information above, Perhaps if all counsel and pro hac vice attest to N.Y. Rules of Professional Conduct under oath, with copy to Attorney General offices will incent future honest and fair disclosures, 7 trust this is helpful. Respectfully Submitted, chu wh Wi Wud. itp) McGuirk, Plaintiff, 14-cv-9516/8009, P.O. Box 369, New York 10113-0369Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 75 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 3 Thank you for your submission — I apologize for the delay in responding. We have placed your submission on the court dockets for the NEL v. NELPA (Tom Brady) matter (15 Civ. $916 and 15 Civ. 5982). cms Richard M. Berman, USDJ 4ftoftsCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 76 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 3 Agus eh, 2018 MEMO ENDORSED U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse Cloak b elt 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007-1312 Su A Hale d 15-cv-5916 “Nat nal Football Dear Hon. Richard M. Berman, U.S. District Judge and Magistrate Judge James C. Francis This letter recognizes the integrity of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) from a non-attorney. Your wisdom in overseeing this case may find these disclosures material per Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(a) and 60(b)(1)-(8). I take seriously the presumption that parties provide full and fair disclosure without imposing undue risk on the U.S. District Courts. I appreciate your time to consider these facts, and seek permission to file a Letter Motion and Affidavit a a “Friend of the Court”: 1. NFL Duty Breach — The NFL Constitution and By-Laws §8.2 states the Commissioner must have “no financial interest, direct or indirect” in any professional sport. Roger Goodell, NFL Commissioner and NFLMC President, received compensation of $35.0M, $44.2M and $29.5M in 2013, 2012 and 2011, inferring he cannot be the Commissioner. 2. NFL Financial Condition ~ Respondent NFL shows large negative solvency of $741M, $304M and $316M in equity at fiscal yearend 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively, with recent adverse changes due to a $439M litigation settlement reserve in 2013. Legal expenses were to Covington & Burling ($8.1M) and Paul, Weiss, et al ($7.4M). 3. NELPA Financial Condition - The NFLPA’s Form 990 for year-end 2013 shows positive equity of $218M, and $3.0M and $400K paid in compensation to DeMaurice Smith, Executive Director, and Heather McPhee, Associate General Counsel, and legal fees to external counsel Winston & Strawn LLP ($2.9M or 65%). The NFLPA does not disclose its Virginia domicile where it is named a “corporation” nor the NFL as a related party. 4. NFL Constitution and Bylaws - §8.3(A) grants no authority to the NFL Commissioner to oversee disputes between member clubs as allegedly here between Colts v. Patriots. §8.4(A) grants rights to enter “extraordinary obligations” with approval of the NFL Executive Committee. §8.5 grants unilateral rights to NFL Commissioner to establish policies and interpret them. §8.10 Grants right to cancel league contracts with substantial contracts approved by vote of % of league members. §8.11 requires only an “Annual Report” to members without further minimum disclosures. 5. Commissioner Discipline Authority - §8.13(A) discipline requires notice and hearing with rights to (1) fine up to $500,000; (2) cancel player contract: and (1) assess 15% of transaction value for unauthorized sale, transfer or assignment of owner rights: or (B)Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 76 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 3 may be referred to Executive Committee (or remanded in this case), with right to cancel franchise. §8.14(A) NFL Commissioner may cancel player contracts without hearing. 6. Case 2:12-md-0232 (AB) Document #3589-1 - In Re: National Football League Players’ Concussion Injury Litigation Memorandum of Law of Defendants National Football League and NFL Properties LLC filed August 30, 2012. Page 7 refers to being “bound by the terms of the NFL Constitution” to the extent such terms do not conflict with the terms of the CBAs, with footnote 4 explaining “The NFL Constitution was bargained over and included within the scope of the CBA". For ease of reference, the NFL refers generally to the “CBAs” throughout this memorandum, but cites, where applicable, to both the CBAs and the Constitutions”. On page thirty (30) it stated “(incorporating by reference the NFL Constitution)” without any public disclosure of it. The NFL or agents put a ‘security’ block on the NFL Constitution, preventing third parties from printing. 7. Docket #28-234 — Art. 46 Appeal Decision on Discovery. Roger Goodell states “I do not have any first-hand knowledge of the events at issue here” which means he is not the NFL Commissioner as only that person has authority to hire counsel for investigations. 8, Docket #28:236 — Final Decision on Art. 46 Appeal of Tom Brady. Roger Goodell does not refer to his decision being issued pursuant to the NFL Constitution or Bylaws, but does state a Fifth fact the NFL received a complaint from member club, the Colts. The Seventh fact states Mr. Brady declined to provide access to highly relevant electronic information on advice of counsel, Mr. Yee, who represents Brady's backup quarterback. 9. Docket #28-236 — Final Decision on Art. 46 Appeal of Tom Brady. Per III Governing Standards, the reference to “fairness and consistency of treatment among players similarly situated” implicitly infers controversy for cause of discrimination action, 10, Case_15-cv-3168 - NFLPA's Unredacted Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award fails to disclose Roger Goodel’s Art. 46 Final Decision basis for discipline (Section V) was deemed similar to a first violation governing performance enhancing drugs. 11. Docket #36 - The NFLPA's Memo of Law to Vacate Arbitration Award does not refer to the NFL Constitution which gives notice of authorized discipline by the Commissioner. 12. Docket #35 - NFLMC’s Memo of Law does not refer to the NFL Constitution or Bylaws. Perhaps all counsel and pro hac vice attest to N.Y. Rules of Professional Conduct under oath, with copy to Attorney General offices will incent future honest and fair disclosures. | trust this is helpful. Respectfully Submitted, 4 Y THE Ue LN Mickelle (Hiléé)'McGuirk, Pro Se Plaintiff, P.O. Box 369, N.Y., N.Y. 10113-0369Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 76 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 3 ‘Thank you for your submission ~ I apologize for the delay in responding. We have placed your submission on the court dockets for the NFL v. NFLPA (Tom Brady) matter (15 Civ. 5916 and 15 Civ. 5982). ens Richard M. Berman, USDJ 9ftoftsCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 77 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 3 EGEIVE ) Laurence M. Russell AUQUSI 30, 2018 Cleak + The Honorable Richard M. Berman ww U. S. District Court Judge Southern District of New York PERSONAL U. S. Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007-1312 Re: DeflateGate Case Involving the NFL & QB Tom Brady Dear Judge Berman: | applaud, and support, your desire of having the NFL settle the case with QB Tom Brady of the New England Patriots. Although you have already probably thought of the premise herein provided to you, | wanted to mention it from another vantage point. As a former Police Officer, Detective, and Reports Supervisor, | frequently analyzed a Police Officer's initial actions after a crime had taken place. While the DeflateGate case is not really a “criminal matter,” it appears to me that an analogy could be made with a case referred for prosecution. Although not a “fruit of the poisonous tree” case, one particular portion of the DeflateGate case appears similar. When police take action on an alleged specific violation, and the basis of that alleged violation is “faulty,” most times the criminal prosecution is either “declined” or cancelled by the Court. There are many problems with the origins of the DeflateGate case: no written record(s) of the air found in suspect balls by the NFL Referees; no chain of custody of the suspect footballs; actual reporting of the alleged violation(s) delayed; no random NFL testing involved, prior to this alleged violation.Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 77 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 3 In police land, one or more “defects” in the origin of a criminal matter case, will eventually render the case as non-prosecutable. And subsequent uncoveries will be discarded. QB Tom Brady has received NFL discipline, wholly based on a “defective case,” and the NFL punishing his alleged un- cooperation appears to be faulty at best. Due to its defects, QB Brady is not being disciplined for his alleged complicity in the DeflateGate matter, but instead is reaping discipline based upon his (alleged) “failure to cooperate.” | have a real problem with that NFL action. Had the NFL found QB Brady culpable in the initial DeflateGate case, | could support any discipline based on either that culpability or his alleged “failure to cooperate.” The NFL has failed to positively prove (or even show) QB Brady's involvement in the DeflateGate allegations. All subsequent NFL discipline actions should be “suppressed” as based upon the initial defective case. | am hopeful that you come to the same conclusion. | honor your decisions, whichever they may be. You have a difficult task in front of you. \f the NFL will not come to the table and negotiate fairly, | look to you to make difficult decisions regarding QB Brady's discipline. | thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Uy aise de. Leute Laurence M. Russell Retired CA Rural Cities Chief of Police (in the 1990's & through 2001) Former U. S. Postal Inspector (in the 1970's)Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 77 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 3 ‘Thank you for your submission — I apologize for the delay in responding. We have placed your submission on the court dockets for the NEL v. NFLPA (Tom Brady) matter (15 Civ. $916 and 15 Civ. $982). ens Richard M. Berman, USDJ afrojtsCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 78 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 1 Flat Rock, North Carolina 28731 M3 qfrofs September 4, 2015 Hon, Richard M. Berman U.S. District Court for Southern District of NY 500 Pearl Street, Floor 8 New York, NY 10007 Judge Berman: | understand that the punishment meted to Tom Brady of the New England Patriots has been nullified by you. Every reasonable individual outside of the Patriot's organization realizes, and common sense dictates that Tom Brady is guilty of cheating. One can come to no other conclusion, you know it, | know it, Tom Brady knows it. Now, you have endorsed it. It seems incredulous to me that a judge would come up with some legal utterance and technical mumbo jumbo to dispel any notion of reality and common sense. But congratulations, you have. This in good part is what's wrong with our legal system and much of, America. There seems to be a constant flow of technicalities to thwart justice which to all but those of your ilk would make perfect sense. Sincerely, Mthedietehf “4,8. Van OstenbridgeRobert F. Young Fitzwilliam, NH 03447 ‘August 25, 2015 Hon. Richard M, Berman 500 Pearl Street, Room 1650 Ch ORSED New York, NY 310007 fe ek to Deeks Re: Permission requested to file AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO. Su AT hod ‘THE NFL’S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD Case No. 15-cv-5916 (RMB)(ICF) . Your Honor, Thave prepared an amicus curiae that I'm confident will uniquely bring clarity to the fundamental issues in this case and to the underlying dispute. From my reading of the reports and rebuttals, appeal transcript, filings, and public dialogue, | see that no other source has looked in the right place in the right way to uncover the fundamental insight into why this dispute landed before you rather than going away onits own. Even if you are generally against opening Pandora's box by accepting even one amicus for this case, | urge you to have someone you trust vet this for you. From the appellate amicus rules, | surmise that your court has the leeway to receive and consider a brief in conjunction with deciding whether to grant permission to file. | have attached the offered amicus and an extra copy. The proofs in the pudding, In the event that the Court is receiving too many requests such as mine to have time to consider them all, please note that | have qualifications that are enough differentiated such that reading mine does not obligate the Court to read every such request.* ‘On the last pagel show that my request fits within the normal use of amicus briefs. Given all the noise around this case, please allow me two paragraphs to show the most important insight | offer: The basic research came so close explaining the game-day measurements that the scandal now hinges ‘on a much more narrow question: how much one believes the Patriots balls had warmed up after * | graduated from Dartmouth College, as an engineering major, with class rank 2/1005. My line of work in technical competitive analysis for the past 20 years frequently involves studying technical data and identifying and ‘exposing cleverly hidden assumptions. This is the critical expertise the defense has lacked 1Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 79 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 5 leaving the field, before they were measured? That answer, when applied to the Exponent graphs, determines whether tampering was likely, uncertain, or disproven by their studies. It also drives whether the alleged amount of any tampering provided legitimate motive for conspiracy and whether game-integrity was affected, ‘The American Enterprise Institute's (AEI) “On the Wells Report,” attempting to rebut the Wells report, noted that the Patriot balls showed no evidence of a warming trend while being measured at halftime’, ‘Af! used this to question NFL accounts of the timing, and thus of when the average ball was measured”, and thus the warming. Unfortunately for AEI, AEI’s evidence lacked the statistical weight to over-turn witness testimony on the timing. Instead of questioning timing, AEl could have looked for evidence that the warming test was deliberately rigged to produce too high a result compared to the game-day events. twas and | prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on that | further prove that Exponent knew that to the best of their knowledge, the Patriot ball pressures were adequately explained by their testing. The central conclusion of the Exponent report was a lie. Exponent’s data clears the Patriots and thus Tom Brady. How itis proven: The Exponent simulation data showed the balls warming at exactly the same rate as an ‘earlier lab-bench experiment that Exponent did using a single football alone on a small pedestal on a table. Exponent even commented on the correlation, although not in those words. In contrast, Exponent documented that on game-day, the balls remained in a bag on the floor until immediately before each one was tested. If Exponent thinks that refrigerated groceries might warm even a little slower in the bag than if spread out on the table, then you know that Exponent knows that their simulation was biased toward too much warming, Furthermore, Exponent knew that the game-day measurements trended downward rather than upward. The game-day ball pressure trends during measurement rejected with 90% probability the notion that the balls were warming up as fast as they did in Exponent’s simulation. With even a slight correction to reflect slower warming, the Exponent research shows that the Patriot ball pressures are adequately explained without presuming unknown factors or cheating, The content of my brief {which goes beyond just the above) is vital to timely justice. Why my amicus fits the normal criteria for amicus: Stake in the outcome: are important stakeholders other than the litigants. The wellbeing of fans of the New England Patriots would, if quantified by any reasonable means, exceed the dollars at On the Wells Report”, page 9, bottom left “The coefficient on the count variable for the order in which the balls ‘were tested in our regression (Nk) varies in precisely the way that one would expect to observe ifthe individual Patriots balls were tested in rapid succession” ® same as note 6“On the Wells Report”, page 7k, right side “The fact that the officals ran out of time is highly materia: it implies that the Colts balls were inside a warm room for almost the entire halftime before they were measured and thus had a chance to warm up.” Given AEI’s conclusion that testing is very rapid, AEI suggests that colts testing began and completed all atthe very last minute.Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 79 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 5 stake for the parties in the action‘. In addition, | have a demonstrated interest the larger issue of fair dispute resolution. This, more than my interest in Patriots’ football, is what ultimately compelled me to weigh in. Robert Blecker, professor at New York Law School, has also put great effort into addressing the unfairness to the Patriots, despite rooting against the Patriots on the field. Many others share this interest. Interests separate from the defense: NFLPA: As to the question of why the defense doesn’t adequately represent those interests, first consider that the interests of the fans do not appear to fully align with those of the NFLPA or the defense counsel. The NFLPA would prefer a ruling on procedural grounds that broadly weakens the Commissioner, rather than a ruling unique to this case. Disagreement with the defense representation and strategy: There is possible conflict with the defense counsel in general because, as a practical matter, the information | provide does not reflect well on their past work and their chosen strategy. The defense committed to a strategy of casting doubt on the research rather than understanding why, even taking some positions favorable to the Patriots, Exponent still appeared to show unexplained pressure loss. The defense seemed to look for benefit of the doubt instead of vindication. The defense team may feel that bringing up these matters now makes it look as though the defense is asking the Court for relief from the defense’s inadequate preparation for the appeal hearing. Hower, my analysis shows that it was the misrepresentations about the process by Roger Goodell that caused the defense to not find this evidence in time for the appeal. ‘The defense has been too dismissive of the CBA intent to put the league as a whole far above individual rights. This could be because they have built their case on the presumption that the CBA doesn’t allow the NFL to operate like the WWF should it choose. Contrary to the defense view, | believe the CBA was intended to allow the commissioner to act tough whenever the ‘commissioner thinks something is hurting the league’s image. The public does not want to see suspicious, accused parties playing while lengthy, court-like processes grind along. Fairness is largely secondary to whatever helps the League get ratings. The result benefits players at large ‘even though a few unlucky ones will suffer. ‘The defense has shown a pattern of not leveraging community/crowd-sourced insights. Professor Robert Blecker of New York Law School told me that he has personally experienced this issue with the defense. This pattern is evident in the poor use of time by the defense in the appeal hearing transcript, and in their lack of asking the questions widely known to better address the Exponent report findings. “(on average, purchases are made at a price lower than the maximum price the average customer would be willing to pay if they had to. (That concept is called “consumer surplus’,) Most fans of the Patriots are paying very little for their enjoyment but spend considerable time and energy on it. Therefore, the likely value to the fan base of having a competitive team greatly exceeds the direct revenues of the Patriots. Tom Brady's compensation is much lower than the total team budget. Therefore value to the fans collectively greatly exceeds the value to Tom Brady. ‘Thus the impact on the fans exceeds the stakes for the litigants. Note: The interests of fans disliking the patriots seem adequately served by the plaintiff. 3Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 79 Filed 09/10/15 Page 4 of 5 Uniqueness and importance of input: If the Court is unaware of the insights unique to my brief, 1 ‘can envision the defense losing the case. Sincerely, Poll Ga~ Robert F. Young,Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 79 Filed 09/10/15 Page 5 of 5 Thank you for your submission ~ I apologize for the delay in responding. ‘We have placed your submission on the court dockets for the NFL v. NELPA (Tom Brady) matter (15 Civ, 5916 and 15 Civ. 5982). ens Richard M. Berman, USDJ afreftsCase 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 90 Filed 09/1/15 Paget of7 ee UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE MANAGEMENT COUNCIL, vy. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION, De} ASSOCIATION, on its own behalf and on be] TOM BRADY, Pet tv vene NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE and NA’ FOOTBALL LEAGUE MANAGEMENT CO! Res] iS 9 (CLL, nT Pada Anu Richard M. Berman, U.S.DJ. Per Fed.R.Civ.Pr.24(b)(1)(B) I, Miche Notice of Motion to Intervene as “M, Friend of the Court” on information believed to be material, timely and relevant to common questions of law and fact in this matter. Parties were served an August 25, 2015 letter to Hon. Richard Berman, U.S. District Judge and Magistrate Judge James C. Frances requesting a pre-motion conference per Individual Rule 2.A on August 31, 2015. Relevant points for relief: 1. Notice is made timely by midnight September @, 2015 Neus ‘end of the week’ by which Judge Berman stated he planned to make his Decision and Order. 2, There are no prior motions. No federal law states right to intervene. Permission is sought as I survive a fifth diagnosis of disease per the Americans with Disabilities Act a reasonable accommodation of rules or policies for Court access.Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 90 Filed 09/11/15 Page 2 of 7 3. Plaintiff and Defendants’ counsel were served per Fed.R.Civ.Pr. 5(A\(d) and did not to reply per Individual Rules of Practice within three (3) days to oppose. Counsel appeared before Judge Berman at a pre-motion conference August 31, 2015 and, to my knowledge, did not verbally oppose such motion to intervene. 4. Plaintiffs President Roger Goodell, Defendants’ Executive Director --BeMaurice Smith and counset for Top Brady were copied by mail and did not “oppose the motion by replay or, to my “istowledge, at an August 31, 2015 conference. ~ Per Docket #45, time-is-of'the essence. The requested intervention is nat expected to affect: any PI ‘set scheduled court dates or rights to appeal. Rights erated is eipotied is impact the record, upon which any appeal will be taken. re oO NN 2g Alfdavit,: Exhibits’ ena oe of Law support the motion. « ‘eg. Request is made in good fajth and not for undue delay of proceedings. WHEREFORE, I respectfully request this Court permit right to intervene as a reasonable ADA request to ensure a robust record with accurate, timely and relevant disclosure of material information for proper resolution of this matter. Dated: New York, New York l h Ue | MU Michelle icGuirk, Self-Represented September 4, 2015 “M, Friend of the Court”, Pro Se P.O. Box 369 New York,NY 10113-369Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 90 Filed 09/11/15 Page 3 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE 15-CV-5916 (RMB)(JCF) MANAGEMENT COUNCIL, Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT IN RY NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION, Defendant = = NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS 15-CV-5982 (RMB)(JCF) ASSOCIATION, on its own behalf and on behalf of TOM BRADY, AFFIDAVIT Petitioner, IN SUPPORT NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE and NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE MANAGEMENT COUNCIL, Respondents x STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK ss: I, Michelle McGuirk, of full age, state under penalty of perjury as intervening party: 1, I submitted an August 25, 2015 letter on August 26, 2015 to Hon. Richard Berman, US. District Judge and Magistrate Judge James C. Frances requesting a pre-motion conference on August 31, 2015 per Individual Practice Rule 2.A to intervene as a Friend of the Court per Fed.R.Civ.Pr. (24)(b)(1)(B). 2. Plaintiff National Football League Management Council NFLMC”) counsel accepted letter in 41 on August 26, 2015 (Exh. 1) and do not oppose action. 3. NFLMC President Roger Goodell as Interested Party or designee accepted letter in {1 on August 26, 2015 (Exh. 2) and do not oppose action.Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 90 Filed 09/11/15 Page 4 of 7 4. Defendant National Football League Players Association (“NFLPA”) counsel and Executive Director accepted letter in 41 on August 26, 2015 (Exh. 3) and August 27, 2015 (Exh. 4), respectively, and do not oppose action. 5. Counsel for Tom Brady as Interested Party accepted letter in 41 on August 27, 2015 (Exh. 5) and do not oppose action by replying within three (3) days. 6. Per Docket minute entry, parties appeared at the August 31, 2015 conference in Court, with no one opposing this motion to my knowledge. Per Docket #45, Judge Berman inferred time-is-of-the essence, with decision expected shortly. 7. Per Docket #3, NFLMC disclosed no corporate parent despite negative $12 million in equity per Form 990 at December 31, 2013 (Exh. 6). This statement showing insolvency infers an undisclosed affiliate entity with financial resources. 8. NFLMC’s 2013 Form 990 shows $4.6 million of expenses to Akin Gump (=43% of legal costs). Akin Gump disclosed no conflicts-of interest to this Court. 9. NFLMC lists Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP’s Washington D.C. address on a request (Docket #6) and issuance of Summons despite no alleged business license in that district, no N.Y. licensed entity in that name and service of process upon a law student for NFLPA with undisclosed conflicts-of-interest. 10. Ruby J. Krajick, Clerk of Court, granted the NFLMC per Robert H. Pees of Akin Gump issuance of an “Electronic Summons” on July 28, 2015 from an alleged New York address to Defendant NFLPA in Washington D.C. (Docket #6,9). 11. The NFLPA’s Form 990 shows positive equity of $218 million and $190 million for 2013 and 2012, respectively (Exh. 7). The NFLPA does not disclose in the form 990 it is a Virginia-based corporation nor does it name NFL as a related party. 2Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 90 Filed 09/11/15 Page 5 of 7 12. NFLPA’s 2013 Form 990 shows $2.9 million of expenses to Winston & Strawn LLP (~65% of legal costs) and $3 million in compensation to its Executive Director. Winston & Strawn disclosed no conflicts‘of interest to this Court. 13. The National Football League (“NFL”) Form 990 shows negative equity of $741 million, $304 million and $316 million in 2013, 2012 and 2011 (Exh. 8,9). 14. The NFL jointly administers bank funds for thirty-two (32) member clubs with =$3.6 billion in inflows and =$3.5 billion in outflows in Form 990 for 2013 (Exh. 10). This permits statute of limitations up to ten (10) years per the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRRHEA”). 15. The NFL's 2013 expenses include $8.1 million to Covington & Burling (a firm that employs Lorin Reisner's former superior, Eric Holder) and $7.4 million to Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Garrison & Wharton, LLP, the lead investigator in this case with partners Ted Wells and Mr. Reisner, and as defendant firm for Jn Re: NFL Players’ Concussion Injury Litigation in ¥.D. of Penn. (Case 2:12-md-0232). 16. The Civil Cover Sheet and NFLMC Complaint (Docket #4,5) states labor law as cause for jurisdiction of NFLMC and NFLPA. Per transferred case and Order (Docket #20), diversity of jurisdiction is believed to apply as Mr. Brady may not have residency without property recorded at the N.Y.C. Department of Finance. 17. Subject matter jurisdiction is proffered in controversy as Constitution and Bylaws §8.3(A) grants no authority to the Commissioner to oversee disputes between member clubs. Mr. Goodell does not refer to the NFL Constitution or Bylaws, but does state a Fifth fact that the NFL received a complaint from member club the Colts (Docket #28-236, Final Decision on Art. 46 Appeal of Tom Brady). 3Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 90 Filed 09/11/15 Page 6 of 7 18. The NFL Commissioner's authority is granted by the Constitution and Bylaws of the National Football League (“NFL”) Effective Feb. 1, 1097 (rev. 2006). The Memorandum of Law of Defendants National Football League and NFL Properties LLC dated August 30, 2012 in case per 15 above, footnote 4 says “The NFL Constitution was bargained over and included within the scope of the CBA”. While the Constitution is only incorporated by reference (per page thirty (30)), copies on the internet have a ‘security block’ to prevent public printing (Exh. 11). 19. Mr. Goodell, NFLMC President and alleged NFL Commissioner, was paid $35.0M, $44.2M and $29.5M in 2013, 2012 and 2011 per Forms 990 (Exh. 12). These payments violate the Constitution and By-Laws per §8.2 as a Commissioner must have “no financial interest, direct or indirect” in any professional sport. 20. Per §19, Mr. Goodell cannot have authority, including §8.13 or §8.14, under the Constitution or Article 46 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. 21, Facts 411-14 of Complaint (Docket #4) are in controversy for Mr. Goodell’s alleged lack of authority to conduct a hearing June 23, 2015 for Mr. Brady. 22. Fact §6 of Complaint is in controversy and discriminates by gender. 23. Facts 7-9 of Complaint are in controversy for Mr. Goodell’s alleged lack of authority and non-compliance with CBA and Constitution to be independent. 24. The Complaint’s Count 1 lacks veracity without proof of compliance with the CBA or Constitution, Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence and/or respect for employee rights and without a fair hearing.Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 90 Filed 09/11/15 Page 7 of 7 25. Mr. Goodell’s statement “I do not have any first-hand knowledge of the events at issue here” (Docket #28-234, Art. 46 Appeal Decision on Discovery) infers he is not the Commissioner as only that person has authority to hire counsel, 26. I do not believe that Mr. Brady's counsel, Donald H. Yee, disclosed to parties conflicts-of-interest that he also represents Mr. Brady’s backup quarterback. 27. In Final Decision on Art. 46: Appeal of Tom Brady (Docket #28-236) Mr. Goodell claims to be bound to issues of “fairness and consistency of treatment among players similarly situated” (p. 5) yet fails to investigate others (Footnote 15) or make inquiries of all NFL teams generally to identify systemic risks. 28. The NFLMC’s Art. 46 Final Decision basis for discipline (Section V) was deemed similar to a first violation governing performance enhancing drugs, a an analogy that carries reputational risk toward Mr. Brady. 29. Neither NFLMC’s Memorandum of Law for Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award (Docket #35) or the NFLPA’s Memorandum of Law to Vacate Arbitration Award (Docket #36) states compliance with Constitution or Bylaws. 30. Submissions that do not conform to Individual Rule 2.C may be stricken: i) Docket #17 is not double-spaced; ii) NFLMC’s nineteen (19) page memo of law (Docket #35), NFLPA’s twenty-one (21) page memo (Docket #36) and memo to oppose confirming arbitration (Docket #40) exceeds maximum pages. 31, To my knowledge, counsel may need to comply with Local Rule 1.3. Sworn to before me nin 34 day of Dated? 4 2015 2015. 7 ‘My chu MB M Michelle Mc€uirk, Friend of the Court jotary Put P.O. Box 369,New York,NY 10113-369 JUNISE JAIME 5 Notary Publi, State of New York Reg. No. 04546325007 Quaid in New York Couny ‘Commission Expires May 18, 2014Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 91 Filed 09/15/15 Page 1 of 1 MEMO ENDORSED Eo 9-9-15, Dear Judge Berman | know that asbeing a judge you probably don’t get too much “fan” mail, but I wanted to Write to you to thank you for nullifying the suspension of Tom Brady. 1 am proud that ‘You stood up to Roger Goodell. 1, along with every other Patriot fan, knew that the punishment he #levied against Brady as absurd without having any real proof. ‘At any rate, thanks again! You are the real MVP! Dee Edwards Pace FL 32571 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT | ELECTRONICALLY FILED DIC #: Yung ound 1S] ard A Racy Richard M. Berman, U.S.DJ.Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 92 Filed 09/15/15 Page 1 of 1 a MEMO ENDORSED. Sener 0.2018 United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Conrthanse 500 Pearl Strect CaaS, ot New York. NY 10007-1312 Riot Attn: Mr Richard M. Berman Dear Mr, Berman, Tam a 92 year old man who is very interested in sport « And. living in Massachusetts | am an excited Patriots fan. ivities especially football Thave been following the legal proceedings involving Tom Brady. | always felt that he was innocent of doing anything wrong and felt that the NFT_ management were wrong in their attack Tam writing to tell you how much I appreciate your ait Tam not the only Patriot fan that feels as T do. fe matter. Tam sure that Keep up your trie American spirit Sincerely Fern etek 9 Weisel te lacs ow thy |jusbesany on |DOCUMENT | ELECTRONICALLY FILED Di paw SSIS ‘KecRan A. Bere Richard M. Berman, US.DJ.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE 15-CV-5916 (RMB)(JCF) MANAGEMENT COUNCIL, Plaintiff, Motion to Intervene ao NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION, Defendant ct aa NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS 15-CV-5982 (RMB)(JCF) ASSOCIATION, on its own behalf and on behalf of TOM BRADY, Motion to Intervene Petitioner, USDC SDNY DOCUMENT NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE and NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE MANAGEMENT COUNCIL, Respondents x Doc ELECTRONICALLY FILED Per Fed.R.Civ.Pr.24(b)(1)(B) I, Michelle McGuirk, Pro Se, respectfully give Notice of Motion to Intervene as “M, Friend of the Court” on information believed to be material, timely and relevant to common questions of law and fact in this matter. Parties were served an August 25, 2015 letter to Hon. Richard Berman, U.S. District Judge and Magistrate Judge James C. Frances requesting a pre-motion conference per Individual Rule 2.A on August 31, 2015. Relevant points for relief: 1. Notice is made timely by midnight September @, 2015 nea ‘end of the week’ by which Judge Berman stated he planned to make his Decision and Order. 2, ‘There are no prior motions. No federal law states right to intervene. Permission is sought as I survive a fifth diagnosis of disease per the Americans with Disabilities Act as a reasonable accommodation of rules or policies for Court access.Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 82 Filed 09/08/15 Page 2 of 3 3. Plaintiff and Defendants’ counsel were served per Fed.R.Civ.Pr. 6(A)(@) and did not to reply per Individual Rules of Practice within three (2) days to oppose. Counsel appeared before Judge Berman at a pre-motion conference August 31, 2015 and, to my knowledge, did not verbally oppose such motion to intervene. 4, Plaintiff's President Roger Goodell, Defendants’ Executive Director DeMaurice Smith and counsel for Tom Brady were copied by mail and did not oppose the motion by replay or, to my knowledge, at an August 31, 2015 conference. 5. Per Docket #45, time-is-of'the essence. The requested intervention is not expected to affect any pre-set scheduled court dates or rights to appeal. Rights granted is expected to impact the record upon which any appeal will be taken. 6. An Affidavit, Exhibits and Memorandum of Law support the motion. 7. Request is made in good faith and not for undue delay of proceedings. WHEREFORE, I respectfully request this Court permit right to intervene as a reasonable ADA request to ensure a robust record with accurate, timely and relevant disclosure of material information for proper resolution of this matter. Dated: New York, New York th U = Buus Michelle L. ‘McGuirk, SelfRepresented September 4, 2015 “M, Friend of the Court”, Pro Se P.O. Box 369 New York,NY 10113-369Case 1:15-cv-05916-RMB-JCF Document 82 Filed 09/08/15 Page 3 of 3 UNITED STATES DisTRICT COURT ‘SouTHERN District oF New York Pro Se Office SCANNED To: ‘The Honorable Judge Richard M. Berman ae 2 aw M. Napolitano, Pro Se Intake Clerk, Docket Services, Ext._1177 > 3 Date: svgpo1s 23 ea oF National Football League Management Council v. National Football League Players’ 5-cv-05916-RMB-JCF, National Football League Players Association v. National Football League et al 1:15-cv-05982-RMB-ICF ‘The attached document, which was received by this Office on _9/8/2015 _, has been submitted tothe Court for filing. The document is deficient as indicated below. Instead of docketing the document for public access, it has been docketed as a court-view only docket entry. I am forwarding it to you for your consideration. See Fed, R. Civ. P. (XB), (4). () Nooriginal signature (.) No Affirmation of Service/ proof of service. (X) Other: Cases are closed, Non-party litigant is filing Motion to Intervene and Motion to Reopen with supporting documents, Ifyou memo-endorse the filing, you do not need to return this memorandum fo the Pro Se Office. Once ‘your memo-endorsement is docketed and filed, all ECF users on the case will be notified. In the alternative, please return this memorandum with the attached papers to this Office, indicating atthe bottom what action should be taken, (AM accert FoR FILING (RETURN TQ,2RO SE LITIGANT IMS United States Distt Judge pated: 9 f9/0S, United States Magistrate Judge Dated: