Martin excluded NFLPA from meeting with him, Cornwell and investigator Ted Wells | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Martin excluded NFLPA from meeting with him, Cornwell and investigator Ted Wells

mnphinfan

mnphinfan

Lifelong Fin Fan
Club Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
4,586
Reaction score
2,715
Location
Mahtomedi MN
I saw this last week and never saw a thread for it.

Cornwell says that the choice to exclude the NFLPA was made by his client.

“Jonathan and his family decided that it was in Jonathan’s best interest to be represented by an independent counsel of his choice,” Cornwell tells PFT via text message. “As Jonathan said yesterday, his discussion with Ted Wells was frank and detailed. I was concerned that Jonathan’s ability to be frank and detailed would be compromised if there were too many people in the room.
Click to expand...

Still don't think this is a money grab my Martin and his momma? IMO, If they didn't plan on suing the NFL and players in the NFL they would definitely have allowed the NFLPA in that meeting.

Why wouldn't you allow the defense attorney, for a person you plan to sue, witness your testimony in a pretrial meeting describing just how horrible it was for you to play in and cope with an NFL locker room? They don't want to give them any extra ammunition/information that may be deemed relevant in the court of law.

They also talk about how it may just be due to Cornwell and Smith not getting along due to them both running for NFLPA president but I don't buy it.

Here's the link. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/11/16/cornwell-excludes-nflpa-from-meeting-with-wells/
 
Might actually be a bad move by Martin camp.

Looks very bad in court to exclude the defense from legal testimony .
 
The NFLPA announced that they will conduct their own investigation apart from the NFL so it would seem they're protecting themselves.

Of course this just causes more distractions and time taken away from preparations.
 
Of course there is also the possibility that Martin never filed a complaint with his own union the NFLPA. Possibly, that he never followed the agreed upon mechanism for dealing with locker room issues. Skipped the entire process of a investigation, mediation, and dispute resolution. It is possible that he just bolted, blamed the most easy to blame person and is looking to proceed directly to GO and collect his Monopoly money.

If that were the case, he would want to exclude the NFLPA from this process because he would be targeting the deepest pockets and the easiest entity with whom to settle, the NFL itself. Because everyone knows the league wants this to go away and will do anything to settle this quietly without setting a legal precedent.
 
mnphinfan said:
IMO, If they didn't plan on suing the NFL and players in the NFL they would definitely have allowed the NFLPA in that meeting.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but the NFLPA has an inherent conflict of interest in this case since they represent both Martin and Incognito. So it makes sense that you don't want someone representing Incognito in the room while presenting your side of the argument. Martin's immediate goal is to get the NFL investigator to accept as much of what he tells him as the truth. That isn't necessarily the NFLPA's primary goal.
 
JTC111 said:
Maybe, but the NFLPA has an inherent conflict of interest in this case since they represent both Martin and Incognito. So it makes sense that you don't want someone representing Incognito in the room while presenting your side of the argument. Martin's immediate goal is to get the NFL investigator to accept as much of what he tells him as the truth. That isn't necessarily the NFLPA's primary goal.
Click to expand...

Sorry, if he has the truth on his side, there's nothing to hide from anyone. I'd say it's looking all the more suspect, but storming out in a dramatic hissy fit as a result of having the same old familiar cafeteria prank played on him that he played 2 weeks previously on a teammate, not speaking at any time to the coaching staff yet immediately to a reporter, checking himself in for a very short and surely non-therapeutic stint in a local mental facility before flying home and seemingly not being further treated, 1100 texts to Incog including threatening to kill his family, etc, etc etc, all screams "Orchestrated, contrived money grab and legal precedent reset" to me :idk:

 
He might be looking to go after other players here, hence he didn't want the NFLPA involved.

Personally, I'm a lot more interested in Carolina right now.
 
JTC111 said:
Maybe, but the NFLPA has an inherent conflict of interest in this case since they represent both Martin and Incognito. So it makes sense that you don't want someone representing Incognito in the room while presenting your side of the argument. Martin's immediate goal is to get the NFL investigator to accept as much of what he tells him as the truth. That isn't necessarily the NFLPA's primary goal.
Click to expand...
Why would it be assumed that the NFLPA would be on Ingonito's side? The "state" has the same conflict of interest when
a public defender is appointed for someone on trial. The NFLPA is is legally bound to represent all it's members equally.
There is no interest conflict.
 
Vaark said:
likewise, there's plenty of guilty people who are walking free cuz they know how to game the system :idk:
Click to expand...

Or the system is slanted in their favor ...but we're veering far afield of the point now.
 
GoonBoss said:
Why would it be assumed that the NFLPA would be on Ingonito's side? The "state" has the same conflict of interest when
a public defender is appointed for someone on trial. The NFLPA is is legally bound to represent all it's members equally.
There is no interest conflict.
Click to expand...

I never said they'd be exclusively on Incognito's side. They represent both players. That's the conflict of interest.
And no, a public defender, while being paid by the state, doesn't have an obligation to represent the state's interests. In fact, it's just the opposite: the public defender is charged with representing the interests of the accused only. In this case, the NFLPA has an obligation to represent the interests of both players. A better analogy would be a divorce lawyer representing both the husband and the wife in a hostile divorce proceeding: conflict of interest.
 
JTC111 said:
Or the system is slanted in their favor ...but we're veering far afield of the point now.
Click to expand...

Well, you made a point which was fine...Then, when someone makes a counter point it's "too far afield?" Come on now.

---------- Post added at 06:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------
JTC111 said:
I never said they'd be exclusively on Incognito's side. They represent both players. That's the conflict of interest.
And no, a public defender, while being paid by the state, doesn't have an obligation to represent the state's interests. In fact, it's just the opposite: the public defender is charged with representing the interests of the accused only. In this case, the NFLPA has an obligation to represent the interests of both players.
Click to expand...

And they can do that. Why couldn't they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom