Tom Brady, NFLPA Granted 14-Day Extension To File Motion For Rehearing By Second Circuit Court

robertweathers said:

The problem with your point was that there was nothing to sell.

You are implying that Olsen needed to do a Sandra Bulloch/Miss Congeniality-style makeover so GWB was anointed as the POTUS by SCOTUS. That is not what happened at all.

Click to expand...

SCOTUS appointing W as POTUS is exactly what happened, when they short-circuited the Florida recount. The Florida ballots were close enough that a recount could easily have flipped the state and thus the Electoral College to the Dems. The SCOTUS ruling meant that W's brother and his hand-picked Secretary of State Kathleen Harris prevailed however.

The Gr8est said:

You really believe this would be over if Brady didn't destroy his phone?

It was a red herring that the NFL* threw out there.

If Brady had kept the phone and there was no more evidence on it, the NFL* would just say that lack of evidence on the phone doesn't mean there was no crime, Brady is just smart and was careful to cover his tracks.

Click to expand...

The "Brady destroyed his phone" has been the William Wallace rallying cry from the NFL, media and fans.. (as well as Judge Chen)

It's literally all people cling to when discussing this.. the deflator text and destruction of the phone is 100% evidence for most haters

Without the phone angle, it'd be way easier to shut them up and expose them & their agenda for what they truly are

Now that would be so, so sweet if it actually happened.

Dan Werly ‏@WerlySportsLaw 4h4 hours ago
Dan Werly Retweeted Daniel Wallach

Ultimate irony? If case is reheard & reversed based on this arg, Brady will win BECAUSE he destroyed cell phone.

Dan Werly added,

Daniel Wallach @WALLACHLEGAL
Brady: "Affirming discipline on grounds not even mentioned in decision under review exceeded Goodell’s power under CBA to decide 'appeals'"

QuantumMechanic said:

Now that would be so, so sweet if it actually happened.

Dan Werly ‏@WerlySportsLaw 4h4 hours ago
Dan Werly Retweeted Daniel Wallach

Ultimate irony? If case is reheard & reversed based on this arg, Brady will win BECAUSE he destroyed cell phone.

Dan Werly added,

Daniel Wallach @WALLACHLEGAL
Brady: "Affirming discipline on grounds not even mentioned in decision under review exceeded Goodell’s power under CBA to decide 'appeals'"
20 retweets43 likes

Click to expand...

Explain

VectorPrime said:

Explain

Click to expand...

Tom Brady was originally punished for being generally aware of a scheme to deflate balls, failure to submit his phone (blah blah blah). Troy Vincent's letter cites: "the failure of Tom Brady to produce any electronic evidence, despite being offered extraordinary safeguards by the investigators to protect unrelated personal information."

In Goodell's ruling as arbitrator, he stated "The most significant piece of new information that emerged in connection with the appeal was evidence ... Mr. Brady instructed his assistant to destroy the cellphone." There are several more paragraphs in Goodell's ruling relating to this and using it as justification for upholding the suspension.

The problem (for Goodell) is that Brady was not originally accused of destroying his cell phone nor was that the original basis of the suspension, therefore it has no basis in the appeal. Olson argues the arbitrator cannot add something in that wasn't a part of the original punishment to justify the original punishment.

It would be like you were found guilty of GTA and sentenced to 10 years in jail. Suppose you appeal the ruling for being too harsh, and the appeals court says "I am going to deny your appeal because you also robbed a bank." He can't do that if the bank robbery has absolutely nothing to do with the reason you were sent to jail in the first place.

VectorPrime said:

Explain

Click to expand...

Essentially, Brady is saying Goodell can't say "you're in trouble for deflating footballs", then when Brady appeals, say "I confirm that you're in trouble based on you destroying your phone." The CBA doesn't allow for changing the grounds of the discipline, certainly not changing the grounds to something not even mentioned in the original discipline.

Therefore, "Brady wins because he destroyed his phone" because Goodell ultimately decided to affirm punishment based on that action, and if the courts find Goodell exceeded his authority in doing so, the phone destruction would be the reason for victory, in a sense... But really, it would just come down to Goodell being an asshat who doesn't follow his own rules. As usual.

Oh. Well that would be great if we can just get a hearing.

Triumph said:

At least where I live the sentiment is that Brady and the Pats are cheats. They dont feel the least bit sorry for him with his 4 Super Bowl rings.

Click to expand...

Not surprising coming from a Jets fan.

venecol said:

Not surprising coming from a Jets fan.

Click to expand...

I forgot more about the Pats than you will ever know.

Triumph said:

I forgot more about the Pats than you will ever know.

Click to expand...

I know that you forgot about the Pats when Revis went back to the NYJ.

When I googled Michelle McGuirk, what I primarily found was a professional wrestling entertainment personality.

If the person filing these attempts at court intervention is indeed the same person, then this case has indeed jumped the shark.

venecol said:

I know that you forgot about the Pats when Revis went back to the NYJ.

Click to expand...

Why would the Pats want a 16 million dollar CB on the wrong side of 30?

You sound more stupid every day.

Triumph said:

Why would the Pats want a 16 million dollar CB on the wrong side of 30?

You sound more stupid every day.

Click to expand...

It was the stupid Jets that are paying that kinda money not the Pats. Now go back to whatever exit you hail from.

JarOfMayo51 said:

They should round all these cretins up and throw them in a deep, dark, damp dungeon like Daenerys' dragons and throw away the key

Click to expand...

I'm good with this hypothetical scenario, as long as we get to see one of her famous boob flashes while we're watching her dragons devour people.

n6249c said:

SCOTUS appointing W as POTUS is exactly what happened, when they short-circuited the Florida recount. The Florida ballots were close enough that a recount could easily have flipped the state and thus the Electoral College to the Dems. The SCOTUS ruling meant that W's brother and his hand-picked Secretary of State Kathleen Harris prevailed however.

Click to expand...

It was something about hanging Chads. I can't remember if they wanted to hang Chad Ochocinco or Chad Jackson. It would have been cheaper to do a poll on PatsFans.com, if Al Gore had invented the Internet by then.

n6249c said:

SCOTUS appointing W as POTUS is exactly what happened, when they short-circuited the Florida recount. The Florida ballots were close enough that a recount could easily have flipped the state and thus the Electoral College to the Dems. The SCOTUS ruling meant that W's brother and his hand-picked Secretary of State Kathleen Harris prevailed however.

Click to expand...

You sound bitter?

SCOTUS ruled decisively that the EPC was appropriate on this case.

The FLA election was a side show and had nothing to do with Olsen making GW presentable to SCOTUS.

robertweathers said:

The problem with your point was that there was nothing to sell.

You are implying that Olsen needed to do a Sandra Bulloch/Miss Congeniality-style makeover so GWB was anointed as the POTUS by SCOTUS. That is not what happened at all.

Click to expand...

That's not how I read the post. "Selling" is about providing a convincing argument on behalf of your client that their perspective on the legal situation is the correct one. It isn't about "selling" a person's character or suitability for the job to SCOTUS. It is about selling their interpretation of the legal process.

betterthanthealternative said:

That's not how I read the post. "Selling" is about providing a convincing argument on behalf of your client that their perspective on the legal situation is the correct one. It isn't about "selling" a person's character or suitability for the job to SCOTUS. It is about selling their interpretation of the legal process.

Click to expand...

Yea he clarified his post with a follow up one.

Tony2046 said:

IANAL: But I found this interesting. So they are arguing that Article 46 should grant or authorize authority rather than limit it. Interesting.

View attachment 13012
View attachment 13013

Click to expand...

This is a key piece of their appeal because it goes to precedent established by the Supreme Court that should have guided their decision.

Ivan said:

This is a key piece of their appeal because it goes to precedent established by the Supreme Court that should have guided their decision.

Click to expand...

I like the logic. If A (CBA should limit authority) then arguments X, Y and Z etc seem tough to sell because of , what seems to be, a repetitiveness or rehashing of similar arguments. But if B (CBA should grant authority) then X,Y and Z take on a whole new look. Further, it makes sense that a CBA should grant rather than limit because it would seem to effectively limit the ability of arbitrators who wish to dish out their own brand of industrial justice.

From my layman's perspective and since it's election season, I approve of that message.