Alan Millstein: Brady's chances of en banc hearing dramatically improved with latest amicus filings

Gronkowski123 said:

he's sitting the 4 just accept it and move on

Click to expand...

Gronkowski123 said:

he's sitting the 4 just accept it and move on

Click to expand...

Gumby said:

What was the name of that Texas politician who compared rape to a rain shower and said 'Treat them the same way: if you cant do anything about it, lay back and enjoy it.'

Are you perhaps related?

Click to expand...

TommyBrady12 said:

So this deflategate ruling may take a while....

Click to expand...

Gronkowski123 said:

he's sitting the 4 just accept it and move on

Click to expand...

Tunescribe said:

If he is forced to sit those four games I certainly will move on (to hoping Garoppolo wins them). But I sure as hell will never accept it or forget it. This whole sad, sorry episode has lessened my regard for the NFL in general to an all-time low.

Click to expand...

Gronkowski123 said:

accepting it is wrong but what can we do??? tom got railroaded, the whole thing is a joke...
just sick of hearing about this garbage

Click to expand...

bormio said:

Brady isn't done fighting it, and after what he has meant to this franchise, I sure as hell am not going to accept it until he does. Now that might not mean much, but until he decides he just wants it to go away or can't do anything, I am not going to be sick of hearing about it.

Click to expand...

XLIX said:

Daniel Wallach made a new post about a recent (June 20) CA2 Appeals ruling that both hurts and helps Brady.

Sports Law Blog: The Second Circuit Doubles Down On Its Deflategate Ruling in a New Opinion Overruling Judge Berman (Yet Again!), But It Could Help Brady This Time

This is my summary of what Wallach wrote (if I understand it correctly):

1) In this case, Management and Labor went to an arbitrator for a dispute. Management won. (It's actually quite a bit more complicated than that, but not in any way that matters to the points being made herein)
2) Labor appealed and the appeal was heard by none other than our good friend, Richard Berman, who overturned the arbitrator's decision (sound familiar?)
3) Management appealed Berman's decision and his decision was overturned by CA2 appeals (Sound familiar?) The judges who overturned Berman were 3 completely different judges than the ones who sat on the Brady appeal hearing
4) In overturning Berman, CA2 referenced NFL v. NFLPA, so the case Brady lost is now being used as established precedent (ugh)

So the above sounds pretty bad. However, we do have the following remote glimmers of hope in the decision:

1) In overturning Berman, the ruling states that courts must give extreme deference to arbitrators but should overturn an arbitration award if it "so far departs from the terms of the agreement that it is not even arguably derived from the contract" or "dispenses its own brand of industrial justice"

2) Here's the wild card that may help us the most: The ruling notes the USSC also warrants vacating an arbitration award if it "violates some explicit public policy."

3) How does the Brady ruling violate public policy? To quote Wallach: "the right to cross-examine material witnesses; the right of access to material, non-privileged evidence in the possession of the other side; the right to a fundamentally fair arbitration proceeding; the right to present evidence to an unbiased tribunal; and the requirement that an arbitrator act impartially and in a manner consistent with the collective desires of both parties, to name just a few." Goodell the arbitrator threw all those rights out the window.

So what we need if for the judges who decided this case to say "we overturned Berman in this case because it doesn't fit the above criteria, but NFL v. NFLPA does fit the above criteria."

Click to expand...

TommyBrady12 said:

and NO dissenting opinion in this one. not good at all - sack, wesley and lynch are not going to side with brady.

Click to expand...

XLIX said:

Daniel Wallach made a new post about a recent (June 20) CA2 Appeals ruling that both hurts and helps Brady.

Sports Law Blog: The Second Circuit Doubles Down On Its Deflategate Ruling in a New Opinion Overruling Judge Berman (Yet Again!), But It Could Help Brady This Time

This is my summary of what Wallach wrote (if I understand it correctly):

1) In this case, Management and Labor went to an arbitrator for a dispute. Management won. (It's actually quite a bit more complicated than that, but not in any way that matters to the points being made herein)
2) Labor appealed and the appeal was heard by none other than our good friend, Richard Berman, who overturned the arbitrator's decision (sound familiar?)
3) Management appealed Berman's decision and his decision was overturned by CA2 appeals (Sound familiar?) The judges who overturned Berman were 3 completely different judges than the ones who sat on the Brady appeal hearing
4) In overturning Berman, CA2 referenced NFL v. NFLPA, so the case Brady lost is now being used as established precedent (ugh)

So the above sounds pretty bad. However, we do have the following remote glimmers of hope in the decision:

1) In overturning Berman, the ruling states that courts must give extreme deference to arbitrators but should overturn an arbitration award if it "so far departs from the terms of the agreement that it is not even arguably derived from the contract" or "dispenses its own brand of industrial justice"

2) Here's the wild card that may help us the most: The ruling notes the USSC also warrants vacating an arbitration award if it "violates some explicit public policy."

3) How does the Brady ruling violate public policy? To quote Wallach: "the right to cross-examine material witnesses; the right of access to material, non-privileged evidence in the possession of the other side; the right to a fundamentally fair arbitration proceeding; the right to present evidence to an unbiased tribunal; and the requirement that an arbitrator act impartially and in a manner consistent with the collective desires of both parties, to name just a few." Goodell the arbitrator threw all those rights out the window.

So what we need if for the judges who decided this case to say "we overturned Berman in this case because it doesn't fit the above criteria, but NFL v. NFLPA does fit the above criteria."

Click to expand...

TB_Helmet said:

Great summary, I never could have gotten through all that.

Click to expand...

TB_Helmet said:

I wonder if explicitly noting that "the ruling violates a public policy" (your point 2) is a coded reference to Brady's case? Are they foreshadowing something? That was already one of the main things in our favor.

Click to expand...

XLIX said:

Thank you - I hope I got it all correct
Excellent question. Wallach hints that just mmmmmmmmmaybe that is what they are doing. From Wallach:

"(the court) has not applied (or discussed) the public policy exception in any post-2000 case ... Thus, Judge Lynch's invocation of the "public policy exception" (while ultimately not applicable in the New York City & Vicinity District Council case) could serve as a revival of that doctrine in the Second Circuit. Might as well start with Deflategate."

Click to expand...

Danger Zone said:

Daniel Wallach ‏@WALLACHLEGAL 3h3 hours agoFlorida, USA
32 petitions for rehearing en banc been filed in the Second Circuit since April; only 4 have been decided (all denied), via @SheillaDingus

Daniel Wallach ‏@WALLACHLEGAL 3h3 hours agoFlorida, USA
A bit of a rehearing logjam at the Second Circuit:

Daniel Wallach ‏@WALLACHLEGAL 3h3 hours agoFlorida, USA
Of the 32 petitions for rehearing en banc filed w/ the CA2 since April, Brady's was only one supported by amicus briefs, via @SheillaDingus


If only 4 petitions have been decided since April, I'm guessing (I watch a lot of lawyers on tv (thats a joke btw)) that nothing should be inferred from the length of time its taken for CA2 to reach a decision here.

Click to expand...