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

TommyBrady12 said:

But that still means they can deny the en banc petition this summer....no oral argument needed for that. I think what wallach means is that if en banc is granted the oral argument won't be until the fall at the earliest. Maybe i'm reading that wrong.

Click to expand...

No, you are correct. (Wallach himself says that in a reply to his own tweet -- this only matters if en banc is granted.)

One-Be-Lo said:

Great, so they'll have it decided just in time for the playoffs...

Click to expand...

Just the way Goodell and the other 31 owners would love to have it turn out . . . Manning will probably unretire and be gifted another SB by the powers that be.

This is why i never became a lawyer

FWIW, the Second Circuit released two Opinions (unrelated to Brady) and no Summary Orders this morning. That probably, though not certainly, means that nothing more will come today.

SalemPats said:

This is why i never became a lawyer

Click to expand...

Are ya nuts? This is a great argument to become a lawyer.

Months between actually having to do work. Yet I'm sure retainer fees continue.

Hell I can imagine the judge/lawyer conversations.

1. Appeal filed
2. Judges: "Oh this is simple, we'll have a decision for you guys in a week."
3. Lawyers: "Uh Judge... our clients are Tom Brady, the NFLPA, and the NFL. Aka, really really rich fools. ... We're getting $500k weekly! How 'bout we extend this a bit? ... Schedule a light summer workload, and we'll pay for your summer vacations."
4. Judges: "This is immoral and we're gonna have you guys disbarred!"
5. Lawyers: "The NFL charges $12 a beer and forces fans to buy worthless preseason tickets."
6. Judges: "Looks like there are some real serious issues to consider here. This is gonna take months to decide. ... We need 13 all inclusive family vacation packages to Tahiti."

Joker said:

I wonder...say Goodell steps off a curb and ...uh...trips and falls under the wheels of an oncoming Mack truck...with his brains splattered all over the asphalt is there really any need to continue this azzole's "case"?

Click to expand...

That would be some accident!
But does Roger Goodell even KNOW the Clintons?

TommyBrady12 said:

you are absolutely right. the panel in the new arbitration case should not have used Brady v. NFL... either they were foolish or they know already that en banc is not going to be granted. H0wever, attorneys and judges are free to cite the case in making their arguments/rulings. The fact that it is being appealed does not change its precedential value.

Click to expand...

That makes no sense. How can it have precedential value if it's being appealed? I would think that it could not be used as a citation / precedence until the appeal is taken care of. Because if it's changed, then it's precedential value changes with it..

DaBruinz said:

That makes no sense. How can it have precedential value if it's being appealed? I would think that it could not be used as a citation / precedence until the appeal is taken care of. Because if it's changed, then it's precedential value changes with it..

Click to expand...

you have a valid point, but a case is considered precedent in the judicial system unless it is overturned. the court has not overturned the panel decision, so it is considered the law of the 2nd circuit. that's just the way it is, unfortunately.

TommyBrady12 said:

you have a valid point, but a case is considered precedent in the judicial system unless it is overturned. the court has not overturned the panel decision, so it is considered the law of the 2nd circuit. that's just the way it is, unfortunately.

Click to expand...

For perspective - Berman's ruling for Brady referenced the Peterson case. But that was (and still is) under appeal, and the NFL noted that in its appeal.

Am I missing something, or would it be better to just take the four games at the beginning. Could they still pursue the case, even if they can't get those foru games back?

My point being, what if they delay it, then lose and the suspension comes later in the season?

This is all so pointless, illegal, unfair and stupid, that there doesn't seem to be anything to be "won" except by the NFLPA screwing the NFL dictatorship.

RayClay said:

Am I missing something, or would it be better to just take the four games at the beginning. Could they still pursue the case, even if they can't get those foru games back?

My point being, what if they delay it, then lose and the suspension comes later in the season?

This is all so pointless, illegal, unfair and stupid, that there doesn't seem to be anything to be "won" except by the NFLPA screwing the NFL dictatorship.

Click to expand...

Yes, but when the time comes to support the NFLPA in a lengthy strike to correct the arbitration process, 90% of those who are "outraged" at Goodell's behavior will complain about the "greedy" players.

I would have been one

DaBruinz said:

That makes no sense. How can it have precedential value if it's being appealed? I would think that it could not be used as a citation / precedence until the appeal is taken care of. Because if it's changed, then it's precedential value changes with it..

Click to expand...

It is cited in the now. Until reversed,vacated or modified by the Second Circuit or Supreme Court, that is the law of the Second Circuit.

Your logic is why attorneys citing the decision add case history (rehearing en banc granted, certiorari granted, superseded by another decision, etc.). It warns the court or another court that the decision is subject to change, so cautions excessive reliance on the case.

RayClay said:

Am I missing something, or would it be better to just take the four games at the beginning. Could they still pursue the case, even if they can't get those foru games back?

My point being, what if they delay it, then lose and the suspension comes later in the season?

This is all so pointless, illegal, unfair and stupid, that there doesn't seem to be anything to be "won" except by the NFLPA screwing the NFL dictatorship.

Click to expand...

This is a weird post. Not "just taking" it has been the point for a year and a half.

PatsWickedPissah said:

I would have been one

Click to expand...

I found myself on the side of the players the last time. I can't say why for sure but the attitude of the owners seemed to have me leaning in the players direction. That and Fraudger's selective enforcement of rules and inconsistent fines has me solidly in the players' camp now.

1960Pats said:

I found myself on the side of the players the last time. I can't say why for sure but the attitude of the owners seemed to have me leaning in the players direction. That and Fraudger's selective enforcement of rules and inconsistent fines has me solidly in the players' camp now.

Click to expand...

I was completely on the players side, the owners locked them out, they didn't initiate a strike. The owners are simply as greedy as it gets, and that's what is eventually going to kill the game.

Ivan said:

I was completely on the players side, the owners locked them out, they didn't initiate a strike. The owners are simply as greedy as it gets, and that's what is eventually going to kill the game.

Click to expand...

It's too bad that the players couldn't hold it together. They're in a bad position now because of their weakness then.

PatsFanSince74 said:

Yes, but when the time comes to support the NFLPA in a lengthy strike to correct the arbitration process, 90% of those who are "outraged" at Goodell's behavior will complain about the "greedy" players.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow you. The league itself is as corrupt as a banana republic. I couldn't care less about anything except what is good for the Patriots now. Unless they continue to succeed to spite the league in the future, I could see myself pursuing some hobbies on Sunday afternoons in the future. I lost interest in baseball when roided up nobodies I know couldn't hit [Brady Anderson] became home run hitters, while other mediocrities challenged Babe Ruth's records.

There's a 4 game suspension hanging over Brady. Why not just prepare for it and let the team go with Garropollo, then come in with a rested Brady for a 12 game season? probably still have 2-4 wins IMO.

No rule against Brady saying he did nothing wrong, he chooses to take the unjust suspension when he's prepared for it.

Goodell might have destroyed the league by the next contract anyway.

aluminum seats said:

This is a weird post. Not "just taking" it has been the point for a year and a half.

Click to expand...

You think he should just show up for the four games and dare Goodell to have police drag him off?

I think the point of this is to do what is in the best interest of Brady, Belichick and the team.

Brady's a football player, he's not a lawyer or Mahatma Ghandi.

You'd rather spend another couple of years fighting the corrupt system while having your hall of famer subject to stress unrelated to football every day? He is human.

The point is to win the Super bowl and stick it in their face. With Bennett, we have a great chance this year IMO. Brady might even enjoy an off season after two years in a row without one.