Patriots have filed an amicus brief in support of Brady/NFLPA.

[Froob]

Why does Schefter write it as legal action? Isn't it a bit different than that...?

 

[fnordcircle]

Why does Schefter write it as legal action? Isn't it a bit different than that...?

I'm guessing that, technically, it's a legal action. Just not what we would refer to as 'legal action' in common usage.

 

[fnordcircle]

Of course, the problem is that the Patriots aren't a disinterested party. They suffer a direct impact if Brady is suspended. So I don't think it would hold any weight with the court. About time they finally did something though.

From the Boston.com article, it looks like their attorney tried to address that point:

“The Patriots stand to lose their All-Pro quarterback for 25 percent of the upcoming regular season based on a severely flawed process,” team attorney Daniel L. Goldberg wrote. “But the impact of the majority opinion is not limited to professional football. It threatens to undermine vital principles governing arbitration of collective bargaining agreements throughout the national economy.”

 

[fnordcircle]

“The panel majority’s opinion ignored or excused these fatal failings,” Patriots attorneys wrote about the decision. “It endorsed the outcome of a highly manipulated and fundamentally unfair process designed and used by the Commissioner to reach and justify a predetermined outcome in violation of the CBA and this Court’s precedents.”

It'd be cool if, instead of sticking to our guns or getting in a bunch of 'time to eat crow kraft-bashing ****heads' we could at least agree that this seems, so far, to be a pretty well-written and forceful argument on Brady's behalf.

 

[Froob]

Youd have to think this is huge in getting it re heard...

 

[BradyFTW!]

Credit where credit's due, I did not expect Kraft/the Patriots to actually do anything on Brady's behalf. I'm happy to be wrong on this one.

 

[signbabybrady]

 

[fnordcircle]

****ing perfect and lmao.

 

[Wheelman]

The d-bags in this forum who have slandered Bob Kraft's good name can all eat crow and issue their aplologies now.

I will never issue an apology. This is just another PR campaign by bend over bob. Just watch as he uses you all again soon enough. Even if it helps he'll always be scum of the earth, just like the other 31. They, including Benedict Bob, should be jailed for corruption.

 

[Froob]

Credit where credit's due, I did not expect Kraft/the Patriots to actually do anything on Brady's behalf. I'm happy to be wrong on this one.

As long as Kraft doesn't get called to be Roger's character witness lol, this looks good.

 

[ReverendMaynard]

It'd be cool if, instead of sticking to our guns or getting in a bunch of 'time to eat crow kraft-bashing ****heads' we could at least agree that this seems, so far, to be a pretty well-written and forceful argument on Brady's behalf.

It may be well written, but they don't even have to read it. Did Chin saying the evidence was "compelling if not overwhelming" seem like he even read the Blecker amicus brief?

This is far too little, far too late, for me. It seems timed to make it seem like they are doing something, but only when they know it's too late to actually do any good. This way, when the suspension is upheld, and we all know it will be, they can claim that they tried.

 

[Deus Irae]

This brief is way too little/way too late, but it's nice to see the Patriots pointing out what so many of us have been doing for more than a year, with regards to the bigger implications. Now we can hope that something this unusual will pique the interest of 7 judges.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Adding another voice to dispute the science is not needed, since the science is unfortunately a sidelight by now, but..

When a member of the NFL really rips into the NFL for it procedures regarding the CBA that are in question, you'd have to think that this will have impact.

That is a different dynamic than the other amicus briefs. A member of management is stepping up to support a member of labor, to say that the leadership of management screwed over the laborer.

 

[Kontradiction]

Adding another voice to dispute the science is not needed, since the science is unfortunately a sidelight by now, but..

When a member of the NFL really rips into the NFL for it procedures regarding the CBA that are in question, you'd have to think that this will have impact.

Perhaps he can now also admit that he was wrong in hindsight for helping push that bad boy through. Glad to see the Pats at least doing something... anything... to help Brady.

 

[fnordcircle]

It may be well written, but they don't even have to read it. Did Chin saying the evidence was "compelling if not overwhelming" seem like he even read the Blecker amicus brief?

This is far too little, far too late, for me. It seems timed to make it seem like they are doing something, but only when they know it's too late to actually do any good. This way, when the suspension is upheld, and we all know it will be, they can claim that they tried.

It's fine man, just say "I'm too emotionally invested in my argument that Kraft sucks to entertain the idea that this matters."

It's actually kind of a big deal but your internet posting record is too important to let yourself fall prey to saying 'Good job Patriots' or something.

 

[XLIX]

I'll give my thoughts on the reading as I go through it (for the very few of you who care what my thoughts are ). But my first reaction is just how strange it is that a party to a federal court case has filed an amicus brief in support of the other side..!!

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Anyone have a link to the filing?

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

https://cbsboston.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/patriots-amicus-curiae-brief.pdf

 

[XLIX]

Observation:

The very first thing this amicus brief mentions is that this is an issue of "exceptional importance" which, conveniently, happens to be one of the criteria for judges to decide whether or not to render an en banc ruling.

They make sure to frame this not as a discussion of deflated balls, but "the extent to which settled precedent and fundamental fairness operate as a check on the broad authority of arbitrators." ... stating that it ... "threatens to undermine vital principles governing arbitration of collective bargaining agreements throughout the national economy."

So they certainly cannot be accused of understating things!

 

[sb1]

Observation:

The very first thing this amicus brief mentions is that this is an issue of "exceptional importance" which, conveniently, happens to be one of the criteria for judges to decide whether or not to render an en banc ruling.

They make sure to frame this not as a discussion of deflated balls, but "the extent to which settled precedent and fundamental fairness operate as a check on the broad authority of arbitrators." ... stating that it ... "threatens to undermine vital principles governing arbitration of collective bargaining agreements throughout the national economy."

So they certainly cannot be accused of understating things!

It was a no brainer to add it and this will be the only thing that will pique the 2nd Circuit's interest.