- Joined
- Sep 1, 2010
- Messages
- 30,775
- Reaction score
- 38,038
Playing fast and loose with the rules again, what else is new?Thought the deadline was yesterday?
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Playing fast and loose with the rules again, what else is new?Thought the deadline was yesterday?
This are often electronically filed by midnight. Not sure if that happened here.Thought the deadline was yesterday?
McCann says, "For that reason, the amicus briefs filed on Tuesday—just like the amicus briefs filed last Wednesday by the New England Patriots and a group of scientists—should be viewed with appropriate caution."
I suspect Chin and Parker want nothing more than for this to go away quietly. If the vote for an en banc, it won't be because they want to take another look, it will be to save face. The NFL got to them, and I hope it comes to light.
he's not questioning the motivation of the filers--he's cautioning brady supporters from getting their hopes up too much:McCann says, "For that reason, the amicus briefs filed on Tuesday—just like the amicus briefs filed last Wednesday by the New England Patriots and a group of scientists—should be viewed with appropriate caution."
It's obvious what the Patriots' motivation is but what could 21 scientists possibly have to gain in writing an amicus in the case?
Unlike filings by the actual parties in a case, judges have the discretion to completely disregard amicus briefs. For that reason, the amicus briefs filed on Tuesday—just like the amicus briefs filed last Wednesday by the New England Patriots and a group of scientists—should be viewed with appropriate caution. 13 active judges on the Second Circuit will have an opportunity to review all of the amicus briefs, but these judges are under no obligation to factor them into their decision-making.
he's not questioning the motivation of the filers--he's cautioning brady supporters from getting their hopes up too much:
but he also says that Feinberg's brief should be given more weight because he has no stake in this fight. My point is that neither do the scientists. While I understand that this is no longer about the psi in footballs, ultimately the case is based on a violation that didn't happen.he's not questioning the motivation of the filers--he's cautioning brady supporters from getting their hopes up too much:
right, but the judges are the ones who are going to decide if the case gets re-heard. so the only way that the briefs can increase the odds of a re-hearing is if they sway the judges' opinions.I think a lot of us are looking at these briefs as increasing the odds that the case gets reheard, not necessarily that they will sway the judges' opinions.
If it gets rehearsal I am confident Ted Olsen can capably handle the rest.
i couldn't find the part in his article where he said that Feinberg's brief should be given more weight.but he also says that Feinberg's brief should be given more weight because he has no stake in this fight. My point is that neither do the scientists. While I understand that this is no longer about the psi in footballs, ultimately the case is based on a violation that didn't happen.
Thought the deadline was yesterday?
Here's the paragraph from the article.i couldn't find the part in his article where he said that Feinberg's brief should be given more weight.
i don't think McCann is saying that Feinberg's brief should be given more weight--just that it can only help (and not hurt) Brady's case, just like the scientists' brief. he says earlier:Here's the paragraph from the article.
Why Kenneth Feinberg weighing in matters
NFL
Video
Tom Brady facing Deflategate long shot despite en banc appeal petition
by Michael McCann
Feinberg may be the most influential voice yet to speak up on behalf of Brady. Feinberg is a legendary figure in legal circles, particularly among those connected to “fund distribution,” which refers to allocation of settlements to victims of large-scale harms. Feinberg has been entrusted with determining formulas that most fairly compensate victims of some of the worst incidents in recent history. He undertook this duty in assessing claims by victims of the September 11th terrorist attacks, the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster and the Boston Marathon bombings. In this capacity Feinberg acts as a neutral arbitrator. In 2014, I had theopportunity to interview Feinberg regarding his role in the Ed O’Bannon v. NCAAcase and specifically his plans to form the Former College Athletes Association, a group that would negotiate name, image and likeness rights on behalf of former college athletes.
Feinberg has no personal or reputational stake in whether Brady wins or loses, nor does he have a connection to the NFL or the NFLPA. In truth, you might expect someone of Feinberg’s stature to view getting involved in Deflategate as a net negative: no one on either side of this controversy has looked particularly good, and Feinberg has an impeccable reputation to protect. But as Feinberg explains in his amicus brief, he believes that the enforcement of Brady’s suspension would trigger consequences well beyond sports. He contends it would destabilize the system of arbitration in the Unites States and that it would make it harder for Feinberg and others like to him to carry out their duties.
The brief signed by the group of neutral scientists who contend Deflategate is completely explainable through Ideal Gas Law should also catch the judges’ attention, especially those who believe Brady has been treated unfairly. Similarly, the AFL-CIO and Feinberg briefs will supply more motivation for judges when it comes to granting Brady a new hearing.
My memory may be wrong too but I believe Goodell backtracked from Vincent imposed the discipline to he did it.
Thanks for clearing that up guys. I knew it was in there somewhere, just wanted to be sure I had my facts straight.Already been discussed in the thread. Goodell admitted later that Vincent was just a mouthpiece and that He, Goodell, was the one that made the decision on the punishment.
The judges of CA2 will either heed the evidence and well reasoned and informed arguments and grant a rehearing, and the due process that it represents, or they will disregard the evidence and arguments and deny a rehearing, demonstrating that due process is an illusion that evaporates before the altar of the rich and powerful.all of these briefs should have an effect on the judges' opinions, but because judges can disregard them if they want to, we (Brady supporters) shouldn't get our hopes up too much.
Thanks, Mini-Mack, take it you're one of us who actually saw him play for us? Didn't he (and whole team) look great in our real unis w/real logo? It's what Tom & Co. should be wearing in Houston Feb. 5th.The judges of CA2 will either heed the evidence and well reasoned and informed arguments and grant a rehearing, and the due process that it represents, or they will disregard the evidence and arguments and deny a rehearing, demonstrating that due process is an illusion that evaporates before the altar of the rich and powerful.
McCann says, "For that reason, the amicus briefs filed on Tuesday—just like the amicus briefs filed last Wednesday by the New England Patriots and a group of scientists—should be viewed with appropriate caution."
It's obvious what the Patriots' motivation is but what could 21 scientists possibly have to gain in writing an amicus in the case?
i couldn't find the part in his article where he said that Feinberg's brief should be given more weight.
Feinberg gets more weight simply by who he is and what he does. Feinberg is considered the top arbiter in America and his voice carries a great deal of weight on the issue of arbitration. Of all of the factions who have presented amicus briefs to the court his is the one that is most important. The court is going to have a hard time denying Feinberg and Olson their day in court.