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

[Danger Zone]

Why isn't Berman counted along with Katzman, he's in the en banc isn't he?

As great as that would be, he's not.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Why isn't Berman counted along with Katzman, he's in the en banc isn't he?

He's the district (lower) court judge, so no

 

[SHOWTIME15]

As great as that would be, he's not.

to be honest, it's best for our judicial system if the appellate court remain independent from the lower court.

 

[Danger Zone]

to be honest, it's best for our judicial system if the appellate court remain independent from the lower court.

Above my paygrade.

My non-informed and highly biased opinion is that since we "know" Berman would vote to hear Brady's case and how he would decide, I wouldn't mind so much.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

 

[BradyFTW!]

Nope, no way I'm reading anything from Lester Munson.

 

[Froob]

I hope if Brady loses he tells Roger

"Well, the jerkstore called and they're running out of you!"

 

[SalemPats]

to be honest, it's best for our judicial system if the appellate court remain independent from the lower court.

I would make an exception for Judge Berman

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I

I'm fascinated why the Washington Post has embraced the "cause" and continues to lead the charge vs. the NFL.

Two possible answers:

One. They just plain feel sorry for us because we're dependent on one local newspaper that's home to the CHB and the MCI and another that is best known for the Tomass hatchet job the day before the biggest game in Pats history.

Two. Maybe, just maybe, they really are concerned about the truth...don't laugh...there are journalists out there who still think that the truth matters, as quaint as that might sound.

 

[ReverendMaynard]

Two. Maybe, just maybe, they really are concerned about the truth...don't laugh...there are journalists out there who still think that the truth matters, as quaint as that might sound.

Nah, can't be that.

 

[patfanken]

Lets get to the rehearing first. Thats a big IF. The lawyers in the media are also becoming like sports media members speculating with their own opinions.

My question is why even worry about who would be available to hear the case if Brady gets his en banc hearing. It is my understanding that IF they decide to hear the case, Brady's suspension is voided (sorry Ravens fans), and by the time they get around to actually give Brady's case an en banc hearing the 2016 season will likely be over. I thought it usually takes 9 months to get one of these cases reheard. So if Brady simply gets his rehearing, we really don't have to worry about his suspension again until the 2o17 season. This could be a big week for us.

Have I got my facts straight or not?

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Have I got my facts straight or not?

not quite. brady's suspension is currently stayed pending the 2nd circuit decision to grant en banc. if they say yes to en banc then the stay will continie until it is decided. if they say no brady goes back to being suspended. the case will won't get heard until september at the earliest.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

My question is why even worry about who would be available to hear the case if Brady gets his en banc hearing. It is my understanding that IF they decide to hear the case, Brady's suspension is voided (sorry Ravens fans), and by the time they get around to actually give Brady's case an en banc hearing the 2016 season will likely be over. I thought it usually takes 9 months to get one of these cases reheard. So if Brady simply gets his rehearing, we really don't have to worry about his suspension again until the 2o17 season. This could be a big week for us.

Have I got my facts straight or not?

I don't know about "usually" re: 9 months. That 9 month figure was from @WallachLegal saying the most recent time CA2 granted en banc review it took CA2 nine months from when the petition was submitted to when they agreed to grant en banc review. Wallach did not hold that number out as being representative, just most recent.

But you are correct that (a) the adverse-to-Brady panel decision is stayed until CA2 decides the fate of the request for en banc, and (b) should CA2 grant en banc the adverse-to-Brady panel decision is voided.

 

[Ivan]

My question is why even worry about who would be available to hear the case if Brady gets his en banc hearing. It is my understanding that IF they decide to hear the case, Brady's suspension is voided (sorry Ravens fans), and by the time they get around to actually give Brady's case an en banc hearing the 2016 season will likely be over. I thought it usually takes 9 months to get one of these cases reheard. So if Brady simply gets his rehearing, we really don't have to worry about his suspension again until the 2o17 season. This could be a big week for us.

Have I got my facts straight or not?

Close, there's just no guarantee they will take 9 months so there is still a possibility they could return early and uphold the initial ruling. That means there is still a chance he could be suspended for the playoffs, but that's a chance that is definitely worth taking and I believe they will rule for Brady in the end.

 

[patfanken]

not quite. brady's suspension is currently stayed pending the 2nd circuit decision to grant en banc. if they say yes to en banc then the stay will continie until it is decided. if they say no brady goes back to being suspended. the case will won't get heard until september at the earliest.

Thanks for the reply, but I thought that historically, it takes a LOT longer than the 3 months you cite before a case is hear by the full panel of judges. 9 months was the time frame I recall hearing as the likely earliest period IF the case gets that far.

 

[patfanken]

Close, there's just no guarantee they will take 9 months so there is still a possibility they could return early and uphold the initial ruling. That means there is still a chance he could be suspended for the playoffs, but that's a chance that is definitely worth taking and I believe they will rule for Brady in the end.

Of course there is no guarantee it will take that long, but bottom line, it sets up to be a pretty exciting week since we SHOULD find out by the end of it, whether they will or will not rehear the case.

BTW- quick question. hypothetically, if the 2nd circuit refuses to hear the case en banc ( I love saying "en banc". ), and Brady immediately decides to appeal to the Supreme court; does that action stay the suspension again at least until SCOTUS decides whether to hear the case or not?

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Thanks for the reply, but I thought that historically, it takes a LOT longer than the 3 months you cite before a case is hear by the full panel of judges. 9 months was the time frame I recall hearing as the likely earliest period IF the case gets that far.

i'm just going off of what daniel wallach said - that it would be placed on the september 2016 term for the court. now "term" could mean anything from september to june.

 

[borisman]

Well, they need to make a decision before Brady starts serving his suspension so.....9 months won't cut it.

Edit: I mean they need to decide on whether to grant the en banc, not make a decision after the appeal is heard.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Well, they need to make a decision before Brady starts serving his suspension so.....9 months won't cut it.

the suspension is stayed until a decision is made