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

[QuantumMechanic]

Although not as good as Columbo, I forgot to mention the clear #2:

Try #1. Not mention having the best TV theme song ever.

 

[jah]

In order:
Possibly, hell no

Reverse that order. Osweiler is average at best. Hopkins already balled out with a bad QB situation.

 

[Huckleberry1]

I can't escape the feeling that their decision is coming down this week.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

I can't escape the feeling that their decision is coming down this week.

yeah me too, and I don't have a good feeling. hope i'm wrong.

 

[BelichicksBlackEye]

I can't escape the feeling that their decision is coming down this week.

I was thinking about this in the shower this morning If Katsman is the one that basically decides when to announce whether or not the other justices will grant the en banc hearing; would he delay if he knew they were going to deny to help Brady? I mean he is human and he has stated this whole thing is utter bullsh*t and against fundamental fairness. Anyway I hope no decision is made till 2017

 

[Jackson 2]

I can't escape the feeling that their decision is coming down this week.

Mike McCann said recently he expects it by the end of this month, so you're probably in the ballpark.

 

[juny]

bad sign that nfl hasn't been asked to respond yet?

 

[Huckleberry1]

yeah me too, and I don't have a good feeling. hope i'm wrong.

I'm the opposite, I think they grant the hearing. The way things stand they have muddied the arbitration waters by granting arbitrators the ability to go beyond the sanctions being appealed and create new grounds for sanctions. A rehearing would give them the opportunity to provide clarity to arbitration by holding that arbitrators are bound to rule on the matter being appealed and not "dispense their own brand of industrial justice."

The only way around this would be tO find that the NFL CBA is unique and that their ruling only applies to that particular CBA and their ruling is specific to that CBA alone.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Mike McCann said recently he expects it by the end of this month, so you're probably in the ballpark.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that.

Wallach said last week, so who knows....

 

[DaBruinz]

We hope....

You don't bring on Ted Olson and then bench him.. Kessler is done talking to judges in this case, imho..

 

[DaBruinz]

Agreed. I don't know whether Kessler has ever argued before an Appeals Court before, but he was clearly flustered by aggressive questioning and lost his cool.

He was "flustered" by questoning by the judges that had no relevance to what the hearing was supposed to be about (facts of the case vs. procedure). That falls on Johnson and Tulumello for not prepping Kessler accordingly. Those two have appellate court experience, yet didn't account for that possibility?

 

[blackglass3]

As days go by I get less and less optimistic. IANAL, but I think there should have been a request for some response from the NFL by now.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

He was "flustered" by questoning by the judges that had no relevance to what the hearing was supposed to be about (facts of the case vs. procedure). That falls on Johnson and Tulumello for not prepping Kessler accordingly. Those two have appellate court experience, yet didn't account for that possibility?

I have no idea what happened between Kessler and his colleagues, as I wasn't in the room, but I have no doubt that they tried to prepare him to the best of their abilities, if he was insisting on stepping outside of his area of expertise. Kessler is a trial lawyer, he is not accustomed to dealing with provocative and even obnoxious questions from Appellate Judges.

I have written so many lengthy posts about Chin's line of questioning that I'm just not going to rehearse them here again. There is little doubt in my mind that Chin, who was a very fine labor lawyer, who was mentored by the late Judith Vladeck, an icon of modern labor law, and who is a fine Judge, was giving Kessler the opening to make the arguments that Olson has now made in his brief regarding the shifting grounds of the NFL's "overwhelming evidence." He's an Appellate Judge and he wasn't going to come right out and say, "Gee, Mr. Kessler, isn't it possible that the NFL has just been making its evidence up as it goes along?" Instead, he asked a provocative question to test Kessler and Kessler got flustered and lost his cool.

Since I have spent so much time on this in other threads, I'm really not ready to get into an argument about it here.

 

[aluminum seats]

IANAL

I dunno about that acronym, man. Wouldn't want it on my license plate.

 

[Jimke]

Maybe, at this very moment, Chief Judge Katzmann has his young law clerks perusing all
the various Brady submissions in a search for the truth.

 

[Gumby]

I dunno about that acronym, man. Wouldn't want it on my license plate.

Thread/brady-court-case newbie! That is, if you havent seen and in fact used IANAL at least three times on this subject. . .. Unless of course you actually are a lawyer.

 

[DaBruinz]

I have no idea what happened between Kessler and his colleagues, as I wasn't in the room, but I have no doubt that they tried to prepare him to the best of their abilities, if he was insisting on stepping outside of his area of expertise. Kessler is a trial lawyer, he is not accustomed to dealing with provocative and even obnoxious questions from Appellate Judges.

I have written so many lengthy posts about Chin's line of questioning that I'm just not going to rehearse them here again. There is little doubt in my mind that Chin, who was a very fine labor lawyer, who was mentored by the late Judith Vladeck, an icon of modern labor law, and who is a fine Judge, was giving Kessler the opening to make the arguments that Olson has now made in his brief regarding the shifting grounds of the NFL's "overwhelming evidence." He's an Appellate Judge and he wasn't going to come right out and say, "Gee, Mr. Kessler, isn't it possible that the NFL has just been making its evidence up as it goes along?" Instead, he asked a provocative question to test Kessler and Kessler got flustered and lost his cool.

Since I have spent so much time on this in other threads, I'm really not ready to get into an argument about it here.

I know what you have stated.. Doesn't change the fact that both Chin and Parker focused more on the evidence and not on the procedure.

Personally, if appellate judges are being provocative and obnoxious, they don't belong on the bench. Their job is supposed to be to determine if the lower court made an error based on the arguments presented. but that is just me.

 

[Mack Herron]

Try #1. Not mention having the best TV theme song ever.

Here's my nominee:

 

[Jackson 2]

bad sign that nfl hasn't been asked to respond yet?

Could be...