PATRIOTS NEWS NFL Appeal oral arguments thread

[PatsWickedPissah]

Doty is/was in the 8th Circuit, so he would not be being overruled. Circuits are not bound by other circuits -- they can reach different, conflicting conclusions (which is a "circuit split"). Only SCOTUS has the power to rectify circuit splits, if it chooses to do so. (SCOTUS would rectify a split by taking an on-point case and deciding it -- all circuits would then have to follow whatever SCOTUS decided.)

Admittedly pure speculation here, but who is with me that QM is likely an MIT lab AI bot programmed with stacks of legal brief info spamming our site?

 

[Danger Zone]

Warning: Amateur lawyering up ahead

It is my understanding that Judges do not have to consider a 3rd parties amicus curiae filings such as the one filed by Robert Blecker (and often dont?).

By expressly addressing Blecker's letter to the court and attempting to defend it point by point, the NFL's lawyer Clement has all but forced the Judges to take notice of each of Blecker's points.

I feel like this is a significant victory for Brady. Blecker's amicus curiae filing is going to be read and considered by all three Judges when before there was a decent chance it would have gone unread.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

Doesn't really matter how they feel about whether it was lying or not, it matters that it has been pointed out to them that there are facts that were glossed over that they will now take into consideration, if they were not already doing so. The largest, IMO, being the characterization of Brady's testimony, which is still wrong in the letter.
By looking into whether Clement lied, they will be forced to see that Goodell ruled based upon testimony that didn't happen.

Yeah, if the court does its job. That's a pretty big IF.

 

[DaBruinz]

He's a dipshit who has been sucking the **NISES of Judges in the 5th Circuit for the past 10 years. Guess he's never had a situation involving Candor..

 

[DaBruinz]

Warning: Amateur lawyering up ahead

It is my understanding that Judges do not have to consider a 3rd parties amicus curiae filings such as the one filed by Robert Blecker (and often dont?).

By expressly addressing Blecker's letter to the court and attempting to defend it point by point, the NFL's lawyer Clement has all but forced the Judges to take notice of each of Blecker's points.

I feel like this is a significant victory for Brady. Blecker's amicus curiae filing is going to be read and considered by all three Judges when before there was a decent chance it would have gone unread.

There is a difference between an Amicus Curie brief and the letter charging Clement with improper Candor. Amicus Curiae briefs don't have to be considered. The filing does because it deals directly with proper court conduct.

 

[Ring 6]

Yeah, if the court does its job. That's a pretty big IF.

In order to understand the letter from clement they have to read the source material.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

Warning: Amateur lawyering up ahead

It is my understanding that Judges do not have to consider a 3rd parties amicus curiae filings such as the one filed by Robert Blecker (and often dont?).

By expressly addressing Blecker's letter to the court and attempting to defend it point by point, the NFL's lawyer Clement has all but forced the Judges to take notice of each of Blecker's points.

I feel like this is a significant victory for Brady. Blecker's amicus curiae filing is going to be read and considered by all three Judges when before there was a decent chance it would have gone unread.

Not necessarily. Maybe the clerks writing the decision might read it if they feel something in it may be helpful in justifying whatever ruling the judge wants to give.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

In order to understand the letter from clement they have to read the source material.

What makes you think they won't just ignore Blecker's letter as well as the brief?

 

[DaBruinz]

I cannot imagine that Clement will be punished in any way but this cannot be helping the NFL's case.

Considering that the proof of Clement's lies are part of the entire process, I can easily see Clement getting pummelled by the 2CA over this. You can't sit there and claim that something is the truth because you are repeating what your client said when it's an outright fabrication and is contradicted by sworn testimony.

 

[Ring 6]

What makes you think they won't just ignore Blecker's letter as well as the brief?

I'm talking about Clements letter.

 

[DaBruinz]

What makes you think they won't just ignore Blecker's letter as well as the brief?

Because they can't. It's a procedural issue that has huge bearing and has been mentioned in each of the threads that this has come up in. CANDOR is a must for lawyers on both sides. If the opposing lawyer or an outside lawyer files the paperwork challenging your Candor, the judges are required to review it if you haven't already provided corrections. Clement didn't do so and Blecker, a distinguished lawyer of standing and a professor of ethics, filed accordingly.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

I'm talking about Clements letter.

If they ignore Prof. Blecker's letter, they may also ignore Clements response. In practice, courts don't like it when attorneys accuse each other of dishonesty (even when it's 100% true). This is probably why Kessler didn't write such a letter himself.

What we may have here is the idealized version of the practice of law (as view by a law school prof.) vs. the grimy reality of how things really are.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

Because they can't. It's a procedural issue that has huge bearing and has been mentioned in each of the threads that this has come up in. CANDOR is a must for lawyers on both sides. If the opposing lawyer or an outside lawyer files the paperwork challenging your Candor, the judges are required to review it if you haven't already provided corrections. Clement didn't do so and Blecker, a distinguished lawyer of standing and a professor of ethics, filed accordingly.

They SHOULDN'T disregard it but you can't say that they can't or won't.

 

[Ring 6]

If they ignore Prof. Blecker's letter, they may also ignore Clements response. In practice, courts don't like it when attorneys accuse each other of dishonesty (even when it's 100% true). This is probably why Kessler didn't write such a letter himself.

What we may have here is the idealized version of the practice of law (as view by a law school prof.) vs. the grimy reality of how things really are.

No I disagree. Clement is not going to send a post trial letter to the court and the judges just chose not to look at it and see what he has to say.

 

[Ring 6]

They SHOULDN'T disregard it but you can't say that they can't or won't.

And you can't say that they can or will right?

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

No I disagree. Clement is not going to send a post trial letter to the court and the judges just chose not to look at it and see what he has to say.

They may read the post oral argument submissions, they may not. We may never know.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

And you can't say that they can or will right?

No, I can't. I'm just saying you really can't presume what these guys will or won't do. Especially if they're prejudiced against the respondent as Kessler hinted that they might be.

 

[Ring 6]

They may read the post oral argument submissions, they may not. We may never know.

Again. I disagree.

 

[Ring 6]

No, I can't. I'm just saying you really can't presume what these guys will or won't do. Especially if they're prejudiced against the respondent as Kessler hinted that they might be.

My bad. I misunderstood that you were arguing that you had insight into what the judges would do.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

Again. I disagree.

DO you personally know the judges or their clerks? Did they tell you they read the submissions? Did you happen to see the judges or the clerks reading the letters?

If not, you're just speculating/assuming.