PATRIOTS NEWS Tom Brady, NFLPA Granted 14-Day Extension To File Motion For Rehearing By Second Circuit Court

[PatsFanSince74]

I admit, I'm baffled as to how someone is allowed to misinterpret the CBA but can't act in a manner inconsistent with the essence of the CBA.

Perhaps because the one is an error, the other is intentional.

 

[goheels22002]

No Parker and Chin were not paid off.

Ok, my mistake. Yes, I am aware of the Garvey ruling. I honestly don't think this is anything like the court system has ever seen before.

In any previous sports related case, it was very difficult to prove collusion. It isn't here. It can be proven that Pash/Goodell colluded with Wells to formulate a fraudulent report.

If the report is what they're basing their judgement on, it needs to be focused in on court. Goodell had control of what he wanted to appeal, but he won't here if Brady is granted his own appeal.

Goodell is riding this wave currently, but won't be for long.

The trade practiced by the plaintiff (NFLPA and Brady) has nothing whatsoever to do with this. It is not entertainment law. It is labor law. The defendant (the NFL) agreed to a CBA that gave the Commissioner the authority to investigate, hear, sanction, and rule upon appeals of his own decisions when it comes to "integrity of the game." The factual findings in the Wells Report, or how it was conducted, were beside the point according to the two judges who found for the NFL.

Chief Judge Katzmann's dissent is where the daylight exists to win an en banc appeal - that the defendant imposed a punishment that relied on a bad analogy (steroids), that the NFL expanded Brady's offense in its argument to the Court of Appeals, and that nothing in the Wells Report supported new claims that Brady provided inducements to employees to commit infractions. Berman found for the NFLPA based on one instance of deflation in the Wells Report that the NFL's attorney's aggrandized into a "scheme."

If this were ice hockey, Katzmann would send Goodell and his mouthpieces to the penalty box for embellishment.

The two judges who found for the NFL were not ruling on whether Wells, Pash and Goodell colluded to deny Brady his rights. As far as they're concerned, the Commissioner has unlimited authority as it relates to the integrity of the game.

My guess, after looking at the crappy CBA, the other judges on the panel will agree with the finding of the majority and uphold the suspension.

Amendola and Edelman better rehab their asses off. Jimmy Garoppolo is going to need them.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

Perhaps because the one is an error, the other is intentional.

Well maybe. But then this question for the court is simply whether Goodell is an idiot or a malicious idiot.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Perhaps because the one is an error, the other is intentional.

This is how I see it. I think Olsen can demonstrate that Goodell wasn't mistaken he was deliberate in his misrepresentations of Bradys behavior and testimony and that he didn't fulfill the proper role of an arbitrator.

 

[Rusty Griswold]

This is how I see it. I think Olsen can demonstrate that Goodell wasn't mistaken he was deliberate in his misrepresentations of Bradys behavior and testimony and that he didn't fulfill the proper role of an arbitrator.

That is correct. Kessler WOULD HAVE gotten to that stage in the Goodell Appeal, but he was cut off and never allowed the chance. Chin just said "oh, well, the evidence is overwhelming that Brady is guilty, I am ready for happy hour!"

 

[Rusty Griswold]

The trade practiced by the plaintiff (NFLPA and Brady) has nothing whatsoever to do with this. It is not entertainment law. It is labor law. The defendant (the NFL) agreed to a CBA that gave the Commissioner the authority to investigate, hear, sanction, and rule upon appeals of his own decisions when it comes to "integrity of the game." The factual findings in the Wells Report, or how it was conducted, were beside the point according to the two judges who found for the NFL.

Chief Judge Katzmann's dissent is where the daylight exists to win an en banc appeal - that the defendant imposed a punishment that relied on a bad analogy (steroids), that the NFL expanded Brady's offense in its argument to the Court of Appeals, and that nothing in the Wells Report supported new claims that Brady provided inducements to employees to commit infractions. Berman found for the NFLPA based on one instance of deflation in the Wells Report that the NFL's attorney's aggrandized into a "scheme."

If this were ice hockey, Katzmann would send Goodell and his mouthpieces to the penalty box for embellishment.

The two judges who found for the NFL were not ruling on whether Wells, Pash and Goodell colluded to deny Brady his rights. As far as they're concerned, the Commissioner has unlimited authority as it relates to the integrity of the game.

My guess, after looking at the crappy CBA, the other judges on the panel will agree with the finding of the majority and uphold the suspension.

Amendola and Edelman better rehab their asses off. Jimmy Garoppolo is going to need them.

Umm, no. That's not besides the point. The Chief Judge of that circuit had grave concerns as to what the Wells Report meant and its arbitrary nature.

So, he agrees with Berman, as would many other sane people who aren't on the take.

The whole backdrop of his absolute power stems from something that is proven to be fraudulent. Hence, why he even ended up changing his premise from "generally aware" which is intentionally vague to infuse his "absolute power" under the CBA, to "Brady was the ringleader of this intentional scheme".

Nowhere in the CBA does it ever assume or say that "the commissioner has the right to engineer a rules violation to punish a team or player for no reason at all".

The CBA says nothing of the sort. Brady did nothing. Brady ordered nothing. These are facts that are indisputable based on the "evidence" provided.

And, the "independent" nature of the Wells Report is also not genuine either. It's not independent at all and it can be proven. Pash's admitted "wordsmithing" proves that. Pash should be nowhere near an independent investigation, otherwise, what are they paying for?

Everywhere you look, throughout the chronology of this despicable act by Goodell and those who are all involved, there are major red flags with integrity of the ruling itself based off what the report provided.

Olson will destroy Goodell in a circuit court or in front of Ginsburg.

Brady will never be suspended.

 

[Rusty Griswold]

Well maybe. But then this question for the court is simply whether Goodell is an idiot or a malicious idiot.

I think he's an arrogant idiot who has been told he;'s untouchable by arrogant scumbag$ who have a league to grow in Europe on our team's back.

Hence, why the whole thing was so sloppy on their part and why they lied to ESPN upfront. They knew they had nothing.

This is a MUCH greater story than just some collusion by Goodell in conjunction with a handful of AFC teams and some other owners who want to make more money, but haven't been able to due to NE taking up a 1 or 2 seed every year, with Kraft knowing he's got a large profit annually.

This is about the ability to control the union, have a windfall CBA in the next term, and to open up the ROI capabilities in Europe.

The Jaguars will be moving there. The question is, how do they start TWO more brand news franchises without an expansion draft being a slam dunk?

WHen Carolina and Jax got teams in 1995, they were promised legit players. Why? Cap ersa started in 1993, which produced a bloated FA market of very good players all over the place, who wanted more than what the established 30 current teams could provide financially already with a roster and a cap to come under.

Buffalo isn't moving, they just need a new stadium. I suppose the Chargers or Raiders could move, but that still leaves an uneven number of teams, which obviously can't happen.

 

[jimnance]

Amendola and Edelman better rehab their asses off. Jimmy Garoppolo is going to need them.[/QUOTE]

There is almost ZERO chance Jimmy G plays. Brady most likely misses NO games this year- regardless of what happens. 1. Odds are greatly in TBs favor to be granted en banc since 2 of 4(berman,katzman) federal judges sided with him. Stay will be granted. If decision comes before end of 2016 season-Brady appeals to SCOTUS. Ginsberg alone then rules on granting stay, as shes the SCOTUS judge currently assigned 2nd court. Very pro-labor, most experts would expect her to grant stay-so it then becomes wait til 2017 for decision. Same deal if for some reason, appeals judges deny en banc-TB goes to ginsburg, she grants stay, no decision til after 2016-even if SCOTUS decides not to hear case. Thats what ive been reading/hearing. So it seems like the only way Jimmy G. sees field is mop-up duty or the unthinkable-TB gets hurt(shudder). This is a huge relief. Whats funny tho-is it seems likely that it will be OVER 2 YEARS that this farce has been dragging on.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

If decision comes before end of 2016 season-Brady appeals to SCOTUS. Ginsberg alone then rules on granting stay, as shes the SCOTUS judge currently assigned 2nd court.

That's not how it works in practice. The application for a stay would be made to her, but it is standard procedure for the overseeing justice to refer such things to the entire court. She might grant a very short-term stay to give the full court time to consider the stay application, but it is unlikely she'd unilaterally grant a stay-pending-decision-to-hear-the-case-or-not.

 

[n1997y]

That's not how it works in practice. The application for a stay would be made to her, but it is standard procedure for the overseeing justice to refer such things to the entire court. She might grant a very short-term stay to give the full court time to consider the stay application, but it is unlikely she'd unilaterally grant a stay-pending-decision-to-hear-the-case-or-not.

You're clearly much better versed in such matters than I am, but my impression has been that the stay is routinely granted pending a decision on cert, is that not so?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Here's what the Court itself says about applications for stays (this is from a reporters' guide that SCOTUS put out):

--
Case law has established four general criteria that the applicant normally must satisfy in order for the Court to grant a stay. They are:
1. that there is a “reasonable probability” that four Justices will grant certiorari, or agree to review the merits of the case;
2. that there is a “fair prospect” that a majority of the Court will conclude upon review that the decision below on the merits was erroneous;
3. that irreparable harm will result from the denial of the stay;
4. finally, in a close case, the Circuit Justice may find it appropriate to balance the equities, by exploring the relative harms to the applicant and respondent, as well as the interests of the public at large.
--

The guide also says that SCOTUS grants about 80 of the 7,000-8,000 petitions for certiorari it receives each year and that on average it takes SCOTUS about 6 weeks to decide whether or not to hear the case. Though I'm not sure what happens to stuff that comes in over the summer. I mean stay applications will still be considered right away, but I think the yes/no decisions on cert itself pile up and get announced when the Court comes back in October.

 

[n1997y]

According to florio Ginsburg can issue a stay until the court decides to take the case or not which would probably push things beyond this season.

I'm not so sure. Not very familiar with the Supreme Court processes but don't think they'd have much reason to draw out the timeline deciding whether or not to take the case. In fact I was wondering if there was any chance they'd announce they were not taking the case sometime around the turn of the year, and whether that would mean Brady might be serving his suspension in January and February?

 

[RobertWeathers]

I'm not so sure. Not very familiar with the Supreme Court processes but don't think they'd have much reason to draw out the timeline deciding whether or not to take the case. In fact I was wondering if there was any chance they'd announce they were not taking the case sometime around the turn of the year, and whether that would mean Brady might be serving his suspension in January and February?

Kiki Ginsburg has the hots for TB12. She wants him in her courtroom

 

[Froob]

Are you actually a lawyer QuatamMechanic or just very well versed?

 

[goheels22002]

I don't think Kessler failed. I think he was cut off and not able to speak or make a case. I like Sally Jenkins's analysis on all of this, but something smells badly with how Chin made the comment he did, when there is no evidence of any kind.

Very disturbing statement, IMO. It's almost like Chin never read the Wells Report. He obviously didn't.

Even the most ardent Pats hater can't claim there is direct evidence of Brady ordering a deflation scheme for home games or why he'd wake up that AFC TItle game Sunday and ask for it to be done.

Anyone who has ever thrown a football would not want it softer. If anything they'd want it harder. The more and more Goodell moves the narrative away from logic, the more he tries to get away with it.

You do realize this whole thing is about a premise by some moron in a basement claiming that NE doesn't fumble much at all because BB orders a deflation scheme behind brady's back after inispection, with Harbaugh and Co. knowing the balls would be under 12.5 by halftime, considering how much use they get, right?

The millisecond DQwell Jackson made that INT, it made Harbaugh/Pagano's plan into action and Goodell was able and willing to do this.

Justice Chin didn't need to read the Wells Report. All he had to do was look at the CBA and read Berman's ruling.

Amendola and Edelman better rehab their asses off. Jimmy Garoppolo is going to need them.

There is almost ZERO chance Jimmy G plays. Brady most likely misses NO games this year- regardless of what happens. 1. Odds are greatly in TBs favor to be granted en banc since 2 of 4(berman,katzman) federal judges sided with him. Stay will be granted. If decision comes before end of 2016 season-Brady appeals to SCOTUS. Ginsberg alone then rules on granting stay, as shes the SCOTUS judge currently assigned 2nd court. Very pro-labor, most experts would expect her to grant stay-so it then becomes wait til 2017 for decision. Same deal if for some reason, appeals judges deny en banc-TB goes to ginsburg, she grants stay, no decision til after 2016-even if SCOTUS decides not to hear case. Thats what ive been reading/hearing. So it seems like the only way Jimmy G. sees field is mop-up duty or the unthinkable-TB gets hurt(shudder). This is a huge relief. Whats funny tho-is it seems likely that it will be OVER 2 YEARS that this farce has been dragging on.[/QUOTE]

Its the middle of May. Federal courts move at their own pace. This isn't a death penalty case.

Brady is not going to play weeks 1 through 4. Get used to it.

Besides, the main football fan on the Supreme Court is Clarence Thomas who is a Redskins fan. He'd love to see Brady sit out as punishment for the 52 - 7 blowout in 2007 when Brady threw for three TDs and ran for 2.

 

[n1997y]

Here's what the court says about applications for stays (this is from a reporters' guide that SCOTUS put out):

--
Case law has established four general criteria that the applicant normally must satisfy in order for the Court to grant a stay. They are:
1. that there is a “reasonable probability” that four Justices will grant certiorari, or agree to review the merits of the case;
2. that there is a “fair prospect” that a majority of the Court will conclude upon review that the decision below on the merits was erroneous;
3. that irreparable harm will result from the denial of the stay;
4. finally, in a close case, the Circuit Justice may find it appropriate to balance the equities, by exploring the relative harms to the applicant and respondent, as well as the interests of the public at large.
--

The guide also says that SCOTUS grants about 80 of the 7,000-8,000 petitions for certiorari it receives each year and that on average it takes SCOTUS about 6 weeks to decide whether or not to hear the case. Though I'm not sure what happens to stuff that comes in over the summer. I mean stay applications will still be considered right away, but I think the yes/no decisions on cert itself pile up and get announced when the Court comes back in October.

Great stuff, very useful! Thanks!

So assuming roughly similar decision time of approx six weeks for CA2 to decide whether or not to grant the request for en banc review, that would be early to mid July. If they decline, the Supreme Court filing would ensue promptly, so the decision to grant certiorari would probably come in the Fall. If certiorari is not granted then it seems Brady's suspension would likely occur in mid to late season. That's a very hypothetical timeline, so I worry that it could easily slip out enough to impact playoffs.

Brady needs to win in court, preferably sooner rather than later.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, judges have never been paid off before.

Do you hope the tooth fairy shows up, too? lmao

The guy who thinks the NFL paid off judges is calling other people naive? Precious.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Great stuff, very useful! Thanks!

So assuming roughly similar decision time of approx six weeks for CA2 to decide whether or not to grant the request for en banc review, that would be early to mid July. If they decline, the Supreme Court filing would ensue promptly, so the decision to grant certiorari would probably come in the Fall. If certiorari is not granted then it seems Brady's suspension would likely occur in mid to late season. That's a very hypothetical timeline, so I worry that it could easily slip out enough to impact playoffs.

Keep in mind that I think most cert petitions that arrive in the summer stack up until the Court's term opens on the first Monday in October at which point the grant/no-grant decisions for for lots of them are released at once. So in your timeline, there's a good chance the earliest Brady would know his SCOTUS fate would be 3 October. So yeah - a denial of certiorari and the accompanying end of any stay could come at a really bad time.

There's also the problem that Brady and the team can't plan for it and there are no warnings. They could easily find out on some random Wednesday in November with no warning that SCOTUS has turned Brady down and he's suspended starting that Sunday. It's not like Brady and the team will be able to say "Ok, if I lose, these are the games I'm going to be missing" and plan accordingly.

On the positive side, if SCOTUS chose to hear the case Brady won't be suspended for the 2016-17 season (because there's no way the case would be heard and decided before the end of the 2016-17 season) and there's even a chance he wouldn't be for the 2017-18 season either (when SCOTUS decides after the 3rd Monday in January to hear your case, your case won't be heard until the SCOTUS term starting that October).

(While I do want Brady to beat the whole thing outright I have to admit it would be utterly hilarious if NE won the next two Superbowls and then Brady retired the day before SCOTUS issued its final decision -- which would then probably be mooted by the fact of his retirement. In a way it would be a perfect FU to the whole thing.)

 

[Rusty Griswold]

The guy who thinks the NFL paid off judges is calling other people naive? Precious.

Umm, maybe you're a troll I am unaware of, but thinking judges, lawyers, cops, etc, don't get paid off in this country, is not only beyond naive, you probably shouldn't be allowed around a computer because it's clear you're under the age of 16.

Considering how willing Goodell was to lie and showcase 56 lies in the Wells Report, thinking he wouldn't grease the wheels of his own appeal, yes, means you're a bit naive thinking Goodell isn't capable of doing such a thing.

Chin's comments remain very disturbing and is one of the dead giveaways the appeal was greased.

Very precious indeed.

 

[Rusty Griswold]

Justice Chin didn't need to read the Wells Report. All he had to do was look at the CBA and read Berman's ruling.


There is almost ZERO chance Jimmy G plays. Brady most likely misses NO games this year- regardless of what happens. 1. Odds are greatly in TBs favor to be granted en banc since 2 of 4(berman,katzman) federal judges sided with him. Stay will be granted. If decision comes before end of 2016 season-Brady appeals to SCOTUS. Ginsberg alone then rules on granting stay, as shes the SCOTUS judge currently assigned 2nd court. Very pro-labor, most experts would expect her to grant stay-so it then becomes wait til 2017 for decision. Same deal if for some reason, appeals judges deny en banc-TB goes to ginsburg, she grants stay, no decision til after 2016-even if SCOTUS decides not to hear case. Thats what ive been reading/hearing. So it seems like the only way Jimmy G. sees field is mop-up duty or the unthinkable-TB gets hurt(shudder). This is a huge relief. Whats funny tho-is it seems likely that it will be OVER 2 YEARS that this farce has been dragging on.

Its the middle of May. Federal courts move at their own pace. This isn't a death penalty case.

Brady is not going to play weeks 1 through 4. Get used to it.

Besides, the main football fan on the Supreme Court is Clarence Thomas who is a Redskins fan. He'd love to see Brady sit out as punishment for the 52 - 7 blowout in 2007 when Brady threw for three TDs and ran for 2.[/QUOTE]

Well, then why did he reference the "overwhelming" evidence of the Wells Report, convicting Brady of lying and cheating?

You'd be correct, except he slipped up and mentioned elements of the Wells Report.