Tom Brady's suspension re-instated (MERGED)

[Larz]

6 minutes ago, BaumerJet said:

We spoke too soon...

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15428837/nflpa-adds-high-profile-attorney-help-tom-brady-deflategate-appeal

If at all a month too soon. It appears that Bob Kraft might be in cahoots with the NFLPA for getting this former GW Bush attorney.

Sent from my LG-V410 using Tapatalk

the supreme court won't hear it, and the 12 judge panel thingy is a 1% chance.  this is just lawyers sucking cash out of suckers

[BaumerJet]

the supreme court won't hear it, and the 12 judge panel thingy is a 1% chance.  this is just lawyers sucking cash out of suckers

I agree, but what do you expect from an elite NFL quarterback who can't change his own wet diaper. This has to stop, it was supposed to be an example for everyone who rallied behind him he has to do the right thing as a quarterback he's got to stand up and accept his faults.

Only problem is he's got Gizelle and Kraft in the background telling him he should never give up and he's always going to be in the right.

Sent from my LG-V410 using Tapatalk

[Larz]

4 minutes ago, BaumerJet said:

 

 

I agree, but what do you expect from an elite NFL quarterback who can't change his own wet diaper. This has to stop, it was supposed to be an example for everyone who rallied behind him he has to do the right thing as a quarterback he's got to stand up and accept his faults.

 

Only problem is he's got Gizelle and Kraft in the background telling him he should never give up and he's always going to be in the right.

 

Sent from my LG-V410 using Tapatalk

agree, I think this shows how serious he believes the suspension is for his career.  if it was a fine, it never gets appealed.  This actually is an asterisk, a blemish, a permanent scarlet C

this is all his fault, if he had just admitted it, said it didn't affect the game and apologized, it all blows over.  BUT NOOOOOOOOOOO  she had to go and destroy the phone and lie to the whole world

**** her

[Jet Fan RI]

So, to the lawyers on the board: If Brady waits until just before the season then submits an en banc appeal, together with a request for an injunction against the suspension until the case is decided,  would the whole thing be tossed out immediately as an obvious ploy? 

[AFCEastFan]

21 hours ago, Jet Fan RI said:

You're very welcome.

So, is it fair to say you are convinced the Pat balls exhibited more deflation than can have occurred due to natural causes alone?

Yes.

[Charlie Brown]

13 hours ago, Jet Fan RI said:

So, to the lawyers on the board: If Brady waits until just before the season then submits an en banc appeal, together with a request for an injunction against the suspension until the case is decided,  would the whole thing be tossed out immediately as an obvious ploy? 

I think that it should be tossed but you never know. Just because you hire a well known counsel doesn't give more weight to patently false arguments like here.  

Nice strategy from a legal perspective though.  Sometimes delay is a powerful legal approach.  

I just hope that Brady and his ghoulish fans don't get away with it.  

[Jet Fan RI]

22 minutes ago, Charlie Brown said:

I think that it should be tossed but you never know. Just because you hire a well known counsel doesn't give more weight to patently false arguments like here.  

Nice strategy from a legal perspective though.  Sometimes delay is a powerful legal approach.  

I just hope that Brady and his ghoulish fans don't get away with it.  

Actually, there was an article in my local paper today about this topic. It appears Brady and the NFLPA have hired Ted Olson, former solicitor general, to move forward with the appeal. The article mentioned they requested a 2-week extension of the deadline to file the en banc request, which if granted would put the deadline at May 23. So it looks like the scenario I asked about is not possible. Olson was one of the lawyers who argued the Bush v Gore case (I think) in the Supreme Court, so it looks like Deflategate will go on until it is considered by the top court.

Good grief (with apologies to CB). 

[JetPotato]

7 minutes ago, Jet Fan RI said:

Actually, there was an article in my local paper today about this topic. It appears Brady and the NFLPA have hired Ted Olson, former solicitor general, to move forward with the appeal. The article mentioned they requested a 2-week extension of the deadline to file the en banc request, which if granted would put the deadline at May 23. So it looks like the scenario I asked about is not possible. Olson was one of the lawyers who argued the Bush v Gore case (I think) in the Supreme Court, so it looks like Deflategate will go on until it is considered by the top court.

Good grief (with apologies to CB). 

Maybe he'll sit the last 4 instead of the first 4

[Rangers9]

It's doubtful the Supreme Court would take this case. But Olson is highly connected and gives them a better chance to appeal. You should have known that Brady would go all the way with this. Just wondering if he sits out or retires. 

[Jet Fan RI]

1 minute ago, Rangers9 said:

It's doubtful the Supreme Court would take this case. But Olson is highly connected and gives them a better chance to appeal. You should have known that Brady would go all the way with this. Just wondering if he sits out or retires. 

Any idea about the timing? If they request en banc, will we know if it will happen very fast (week or two), or will it take forever to find out? Not asking about the appeal decision, only the timing on whether they will allow it to happen. Same thing with the Supreme Court. Will they sit on it forever or will we know relatively soon whether they will be willing to entertain the case?

[Rangers9]

2 minutes ago, Jet Fan RI said:

Any idea about the timing? If they request en banc, will we know if it will happen very fast (week or two), or will it take forever to find out? Not asking about the appeal decision, only the timing on whether they will allow it to happen. Same thing with the Supreme Court. Will they sit on it forever or will we know relatively soon whether they will be willing to entertain the case?

I think there is a time frame on this and that Brady's lawyers might not be able to stretch this out for years which I assume is what he wants to do. 3 years of being kicked around the courts and then he retires. But hopefully a final decision will be made sometime soon. 

[Integrity28]

Christian Hackenberg is going to be Tom Brady but with EXTRA air in his balls. #effthepats #fitzythepatsfanlivesinNY #demapples #bradyisgay #giselleusesthemensroom

[Greensince69]

On 4/27/2016 at 9:23 AM, AzogtheDefiler said:

You are a terrible person. A person who can't read could have increased the NFL's revenues as the product sells itself. I am happy to trade resumes if you want to continue to personally attack me. DB.

Wow first you viciously attack Goodell then you say I personal attack you. Please show me where.  I said why should someone give a poop what you think which is just a question or a statement, then rebutted your position.   Wow you are sensitive.  You are like my very liberal daughter who takes a stand and when i ask her for statistics to back up her point she reverts to calling me heartless and unfeeling.  If you have a position and believe in it please back it up with real facts and not half truths and innuendos spewed by the ESPN hacks.  

And for the record I am an extremely nice person, often to my own detriment.  I rarely comment on anyone unless their triads are especially onerous or annoying.  The Pats fans who come and troll here defending an very talented albeit egotistical, super rich, spoiled QB who thinks he is above the rules makes my blood pressure go up.  

 

[Maxman]

So this thread can't fall off of page one. C'mon people.

[rex-n-effect]

On 4/30/2016 at 8:17 AM, Jet Fan RI said:

Any idea about the timing? If they request en banc, will we know if it will happen very fast (week or two), or will it take forever to find out? Not asking about the appeal decision, only the timing on whether they will allow it to happen. Same thing with the Supreme Court. Will they sit on it forever or will we know relatively soon whether they will be willing to entertain the case?

The motion for rehearing en banc must be filed within two weeks of entry of judgment by the appellate panel. There is no set time period when the appellate court must rule on the motion for rehearing. I don't practice in the Second so I'm not sure of their local practice. Here in the Fifth Circuit the court typically rules within thirty days. I would imagine the Second Circuit is similar. 

If the court grants the motion it can take different approaches. It could reset the case on the docket for additional oral arguments. That could extend the process considerably depending upon how quickly the court puts rehearings en banc on its schedule. Again, I don't know what local practice is and that so rarely happens, if ever, that there may not even be an established norm in the Second Circuit. By comparison it took about five months after the appeal was filed to get oral arguments in front of just three justices. Setting the entire eligible panel will require a lot more calendaring work. The en banc panel could request additional briefing which would extend time before a judgment is rendered to allow briefing and replies. Again, this is extremely rare. The most common approach is for the justices to consider the existing record without additional briefing or oral arguments. There is no timetable for when the court must rule after granting rehearing but one would expect at least several months. 

A petition for certiorari to SCOTUS must come within ninety days of the Second Circuit either denying the motion for rehearing or entering a new judgment after granting the rehearing. A petitioner can ask SCOTUS for additional time up to sixty days. After the cert. petition is filed SCOTUS typically decides whether to hear the case within two to three months. In the highly unlikely event the case is accepted then it would be set for oral arguments and then SCOTUS will rule at some point after oral arguments. Assuming the rehearing is denied and SCOTUS accepted the case it will be calendared for briefing and then calendared for oral arguments, probably on the next term. As a whole assume this process from petition to opinion by the court to take between twelve to eighteen months. 

[Jet Fan RI]

23 minutes ago, rex-n-effect said:

The motion for rehearing en banc must be filed within two weeks of entry of judgment by the appellate panel. There is no set time period when the appellate court must rule on the motion for rehearing. I don't practice in the Second so I'm not sure of their local practice. Here in the Fifth Circuit the court typically rules within thirty days. I would imagine the Second Circuit is similar. 

If the court grants the motion it can take different approaches. It could reset the case on the docket for additional oral arguments. That could extend the process considerably depending upon how quickly the court puts rehearings en banc on its schedule. Again, I don't know what local practice is and that so rarely happens, if ever, that there may not even be an established norm in the Second Circuit. By comparison it took about five months after the appeal was filed to get oral arguments in front of just three justices. Setting the entire eligible panel will require a lot more calendaring work. The en banc panel could request additional briefing which would extend time before a judgment is rendered to allow briefing and replies. Again, this is extremely rare. The most common approach is for the justices to consider the existing record without additional briefing or oral arguments. There is no timetable for when the court must rule after granting rehearing but one would expect at least several months. 

A petition for certiorari to SCOTUS must come within ninety days of the Second Circuit either denying the motion for rehearing or entering a new judgment after granting the rehearing. A petitioner can ask SCOTUS for additional time up to sixty days. After the cert. petition is filed SCOTUS typically decides whether to hear the case within two to three months. In the highly unlikely event the case is accepted then it would be set for oral arguments and then SCOTUS will rule at some point after oral arguments. Assuming the rehearing is denied and SCOTUS accepted the case it will be calendared for briefing and then calendared for oral arguments, probably on the next term. As a whole assume this process from petition to opinion by the court to take between twelve to eighteen months. 

With regard to the first bolded statement, I read that the Brady legal team has requested an additional 2 weeks for filing the en banc reheairng motion. If that is granted and it takes another month to get a decision, Brady gets 2 months' delay from that. Adding up the SCOTUS timings you describe, it might take an additional 7 months just to find out SCOTUS won't hear the case. So it looks like Brady can get 9 months of delay even if both the appeals court and SCOTUS refuse to accept the case. That would put it at the end of January, possibly allowing Brady to play yet another season, and possibly the postseason, without serving the suspension even if he is unable to appeal successfully to either court to have his case heard.

So the question is, can he request an injunction against serving the suspension from either court while the decision to allow a rehearing is under consideration?

BTW, thanks for the detailed reply.

[drdetroit]

On ‎4‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 11:51 AM, JetPotato said:

Saw one guy claim that this is a good opportunity to showcase Jimmy Garapollo and then trade him for multiple first round picks. 

I laughed for days.

Yeah wait til that abortion gets on the field.  There's a reason the Pats were desperate to get the suspension overturned last year.

[Rangers9]

I think that Belli believes that it's his system and not the players that make that team great. And I agree with him. Not that they haven't had guys who excel and make great plays. It's part of the equation. You follow orders and the game plan but are expected to play well or better than that. For the most part they have done great without superstars the exception being Brady and a few others esp on defense. So I think BB drafted this NC State Qb (who was well thought of) to eventually make Jimmy expendable because he will eventually be a free agent anyways and has no future sitting on the bench and almost never playing. So if Jimmy does well in playing time the idea is to trade him and break in the other guy. Until Brady finally goes away. Hopefully sooner than later. 

[rex-n-effect]

45 minutes ago, Jet Fan RI said:

With regard to the first bolded statement, I read that the Brady legal team has requested an additional 2 weeks for filing the en banc reheairng motion. If that is granted and it takes another month to get a decision, Brady gets 2 months' delay from that. Adding up the SCOTUS timings you describe, it might take an additional 7 months just to find out SCOTUS won't hear the case. So it looks like Brady can get 9 months of delay even if both the appeals court and SCOTUS refuse to accept the case. That would put it at the end of January, possibly allowing Brady to play yet another season, and possibly the postseason, without serving the suspension even if he is unable to appeal successfully to either court to have his case heard.

So the question is, can he request an injunction against serving the suspension from either court while the decision to allow a rehearing is under consideration?

BTW, thanks for the detailed reply.

Yes stays are normally granted while appeals and rehearings are requested. Brady would likely play until all of his avenues to overturn the suspension play out. 

The scenario you describe is possible but not certain and that creates a risk for Brady. Everything could play out much quicker from the Second Circuit and/or SCOTUS and Brady could see his suspension go into effect in the middle or the end of the season. Worse, it could go into effect through the playoffs. I'm not sure if the suspension must occur during the regular season. That decision is probably up to Goodell alone. Not only could that be disastrous for the team but due to the way Brady restructured his contract to reduce the salary for the first four games of this season he could end up much worse financially by rolling the dice here. 

[Kleckineau]

On 4/30/2016 at 9:00 AM, Jet Fan RI said:

Actually, there was an article in my local paper today about this topic. It appears Brady and the NFLPA have hired Ted Olson, former solicitor general, to move forward with the appeal. The article mentioned they requested a 2-week extension of the deadline to file the en banc request, which if granted would put the deadline at May 23. So it looks like the scenario I asked about is not possible. Olson was one of the lawyers who argued the Bush v Gore case (I think) in the Supreme Court, so it looks like Deflategate will go on until it is considered by the top court.

Good grief (with apologies to CB). 

Well Olson did prevail against Boies in Gore v Bush.Given that, TB and co. must feel their chances are good.

[Jet Fan RI]

5 minutes ago, Kleckineau said:

Well Olson did prevail against Boies in Gore v Bush.Given that, TB and co. must feel their chances are good.

I read somewhere that the prospects of a successful en banc request in the 2nd circuit are about 1%, and the chances SCOTUS will hear the case are worse than that. If that's accurate, TB doesn't have much to feel good about. Unless, that is, this is just a ploy to try to delay the suspension until after the season and the playoffs, so the snake can slither through another year w/o serving the suspension.

[AFCEastFan]

37 minutes ago, Jet Fan RI said:

I read somewhere that the prospects of a successful en banc request in the 2nd circuit are about 1%, and the chances SCOTUS will hear the case are worse than that. If that's accurate, TB doesn't have much to feel good about. Unless, that is, this is just a ploy to try to delay the suspension until after the season and the playoffs, so the snake can slither through another year w/o serving the suspension.

I think that making a public show about bringing Olson into the mix is mostly about increasing, at the margin, the microscopic odds of getting en banc review in the Second Circuit.  I am sure that the NFLPA is hoping that the combination of a high-profile matter, the dissent of the chief judge, and, now, the opportunity to see a former solicitor general go head-to-head against his predecessor, will be enough to convince a majority of judges to rehear the case en banc even though it does not really meet the technical requirements for such a rehearing. 

[Jet Fan RI]

1 hour ago, AFCEastFan said:

I think that making a public show about bringing Olson into the mix is mostly about increasing, at the margin, the microscopic odds of getting en banc review in the Second Circuit.  I am sure that the NFLPA is hoping that the combination of a high-profile matter, the dissent of the chief judge, and, now, the opportunity to see a former solicitor general go head-to-head against his predecessor, will be enough to convince a majority of judges to rehear the case en banc even though it does not really meet the technical requirements for such a rehearing. 

I can only hope this is seen by the judges as the thin ploy that it is, and it is rejected quickly. Let justice be served, for heaven's sake.

[AzogtheDefiler]

On 4/30/2016 at 1:33 PM, Greensince69 said:

Wow first you viciously attack Goodell then you say I personal attack you. Please show me where.  I said why should someone give a poop what you think which is just a question or a statement, then rebutted your position.   Wow you are sensitive.  You are like my very liberal daughter who takes a stand and when i ask her for statistics to back up her point she reverts to calling me heartless and unfeeling.  If you have a position and believe in it please back it up with real facts and not half truths and innuendos spewed by the ESPN hacks.  

And for the record I am an extremely nice person, often to my own detriment.  I rarely comment on anyone unless their triads are especially onerous or annoying.  The Pats fans who come and troll here defending an very talented albeit egotistical, super rich, spoiled QB who thinks he is above the rules makes my blood pressure go up.  

 

Ad Hominem

 

 

[BaumerJet]

So, to the lawyers on the board: If Brady waits until just before the season then submits an en banc appeal, together with a request for an injunction against the suspension until the case is decided,  would the whole thing be tossed out immediately as an obvious ploy? 

No, Brady & the NFLPA have until May 23 to file the appeal to the US 2nd Court of Appeal. Even if they get the right for an EN BANC appeal, the judges would meet 4-6 weeks from the creation of an Order for EN BANC with a decision by early August.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/patriots/2016/04/26/brady-next-legal-options-are-seen-long-shots/5xOkioYTZNbiCVAVpylyCM/story.html

The latest decision however, can never be thrown out, it can only be repealed based on review. Which makes it even more difficult to even be reviewed to begin with.

Sent from my LG-V410 using Tapatalk

[Jet Fan RI]

2 hours ago, BaumerJet said:

 

No, Brady & the NFLPA have until May 23 to file the appeal to the US 2nd Court of Appeal. Even if they get the right for an EN BANC appeal, the judges would meet 4-6 weeks from the creation of an Order for EN BANC with a decision by early August.

 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/patriots/2016/04/26/brady-next-legal-options-are-seen-long-shots/5xOkioYTZNbiCVAVpylyCM/story.html

 

The latest decision however, can never be thrown out, it can only be repealed based on review. Which makes it even more difficult to even be reviewed to begin with.

Sent from my LG-V410 using Tapatalk

Thanks. I'm just wondering if Brady and company can drag this out to the point where he can go through another season and postseason without having to serve the suspension even if he loses both at the 2nd Circuit and SCOTUS.

[BaumerJet]

Thanks. I'm just wondering if Brady and company can drag this out to the point where he can go through another season and postseason without having to serve the suspension even if he loses both at the 2nd Circuit and SCOTUS.

Nope - He's potentially boned!

Sent from my LG-V410 using Tapatalk