Tom Brady, NFLPA granted extension for rehearing request

[Cornfed]

2 hours ago, Maxman said:

It is bigger than 4 games because this will forever tarnish Brady's legacy.

 

That's a good point.  I am sort of in the camp that his legacy is already a little tarnished.  I'm just cynical.  I assume he cheated due to the tons of anecdotal evidence.  But I am with you that the suspension would drive that point home more strongly and formally.

[faba]

Did not expect Brady and the union just to give in expect more lawyer fees

[Il Mostro]

Tommy is going to his room bawling, kicking and pouting.  He is the football equivalent of a temper tantrum.

[Jet Fan RI]

4 hours ago, Bleedin Green said:

At this point I have to imagine it's simply a matter of Brady desperately trying to get this penalty pushed back over and over again until he decides to retire.

Exactly.

[Jet Fan RI]

3 hours ago, flgreen said:

No need for compromise.  This is a very long shot for Brady.    

The Supreme court has requests for about 7,000 cases a year, hears about 50 of them.  This certainly isn't a vital case for the interpretation of a constitutional matter.

Unless BS political union/management issues get involved in the minds of the "justices"   Turn out the lights

 

Edit:  I know most of what you said was humor

Of course not. But hey, Snell's suggested compromise sounds pretty good. 

[Rangers9]

3 minutes ago, Jet Fan RI said:

Exactly.

At this point I think there's a limit to that, though. Correct me if I'm wrong but he can't keep it in the courts for years (which is what he wants) unless the appeals court accepts the case. Hopefully the train has passed on this and he has to do his time.

[Jet Fan RI]

3 hours ago, BaumerJet said:

 

 

 

Actually he didn't hire Olson, the NFLPA did. You gotta remember that the whole purpose behind this is to overturn the decision which gave total control back to the commissioner as indicated in the new CBA.

 

 

Besides, this is only a 14 day delay to allow Olson time to file the new motion. This in no way shows a change in decision or weather or not the appeal has been issued for the entire circuit court of appeal.

 

Sent from my LG-V410 using Tapatalk

I don't think so. I think the whole purpose is to delay, delay, delay, until Brady gets through another season and postseason w/o serving the suspension. We can only hope both courts reject the cases quickly, so the suspension actually happens. THIS season.

[Jet Fan RI]

2 hours ago, Rangers9 said:

If Brady loses he can always retire rather than face a suspension. Hey Tom, you're such a man of principle. Yeah, right.?

Hey. I think you've got something there. That might be even better than a suspension. More like a lifetime ban, Go for it Tom!

[Jet Fan RI]

1 hour ago, BaumerJet said:

 

 

 

(1) This can not drag out for a decision by the entire US 2nd Court of Appeals and will be resolved by law in August of this year (2016.)

 

 

(2) Even by the remote chance he seeks a US Supreme Court decision, he would have to still take the suspension because the only issue would be to see if the power of the Commissioner is in any way Unconstitutional, based on the writing of the current CBA.

 

Sent from my LG-V410 using Tapatalk

Hmm. Someone else,who is presumably a lawyer, indicated that an injunction could/would be granted.

[AFCEastFan]

9 minutes ago, Jet Fan RI said:

I don't think so. I think the whole purpose is to delay, delay, delay, until Brady gets through another season and postseason w/o serving the suspension. We can only hope both courts reject the cases quickly, so the suspension actually happens. THIS season.

The Second Circuit can rule on the rehearing request quickly enough, certainly before the season starts.  The only realistic chance for the type of delay you are talking about is in the unlikely event that the Second Circuit agrees to rehear the case en banc.  If that happens, delay for delay's sake will be the least of your concerns, as your main concern at that point will be that Brady simply wins the case outright.  

[Jet Fan RI]

16 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

At this point I think there's a limit to that, though. Correct me if I'm wrong but he can't keep it in the courts for years (which is what he wants) unless the appeals court accepts the case. Hopefully the train has passed on this and he has to do his time.

I'm not saying you're wrong. But another (presumed) lawyer described how much delay can happen in both the en banc request and SCOTUS appeal, even if both requests are rejected. The times added up to where the rejection from SCOTUS could come at the end of January. That might be all Brady is looking for, while hoping one of the requests is actually allowed to go forward. That would mean even more delays.

[Jet Fan RI]

6 minutes ago, AFCEastFan said:

The Second Circuit can rule on the rehearing request quickly enough, certainly before the season starts.  The only realistic chance for the type of delay you are talking about is in the unlikely event that the Second Circuit agrees to rehear the case en banc.  If that happens, delay for delay's sake will be the least of your concerns, as your main concern at that point will be that Brady simply wins the case outright.  

See my reply to Rangers9.

[Rangers9]

5 minutes ago, Jet Fan RI said:

See my reply to Rangers9.

So if Brady were to win then can the NFL appeal it? And hopefully Berman won't be the judge,

[Jet Fan RI]

1 minute ago, Rangers9 said:

So if Brady were to win then can the NFL appeal it? And hopefully Berman won't be the judge,

Actually, I was only talking about the delays if Brady loses the requests in both courts. If the time that was described to me was accurate, just getting 2 rejected requests (2nd Circuit and SCOTUS) could still delay things until the end of January. If he actually wins even just a request to appeal, the delays could mount up bigtime.We can only hope both requests are rejected quickly.

[AFCEastFan]

12 minutes ago, Jet Fan RI said:

See my reply to Rangers9.

Not sure what lawyer's comments you are referring to, but the NFLPA would need a stay of the mandate (suspension) pending the cert petition or en banc ruling. They get one automatically (I think) just by virtue of requesting an en banc hearing.  If the Second Circuit denies the request, then that is the end of the stay.  If the Second Circuit grants the request, then the stay will presumably follow as a matter of course (and that is where, as I say, you will have bigger concerns).  

But a stay pending the cert petition is not automatic and I do not believe that the NFLPA would be able to make the required showing (which includes things such as likelihood of success on the merits).  I have done just three circuit appeals in my career, none of which required a stay, so I am far from an appellate lawyer and more (or perhaps even less) experienced appellate lawyers will certainly know better and be able to correct me if I'm wrong.  But with that caveat, I do not know how this can realistically be delayed just for delay's sake.  Unless, as I said, things start trending down a road where Brady might win outright.  

[Jet Fan RI]

1 minute ago, AFCEastFan said:

Not sure what lawyer's comments you are referring to, but the NFLPA would need a stay of the mandate (suspension) pending the cert petition or en banc ruling. They get one automatically (I think) just by virtue of requesting an en banc hearing.  If the Second Circuit denies the request, then that is the end of the stay.  If the Second Circuit grants the request, then the stay will presumably follow as a matter of course (and that is where, as I say, you will have bigger concerns).  

But the stay pending the cert petition is not automatic and I do not believe that the NFLPA would be able to make the required showing (which includes things such as likelihood of success on the merits).  I have done just three circuit appeals in my career, none of which required a stay, so I am far from an appellate lawyer and more (or perhaps even less) experienced appellate lawyers will certainly know better and be able to correct me if I'm wrong.  But with that caveat, I do not know how this can realistically be delayed just for delay's sake.  Unless, as I said, things start trending down a road where Brady might win outright.  

If you are worried, I did not mean you. My estimate of delaying until the end of January is based on the 2-week extension (already granted) to file the en banc request, plus one month that was estimated (by the other presumed lawyer) as the time required to get a denial of the request from the 2nd Circuit. The rest of the delay comes from the SCOTUS appeal. If memory serves, the other (presumed) lawyer said the request to SCOTUS has to be filed within 60 days after the 2nd Circuit denial, but that time can be requested to be doubled, i.e., 4 months after the 2nd Circuit denial. The rest of the delay comes from the time required for SCOTUS to reject the request to hear the case.

[AFCEastFan]

50 minutes ago, Jet Fan RI said:

If you are worried, I did not mean you. My estimate of delaying until the end of January is based on the 2-week extension (already granted) to file the en banc request, plus one month that was estimated (by the other presumed lawyer) as the time required to get a denial of the request from the 2nd Circuit. The rest of the delay comes from the SCOTUS appeal. If memory serves, the other (presumed) lawyer said the request to SCOTUS has to be filed within 60 days after the 2nd Circuit denial, but that time can be requested to be doubled, i.e., 4 months after the 2nd Circuit denial. The rest of the delay comes from the time required for SCOTUS to reject the request to hear the case.

I frankly have no idea what the SCOTUS timetable is, so I will assume that the timeline you have is correct.  What is missing from that, however, is whether Brady's suspension is stayed during that entire process.  The stay does not happen as of right, so unless either the Second Circuit or a SCOTUS justice grants a stay, his suspension is enforceable and must be served after the en banc request is denied (assuming that it is indeed denied), regardless of how long the certiorari process might take.    

Again, the stay is only going to be granted if someone of significance thinks that there is a real chance that he will win at the SCOTUS level.  If so, then there will be a long delay, but it will be a delay that likely means that Brady has the inside track to win the case outright.  

[BurnleyJet]

To me he is and always will be Tarnished, He's trying his utmost to wash away the Taint. No doubt a Great QB, but it's the Cheating I cant stand,

If I'm the NFL if you want to Hurt him. Do Not give him First Ballot HOF Induction, the Butt hurt will be huge.  

[Integrity28]

I just popped in to say Brady is gay, and eff the Pats.

Carry on.

[JetPotato]

1 minute ago, Integrity28 said:

I just popped in to say Brady is gay, and eff the Pats.

Carry on.

Also gay? Totally unnecessary effort put in to use of italics here on a msg board. And you can take that to the bank.

[AFCEastFan]

3 minutes ago, JetPotato said:

Also gay? Totally unnecessary effort put in to use of italics here on a msg board. And you can take that to the bank.

How can I resist such an easy opportunity to link to this Academy Award winning performance?  Answer:  I cannot.  

 

 

[Jet Fan RI]

37 minutes ago, AFCEastFan said:

I frankly have no idea what the SCOTUS timetable is, so I will assume that the timeline you have is correct.  What is missing from that, however, is whether Brady's suspension is stayed during that entire process.  The stay does not happen as of right, so unless either the Second Circuit or a SCOTUS justice grants a stay, his suspension is enforceable and must be served after the en banc request is denied (assuming that it is indeed denied), regardless of how long the certiorari process might take.    

Again, the stay is only going to be granted if someone of significance thinks that there is a real chance that he will win at the SCOTUS level.  If so, then there will be a long delay, but it will be a delay that likely means that Brady has the inside track to win the case outright.  

I had also asked the other (presumed) lawyer about injunctions. If I recall correctly, I think he said they were granted pretty much as a matter of course. I mean, if the Brady legal team files the SCOTUS request a week before the season begins and no injunction against the suspension is granted, there would be nothing for the court to decide. The whole procedure would become a farce. But I hope you're right and there is a high bar to meet in order to get an injunction.

[AFCEastFan]

17 minutes ago, Jet Fan RI said:

I had also asked the other (presumed) lawyer about injunctions. If I recall correctly, I think he said they were granted pretty much as a matter of course. I mean, if the Brady legal team files the SCOTUS request a week before the season begins and no injunction against the suspension is granted, there would be nothing for the court to decide. The whole procedure would become a farce. But I hope you're right and there is a high bar to meet in order to get an injunction.

I don't think that they are granted as a matter of course -- I think you at least need to show a circuit split or something else that suggests you have a reasonable chance of getting the cert petition granted and winning on the merits.   You can't just pursue an appeal of an obvious loser to delay the inevitable and expect that you will get the benefit of a stay.  

I'm not aware of anything that would allow the NFLPA to make the required showing at the moment.  However, if AP wins in the 8th Circuit, then the NFLPA will almost certainly have enough ammunition to make the necessary showing.  If AP loses, however, or if the 8th Circuit doesn't rule before the season starts, then I don't see how Brady avoids serving the suspension right away.      

[Jet Fan RI]

10 minutes ago, AFCEastFan said:

I don't think that they are granted as a matter of course -- I think you at least need to show a circuit split or something else that suggests you have a reasonable chance of getting the cert petition granted and winning on the merits.   You can't just pursue an appeal of an obvious loser to delay the inevitable and expect that you will get the benefit of a stay.  

I'm not aware of anything that would allow the NFLPA to make the required showing at the moment.  However, if AP wins in the 8th Circuit, then the NFLPA will almost certainly have enough ammunition to make the necessary showing.  If AP loses, however, or if the 8th Circuit doesn't rule before the season starts, then I don't see how Brady avoids serving the suspension right away.      

Apparently, the one dissenting vote in the overturning of Berman's ruling was that of the chief justice. Would that serve as the split you mentioned? Also, forgive my ignorance but I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to "AP" and the 8th Circuit. Kindly enlighten me.

[Larz]

delaygate

[AFCEastFan]

23 minutes ago, Jet Fan RI said:

Apparently, the one dissenting vote in the overturning of Berman's ruling was that of the chief justice. Would that serve as the split you mentioned? Also, forgive my ignorance but I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to "AP" and the 8th Circuit. Kindly enlighten me.

No.  The dissent in the 2nd Circuit has no relevance to whether there is a Circuit split.  

The 8th Circuit is currently reviewing whether the arbitrator in the Adrian Peterson (AP) case acted outside the scope of the CBA when upholding Peterson's suspension.  If the 8th Circuit rules in favor of AP and the NFLPA, then you will have one federal court of appeal (the 2d Circuit) that has issued a ruling deferential to the NFL's right to discipline players under the CBA and a second federal court of appeal (the 8th Circuit) that does not think that the NFL is entitled to that same deference.  (Note that the NFL could argue that the Peterson and Brady's cases are apples and oranges and do not constitute a true Circuit split, but I think that a pro-NFLPA ruling from the 8th Circuit will give the NFLPA enough ammunition to overcome that argument).  

The different outcomes in the 2nd and 8th Circuits would be the "Circuit split" that would increase Brady's chances of success in getting his cert petition granted and increase the odds that a stay would be granted while the cert petition is pending.   If that happens, I think it would still be a long-shot that the cert petition would be granted (i.e. SCOTUS agrees to hear the case), but I think it would then be very likely that a stay would be granted.  

[rex-n-effect]

1 hour ago, AFCEastFan said:

I don't think that they are granted as a matter of course -- I think you at least need to show a circuit split or something else that suggests you have a reasonable chance of getting the cert petition granted and winning on the merits.   You can't just pursue an appeal of an obvious loser to delay the inevitable and expect that you will get the benefit of a stay.  

I'm not aware of anything that would allow the NFLPA to make the required showing at the moment.  However, if AP wins in the 8th Circuit, then the NFLPA will almost certainly have enough ammunition to make the necessary showing.  If AP loses, however, or if the 8th Circuit doesn't rule before the season starts, then I don't see how Brady avoids serving the suspension right away.      

I believe I am the other attorney referenced in this thread. 

In my experience execution of judgment is typically stayed by the trial court while the parties deal with SCOTUS. If Brady serves his suspension before cert is hypothetically granted then it would make cert meaningless because he can't get back the missed games. A stay would leave the appellate opinion in effect for all other purposes. But maybe things are different in the Second Circuit.

I do agree with you that an injunction by SCOTUS--one that would enjoin the entirety of the Second Circuit's opinion--would not be granted as a matter of course and would be improbable under these facts. There would be very little reason for SCOTUS to cloud Goodell's authority under the CBA purely to delay affirming this particular judgment particularly when a stay by the trial court is more efficient. 

[TuscanyTile2]

I hope this doesn't go to SCOTUS. What a collosal waste of time that would be.  I do get why people want Brady to serve his suspension (to tarnish his legacy) and I hope he does but I have to admit I'm tired of this story already. And honestly I would prefer that he actually plays all the games because I want to see teams actually beat him rather than see him suspended.  BUT, I do want the tarnish on his legacy so I'd deal w his suspension

[BaumerJet]

Hmm. Someone else,who is presumably a lawyer, indicated that an injunction could/would be granted.

Not a lawyer, I'm a legal Clerk. However, I do read a lot in the general perspective of the law when it comes to constitutional law is exactly what I posted. The US Supreme Court never allows for stays of exclusion. It only rules and justifications based on constitutional law.

Sent from my LG-V410 using Tapatalk

[rex-n-effect]

10 minutes ago, BaumerJet said:

Not a lawyer, I'm a legal Clerk. However, I do read a lot in the general perspective of the law when it comes to constitutional law is exactly what I posted. The US Supreme Court never allows for stays of exclusion. It only rules and justifications based on constitutional law.

Sent from my LG-V410 using Tapatalk

Stays of judgment are ordered by the lower courts and SCOTUS's authority is broader than questions of constitutionality.

[Rangers9]

I don't know if Scotus would take a case because it's a national controversy. I hope not but more pub on this issue than it's worth. 

[rex-n-effect]

2 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

I don't know if Scotus would take a case because it's a national controversy. I hope not but more pub on this issue than it's worth. 

The numerous Harvard law clerks at SCOTUS might desperately plead for SCOTUS to grant cert because it's a crisis for NEP fans but it's hardly a case of national importance. 

[BaumerJet]

Stays of judgment are ordered by the lower courts and SCOTUS's authority is broader than questions of constitutionality.

Not really, any appeal to the US Supreme Court based on Tom Brady's deflategate issue would not be seen. Any appeal would be based on a constitutional issue to the 2nd US Court of Appeal's overturning the lower court's resolve based on the legalization of power as mandated by the current CBA.

It is the only thing that Brady & the NFLPA can request for an appeal. All cases submitted to the US supreme Court are based on CONSTITUTIONAL LEGALITIES. That is what it was created for.

Sent from my LG-V410 using Tapatalk

[rex-n-effect]

23 minutes ago, BaumerJet said:

Not really, any appeal to the US Supreme Court based on Tom Brady's deflategate issue would not be seen. Any appeal would be based on a constitutional issue to the 2nd US Court of Appeal's overturning the lower court's resolve based on the legalization of power as mandated by the current CBA.

It is the only thing that Brady & the NFLPA can request for an appeal. All cases submitted to the US supreme Court are based on CONSTITUTIONAL LEGALITIES. That is what it was created for.

I think you need to wait on your legal analysis until after you pass the bar. 

[Rangers9]

3 minutes ago, rex-n-effect said:

I think you need to wait on your legal analysis until after you pass the bar. 

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand legal procedures which is all he's talking about. And legal clerks actually know a lot.