Could Brady's suspension be restored? Rough day in court for his attorney

[Gramz]

http://nypost.com/2016/03/03/tom-bradys-suspension-likely-to-be-restored-after-rough-court-day/

 

The odds that the “Deflategate” four-game suspension of New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady is restored rose considerably after federal appeals court arguments Thursday.

 

[TheRustonRifle#7]

Cue Patriots fans irrational defense of him in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1......just kidding.

 

I am not sure what to think but supposedly there was some talk on ESPN about the suspension becoming a reality in 2016? I didn't catch all of it so I do not know exactly why they were saying it but it had to do with the destroying of the cell phone at the very least?

[Gramz]

5 minutes ago, TheRustonRifle#7 said:

Cue Patriots fans irrational defense of him in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1......just kidding.

 

I am not sure what to think but supposedly there was some talk on ESPN about the suspension becoming a reality in 2016? I didn't catch all of it so I do not know exactly why they were saying it but it had to do with the destroying of the cell phone at the very least?

I heard something similar...   something about interferring with the investigation.

[Susie Q]

Well lets hope this gets put to rest once and for all. Thanks for the link Gramz. 

[dynasty13]

We won't have any decision for a few months, so unfortunately this whole thing will sit in limbo until then. 

[bababooey]

This won't be decided until June. Either way, the original judge had harsh words for Brady and then ruled against the NFL so I wouldn't pay attention to anything said today. The most amazing thing is the NFL has spend like 20 million on this.

[Gramz]

13 minutes ago, dynasty13 said:

We won't have any decision for a few months, so unfortunately this whole thing will sit in limbo until then. 

True.  I heard it would be a few months before a ruling was made.

12 minutes ago, bababooey said:

This won't be decided until June. Either way, the original judge had harsh words for Brady and then ruled against the NFL so I wouldn't pay attention to anything said today. The most amazing thing is the NFL has spend like 20 million on this.

That's what I heard, at least a few months.   It's crazy that so much time and resources spent on this.   I wouldn't be so quick to think the same result however.    I also think it's about Goodell and his power as commissioner.   

 

[OffensivelyPC]

9 minutes ago, bababooey said:

This won't be decided until June. Either way, the original judge had harsh words for Brady and then ruled against the NFL so I wouldn't pay attention to anything said today. The most amazing thing is the NFL has spend like 20 million on this.

It's actually probably worth the bill given that the main focal point of this is to reaffirm Goodell's power as commissioner.  If it were to lose this, it would seriously affect the next CBA negotiations.  Even the smallest changes to that agreement could cost well over $20 million, especially when we're talking about leverage in negotiation.  

 

It might be comedic relief to view this situation as $20 million over deflated balls and a max fine of $15,000 (or whatever the number thrown around is), but I can assure you, and I'm sure you already know this, that the NFL, NFLPA, and Brady would not be spending the amount of money on this suit if it was just over a few thousand bucks and a couple PSIs.  What they are fighting about in court isn't really what they are truly fighting about.

[ReMeDy]

4 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

It might be comedic relief to view this situation as $20 million over deflated balls and a max fine of $15,000 (or whatever the number thrown around is), but I can assure you, and I'm sure you already know this, that the NFL, NFLPA, and Brady would not be spending the amount of money on this suit if it was just over a few thousand bucks and a couple PSIs.

 

True, and at this point, I don't even see this case being about the deflated balls. It's more about obstruction of justice. Brady destroying his cellphone was stupid, with Judge Parker saying, "Mr Brady's explanation of that made no sense whatsoever." That to me is the central focus, when a player who is under investigation fails to cooperate. The NFL cannot allow that to be a precedent.

 

Also, I'm still waiting for a good reason why that equipment guy referred to himself in text messages as "the Deflator," unless we count losing weight as a good reason.

[bayone]

44 minutes ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

http://nypost.com/2016/03/03/tom-bradys-suspension-likely-to-be-restored-after-rough-court-day/

 

The odds that the “Deflategate” four-game suspension of New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady is restored rose considerably after federal appeals court arguments Thursday.

 

 

u are " BRAVER " than me,  I just didnt want to bring this up again so didnt post anything when saw earlier today about the appeal etc, . -its like a 4 letter word already

[Gramz]

3 minutes ago, bayone said:

 

u are " BRAVER " than me,  I just didnt want to bring this up again so didnt post anything when saw earlier today about the appeal etc, . -its like a 4 letter word already

  why not..?    It's news and   It's back in the news.    

[Yehoodi]

Having done appeals myself I know that appellate judges will hammer at the weak points of one's case regardless of whom they may rule for in the end.  For the most part nearly all cases will have points that can be attacked even though the point itself is really not enough to kill the winning side's case.

 

The dicey part for the NFL is how the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals is going to overturn the lower court even if one fines a violation of the rule and that the cell phone is deemed to be obstruction of justice, Judge Berman took this into consideration when he issued his ruling.   My guess is that the court was just probing Brady's side just to ask questions, time will tell.   

 

Well looks like we will know in a few months how the court of appeals will rule.       

[21isSuperman]

Great.  This again....

[CF4L]

Eh I don't think he'll get suspended its wishful thinking for a lot of people 

[OffensivelyPC]

28 minutes ago, ReMeDy said:

 

True, and at this point, I don't even see this case being about the deflated balls. It's more about obstruction of justice. Brady destroying his cellphone was stupid, with Judge Parker saying, "Mr Brady's explanation of that made no sense whatsoever." That to me is the central focus, when a player who is under investigation fails to cooperate. The NFL cannot allow that to be a precedent.

 

Also, I'm still waiting for a good reason why that equipment guy referred to himself in text messages as "the Deflator," unless we count losing weight as a good reason.

That "deflator" bit is the equivalent of Bill Clinton's "can you define what you mean when you say..." defense.

[pgt_rob]

Maybe they will talk about evidence this time around? lawl...

[OffensivelyPC]

9 minutes ago, Yehoodi said:

Having done appeals myself I know that appellate judges will hammer at the weak points of one's case regardless of whom they may rule for in the end.  For the most part nearly all cases will have points that can be attacked even though the point itself is really not enough to kill the winning side's case.

 

The dicey part for the NFL is how the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals is going to overturn the lower court even if one fines a violation of the rule and that the cell phone is deemed to be obstruction of justice, Judge Berman took this into consideration when he issued his ruling.   My guess is that the court was just probing Brady's side just to ask questions, time will tell.   

 

Well looks like we will know in a few months how the court of appeals will rule.       

What'd you do in appellate courts?

 

To the bolded, many times, one judges hammering, say the appellant, isn't because that Judge agrees or disagrees with that particular side or argument. A lot of times he, already knows which way he will already Rule. The excessive questions is to convince another judge.

[ReMeDy]

38 minutes ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

  why not..?    It's news and   It's back in the news.    

 

Or he's referring to me posting about the topic on Brady's two-year contract extension, since I took a lot of heat on that. Now that I see this appeal leaning the way it is, I wonder if the Patriots knew this would be bad news for Brady, hence they extended his contract as a slap in the face to Roger Goodell. It's sending a message to Goodell that, you better be willing to put up with me for a while, because I'm NOT going away. Anyone who thinks extending Brady's contract till he's 42 was business as usual needs to wake up.

[jvan1973]

33 minutes ago, ReMeDy said:

 

Or he's referring to me posting about the topic on Brady's two-year contract extension, since I took a lot of heat on that. Now that I see this appeal leaning the way it is, I wonder if the Patriots knew this would be bad news for Brady, hence they extended his contract as a slap in the face to Roger Goodell. It's sending a message to Goodell that, you better be willing to put up with me for a while, because I'm NOT going away. Anyone who thinks extending Brady's contract till he's 42 was business as usual needs to wake up.

It was just business as usual.  It gets them cap space for this season.   It pushes the big numbers into the future when the cap goes way up.  Has nothing to do with anything else

[oldunclemark]

1 hour ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

http://nypost.com/2016/03/03/tom-bradys-suspension-likely-to-be-restored-after-rough-court-day/

 

The odds that the “Deflategate” four-game suspension of New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady is restored rose considerably after federal appeals court arguments Thursday.

 

There is no real argument that Brady didn't fight the investigation..

..and there's no way in my mind that the NFL doesn't have the authority to suspend him

[Yehoodi]

41 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

What'd you do in appellate courts?

 

To the bolded, many times, one judges hammering, say the appellant, isn't because that Judge agrees or disagrees with that particular side or argument. A lot of times he, already knows which way he will already Rule. The excessive questions is to convince another judge.

 

I do criminal appeals in the state court.  Nearly all indigent clients, and nearly all from the appellant side.   

 

Yes the judges for the most part know how they are going to rule, and why the sides only get 15 minutes per side to argue.  It is not too often that the oral argument will sway the judges.   It is only in really close cases.  

 

Yes sometimes one judge will try to sway another judge through questioning, but again, more often than not the law is pretty straight forward and the judges are set in an opinion prior to oral argument.   Surely in the close cases they will want to have answers to the keys points of the case. 

 

For the most part though the court will have to ask questions of the side which they are going to rule against so as to fill up the time and nearly all of the time there are some points in that sides case that might warrant inquiry. 

[Yehoodi]

3 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

There is no real argument that Brady didn't fight the investigation..

..and there's no way in my mind that the NFL doesn't have the authority to suspend him

 

You may be right in the first point . . .  

 

But as to the second point, the action taking by the NFL in instant case is the first time it has taken such action in its nearly 100 year history.   Just saying . . .

 

Time will tell how the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals deals with the second point and how this point interacts with labor laws in this country. 

[jim scheurich]

I hope he gets something out of it. he basically admitted to liking a certain "feel" of football. Plus the phone tampering, possible evidence tampering. Needs to face the music.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, OffensivelyPC said:

It's actually probably worth the bill given that the main focal point of this is to reaffirm Goodell's power as commissioner.  If it were to lose this, it would seriously affect the next CBA negotiations.  Even the smallest changes to that agreement could cost well over $20 million, especially when we're talking about leverage in negotiation.  

 

It might be comedic relief to view this situation as $20 million over deflated balls and a max fine of $15,000 (or whatever the number thrown around is), but I can assure you, and I'm sure you already know this, that the NFL, NFLPA, and Brady would not be spending the amount of money on this suit if it was just over a few thousand bucks and a couple PSIs.  What they are fighting about in court isn't really what they are truly fighting about.

I am pretty sure you hit the nail on the head. The facts of if, when or did Brady have any knowledge has now become secondary. $20 million is chump change in the bigger picture.

[Gramz]

1 hour ago, CF4L said:

Eh I don't think he'll get suspended its wishful thinking for a lot of people 

I think he will.   Here's a little info from today:

 

Judge Chin: "The evidence of the ball tampering here is compelling if not overwhelming."

Judge Parker to Kessler: "Anyone within 100 yards of this would have realized that the cell phone issue raised the stakes in this thing"

Judge Chin: "How do we as appellate judges second-guess a four-game suspension?"

[ReMeDy]

34 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

It was just business as usual.  It gets them cap space for this season.   It pushes the big numbers into the future when the cap goes way up.  Has nothing to do with anything else

 

They don't even know if his body will hold up until he's 42. That seems very premature to sign someone to a contract that they might have to terminate because their QB is unwilling to retire.

[oldunclemark]

22 minutes ago, Yehoodi said:

 

You may be right in the first point . . .  

 

But as to the second point, the action taking by the NFL in instant case is the first time it has taken such action in its nearly 100 year history.   Just saying . . .

 

Time will tell how the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals deals with the second point and how this point interacts with labor laws in this country. 

explain what you mean by 'such action'

The NFL commissioner has displayed significant rights to act :"in the best interest of the game"...

..rights granted to him by the players ......

 

..If this wasn't a star like Brady..the suspension would have been served by now

[CF4L]

15 minutes ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

I think he will.   Here's a little info from today:

 

Judge Chin: "The evidence of the ball tampering here is compelling if not overwhelming."

Judge Parker to Kessler: "Anyone within 100 yards of this would have realized that the cell phone issue raised the stakes in this thing"

Judge Chin: "How do we as appellate judges second-guess a four-game suspension?"

 

 

Didn't they say this a year ago and he even got a suspension then it was overturned. 

 

What changed now? 

 

That being said I really don't care that he deflated a football and I think over a year later most people have moved on.

[Gramz]

A little more from today:

 

“Let’s suppose a mistake was made and the footballs weren’t deflated, and then a star player lies in his testimony and destroyed his phone,” Parker said. “An adjudicator might conclude the phone had incriminating evidence. Why couldn’t the commissioner suspend Brady for that conduct alone?”

Even Katzmann took issue with Kessler’s contention that the only appropriate punishment would have been a fine.

“Your challenge is to find where in the CBA does it say if you tamper with game balls and then obstruct, where does it say the only punishment is a fine?” Katzmann said.

At one point, Kessler seemed to grow frustrated with the judges’ intense line of questioning.

“I sense that you all are influenced by your version of the facts,” Kessler told the judges.

“We were influenced by the briefs that you wrote,” Parker answered.

 

Edited March 4, 2016 by Superman
formatting

[Gramz]

5 minutes ago, CF4L said:

 

 

Didn't they say this a year ago and he even got a suspension then it was overturned. 

 

What changed now? 

 

That being said I really don't care that he deflated a football and I think over a year later most people have moved on.

I believe that is what this appellate  hearing is about.  That the Judge didn't have the power to overturn the suspension.     And it looks to also now be about obstruction of justice for destroying evidence.

[crazycolt1]

5 minutes ago, CF4L said:

 

 

Didn't they say this a year ago and he even got a suspension then it was overturned. 

 

What changed now? 

 

That being said I really don't care that he deflated a football and I think over a year later most people have moved on.

The issue is past if, when or did Brady have knowledge of the footballs. It is now about Goodells authority and his ability to enforce the collective bargaining agreement.

[Yehoodi]

1 hour ago, oldunclemark said:

explain what you mean by 'such action'

The NFL commissioner has displayed significant rights to act :"in the best interest of the game"...

..rights granted to him by the players ......

 

..If this wasn't a star like Brady..the suspension would have been served by now

 

"Such action" is the suspension. 

 

Bottom line, not having EVER suspended someone for tampering with equipment or obstructing an investigation in nearly 100 yrs, makes the decision now, first time in history, out of the blue, tough to defend.   Indeed, the decision is all the more tough to defend when the Jets kicker was not suspended, no one was suspended in the SD incident and Minn/Car incident.

 

If Goodell fined Brady $250,000 for his actions, this would of ended May 6, 2015 and Brady would of paid his fine.

 

And by the way the players did not grant the authority to Goodell to violate labor laws.  His power is not absolute as you may think.

 

This case is a lot bigger than Brady.  This case is about whether or not the commissioner is allowed to come out of the blue to impose a sanction that was not on the radar of the player.   It was stopped with the Ray Rice case, Bounty Gate case, etc.,  and should be stopped now for the same reasons. 

 

Moving forward all the commissioner has to do when imposing a sanction is to look what is on the books and impose a sanction within this guideline and there will be no problems moving forward.   Brett Farve was fined 50K for not turning over his cell phone during an investigation, I think rational minds can understand what appropriate sanction for a future act of not turning over a cell phone would fall within this 50K range.

 

Again, it will be interesting to see how the appeals court rules in June.  Until then we will just have to sit back and wait.  We have all been over our arguments over and over again.       

[OffensivelyPC]

1 hour ago, Yehoodi said:

 

I do criminal appeals in the state court.  Nearly all indigent clients, and nearly all from the appellant side.   

 

Yes the judges for the most part know how they are going to rule, and why the sides only get 15 minutes per side to argue.  It is not too often that the oral argument will sway the judges.   It is only in really close cases.  

 

Yes sometimes one judge will try to sway another judge through questioning, but again, more often than not the law is pretty straight forward and the judges are set in an opinion prior to oral argument.   Surely in the close cases they will want to have answers to the keys points of the case. 

 

For the most part though the court will have to ask questions of the side which they are going to rule against so as to fill up the time and nearly all of the time there are some points in that sides case that might warrant inquiry. 

I've always been fascinated with oral arguments at the appellate level. I did moot court in college, and while it is not always as rigid as it is in moot court, it's highly formal at the federal level. At least that's my understanding. It really would be a fun job.

[Yehoodi]

1 minute ago, OffensivelyPC said:

I've always been fascinated with oral arguments at the appellate level. I did moot court in college, and while it is not always as rigid as it is in moot court, it's highly formal at the federal level. At least that's my understanding. It really would be a fun job.

 

Its not too bad, the fun ones are the ones when you get a good case with a good issue, which with indigent clients, is only about 15%-20%.    We are hired by the state and nearly all indigents will appeal a case even though 80% do not really have an issue, so those cases are like going through the motions.

 

Yah moot court is less formal, but you are basically doing the same thing, standing at a podium making points to three judges.  It can be fun at times.

[Yehoodi]

6 hours ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

A little more from today:

 

“Let’s suppose a mistake was made and the footballs weren’t deflated, and then a star player lies in his testimony and destroyed his phone,” Parker said. “An adjudicator might conclude the phone had incriminating evidence. Why couldn’t the commissioner suspend Brady for that conduct alone?”

Even Katzmann took issue with Kessler’s contention that the only appropriate punishment would have been a fine.

“Your challenge is to find where in the CBA does it say if you tamper with game balls and then obstruct, where does it say the only punishment is a fine?” Katzmann said.

At one point, Kessler seemed to grow frustrated with the judges’ intense line of questioning.

“I sense that you all are influenced by your version of the facts,” Kessler told the judges.

“We were influenced by the briefs that you wrote,” Parker answered.

 

 

Some of your text went off the page. :-).

 

This will be interesting on how the Appeals Court deals with this issue and I am interested to see how they rule if they rule to overturn Berman's vacation of the Award. 

 

No the CBA does expressly limit the sanction to a fine only (I believe actually it is silent on the matter), but the long history of the actions by the NFL has not imposed anything more than a fine with respect to an obstruction of an investigation and it will be interesting to see how the court will rule on this issue given these points.  

 

Time will tell.  :-).

Edited March 4, 2016 by Superman
formatting

[Yehoodi]

1 hour ago, CF4L said:

 

 

Didn't they say this a year ago and he even got a suspension then it was overturned. 

 

What changed now? 

 

That being said I really don't care that he deflated a football and I think over a year later most people have moved on.

 

Yes, most folks have move on.

 

But I do think, given the Bounty Gate reversal, Ray Rice reversal, and now this case, that it is important that the courts keep the commissioner in check as to what he can and can not do.  And that issue is bigger than just one player or just one case.

 

[Gramz]

7 minutes ago, Yehoodi said:

 

Some of your text went off the page. :-).

 

This will be interesting on how the Appeals Court deals with this issue and I am interested to see how they rule if they rule to overturn Berman's vacation of the Award. 

 

No the CBA does expressly limit the sanction to a fine only (I believe actually it is silent on the matter), but the long history of the actions by the NFL has not imposed anything more than a fine with respect to an obstruction of an investigation and it will be interesting to see how the court will rule on this issue given these points.  

 

Time will tell.  :-).

Yeah, I'm not sure what happened to the format when I copied and pasted...

 

 

[ColtsBlueFL]

4 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

It's actually probably worth the bill given that the main focal point of this is to reaffirm Goodell's power as commissioner.  If it were to lose this, it would seriously affect the next CBA negotiations.  Even the smallest changes to that agreement could cost well over $20 million, especially when we're talking about leverage in negotiation.  

 

It might be comedic relief to view this situation as $20 million over deflated balls and a max fine of $15,000 (or whatever the number thrown around is), but I can assure you, and I'm sure you already know this, that the NFL, NFLPA, and Brady would not be spending the amount of money on this suit if it was just over a few thousand bucks and a couple PSIs.  What they are fighting about in court isn't really what they are truly fighting about.

 

Exactly. I feel this is everything about the NFL seeking a reversal in order to be able to enforce it's rules in a reasonable manner and administer punishments for infractions as it sees them and lists.  It really has less to do with broken cellphones, ideal gas law, or needles in footballs. A potential 4 game suspension reinstatement is just the fallout of the action the NFL is taking to restore the power they felt he had already been granted in the CBA back to the commissioner.

[OffensivelyPC]

1 hour ago, Yehoodi said:

 

Its not too bad, the fun ones are the ones when you get a good case with a good issue, which with indigent clients, is only about 15%-20%.    We are hired by the state and nearly all indigents will appeal a case even though 80% do not really have an issue, so those cases are like going through the motions.

 

Yah moot court is less formal, but you are basically doing the same thing, standing at a podium making points to three judges.  It can be fun at times.

One of my favorite moments from an internship regarding an inmate appealing  (just to appeal with no issue, as you say it), was a guy who basically repeated the facts of his case. He was guilty, and factually, there was no hope on appeal. But in his motion, he argued that he was a changed man and he signed the back of the page with a huge smiley face and under it wrote, "Jesus loves you."  Naturally, it became known as the "Jesus loves you motion." 

[crazycolt1]

45 minutes ago, Yehoodi said:

 

Yes, most folks have move on.

 

But I do think, given the Bounty Gate reversal, Ray Rice reversal, and now this case, that it is important that the courts keep the commissioner in check as to what he can and can not do.  And that issue is bigger than just one player or just one case.

 

The courts keep the commissioner in check? It is the commissioners job to keep the NFL in check. The commissioners power was voted and agreed upon by the players. Now when they don't have something go their way they want the courts to step in. No matter if you agree or disagree with the commissioner undermining his authority that was determined by the players themselves should not be brought to a court room. The NFL is a business and the government has no business making the decisions as long as no labor laws were broken. If this case were about a non high profile player such as Brady this case would have never went to a higher level. As far as all the arguments I agree most are over and feel it's time to move on but the thing that still lingers is when ask about cheating and the response is I don't think so will never go away for those who think there is more to the story.