2nd Circut denies Brady's request for rehearing

[ReMeDy]

The theory is, to Brady, it's not about winning the appeal/suspension/ruling. It's about dragging out the process, and if he can do that, the NFL has to let him play while the ruling is heard. If he can do this for about two more years, he probably feels he can retire, and at that point he could care less.

 

Just like everything the Pats do, Brady has found a loophole, and he's going to exploit it.

[crazycolt1]

6 hours ago, jskinnz said:

 

The details of what happened in the AFCC game are really not important.  There are several issues that have potential application in other areas that could make it a Supreme Court-worthy case.  

Like what? The players themselves ratified their contract giving Goodell absolute power in exchange for working less in training camp and more cut of the pie.

[southwest1]

10 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I kind of go back and forth on this.  On one hand, as a Colts fan and Patriot hater I think Brady should take his lumps, everyone in the world knows what he did and he knows what he did and when you are caught cheating you should pay a penalty for that.

 

But the bigger issue here is can an employer punish an employee without due process of the law.  And a ruling in the Goodell's favor opens the door to a slippery slope of companies being able to penalize or fire employees without gaining the proper or real evidence.

 

Let's say a small group of people steal $100,000 from Microsoft.  Microsoft conducts and internal investigation and common sense and some circumstantial evidence suggest that the group stole the money and the ring leader was Joe Blow.  Now everyone knows Jthis group stole the money, Joe Blow knows he was the ring leader of the group that stole the money but there is no real proof that Joe Blow was involved.  Can the company punish Joe Blow without that proof?

 

So that is why it could possible go to the supreme court... not to see if Brady likes to deflate his balls (we all know he does) but because Goodell may have over stepped his authority acting as investigator, judge, and jury and then enforcing his own punishment.

Your Microsoft example is a flawed one CD because your hypothetical scenario would most likely involve theft of intellectual property not air pressure or CBA negotiations that both the owners & players agreed to long before the 2015 AFC Championship Game was even played.

7 hours ago, Nadine said:

I'm curious what all this has cost and if he is footing the bill or if the Players Association is bankrolling this

Ever since Brady hired Ted Olson, the former US Solicitor General, for his upcoming Supreme Court battle; Tom would be footing his own legal defense. But, you are right though Nadine. Up until that point, the Players Association would be wasting a ton of money on just 1 elite QB trying to re-litigate disciplinary rights that players willingly gave to the NFL Commissioner. 

7 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I would imagine the players union is the one paying for it.  That is why players pay union dues.

Once Brady hired Ted Olson either Tom or Gisselle started digging into their own finances from that point forward. No CD. Union dues apply to all the players not just 1 guy playing for Foxboro. To me, it's a waste of resources for DeMaurice Smith as the President of the Players Association to squander so much money & time on Tom Brady's defense against deflate gate. JMO. 

[RockThatBlue]

7 hours ago, Nadine said:

not sure what the difference is.  It's about a disagreement over what's in the CBA.

IMO it's more about Goodell's rights than Brady's. NFL feel he has the right and NFLPA feels he does not

 

100% correct.

[Coffeedrinker]

9 hours ago, southwest1 said:

Your Microsoft example is a flawed one CD because your hypothetical scenario would most likely involve theft of intellectual property not air pressure or CBA negotiations that both the owners & players agreed to long before the 2015 AFC Championship Game was even played.

Ever since Brady hired Ted Olson, the former US Solicitor General, for his upcoming Supreme Court battle; Tom would be footing his own legal defense. But, you are right though Nadine. Up until that point, the Players Association would be wasting a ton of money on just 1 elite QB trying to re-litigate disciplinary rights that players willingly gave to the NFL Commissioner. 

Once Brady hired Ted Olson either Tom or Gisselle started digging into their own finances from that point forward. No CD. Union dues apply to all the players not just 1 guy playing for Foxboro. To me, it's a waste of resources for DeMaurice Smith as the President of the Players Association to squander so much money & time on Tom Brady's defense against deflate gate. JMO. 

So my microsoft example is flawed because you didn't like what was stolen in the example? 

 

It is also false to say that all players agreed to the CBA.  The CBA was agreed on by the union, the union represents the players but that does not mean all players agreed.

 

Just because Brady hired Olsen does not mean Brady is paying the entire bill himself.  Olsen is working with the NFLPA lawyers, Brady pays for Olsen, the NFLPA pays for the NFLPA lawyers.

 

The issue of the whole thing is not one elite QB trying to re-litigate disciplinary rights they willing gave the commissioner.  It's that the NFLPA thinks he went beyond what the CBA allowed.  it's one thing to suspend a player if he gets arrested for marijuana possession.  It's another to suspend a player based on a report of a guy you hired.

 

Yes, union dues apply to all players, that means they are spent on all players, here is their statement on the issue.  Sure sounds like they are involved.

 

Of course you think it's a waste of money... you think it's about deflated footballs.

[Gramz]

19 hours ago, shakedownstreet said:

the more appeals brady loses, the more appeal brady loses

   love this.

[Coffeedrinker]

16 hours ago, Nadine said:

not sure what the difference is.  It's about a disagreement over what's in the CBA.

IMO it's more about Goodell's rights than Brady's. NFL feel he has the right and NFLPA feels he does not

 

If you're not sure what the difference is then there really is not much point in continuing this conversation with you.

 

It's not about what's in the CBA, it's about how the CBA is being interpreted by both parties.  The fist judge agreed with the NFLPA and the 2nd district judge agreed with the NFL.

 

The difference is (and why it's about Brady's rights and not Goodell's rights) is because of due process of the law.  Article 46 of the CBA gives Goodell the power of fines and suspensions for conduct on the playing field.  Brady and the NFLPA are arguing that Goodell did this to Brady without any proof that Brady was involved.  it's not about Goodell's right to enforce the CBA, it's about a players right to not be punished based on a witch hunt.

 

To me, the Wells report was pretty conclusive and the NFLPA is grasping at straws trying to obtain some more power.  But that does not mean it's not a cause worth fighting.

[crazycolt1]

If this goes on will we ever see or hear the two Patriot employees that can clear all this up? I would love to hear what the 'deflator' has to say under oath.

[Gramz]

Seriously....  How much "Due Process"  does one get...??

 

IF the 2nd  Circuit Appeals Court didn't think this was worth pursuing any further, Why would the Supreme Court?

 

 

[Coffeedrinker]

6 minutes ago, Gramz said:

Seriously....  How much "Due Process"  does one get...??

 

IF the 2nd  Circuit Appeals Court didn't think this was worth pursuing any further, Why would the Supreme Court?

 

 

That is why many legal experts believe the Supreme court won't hear the case, if the NFLPA wants to pursue it that far..

[2006Coltsbestever]

8 minutes ago, Gramz said:

Seriously....  How much "Due Process"  does one get...??

 

IF the 2nd  Circuit Appeals Court didn't think this was worth pursuing any further, Why would the Supreme Court?

 

 

It's Tommy, he is above the NFL (sarcasm)

[Gramz]

18 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

That is why many legal experts believe the Supreme court won't hear the case, if the NFLPA wants to pursue it that far..

And I'm sure Tom knows they won't hear it...  so if he chooses to pursue it, it's once again a stalling tactic, to intentionally delay any suspension, hoping he can ride this out until he retires?   Got it.

[shakedownstreet]

2 hours ago, Gramz said:

And I'm sure Tom knows they won't hear it...  so if he chooses to pursue it, it's once again a stalling tactic, to intentionally delay any suspension, hoping he can ride this out until he retires?   Got it.

 

well it also allows him to continue claiming innocence regardless of the outcome. he can always say he isn't guilty and did everything in his power to prove it

[DougDew]

13 hours ago, southwest1 said:

 But, you are right though Nadine. Up until that point, the Players Association would be wasting a ton of money on just 1 elite QB trying to re-litigate disciplinary rights that players willingly gave to the NFL Commissioner. 

But if they do take Brady's side, then that is telling.

 

As another has said, the NFLPA signed an agreement giving the Commish power over such matters in exchange for not working as hard in practice and receiving more money.  If they help Brady, they are essentially trying to legally undo the part where they are giving the Commish power, but yet still keeping the benefits of working less and getting paid more.

 

Put that dynamic into the framework of a mindset that is shared by many, do whatever you have to do to advance your situation, and you can understand how Brady has a lot of support.

[Gramz]

3 hours ago, shakedownstreet said:

 

well it also allows him to continue claiming innocence regardless of the outcome. he can always say he isn't guilty and did everything in his power to prove it

Yeah, sure...... that too.

 

 

[ColtsBlueFL]

16 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

If you're not sure what the difference is then there really is not much point in continuing this conversation with you.

 

It's not about what's in the CBA, it's about how the CBA is being interpreted by both parties.  The fist judge agreed with the NFLPA and the 2nd district judge agreed with the NFL.

 

The difference is (and why it's about Brady's rights and not Goodell's rights) is because of due process of the law.  Article 46 of the CBA gives Goodell the power of fines and suspensions for conduct on the playing field.  Brady and the NFLPA are arguing that Goodell did this to Brady without any proof that Brady was involved.  it's not about Goodell's right to enforce the CBA, it's about a players right to not be punished based on a witch hunt.

 

To me, the Wells report was pretty conclusive and the NFLPA is grasping at straws trying to obtain some more power.  But that does not mean it's not a cause worth fighting.

 

Article 46 gives Goodell the authority to not only level out punishment, the CBA grants him the authority to hear the appeal.There's no question if no new details are presented at the appeal, he will stand by his initial ruling.

 

Roger will never relinquish the first part of this, but the Union should negotiate to get either an independent arbitrator or a mutually agreed upon tribunal to hear appeals in the future.

 

I have now read (way too many for a judicial neophyte) cases and rulings and listened to many law professors and it is quite apparent from all that reading of cases and appeals and listening, that right now, the only way they (NFLPA/Player) can truly win a due process case is if they can show the Arbitrator demonstrated /Evident Partiality, Obvious Bias, or Cognizant Fraud in handling the case and punishment. In absence of strongly making a case for the above, the arbitrators award must be confirmed; even if the judges feel the arbitrator made what may have been an  incorrect ruling.  If that ruling was reached without partiality, bias, or fraud, it will still be confirmed.  And That power based upon precedent in the justice system is what Goodell is indeed fighting to retain.  The NFL will have to negotiate a better due process (appeal) protocol in the next agreement.  Until then, or unless the SCOTUS makes an improbable reversal, Roger has the power back.  I think the 8th district is hand tied now, and must confirm the NFL ruling against Adrian Peterson now too.

 

But it would bee interesting to see what the 4 vs 4 SCOTUS would eventually rule...

 

 

[shakedownstreet]

[weslo1812]

23 hours ago, King Colt said:

Sad thing about the coming season is we will hear Brady's name on every single TV and radio broadcast and long, boring nonsense sessions on him and the impact of his absence on the Pats on all pre game and all post game shows until we are sick. Trust me on that.

Have you seen on NFL.com how they are already all over Garoppolo??? He's being talked about more than anyone else.

[southwest1]

8 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

So my microsoft example is flawed because you didn't like what was stolen in the example? 

 

It is also false to say that all players agreed to the CBA.  The CBA was agreed on by the union, the union represents the players but that does not mean all players agreed.

 

Just because Brady hired Olsen does not mean Brady is paying the entire bill himself.  Olsen is working with the NFLPA lawyers, Brady pays for Olsen, the NFLPA pays for the NFLPA lawyers.

 

The issue of the whole thing is not one elite QB trying to re-litigate disciplinary rights they willing gave the commissioner.  It's that the NFLPA thinks he went beyond what the CBA allowed.  it's one thing to suspend a player if he gets arrested for marijuana possession.  It's another to suspend a player based on a report of a guy you hired.

 

Yes, union dues apply to all players, that means they are spent on all players, here is their statement on the issue.  Sure sounds like they are involved.

 

Of course you think it's a waste of money... you think it's about deflated footballs.

Okay, let's knock em down 1 by 1 shall we...

 

Do you really think Bill Gates is really gonna leave substantial cold hard cash lying around in a business that predominantly handles software innovations & downloadable phone & computer applications? No. Also, any large quantities of cash would be handled through a certified cashiers check or a wire transfer to a verified account number first. Therefore, there is no need to have $100,000 dollars on the premises at all. 

 

Of course, not every player was happy with everything laid out in the CBA. Hello. But, eventually the owners & players association find middle ground because no player gets paid anything until the players association reps & league signs the CBA. It's easy to be demanding until you realize it's better to have a steady check coming in then no money at all in an NFL athlete's bank account. 

 

In the last stretch of this case, Brady or Gisselle is paying for the bulk of Tom's legal counsel Ted Olsen CD. PA lawyers are not mounting assistance to Brady's legal team should the case be heard at the Supreme Court. Is the PA paying for tests or studies being conducted that only magistrates in black robes in the highest courts in the land might read? No. Is the PA going make the opening remarks on Brady's behalf? No, Ted Olsen is. 

 

The NFL PA is using Brady as a human shield to regain what they surrendered in CBA negotiations. They don't get a second bite at the apple simple because the face of the NFL Brady thinks that the Commissioner is the dishonest serpent in the Garden of Eden CD. I'm not claiming that the Wells Report is ironclad or bullet proof but again 2 question remain: What was that equipment manager doing with the game balls alone in the bathroom with no urinal in there & why did Brady ask an equipment manager up to his QB room once & only once to ask this man how he's holding up? Neither one of those instances sound legitimate or above board to me. The game balls were altered in some fashion not in compliance with the NFL rules. 

 

Just because a person was hired by the league to determine what happened during the 2015 AFC Championship to explain how footballs did not meet NFL standards doesn't mean that Roger Goodell told Mr. Wells what conclusions to reach in his final summary now does it? Do you have an proof of a conspiracy between 2 parties to tamper with the results or achieve a preconceived conclusion that directly benefitted the NFL indicating fraud? Nope. I didn't think so. 

 

So, you're clairvoyant now CD & can read my mind? Please. [In reference to your last sentence]. People always attack people personally when they have no ammunition left. Translation: Brady lost & he knows it & so do you I'm afraid. 

[southwest1]

8 hours ago, Gramz said:

Seriously....  How much "Due Process"  does one get...??

 

IF the 2nd  Circuit Appeals Court didn't think this was worth pursuing any further, Why would the Supreme Court?

 

 

Exactly Gramz. Exactly...

[GoColts8818]

On July 13, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Coffeedrinker said:

No, it's about if Goodell is overstepping the boundaries spelled out in the CBA.

Which is about the CBA...

[TheRustonRifle#7]

How can anyone argue this differently?????????????  I think we have some fans on here that don't really represent the NFL's policies and fair play, unless it favors them?????

[Nadine]

9 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

 it's not about Goodell's right to enforce the CBA, it's about a players right to not be punished based on a witch hunt.

OH their right not to be punished based on a witch hunt.

Got it

Agree, no point in continuing this conversation with you.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, southwest1 said:

Exactly Gramz. Exactly...

Till I hear direct questions ask and answered by the 'deflator' I will always feel something is being hid and the real truth will never be answered. As long as all the people involved are silent there will be a negative cloud over this whole thing. It reminds me of about every accused legal right not to incriminate themselves. Now with all this time passed I highly doubt any truthful answers can be found. My last question is how much the two Patriot employees have been paid to stay silent? ( bad me, I just had to ask)

[Gramz]

13 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Till I hear direct questions ask and answered by the 'deflator' I will always feel something is being hid and the real truth will never be answered. As long as all the people involved are silent there will be a negative cloud over this whole thing. It reminds me of about every accused legal right not to incriminate themselves. Now with all this time passed I highly doubt any truthful answers can be found. My last question is how much the two Patriot employees have been paid to stay silent? ( bad me, I just had to ask)

Obviously, enough.  They are still silent.

[oldunclemark]

11 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

If you're not sure what the difference is then there really is not much point in continuing this conversation with you.

 

It's not about what's in the CBA, it's about how the CBA is being interpreted by both parties.  The fist judge agreed with the NFLPA and the 2nd district judge agreed with the NFL.

 

The difference is (and why it's about Brady's rights and not Goodell's rights) is because of due process of the law.  Article 46 of the CBA gives Goodell the power of fines and suspensions for conduct on the playing field.  Brady and the NFLPA are arguing that Goodell did this to Brady without any proof that Brady was involved.  it's not about Goodell's right to enforce the CBA, it's about a players right to not be punished based on a witch hunt.

 

To me, the Wells report was pretty conclusive and the NFLPA is grasping at straws trying to obtain some more power.  But that does not mean it's not a cause worth fighting.

I think the court ruled that Goddell's rights to determines suspensions as outlined in the CBA supercedes Brady's desire to challenge the ruling in this case beyond the CBA.....

     Brady doesn't have the right to further debate Goddells evidence in the courts.

 

    the only court remaining (the Supreme Court) hears very few cases) but, as you say, the only thing Brady loses by pursuing this further is money.

 

[dw49]

As long as the Pats beat Houston in week 3 , I could care less as I'm sick of this. But if Houston gets a win at NE , it could end up costing the Colts. That's my take on this as we will probably never know the whole truth .

[ColtsBlueFL]

17 hours ago, Nadine said:

OH their right not to be punished based on a witch hunt.

Got it

Agree, no point in continuing this conversation with you.

 

Exactly. And, If that was the case, then they needed to present that case from the beginning as being biased, fraudulent, and/or with evident partiality, as law professor Blecker has stated and written (Americus brief).  Then they have to prove it convincingly and Brady likely would have won.  They chose a different tactic (that Law of the shop, etc...) all of which doesn't create the the case to overturn an arbitrators award.  That was NFL's side, they followed the rules and weren't biased and thew award should be confirmed.  That's why the NFL appealed, and apparent;y, won. That's how it played out in my eyes.

[Restored]

Brady announces that he won't pursue further legal action.

[Superman]

I didn't see that coming.

 

I've said all along that I didn't think he'd serve any games, ever. I thought he'd keep the fight going, squeeze a couple more years out, then retire. Wrong. 

 

The NFLPA is probably very upset right now. This was their best chance of getting a circuit split to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Now that that's unlikely to happen before the next CBA negotiations, they'll have to try to wrestle this power away from the commissioner through collective bargaining. Good luck with that...

[chad72]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

I didn't see that coming.

 

I've said all along that I didn't think he'd serve any games, ever. I thought he'd keep the fight going, squeeze a couple more years out, then retire. Wrong. 

 

The NFLPA is probably very upset right now. This was their best chance of getting a circuit split to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Now that that's unlikely to happen before the next CBA negotiations, they'll have to try to wrestle this power away from the commissioner through collective bargaining. Good luck with that...

 

Brady also probably realized that his odds weren't very strong and his fight going on was only helping more to further the cause of the NFLPA than improve his odds.

 

It still does not prevent the NFLPA from filing on his behalf and continuing the fight for him in proxy, IMO. 

[bayone]

26 minutes ago, Restored said:

Brady announces that he won't pursue further legal action.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/tom-brady-announces-he-is-giving-up-the-deflategate-fight/

[Gramz]

Called it from the get go.  Took a while, but I am glad it's over.  Time to move on. 

[RockThatBlue]

Holy crap, deflategate is finally OVER! 

[ColtsBlueFL]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

I didn't see that coming.

 

I've said all along that I didn't think he'd serve any games, ever. I thought he'd keep the fight going, squeeze a couple more years out, then retire. Wrong. 

 

The NFLPA is probably very upset right now. This was their best chance of getting a circuit split to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Now that that's unlikely to happen before the next CBA negotiations, they'll have to try to wrestle this power away from the commissioner through collective bargaining. Good luck with that...

 

Goodell already has said his ability to hand out the punishments for breaking NFL rules will always be his (commissioners).  His words were "Non negotiable".  Where the NFLPA has a chance is on the appeals process, get outside independent arbitrators, or at a minimum a tribunal of 3 with a pick from NFL, NFLPA, and mutually agreed arbitrator.

 

Until then Goodell is judge and jury, as long as he acts without bias, partiality, or fraud.

 

Now, to be frank...  who players in the NFL is going to be around to remember all of this (and effected them to support it), and will they really push so hard for policy that essentially effects, what; around 1% of the NFL population?  Will be interesting to see, and what they are willing to give up to get it if they do?

[GoColts8818]

per ESPN the players union will still take this to the Supreme Court to challenge Goodell's powers.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Just now, GoColts8818 said:

per ESPN the players union will still take this to the Supreme Court to challenge Goodell's powers.

 

They have to, but it will fail in the end.  Brady will serve his 4 games, the NFL will not get a stay when Brady won't take it, he'll sit the 4 games early rather than risk being out in playoffs.

[NFLfan]

1 hour ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Goodell already has said his ability to hand out the punishments for breaking NFL rules will always be his (commissioners).  His words were "Non negotiable".  Where the NFLPA has a chance is on the appeals process, get outside independent arbitrators, or at a minimum a tribunal of 3 with a pick from NFL, NFLPA, and mutually agreed arbitrator.

 

Until then Goodell is judge and jury, as long as he acts without bias, partiality, or fraud.

 

Now, to be frank...  who players in the NFL is going to be around to remember all of this (and effected them to support it), and will they really push so hard for policy that essentially effects, what; around 1% of the NFL population?  Will be interesting to see, and what they are willing to give up to get it if they do?

 

I hope this is really over. It has dragged far too long.

 

I was wondering if the outcome in this case has any impact on the Peterson case that is pending in MN.

[ColtsBlueFL]

6 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

I hope this is really over. It has dragged far too long.

 

I was wondering if the outcome in this case has any impact on the Peterson case that is pending in MN.

 

Well maybe our resident attorneys will weigh in but how can it not?  If they do not side with the NFL on appeal, the SCOTUS may be compelled to hear the Deflategate case because of a district court split, and the NFL would likely petition the SCOTUS to decide which ruling covers all.  Maybe I'm wrong and one of our members will correct me.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

It still does not prevent the NFLPA from filing on his behalf and continuing the fight for him in proxy, IMO. 

 

That's true, and it's what the NFLPA apparently intends to do.