TB Suspension: Cheater free to play again
- Thread starter IdiotKicker
- Start date
A bit because I don't see the advantage the NFL gets from an opposition. The papers will be excellent whether the additional time is granted or not.
You cannot raise brand new stuff on a rehearing petition. The arguments have been there all along, and it's more probable than not that GD has been reviewing them all along. It's simply a question of tweaking them in light of the panel opinion.
I don't see anything from a scheduling standpoint where two weeks would matter one way or another.
A little bit better brief, a little more reasonable life to get it there.
Two weeks is not going to matter much in terms of cert worthiness, though I suppose anything is possible. As a practical matter, if rehearing goes south, TB cannot afford to wait full 90 days (see https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_13) to file cert petition. The reason is he'll be asking for a stay. If you want it, you'd better demonstrate you're doing everything in you power to advance things time wise.
I hear what dcmissle said about professional courtesy, but if you look at it from the perspective of what's best for the client, isn't it best to oppose? Logically it must be, if the extension is at least partly strategic, to buy more time for other cases to unfold.
In any case, fuck Roger.
Edit: Post submit was delayed. Didn't see dcm's replies until after.
In any case, fuck Roger.
Edit: Post submit was delayed. Didn't see dcm's replies until after.
I think that's the least likely thing to happen, but who knows?
A 14 day extension would normally be granted as a matter of course (and, as dc said, often unopposed or assented-to). This was a PR opposition, which strikes me as a silly thing to do because it's unreasonable and puts more paper on the judges' desks for no good reason.
Even though it should matter very little if at all, it seems silly to irk the court for no good reason if your Rog's legal team. What's the chance of the request being denied? <1%? Seems petty.
I would have thought so, but the NFL PA letter to the 8th Circuit now states that the cases are not on the same issue, and seeks to align the two cases as not being inconsistent.
By framing it this way, the potential for a "conflict" seems minimal.
It's generally better for the client if the courts sees the client's lawyers as reasonable professionals.
Last edited:
BOSTON (CBS) — Tom Brady’s newest attorney is now 1-for-1 in the DeflateGate case.
Granted, it’s a relatively minor matter, but Ted Olson’s request for an extension of 14 days for the NFLPA to file a motion to formally request a rehearing or rehearing en banc has been granted by the Second CircuitCourt
of Appeals.
Olson filed the request on Friday. The NFL filed a motion on Mondayrequesting that the motion be denied, stating that the NFLPA failed to offer “any compelling justification for their extension request.”
The court, however, saw it differently, ruling on Tuesday to grant the request from the NFLPA.
Brady’s side now has until May 23 to file a request for rehearing or rehearing en banc. If the court decides to rehear the case, then Brady and the NFLPA have a chance of having the ruling by Judges Barrington Parker and Denny Chin overturned.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/05/03/tom-brady-nflpa-granted-14-day-extension-to-file-motion-for-rehearing-by-second-circuit-court/?cid=twitter_985thesportshub
Granted, it’s a relatively minor matter, but Ted Olson’s request for an extension of 14 days for the NFLPA to file a motion to formally request a rehearing or rehearing en banc has been granted by the Second CircuitCourt
of Appeals.Olson filed the request on Friday. The NFL filed a motion on Mondayrequesting that the motion be denied, stating that the NFLPA failed to offer
“any compelling justification for their extension request.”The court, however, saw it differently, ruling on Tuesday to grant the request from the NFLPA.
Brady’s side now has until May 23 to file
a request for rehearing or rehearing en banc. If the court decides to rehear the case, then Brady and the NFLPA have a chance of having the ruling by Judges Barrington Parker and Denny Chin overturned.http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/05/03/tom-brady-nflpa-granted-14-day-extension-to-file-motion-for-rehearing-by-second-circuit-court/?cid=twitter_985thesportshub
Yep. Wallach's "split the baby" suggestion was novel but not how most courts operate.
I don't think I've ever been involved with a case where a request for an extension upon the introduction of a new lawyer to the fray was not accommodated by an adversary. Bad decision by the NFL and I would be surprised if they were not advised by their lawyers to acquiesce.
Not that I expect a meaningful carry over but it's never advisable to run into an adverse decision, especially when the underlying issue is of no particular import.
I don't think I've ever been involved with a case where a request for an extension upon the introduction of a new lawyer to the fray was not accommodated by an adversary. Bad decision by the NFL and I would be surprised if they were not advised by their lawyers to acquiesce.
Not that I expect a meaningful carry over but it's never advisable to run into an adverse decision, especially when the underlying issue is of no particular import.
I'm trying to remember if I've ever opposed a reasonable request for an extension of time. The only thing I've ever done is if the timing made it so that my opposition or reply would end up during a vacation or something, I've asked for an extension on my brief too. I've certainly never done it in a case, like this one, where there was little chance it would be denied. I think I've even said yes when the other side has said no on a similar request. I really can't think of a case where I gave a shit. Maybe once in a pro bono case where the client was detained. In any case in which time was really of the essence or irreparable injury is imminent, parties almost always know not to ask. Sometimes clients try to push you into doing it, but you have to explain there's nothing in it for them and they are risking pissing off the court.
If someone with Pacer access can get the order, it would be interesting to know who signed it -- whether it's the panel or a motions judge. The chance that it makes a bit of difference here is very low, but some judges definitely do get annoyed when you make them decide something that you should be able to agree on. "We have a new lawyer" is a pretty good reason, especially when the time period for filing is already very short. I think the NFL's opposition sends a bit of a "please just rubber stamp" vibe, which I think is a bit of a tactical judgment. The court almost always does rubber stamp, but you don't want to call that to their attention or rub their faces in it.
If someone with Pacer access can get the order, it would be interesting to know who signed it -- whether it's the panel or a motions judge. The chance that it makes a bit of difference here is very low, but some judges definitely do get annoyed when you make them decide something that you should be able to agree on. "We have a new lawyer" is a pretty good reason, especially when the time period for filing is already very short. I think the NFL's opposition sends a bit of a "please just rubber stamp" vibe, which I think is a bit of a tactical judgment. The court almost always does rubber stamp, but you don't want to call that to their attention or rub their faces in it.
Per a copy on twitter signed "For the court: Carherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of the Court"
It's not going to matter on the outcome, but the Court knows well that assholery on this ran from the client. That were it not the NFL, when Olson e-mailed or called Clement for the two weeks, Paul would have said, sure Ted. Because that is what decency commands and because, in this instance, two weeks didn't mean a goddamn thing one way or another.
I have to imagine that Clement and Olsen know each other extraordinarily well given that they are of the same political persuasion, represented the same administration as solictor general and likely travel in the same legal circles. In fact, I'd bet a nickel that Clement called Olsen to tell him he was instructed to oppose the request for an extension and that probably shared an off the record eyeroll (literal or figurative).
Maybe. We really don't know. My personal view on professional courtesy is that it's incumbent on the lawyer to push back, and I've had that call both with clients and with opposing counsel. I think Clement is perfectly able to say (and I've said, though obviously with much lower profile clients), look you hire me for my reputation, and long after this case is over that reputation stays with me, and I'm not comfortable doing this because it's just not appropriate. If they put their foot down, they put their foot down, and I guess you're not going to fire a client like the NFL over it. But I doubt that Clement fought too hard on this one, because if he had, they wouldn't have done it.
His LinkedIn page pimps his appellate experience. I wonder if it might just be a way of doing business down in Florida, because I think it rightly struck all of us as a pretty weird place to stack his chips.
Much ado about nothing more than his credibility as a commentator (relative to here), in the end.
I'm pretty sure there is audio from the calls she made to him. I think there were even more than one
I've heard some of the audio.
I did not hear this audio, but I believe that Olson has said that he informed his wife about the two planes that hit the Trade Center and they both knew what it meant.
Heartbreaking stuff.
I did not hear this audio, but I believe that Olson has said that he informed his wife about the two planes that hit the Trade Center and they both knew what it meant.
Heartbreaking stuff.
Not really. I've opposed an extension once, but it was after the attorney (and his client) requested a copy of the complaint, received it, engaged in negotiation for two months, then demanded to be formally served, then wanted an extension on top of that for no reason. It was granted anyway.
Want to hear something funny? I just received an email blast from the Washington State Labor Council, advancing the view that the 2nd Circuit's opinion was, at the end of the day, a victory for organized labor and collective bargaining.
My head nearly exploded.
My head nearly exploded.
It's not all that crazy. Usually, management isn't the arbitrator. In states that are very pro labor, arbitration in the hands of a union increases the chance of a split baby on a claim that would fail as a matter of law in court. Basically, deference in favor of, "Here's half of the ridiculous thing you want," can be a very good thing for labor.
Daniel Wallach @WALLACHLEGAL 1m1 minute agoFort Lauderdale, FL
False alarm. Michelle McGuirk, not Tom Brady, filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the Second Circuit.
False alarm. Michelle McGuirk, not Tom Brady, filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the Second Circuit.
Last edited:
So this seems kind of important:
Edit: for those on mobile - Michelle McGuirk moves to bar Ted Olson from repping Brady in Deflategate appeal; asks CA2 to strike his appearance
Edit: for those on mobile - Michelle McGuirk moves to bar Ted Olson from repping Brady in Deflategate appeal; asks CA2 to strike his appearance
Google says we've seen some of these Pro Se filings from her before. I'll defer to the lawyers in this thread, but I'm not sure this is really any kind of major development.
In terms of importance, I was going off of the possibility that Ted Olson could be removed from the case. Is this person just someone who likes to file things and this really has no chance?
My guess is that we can ignore it. But you seemed to feel as if it might be important so I asked why you felt that way.
Off the top of my head I will say that the chances that this filing results in the removal of Ted Olson is approx. 0%.
Off the top of my head I will say that the chances that this filing results in the removal of Ted Olson is approx. 0%.
Good to know - I just saw a filing to get Ted Olson removed based on a technicality and since I'm no lawyer it felt like anything that had any shot at removing Ted Olson from Brady's team before the appeal got underway was worth discussing.
Be warned, Wallach loves posting the McQuirk stuff as if it matters. I've noticed it a lot more as the substantive stuff died down.
AS DC or someone else once mentioned before, Wallach likes to keep his 15 minutes going.
Which sucks as he has done some good work on this case early on (for me as a non-lawyer), but now seems to latch onto anything to post regardless of its actual worth.
AS DC or someone else once mentioned before, Wallach likes to keep his 15 minutes going.
Which sucks as he has done some good work on this case early on (for me as a non-lawyer), but now seems to latch onto anything to post regardless of its actual worth.
Brady adds another impressive lawyer to his team in Thomas H. Dupree.
http://www.gibsondunn.com/Lawyers/tdupree
http://www.gibsondunn.com/Lawyers/tdupree
This is getting some play out there but it strikes me as not that much of a story. Olson and Dupree are at the same firm. That Dupree will be involved is a positive, it seems, but this strikes me as kind of like saying that the Pats have added Logan Ryan to the defensive team. He was already there and available to be deployed as needed.
Scotian1, my comment is not aimed at you but rather the media who have reported it as news.
I guess the other side of it is that Dupree was not in fact working on it previously and the NFLPA/Brady/Gibson have augmented the team from within Gibson. That doesn't really fly in my book in that only one person will handle the oral argument (and I presume that's Olson) and when you hire Olson, you're really hiring the entire firm in the first place...but maybe I'm missing something.
Not sure this is the relevant thread, but Brady was named by Sporting News as the #5 hated NFL player of all time. Quite incredible for a crime of general awareness, and for a guy who turned himself from 6th round pick and 4th string QB to the GOAT.
6 is Ray Lewis
4 is Greg Hardy
3 is Suh
2 is TO
1 is Vick
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/list/nfl-hated-players-vick-lewis-roethlisberger-tebow-owens/1imk9iv0s73i1kfv2fp7spyw9
6 is Ray Lewis
4 is Greg Hardy
3 is Suh
2 is TO
1 is Vick
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/list/nfl-hated-players-vick-lewis-roethlisberger-tebow-owens/1imk9iv0s73i1kfv2fp7spyw9
So -
1. Tortured and murdered dogs for entertainment
2. Definition of a "me first" player. Left every team he played for on bad terms.
3. Unrepentant asshole. Attempted to (and succeeded) injure numerous players.
4. Beat a woman, threw her on a bed of guns. Threatened to kill her.
5. May have cheated by removing air pressure from footballs. Disgustingly handsome.
6. Murdered a guy.
One of these things is not like the other.
It's also a very poor use of "all-time" given the absurd recency bias of the names at the top, specifically the exclusion of OJ.
Adam Schefter @AdamSchefter 9m9 minutes ago
NFLPA will file petition to rehear Brady case "en banc" in 2nd circuit this afternoon - meaning a rehearing before whole panel of judges.
NFLPA will file petition to rehear Brady case "en banc" in 2nd circuit this afternoon - meaning a rehearing before whole panel of judges.
Mike Reiss @MikeReiss 6m6 minutes ago
Tom Brady attorney Ted Olson to @ABC's @GMA (re: appeal): “The facts here are so drastic and so apparent that the court should rehear it."
Tom Brady attorney Ted Olson to @ABC's @GMA (re: appeal): “The facts here are so drastic and so apparent that the court should rehear it."