Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Alsacs, post: 1453915, member: 652"] The Federal Arbitration Act which is binding law in the 2nd Circuit establishes three grounds for vacatur(legalese for vacating) for an arbitration award. The Judge put the NFL lawyers on notice for each of these to get them to settle. In laymen’s terms, they are: 1) Evident partiality (I explained this above e.g., ruling on the law of shop application of cases where the arbitrator was the losing party, like Goodell did with Rice and Peterson) 2) Arbitrator misconduct (e.g., refusing to hear evidence or testimony material to the controversy, as Goodell did with Pash’s role as co-lead investigator *and* refusing to hear the improper delegation argument prior to the proceedings) Judge Berman HAMMERED the NFL lawyer for not making Pash available and said this alone could allow him to vacate the award. 3) Failure to draw essence from the applicable contract (e.g., making a determination on contract language that no reasonable person would have made) NFLPA and Brady have very strong arguments on points 1 and 2. Their only weakness on point 1 is that the CBA’s Article 46 kind-of-sort-of allows for a partial arbitrator by allowing Goodell to serve at his discretion. Regardless of whether or not he is allowed to be partial, though, he [SIZE=6]*MUST*[/SIZE] conduct a fair and consistent hearing. However, Goodell was NOT FAIR by not allowing Pash to testify and allowing Ted Wells to use attorney-cilent privilege in answering some questions. Anybody who read the transcripts know this hearing was a kangaroo court and was not conducted fairly. I mean the NFL put a time limit on evidence that is a joke. If Berman rules for Brady on points 1 and 2, it will be very hard for an appeals court to overturn the decision, as the evidence is plainly available and very direct. That is why I believe Berman is telling the NFL to settle rather than foce his hand. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?