Brady rehearing petition 050916 .pdf

File information


Original filename: Brady rehearing petition 050916.pdf

This PDF 1.6 document has been generated by HP Scanjet 3000 s2 TWAIN / Adobe Acrobat Pro 11.0.15 Paper Capture Plug-in; modified using iText 2.1.7 by 1T3XT, and has been sent on pdf-archive.com on 11/05/2016 at 18:43, from IP address 149.101.x.x. The current document download page has been viewed 370 times.
File size: 1.4 MB (21 pages).
Privacy: public file


Download original PDF file


Brady rehearing petition 050916.pdf (PDF, 1.4 MB)


Share on social networks



Link to this file download page



Document preview


Case 15-2801, Document 258, 05/09/2016, 1769313, Page1 of 21

15-3228 CV (CON)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCillT

(XAP)

------------------------------------------------------------:x

NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE
MANAGEMENT COUNCIL,
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee,
- v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE
PLAYERS ASSOCIATION, on its own
behalf and Tom Brady
Defendant-Counter-claimant
TOM BRADY,

l....l
-1-r
A)

J. . .

N -U

- icg

r'11 ·•
~

(

r

Related: 15-2Sol C~ (L)
15-2805 CV (Cons)

Counter-claimant

MICHELLE L. MCGillRK,
Appellant
------------------------------------------------------------:x

MEMORANDUM OF LAW:
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
PANEL REHEARING and REHEARING EN BANC:
- ~-.
by APPELLANT 1

,....
.;
....,

.......

..

I

,_o
I:'

--..
w

f..)

Michelle L. McGuirk, CFA
P.O. Box: 369
New York, NY 10113-0369
Ph: (646) 662-5241
michelle_mcguirk@yahoo.com
1

©Michelle L. McGuirk, 2016. All rights reserved.

1

-_,

l

~,

Case 15-2801, Document 258, 05/09/2016, 1769313, Page2 of 21

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................. .... .............................. ii
CASE CITATIONS ............................................................... ........ iii
STATUTES, RULES and LAWS ............ .......................................... .v
STATEMENT OF PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING .................. 1
STATEMENT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC. ............... l
QUESTIONS for PANEL REHEARING and REHEARING EN BANC..2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY .... ...................... ................................... .3
KEY FACTS TO HIGHLIGHT ............................. .......................... ..5
PARTIES ..................... .. ............................ .................................. 6
STATUTES & LAWS PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY FOR RELIEF ..... 7
ARGUMENTS for REHEARING ...................... ............................... 7
A. SKILLFUL ERROR in SUMMARY ORDER AVOIDS MEDIATION. 7
B. BASIS TO DENY RELIEF LACKS FOUNDATIONAL SUPPORT .. 10
C. INEQUITABLE ARGUMENT TIME Violates CONSTITUTION .. ... 12
CONCLUSION ...................................... ..... .. ................. ........... .. 14

11

Case 15-2801, Document 258, 05/09/2016, 1769313, Page3 of 21

STATEMENT OF PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING
1.

This Petition follows a Summary Order dated April 25, 2016

affirming a Sept. 9, 2015 District Court Order denying my valid right to
intervene in National Football League Management Council v. National

Football League Players Association (15-cv-5916) on common questions
7

of law and facts. Both this and related Opinion and Order reinstating
Tom Brady's arbitral award on reversal of judgment are effectively void.
2.

Per Fed.R.App.Pr. 35(b)(l)(A), the panel decisions of Apr. 25,

2016 (Dkt#238,244) conflict with decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court,
thus, consideration by the full Court is necessary to secure uniformity.
3.

Per Fed.R.App.Pr. 35(b)(l)(B), Apr. 25, 2016 panel decisions

are inconsistent with this Court's prior cases, deviating on issues of
arbitration, reasonable accommodation and Fed.R.Civ.Pr. 60. Thus,
consideration to rehear by a panel is necessary ensure valid precedent.

STATEMENT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
4.

Per Fed.R.App.Pr. 35(b)(l)(B), panel decisions of Feb. 26,

2016 in 15-3228(Dkt#l18) conflict with prudent decisions of this Court,
thus , consideration by a full Court is necessary to secure and maintain
uniformity here and its district courts and to guide other district courts.
1

Case 15-2801, Document 258, 05/09/2016, 1769313, Page4 of 21

5.

Per Fed.R.App.Pr. 35(b)(l)(A) , panel decisions of Apr.25,

2016 in 15-3228 (Dkt#l 18) conflict with U.S. Supreme Court precedent,
offering full Court consideration to avoid Supremacy Clause violations.
6.

Per Fed.R.App.Pr.35(b)(l)(B) exceptional circumstances exist

as my surviving many diagnosis of disease and qualifying to the 1984
U .S. National Gymnastics Team and Olympic Trials is likely highly
statistically remote over Mr. Brady's record yet not without due respect.
7.

Exceptional circumstances exist to consider by the full Court

who, after reading submissions, may not concur with Opinion (Dkt#236)
that seemingly permits 'fraud on the court' as a healthy state of affairs.
8.

A Petition for Rehearing En Banc is respectfully requested

and favored as one Justice appears conflicted and may be uninformed of
disability laws based on dismissal for jurisdiction issues in 15-2975.
9.

I incorporate by reference Brief (Dkt#l20), Special Appendix

(Dkt#1 21), Reply Brief (Dkt#l 71), injunctive relief filings (Dkt#1 86),
motion to reconsider Orders en bane (Dkt#210) and open mot ions.
QUESTIONS for PANEL REHEARING and REHEARING EN BANC

10.

Is Summary Order valid, reflecting full record and compliant

to rules? Is it a duty breach to flip-flop prose party to avoid mediation?
2

Case 15-2801, Document 258, 05/09/2016, 1769313, Page5 of 21

11.

Did a panel's Apr. 25, 2016 Summary Order affirming denial

of my right to intervene misapply Fed.R.App.Pr. 60? If so, is the Court
passively permitting fraud to burden taxpayers/shareholders like me?
12.

Are such Orders prejudiced by denying me argument time,

inadvertently spitting on prose rights per the U.S. Constitution? If so,
was decision made by panel or someone lacking knowledge or authority?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
13.

I incorporate by reference pleadings in U.S. District Court

with letters in case 15-5916 and 15-5982 filed Aug. 1 7, 2015 on integrity
of Court procedures and Fed.R.Civ.Pr. 60 (JA14,JA22) and a pre-motion
letter to intervene on Aug. 25, 2015, with no opposition (JA10,JA18).
14.

I incorporate 15-2801 filings: Statement of Case (Dkt#120),

Procedural Tactics ~11-28 (Dkt#l 71), Factual & Procedural Background
~1-23 (Dkt#186) and Motion to Reconsider Memo of Law ~3-11 (#210).

15.

A Motion to Intervene , Affidavit and Memo of Law was filed

Sept. 8, 2015 (JA11)(MSA12) citing Supreme Court precedent and proof
of NFL's negative equity of three-quarters of a billion dollars, with this
Court notified per Fed.R.Civ.Pr.60 (Dkt#19,20). A Sept. 9, 2015 Order

3

Case 15-2801, Document 258, 05/09/2016, 1769313, Page6 of 21

(JA15)(Dkt#90)(MSA1 7) denied relief, with a Motion to Reconsider
submitted Sept. 28, 2015 to Pro Se Office not docketed (MSA1)(MSA29).
16.

15-2801 caption added me as party on entry of appeal (JA15)

(MSA19) and with notice given by Hon. Katzmann and Clerk (Dkt#55).
17.

My Brief and Special Appendix (MSA) were entered only in

15-2801 (Dkt#120,121), while NFLMC's Brief, Special Appendix and
Reply (Dkt#9, 70) and NFLPA's Answering Brief (Dkt#63) are entered.
~17

18.

Proof of service on Member Clubs

items was not entered.

19.

My Reply Brief noted Fed.R.Civ.Pr.60 gives good cause for

prospective injunctive relief from Commissioner acts (15-2801;#171),
with motion for declaratory and injunctive relief unopposed (Dkt#166).
20.

On Dec. 4, 2015, I moved to incorporate 15-2801 Appendices

(Dkt#60). Pending motions seek relief to: i) strike pro hac vice motion
(#153); ii) deny oral argument (Dkt#152); iii) deny leave to file amicus
brief and remove party (Dkt#156); iv) file within time (Dkt#163); v)
strike Bancroft appearance (Dkt#151); vi) seek third party injunctive
relief (Dkt#164) and vii) strike Gibson Dunn appearance (Dkt#154,179).
21.

The Clerk's Office failed to give equal notice of argument by

mail. Staff had no knowledge of decision maker, basis or date (Dk#185)

4

Case 15-2801, Document 258, 05/09/2016, 1769313, Page7 of 21

22.

Efforts to comply with Fed.R.App.Pr. 35 to appear in Court

were futile despite i) expedited motion to reconsider (Dkt#210) Feb. 23,
2016 Orders denying argument time and accommodation (Dkt#92,93)
(Dkt#201 ,202); ii) Mar. 1, 2016 letter after parties' requests (Dkt#94,95)
(Dkt#203,205) and iii) Clerk's claim it was not possible to reserve a seat.
23.

Mar. 3, 2016 argument was held only in 15-2801. I witnessed

and was subject to inexplicable, disappointing procedural improprieties.
24.

I did not answer unsolicited mail from New York Law School

(Dkt227)(unopened) or letter from Bancroft PLLC in reply (Dkt#229).
25.

Apr. 25, 2016 Summary Order in 15-3228(Con) affirms Hons.

Katzmann, Parker and Chin decided I cannot intervene (Dkt#l 18).
26.

Apr. 25, 2016's Opinion (Dkt#236) reverses a Sept. 3, 2016

district court Order in "15-5916, 15-1982", vacating an arbitral award
and directing a Clerk of Court to amend caption, removing my name.
27.

April 25, 2016 Opinion dissent (Dkt#237) by the Chief Judge

affirms a Sept. 3, 2016 arbitral award and states no change to caption.

KEY FACTS TO HIGHLIGHT
28.

The C&B of Feb. 1, 1970 (rev. 2006), Article VIII, §8.2 states:

"[t]he Commissioner shall have no financial interest, direct or indirect,
5

Case 15-2801, Document 258, 05/09/2016, 1769313, Page8 of 21

in any professional sport" (JA357). Since Aug. 8, 2006, Roger Goodell
claims to be Commissioner of a 503(c) trade association for professional
football, with total compensation over one-hundred fifty million dollars.
29.

The NFLMC, as first-to-file in district court to affirm Mr.

Brady's arbitration award, failed-to-file the entirety of the Aug. 4, 2011
CBA or NFL Constitution and Bylaws allegedly signed in 2011 ("C&B").
30.

Mr. Brady's arbitration award suspended his play and pay

for the first four games of 2015's regular season only (JA329-JA330).
31.

I incorporate by reference my Briefs Statement of Facts (15-

280l;Dkt#120) and Reply Briefs Statement of Case Undisputed by
Parties (Dkt#l 71). Support for controversies is found in MSAl,20,23-38.

PARTIES
32.

I incorporate by reference parties so named in Brief if8-17

(15- 2801;#120) and Memo of Law for injunctive relief if 24-27 (Dkt#186).
33.

Theodore Olson filed notice to appear Apr. 29, 2016 for NFL

Players Association, on behalf of it and Mr. Brady in 15-2801 (Dkt#24 7).
34.

Mr. Olson was added as Tom Brady counsel in 15-2801 (Dkt

#249) within twenty-three minutes of if36 and NFLPA in 15-2801 and
15-2805 two minutes later (Dkt#248), despite no Certificate of Service.
6

Case 15-2801, Document 258, 05/09/2016, 1769313, Page9 of 21

STATUTES & LAWS PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY FOR RELIEF
35.

Relief from alleged fraud-on-the-court is available per Fed.R.

Civ.Pr.60(b)(3) for misrepresentation and for a final judgment, order or
proceeding; 60(b)(4) for a void judgment and 60(b)(6) for other basis,
with powers not limited to grant relief per 60(d) for independent action.
36.

The U.S. Constitution, Sess.I, Ch.20,§35 states prose rights

"in all courts" are where "the parties may plead and manage their own
causes personally" ahead of "attorneys-at-law" who "shall be permitted'~
37.

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101, et. seq.

38.

Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement

Act imposes penalties per day if continuing [Title IX §951(b)(l),(b)(2)].
39.

Summary Orders per Local Rule 32.1.1 and IOP 32.1.1 infer

no jurisprudential basis to issue opinions yet citing require accuracy.

ARGUMENTS for REHEARING
A. SKILLFUL ERROR IN SUMMARY ORDER AVOIDS MEDIATION
40.

The Summary Order 1 is void as it: i) fails to specify if Order

affirmed is Sept. 9 (MSAl 7) or Sept. 3, 2015 (MSA18)(P2,L9, 14); ii) uses

"Summary Order", No. 15·3228 (Con): National Football League Management
Council, et.al. v. National Football League Players' Association, et.a/, [CMIECF
database : Second Circuit NextGen], Docket 118. No precedential effect. IOP 32.1.1.
I

7


Related documents


brady rehearing petition 050916
ca9 08 17074 1 amended opinion
harrington atty fees order 1
candice conn bankruptcy
coa falsifyingagovtdocument 03 05 00277 cr
jon motion to dismiss 9 18 13

Link to this page


Permanent link

Use the permanent link to the download page to share your document on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, or directly with a contact by e-Mail, Messenger, Whatsapp, Line..

Short link

Use the short link to share your document on Twitter or by text message (SMS)

HTML Code

Copy the following HTML code to share your document on a Website or Blog

QR Code

QR Code link to PDF file Brady rehearing petition 050916.pdf