The Founding Fathers: Smugglers, Tax Evaders And Traitors
Do you know the revolutionary history of this flag?
---
During patriotic holidays, the news media applaud the Founding Fathers. But rarely does anyone mention some important facts about them: that they were smugglers, tax evaders, and traitors.
Not only is this important, it is also praiseworthy; it produced the most advanced civilization ever known.
The Revolution is often said to have begun in 1775 at the Battle of Lexington. In truth, it began in the 16th century when the first colonists began traveling to the New World. Consider the hardships these people faced. Abandoning their relatives and friends, they boarded small leaky boats like the Mayflower – which was only as long as six automobiles – to spend months crossing 3,000 miles of storm-tossed ocean.
Many of these tiny, primitive vessels went down, yet as the years passed, more and more colonists risked their lives to make the journey. In THE OXFORD HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, historian Samuel Eliot Morison tells us;
Gottlieb Mittelberger, who came to Philadelphia in 1750, described the misery during his voyage: bad drinking water and putrid salt meat, excessive heat and crowding, lice so thick that they could be scraped off the body, sea so rough that hatches were battened down and everyone vomited in the foul air; passengers succumbing to dysentery, scurvy, typhus, canker, and mouth rot. Children under seven, he said, rarely survived the voyage, and in his ship no fewer than thirty-two died. One vessel carrying 400 Palatinate Germans from Rotterdam in August 1738 lost her master and three-quarters of the passengers before stranding on Block Island after a four-month journey.
Why? What in Europe could have been so horrible that rational people would risk their lives and their children’s lives to escape it?
Socialism. It wasn’t called socialism in those days, but that is what it was – unlimited government control and taxation of everything and everybody. There were no free markets and no free enterprise. Regardless of how honest or hard working a person was, it did him little good unless he was in bed with the government.
Out of desperation many rebelled. They evaded the controls and taxes, creating an underground economy. In ROOTS OF CAPITALISM, historian John Chamberlain writes that in France:
For example, it took more than two thousand pages to print the rules established for the textile industry between 1666 and 1730. Weavers had to negotiate with the government for four years in order to obtain permission to introduce “blackwarp” into their fabrics. The effect of the regulations was to freeze French textile production at a certain level, though smuggling and evasion of manufacturing regulations did alleviate the situation somewhat. The violation of the rules often brought terrible penalties: for breaking regulations governing printed calicoes some 16,000 people were either executed or killed in armed brushes with government agents.
America was a vast, uncharted wilderness beyond the reach of the politicans and tax collectors. It was nominally under the control of the European governments, but everyone knew it was too big and too far away for laws to be enforced there.
In short, America was a huge underground economy. Here trade was free and enterprise unrestricted. Taxes were so often evaded that for all practical purposes there were none; a person could keep everything he earned. He could save, and invest, and eventually have his own thriving business or farm that would provide jobs for the next wave of immigrants.
Inhabited by rebellious, individualistic smugglers and tax evaders, America quickly became the most prosperous place on earth.
You may have seen pictures of the Pine Tree Flag flown by American warships during the Revolution. Why would the colonists put a pine tree on their battle flag?
The (British) government had enacted a regulation saying no colonist could cut down tall, straight trees; these trees were to be reserved for masts on Navy ships. This meant the best, most valuable trees on a person’s land had, in effect, been confiscated by the government.
When a government tree inspector would come through the forest to select and mark the best trees, colonists would follow him. These inspectors were highly trained experts, good at identifying the best trees for Navy ships – the Navy ships that were constantly pursuing smuggling ships.
When the government’s lumberjacks then came through the forest to collect the marked trees, they would find the trees had already been cut and sold – for use on the smuggling ships.
One of these ships was THE LIBERTY, owned by John Hancock. Hancock was a successful wine merchant known throughout the colonies as “The Prince of Smugglers.” His reputation eventually earned him the honor of being the first to sign the Declaration of Independence.
Unfortunately, as the story of the Pine Tree illustrates, America did not remain beyond the reach of government. As the colonists’ wealth increased, politicians began making more and more efforts to steal – “tax” – this wealth. More and more bureaucrats and troops were sent to the colonies to enforce laws and shut down down the underground economy.
The colonists’ reaction was dramatic. The infamous Stamp Tax, for instance, was greeted by armed rebellion; tax collectors were tarred and feathered, a procedure which usually resulted in death. When John Hancock was arrested, the people rioted and the government’s agents barely escaped with their lives.
This brings us to one of the most important but forgotten events in American history. In his 1818 analysis of the Revolution, John Adams spoke of it when he asked,
But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American War? The Revolution was effected before the war was commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people, a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations.
The key word here is religious. In Adams’ analysis, he said a sermon delivered by Reverend Jonathan Mayhew on January 30, 1750, was “read by everybody” and was crucially import in leading to revolution.
In that sermon Mayhew argued that there is a Higher Law than any government’s law. The people, he said, are required to obey their government’s law only when it is in agreement with Higher Law. Indeed, he argued, if the government violates Higher Law, “we are bound to throw off our allegiance” and “to resist.”
What was this Higher Law? – the ancient common law which most colonists understood and obeyed faithfully even through they ridiculed and ignored the laws and taxes enacted by politicians.
Common law had evolved from two basic principles: 1) do all you have agreed to do, and 2) do not encroach on other persons or their property. These are the two principles on which all major religions and philosophies agree. Each expresses them a bit differently, but all agree on these two laws (and not much else).
These two laws are the source of all our essential prohibitions against theft, fraud, murder, rape, etc. “Do all you have agreed to do” is the basis of contract law. “Do not encroach on other persons or their property” is the basis of criminal and tort law.
Common law was the law to which the American colonists were dedicated, and it was the law the politicians and bureaucrats were breaking – they were encroaching. So the colonists overthrew their government; they committed treason.
This is what the American Revolution was all about – treason. And, this treason was regarded as moral, ethical, and right in every way. It was derived straight from common law which was based on the people’s religious beliefs. Wrote the great legal scholar Sir William Blackstone,
This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other…no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.
Contrary to what we so often read, the Americans were not fighting the British. The Americans were British.
The war broke out at Lexington in April 1775, fifteen months before independence was declared. Therefore, for the first fifteen months of the war, America was still a part of Britain and Americans were still Englishmen fighting their own government. As many pamphlets and speeches explained, they were fighting for “The Rights of Englishmen!”
They were enforcing Higher Law. This eternal and immutable law said the politicians and bureaucrats were as human as anyone else and they had no special rights or privileges; they could not encroach on others. “All men are created equal,” wrote Thomas Jefferson.
So, the most important and praiseworthy fact about the Founders which is rarely discussed is they believed in a Higher Law than any government’s law, and they did something about it. They evaded their government’s taxes and regulations. They delivered speeches and wrote pamphlets informing others, and they eventually overthrew their government and set up a new one more closely in agreement with Higher Law.
The highly advanced, prosperous civilization we now enjoy was the direct result of their enforcement of Higher Law, and this civilization will continue only if Higher Law is re-applied, soon.
Written by Richard J. Maybury and republished with permission from THE FREE MARKET, July 1987 issue, published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, www.mises.org
Aug 3, 2010 at 12:31 PM
Reader Comments (48)
Great post Guys, I wonder if there is any way to make the sheeple realize they're running out of time to re-apply Higher Law?
I think the Govt. has other plans they intend to apply.
I really enjoyed reading it and it was easy to see that this guy knows his history. I am going to pick up one of his books. I hope it is as interesting.
That was the original reason I linked it in the first place. We have been sliding backwards for generations, yet only a few per generation realize it, til now. I see more awareness today than at any period in my life...
You guys love to say "herdist".
Let's take a closer look...
You are the same people that liked to refer to G. Dubya Bush as a cowboy.
Reagan was a cowboy too.
Really Gomp, tell us what you mean. You want to use the term, define it (if you can without another silly insult).
Let's talk to the herd...
Reagan jokes about herdists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAWuro5-B0Y
Let's take a look at the herd (Obamanation)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8
I do not have a favorite four Gobie, and I was not old enough to vote when Carter had his turn at the shrinking FED dollar. I recognize both sides are responsible. Two tried to break it, and were both killed for it.
I have defined it many times in the past Gobie, you just seem to be a little dense. I have also stated that both herds are controlled as the manifesto dictates, you have always missed that also. There are TWO (technically there are more) herds, who are financed by the SAME people.
I already told you Reagan was the only POTUS in my lifetime I voted for that won, and I immediately saw the light with gun bans, a falling fiat, increasing debt, and so much more.
I have been independent ever since. But we have been over this over and over again, and you still live by rhetoric and talking points, and not fact.
I can thank Reagan for one thing though, he opened my eyes to the FED, fiat, leveraging debt, lowering some taxes while raising others, etc., and I have been studying ever since.
Your definition of cowboy and mine are different, but that is to be expected from city people.
"The highly advanced, prosperous civilization we now enjoy was the direct result of their enforcement of Higher Law, and this civilization will continue only if Higher Law is re-applied, soon.
Written by Richard J. Maybury and republished with permission from THE FREE MARKET, July 1987 issue, published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute,"
Since this was written at the supreme moment of American perfection, does that mean you will not be reading any of his books after all? If so, it would be a shame.
"That was the original reason I linked it in the first place. We have been sliding backwards for generations, yet only a few per generation realize it, til now. I see more awareness today than at any period in my life..."
It should start..."BOTH HERDS..." (because that makes sense) and include the part on the Communist Manifesto??? applied to Americans, I guess???
How about this...What keeps you independent from your version of the herd or herds? I ask this because I don't think I will get the above. How have you been independent ever since??? Do you not drive a car? Do you not watch TV? Do you not drink Coke? Are you just a grumpy old outcast with your middle finger to the world?
As for reading a book by Maybury...I make no judgements until after reading more. I don't need to be his cheerleader to read a book by him, right? I don't need to agree or disagree, yes? I found it interesting and I enjoy history. I will let you know if it was worth the read.
Since both sides are responsible, that doesn't leave you with much to work with...
"Since both sides are responsible, that doesn't leave you with much to work with... "
You are catching on... All you got to do is follow the history, not the propaganda. The charts on the fall of the dollar since the FED was created, or increased debt by administration, etc., are easy to read.
One tiny step at a time…my gift to you…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncFCdCjBqcE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q1_9AZCGbI
Gomp, some people still dont understand a thing about the shadow goverment, and how they work. You may want to try the ol "Mouse in the Shoe Box" story to make it eazyer for some to understand.......................
Most are "Clueless" as to how the Elete look down on us. Like cattle, sheep, horses, dogs, monkeys, Zombies, People, Monkeys, you like Monkeys, dont you.
Its all the same. All we are is a bunch of dirty beings taking up to much space, and have to go like cattle in a slatuer yard. "I worked thAre too".......Its time to cull the hurd...............Your Wellcome !
Ah, that's cute. She is coming to your rescue Gomp.
We both know you are to simple for that, I was reffering to the both sides thing, not me
"All I hear is the same broken record of old."
Birth certificates?
"At most, you got a shoddy platform to work with."
You are right, who needs a strong dollar, no debt, smaller Goobermint, a return to higher law, less corruption, etc., anyway.
" So, you haven’t voted since Reagan, there must be some prize for that, I will check with the next hippie I see. "
You assume alot in your make believe world Gobie, I have never missed an election. But then, we both know that to...
Elena Kagan tied to Obama's birth certificate
'It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it?
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=187797
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on August 5, 2010
As Congress reconvenes next week to pass a $26 billion bailout of state and local governments entombed in their own deficits, we witness a foretaste of the crisis that will be the central event of the first half of next year: the collapse of state governments.
As long as the Democrats control Congress, they will continue to rubber-stamp Obama's requests for bailouts of profligate states. But when the Republicans take control, they will be less than forthcoming. Republicans will ask the central question: Why should taxpayers from states that have cut their budgets and observed spending restraint, pay for the extravagances of the other states? Why should forty-seven states have to pay for California, New York, and Michigan?
State government employment has risen by 16 percent since 1995 and overly generous Medicaid and other spending has climbed alongside it. Pension obligations, initially incurred as a cheap alternative to pay raises for public workers, are increasingly driving state budgets over the brink.
State and local governments and school boards are hostages to the public employee labor unions that control their finances through their contracts and their politics with their donations and votes. These nominally democratic government bodies are as much under the sway of their union captors as the auto companies are of the UAW.
When a Republican Congress turns off the spigot of federal bailouts, the municipal and state bond markets are going to take the hint and stop buying state paper at any interest rate. California will find its debt has become unmarketable and will come begging Congress for relief. First it will seek federal money and then its demands will escalate into a federal guarantee of its state debt.
The Greek financial crisis will come to our shores in the form of state bankruptcies.
Hopefully, Republicans will not be so weak-kneed as they are in the face of the current shortfall and next week's demand for aid. With two Senators caving in, the Democrats were able to pass their aid bill and send it to the House next week.
The Republican solution to state financial distress should be simple: The Party should insist on a change in the federal bankruptcy law providing for a procedure for state bankruptcy (none now exists). This process must call for abrogation of all state and local public employee union contracts as is usually done in private sector bankruptcies. By freeing states and local governments (including school boards) of their union obligations on wages, work rules, staffing, and pensions, they have a chance to survive and, indeed, to prosper. But merely subsidizing these massive expenditures just prolongs the misery of the states in question.
The collapse of overspending state governments must trigger the diminution of the power unions hold over their budgets and their politics. Their coming bankruptcies offer an opportunity for reform and the Republican Congress - backed by newly elected Republican state governments - give us precisely the opportunity we need to effectuate it.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
Haaaa, Ha, HaAaaaaa, Haaaaa, what is with that dumb laugh?
In the end he admits that he has NEVER seen Obama's birth certificate. That is a change of tune for these stupid lib talking heads.
Remember, all of this is because Obama doesn't think showing his birth certificate is worth ten minutes of his time.
He does like to talk a lot about how the Constitution is a flawed document. Maybe a boy from Kenya should be able to be our President. Maybe a Russian spy should be able to be our President.
What is more important is Michelle's visit to Spain with thirty of her friends. I hope I get a thank you note.
BORN IN THE USA?
Elena Kagan tied to Obama's birth certificate
'It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it?
By Joe Kovacs
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Just when you thought there couldn't be any more players in the ongoing soap opera over the hunt for President Obama's original birth certificate and his constitutional eligibility for office, there comes yet another name: Elena Kagan.
Yes, the same Elena Kagan nominated by the commander in chief to be the next justice on the U.S. Supreme Court has actually been playing a role for some time in the dispute over whether Obama is legally qualified to be in the White House.
Here's the connection. Kagan served as solicitor general of the United States from March 2009 until May of this year.
In that role, she legally represented the U.S. government in numerous cases coming before the Supreme Court.
A simple search of the high court's own website reveals Kagan's name coming up at least nine times on dockets involving Obama eligibility issues.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=187797
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/aug/05/naomi-campbell-sierra-leone-testimony
Naomi Campbell is one stupid bitch.
Yes, to this cold hearted C word, a war crime trial is an inconvenience.
Lust – to have an intense desire or need: “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).
Gluttony – excess in eating and drinking: “for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags” (Proverbs 23:21).
Greed - excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness: “Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more” (Ephesians 4:19).
Laziness – disinclined to activity or exertion: not energetic or vigorous: “The way of the sluggard is blocked with thorns, but the path of the upright is a highway” (Proverbs 15:19).
Wrath – strong vengeful anger or indignation: “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (Proverbs 15:1)
Envy – painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage: “Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation” (1 Peter 2:1-2).
Pride - quality or state of being proud – inordinate self esteem: “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18).
Yes, yes, yes, yes...
Naomi Campbell is one stupid bitch."
I was thinking the EXACT same thing. About YOU, though.
I mean, gimme a break. Why is the War Crimes Tribunal focusing so much on some dumb supermodel for receiving ONE fucking diamond when the issue at hand is the industrial-scale illegal export of MILLIONS of dollars worth of blood diamonds?
And NEWFLASH: American coal miners work under similar conditions of quasi-servitude as do the blood-diamonders (or whatever) , yet I don't see you getting all hot under the collar about BLOOD COAL.
75% of everything on MSM is nothing but twisted crap, and 20% of it is nothing but made up shit. If you know whats realy going on, you can read between the lines and pick out the real message.
They talk up how the unemployment is down, housing sales are up, people are spending at much higher rates last quarter, then after the break they do a 180 and in a wisper as not to get the sheeples ear, and brush that part under the Obama Rug.
Corect me if im wrong, but watching Brian Williams is funny'er than watching Jay Leno latly. Way better jokes on the American People. Jay, just backs BW up 5 hr. later........
I will help you out on this one. The fact that Naomi Campbell feels inconvenienced by having to help prosecute a maniac guilty of mass murder and genocide is what was being pointed out. They are establishing evidence that he used blood diamonds as a form of currency to support his evil deeds which encouraged murder, rape and conscripting child soldiers.
If this is beyond your rudimentary thinking, then I say this in the nicest possible way…fuck off.
You seem to be able to continue to mock and laugh at DB (along with Kennybot) which is truly pathetic. It’s his site so if he doesn’t mind your constant taunts and insolence, I can’t do much but try to ignore it. If you can’t control yourself, please do me a favor and ignore me.
I anticipate some childish retort from you but spare me.
The "Higher Authority" apologetic cited does not wash. These men were like the Wall Street Bubble Market Boys of the latest Depression, and did not do their duty, nor fulfill their obligations under the law. The Seven Years War (a.k.a. "The French & Indian War" in North America) was fought on the back of the British of the British Isles -- no significant taxes to finance the war (which culminated in a British victory over the French, and the addition of great tracts of land to British North America), were paid by the Colonies. It was only after the war that Parliament in London thought it was only fair for the Colonists (including the colonies of Nova Scotia and Canada (now Quebec) to clear the national debt that the long fight against the French had run up.
These Boston and surrounding area businessmen couldn't abide the thought of paying *anything*, let alone their fair share, so they incited treason and sedition against their Government. It was only because of the French significant troop assistance that The Continental Army was able to win at Yorktown (which was a final straw for the British Parliament -- they had been worn down with costs and the fact of a 3,000 mile supply line from England).
Therefore, I will submit for your honest consideration that the U.S. "Founding Fathers" were opportunists, cheats and traitors, who just happened to be able to incite enough (approximately 10% of the population in the beginning) people to join them, lured by the fine talk of freedom from a tyrant. King George III and Parliament were anything but tyrants, but they could not ignore the flouting of the Rule of Law. America in 1776-1783, if one is to be honest, was headed by men who , even
by today's standards, deserved to be held at Guantanamo, imprisoned at Leavenworth, and hanged wherever a stout tree could be found. The British taxation schemes of the day were in no way like the modern I.R.S., and the burden was slight upon business and citizens. But even the slight degree of taxation that seems fair and necessary to pay for a long war was not tolerated by these early scalawags and thieves -- whom we revere.
Further, the Continental Congress received the aid of France by a direct appeal to Louis XVI, and had promised, in return for French troops and ships of the line, to take back the former French territories in Canada. This was never done, or attempted by the United States. Because of France's aid to American independence, the King of France bankrupted the country, the results of which brought about the French Revolution and the destruction of the Bourbon line of French Royalty. But this fact is never mentioned -- hopefully out of abject shame and embarrassment.
The Founders of America were in fact and deed no better than that arch-enemy, Osama bin Laden -- who is considered by his people to be a latter-day George Washington. And the British Loyalists in the 13 Colonies, who were being law-abiding and loyal were driven from their lands, which were confiscated with no payment. Rather like what happened with American lands and holdings in Cuba after Castro.
I guess this just goes to show that, indeed, "might" does make "right", and that history is written by the victors.
I suppose, too, that the author's appeal above to "The Higher Law" was suitably and conveniently tailored for what the North did to the South in the Civil War. The States had the absolute right to secede from a Union which was not meeting their expectations, nor honoring its commitments to its constituent parts, i.e., the States.
Lincoln's appeal after Gettysburg regarding the "scourge of slavery" was merely a canard, and a cover-up for what was an economic-based war, "The War of Northern Aggression". Of course, the victor wrote that history as well.
"The Higher Law", my foot!
What can we do now to fix it for you?
The responses, "So what is your point?", and, "What would you have liked to have happened?
What can we do now to fix it for you?"
1) My *point* is that we have all been sold a bill of goods as to the "honorable intentions/actions" of the majority of The Founding Fathers, and that the U.S.A. (perhaps we should really call it "England Two") was not so much a noble experiment, as it was a hostile corporate takeover. Thank God for the Atlantic Ocean, in time and miles, which was even more important than the very substantial French help for the country's establishment. Additionally, those obstacles also gave America enough time to establish a very "British" way of doing business -- America outdid the Brits, in fact, and despite George Washington's decline of an American Crown, showed that a republican form of a Parliamentary system can often work quite well.
2) How can it be fixed for "me"? :o) Well, for starters, let's tell our school children the truth -- that, just as in England, our "royal family", (let's call them the Wallstreets) rose from the muck and common, proselytized, and walked all over "natural rights" or "higher laws" to be able to wear the modern equivalents of ermine and silk. The myth-building is part of a culture, and I think is necessary in the early stages, but at some point we have to come clean with ourselves. America was wonderfully isolated until the development of long-range aircraft and missile technology; now it is *beginning* (out of self-defense, hopefully) to adopt many of the state-security strategies of the dictatorships that we have always deplored in the past. We've also had over two centuries to come up with our own melodies to "The Star-Spangled Banner" and "My Country 'Tis of Thee", but instead we're still using the old English tunes. I guess I'm saying we should be looking in the mirror for more than an opportunity to see that we're well-groomed.
(And we could have had Canada as well, if we had matched the English terms given the French in 1763; Washington and the Congress should have understood that the same principles that applied to Maryland for Roman Catholics could have been successfully applied to an (at first) French State of Quebec. The French-Canadien priests would then have counseled the "habitants" to join the Union if their religious and linguistic rights had been assured under the Stars and Stripes. Talk about a "Sea to Shining Sea to Shining Sea opportunity lost!)
The colonial taxpayer would have paid only a small fraction of what english citizens paid, IF they hadn't cheated and stole their way out of them.
Further, these protection costs were artificially escalated by the colonists murdering Indians and French colonists to steal their land.
Most of the founding fathers were smugglers, thieves, murderers and tax cheats long before they became treasonous terrorists and war criminals.
Their murders of their fellow men for the crime of not agreeing with them is well documented.
If I were going to apply the term "sheeple" I would have to apply it most rigorously to the Tea Baggers and others who buy into the gross misrepresentation of the founding fathers as Noble and Just.
I can't even make the claim with a straight face that they were any better than the English.
I have no doubt that many were fine men, and while I'm not aware of any particularly heinous acts committed by Jefferson, he shared the same self-serving blindness as the rest of the founding fathers, though I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and presume that his motivations were noble, if ill advised.
Jefferson refused to acknowledge the cost of defense of the colonies borne by Britain, as this would be counter to their dreams of revolution, which was motivated purely out of greed.
The "Tea Party" was a joke.
The cost of tea imported from England, even with the tax, was less than the cost of tea from smugglers like John Hancock.
Adams simply used fears of taxation to goad the greedier colonists into action.
I used to laugh at the modern "Militia" organization for claiming to have ideological roots with the revolutionary militia, but I no longer see a distinction, other than that the modern version is less prone to murder and terrorism.
Tom Brady denied appeal, Deflategate suspension stands
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/patriots/2016/07/13/tom-brady-denied-his-appeal-suspension-stands/MxNXmy3U0VwbUt81H4f1bI/story.html
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected Tom Brady’s request for an en banc rehearing Wednesday, all but ensuring that the Patriots quarterback will serve his four-game suspension to start the 2016 season.
Brady can still petition the US Supreme Court to hear his case and overturn the 2-1 decision handed down by the Second Circuit in April that reinstated his punishment. But that is one Hail Mary that not even Brady should expect to complete, especially considering that not even the Second Circuit was willing to rehear his case.
The odds of obtaining an en banc appeal hearing were stacked against Brady. The Second Circuit has long been known for not disturbing the decisions of its three-judge panels; only eight of more than 27,000 decisions were granted an en banc appeal from 2000-10.