You deleted your previous comment to mine, probably because it was preposterous, but I had typed up a response before you cowardly ran away. So I'll leave it here, for your deleted comment.
So, you blew it again. If you want to actually learn something, take the Brady jersey off and listen.
Begs the question is indeed a logical fallacy, but it's also a turn of phrase that is applied in a general sense by enough people that arguing over the merits of it is useless.
You're taking too far of a restrictive definition of bias, but it's not worth belaboring because it's intellectually insulting of you to suggest that my overall point is in any way diminished. The case is not being heard by the judge that wrote the most recent opinions against the NFL. That's a statement of fact and not a debatable proposition.
Put another way: if my point didn't matter, why did the NFL file in New York?
Let's take a step back here. You're obviously not an attorney from what you've written here. You have no legal training. The Brady incident spurred you do some internet searches. That is not a substitute for three years of law school, passing a bar exam, and actually practically applying law. You have no basis to say that I have any fundamental lack of understanding of any legal concept. If anything is to be questioned, it is the quality of the brain inside your skull.
First of all, "precedence" is not the word you're looking for, and if you're going to continue to be an arm-chair attorney, the word is precedent.
Second of all, you have completely missed the point on issue preclusion. Read Kessler's brief. He specifically says "A District Court" decided the issue, leading to collateral estoppel. He did not say "This District Court" has already resolved the issue. You should already be seeing signs of weakness. But more importantly, the exact specific issues in the Brady case are not the exact specific issues that are in the Peterson case. Kessler is trying to argue that they are, but you know what? Even he knows the argument is bullshit. Do you know how I know it? The same way that anyone reading it should know it: this part, my dear intellectually deficient /u/pantsb, even you should be able to figure out. He didn't brief it. He brings it up as a throwaway in his preliminary statement and then devotes exactly zero percent of the brief to his collateral estoppel argument.
He is doing this, knowing that it's a loser of an argument, to try to persuade a 2nd District judge to accept the reasoning of Judge Doty. Not because he actually thinks there is any issue preclusion. It's a fine strategy, but it's a strategy, not an argument. You can see Kessler build on that strategy when he specifically mentions Doty's experience in NFL CBA disputes, more or less begging for his reasoning to be applied. It does not have to be applied.
And finally, you've missed the point on my hypothetical entirely. Let me attempt to make this idiot proof. The hypothetical does not refer to the arguments in the moving papers. The stop sign hypothetical applies to your justification of the relative strengths of the arguments in the moving papers.
What you said, more or less, was that the NFLPA is going to win because of collateral estoppel. What you didn't say was why they were going to win. All you did was reiterate an argument made by someone else without saying why it would be successful. Hence, you agreeing with Person A, because of Person A's argument that Person B blew the stop sign.