Specter: Patriots Cheated in '04 Against Steelers

[theogt]

Walsh Lawyer: Protect My Client
By DAVE GOLDBERG – 1 hour ago

NEW YORK (AP) — The lawyer for former New England Patriots employee Matt Walsh said his client is willing to turn over videotapes he made for the team if the NFL guarantees Walsh protection from lawsuits or other legal action.

Attorney Michael Levy said that to date, the NFL's initial proposals are not sufficient protection for Walsh, who is said to have taped the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough practice the day before they played the Patriots in the 2002 Super Bowl. The Patriots won. 20-17.

"The NFL's proposal is not full indemnification," Levy told The Associated Press Friday in a telephone interview from his office at the Washington law firm of McKee Nelson.

"It is highly conditional and still leaves Mr. Walsh vulnerable. I have asked the NFL to provide Mr. Walsh with the necessary legal protections so that he can come forward with the truth without fear of retaliation and litigation. To best serve the interest of the public and everyone involved, I am hopeful that the NFL will do so promptly."

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has said he's offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity.

"No one wants to talk to Matt Walsh more than we do," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said Friday.

"But his demand to be released from all responsibility even if his comments are not truthful is unprecedented and unreasonable. The NFL and the Patriots have assured Mr. Walsh's lawyer that there will be no adverse consequences for his client if Mr. Walsh truthfully shares what he knows. Why does he need any more protection than that?"

Walsh, now a golf pro in Maui, did video work for the Patriots when they won the first of their three Super Bowl after the 2001 season.

Goodell said Walsh was not interviewed as part of the NFL's investigation into "Spygate," which involved the NFL confiscating tapes from a Patriots employee who recorded the New York Jets' defensive signals from the sideline during the opening game of the 2007 season.

As a result of that investigation, New England coach Bill Belichick was fined $500,000 and the team was fined $250,000 and forfeited its 2008 first-round draft choice.

Six confiscated tapes and other documents pertaining to the Patriots' taping were subsequently destroyed by the league. Goodell has defended the destruction of the tapes.

Levy, who is continuing to negotiate with the NFL on Walsh's behalf, also objected to NFL security's investigation of his client.

"Sending a former FBI agent to investigate his professional and personal life has not left Mr. Walsh feeling confident that the National Football League simply wants to encourage him to come forward with whatever information he has," Levy said.

Goodell met this week with Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter and disclosed for the first time that the taping may have gone back to 2000, when Belichick first became coach of the Patriots. The commissioner said Belichick told him in their meeting last September that he believed the taping was legal. "We agreed to disagree," the commissioner said.

Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary committee, said after the meeting that he would continue to investigate the taping episodes. He has said he also would like to speak with Walsh.

Goodell said he could reopen the investigation.

"If there is new information that is credible, new material that could be credible that would help us, yes, we'll look at it," he said.

But Eric Holder, a partner in Covington & Burling, the NFL's outside law firm, suggested the NFL might remain reluctant to meet Walsh's current terms.

"No responsible investigator would offer blanket immunity to a potential witness without a commitment that the witness will be truthful," Holder said. "Any witness who refuses to make that commitment doesn't deserve immunity."

NFL Football Writer Barry Wilner contributed to this report.

 

[tyke1doe]

Let's replace tapes with "drugs" just for fun.

1. The drugs were illegally obtained.
2. They shouldn't have existed to begin with.
3. Destroying them sends the message that they should not be used at all.
4. You eliminate the possibility of anyone else getting their hands on those drugs or them being leaked to the press.

Thank you for the example. And here is my reply.

I'd say that many parents have done that very thing, flushing drugs down the toilet when they discovered them in their children's bedrooms. And there are parents that have gone a step beyond that and have checked their drug-using children into rehab clinics.
They (the parent) did their own investigation, which uncovered the drugs. They, instead of keeping the drugs, disposed of them. Then they administered their own brand of punishment.

Why is this permissible or acceptable? Because parents operate under a different set of rules than the legal system. When the legal system gets involved, there are different procedures involved.

Similarly, the NFL and Goodell operate from a different set of rules and procedures than the legal system.

So trying to compare what Goodell did to the legal system isn't an apple-to-orange comparison.

But the parental example works perfectly even with the drug example.

 

[tyke1doe]

Walsh Lawyer: Protect My Client
By DAVE GOLDBERG – 1 hour ago

NEW YORK (AP) — The lawyer for former New England Patriots employee Matt Walsh said his client is willing to turn over videotapes he made for the team if the NFL guarantees Walsh protection from lawsuits or other legal action.

Attorney Michael Levy said that to date, the NFL's initial proposals are not sufficient protection for Walsh, who is said to have taped the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough practice the day before they played the Patriots in the 2002 Super Bowl. The Patriots won. 20-17.

"The NFL's proposal is not full indemnification," Levy told The Associated Press Friday in a telephone interview from his office at the Washington law firm of McKee Nelson.

"It is highly conditional and still leaves Mr. Walsh vulnerable. I have asked the NFL to provide Mr. Walsh with the necessary legal protections so that he can come forward with the truth without fear of retaliation and litigation. To best serve the interest of the public and everyone involved, I am hopeful that the NFL will do so promptly."

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has said he's offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity.

"No one wants to talk to Matt Walsh more than we do," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said Friday.

"But his demand to be released from all responsibility even if his comments are not truthful is unprecedented and unreasonable. The NFL and the Patriots have assured Mr. Walsh's lawyer that there will be no adverse consequences for his client if Mr. Walsh truthfully shares what he knows. Why does he need any more protection than that?"

Walsh, now a golf pro in Maui, did video work for the Patriots when they won the first of their three Super Bowl after the 2001 season.

Goodell said Walsh was not interviewed as part of the NFL's investigation into "Spygate," which involved the NFL confiscating tapes from a Patriots employee who recorded the New York Jets' defensive signals from the sideline during the opening game of the 2007 season.

As a result of that investigation, New England coach Bill Belichick was fined $500,000 and the team was fined $250,000 and forfeited its 2008 first-round draft choice.

Six confiscated tapes and other documents pertaining to the Patriots' taping were subsequently destroyed by the league. Goodell has defended the destruction of the tapes.

Levy, who is continuing to negotiate with the NFL on Walsh's behalf, also objected to NFL security's investigation of his client.

"Sending a former FBI agent to investigate his professional and personal life has not left Mr. Walsh feeling confident that the National Football League simply wants to encourage him to come forward with whatever information he has," Levy said.

Goodell met this week with Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter and disclosed for the first time that the taping may have gone back to 2000, when Belichick first became coach of the Patriots. The commissioner said Belichick told him in their meeting last September that he believed the taping was legal. "We agreed to disagree," the commissioner said.

Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary committee, said after the meeting that he would continue to investigate the taping episodes. He has said he also would like to speak with Walsh.

Goodell said he could reopen the investigation.

"If there is new information that is credible, new material that could be credible that would help us, yes, we'll look at it," he said.

But Eric Holder, a partner in Covington & Burling, the NFL's outside law firm, suggested the NFL might remain reluctant to meet Walsh's current terms.


"No responsible investigator would offer blanket immunity to a potential witness without a commitment that the witness will be truthful," Holder said. "Any witness who refuses to make that commitment doesn't deserve immunity."

NFL Football Writer Barry Wilner contributed to this report.

Thank you for posting that article, theogt.

 

[5Stars]

Here's my reason:

1. The tapes were illegally obtained.

Your words from your last post to peplaw;

That's why he asked the Pats to turn over the tapes.

So that was illegally obtained?

2. They shouldn't have existed to begin with.

And just who's fault is that? Yours? Mine? Belichicks?

3. Destroying them sends the message that they should not be used at all.

Who's going to use them anyway now? I thought coaches change signals during the course of a season? These tapes are about what happened during THEIR season...not upcoming seasons...so what's the big deal?

4. You eliminate the possibility of anyone else getting their hands on those tapes or them being leaked to the press.

Why? What does the press have to do with it? What is the possiblity of anyone getting to see the tapes if nothing fishy was going on? Where is the logic in any of that? Or...are you saying that destroying the tapes so the press cannot see what is on them and SHOW that something was fishy or someone was cheating?

I'll tell you something, tyke1done...you can swim backwards like nothing that I have ever seen before! Your logic is all messed up!

I think those are valid reasons, though they might not satisfy those who believe in a cover-up.

That is your mistake, right there! You are not thinking...


Anyway, carry on...

 

[theogt]

Thank you for posting that article, theogt.

Just curious, why'd you bold that part? I haven't been paying attention to the conversation in this thread.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Yep, just heard that for the first time myself, Theo...

I have a feeling Bill Belichick's winter is only going to get better.

And maybe tyke could have bolded this:

"Sending a former FBI agent to investigate his professional and personal life has not left Mr. Walsh feeling confident that the National Football League simply wants to encourage him to come forward with whatever information he has," Levy said.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Thank you for the example. And here is my reply.

I'd say that many parents have done that very thing, flushing drugs down the toilet when they discovered them in their children's bedrooms. And there are parents that have gone a step beyond that and have checked their drug-using children into rehab clinics.
They (the parent) did their own investigation, which uncovered the drugs. They, instead of keeping the drugs, disposed of them. Then they administered their own brand of punishment.

Why is this permissible or acceptable? Because parents operate under a different set of rules than the legal system. When the legal system gets involved, there are different procedures involved.

Similarly, the NFL and Goodell operate from a different set of rules and procedures than the legal system.

So trying to compare what Goodell did to the legal system isn't an apple-to-orange comparison.

But the parental example works perfectly even with the drug example.

I don't ever know what you try to say when you take someone's example, claim its perfect in something that exists in your mind, and then turn it into some lengthy explanation that is four times its length.

The NFL and Goodell operate under a different legal system than normal corporations under the US government because they are effectively a monopoly. Therefore, whenever distrust and lack of integrity become points of dispute for how a multibillion dollar business is being run that involves millions of people of the United States, those same millions of people have the authority in the name of their congressmen to request an investigation.

 

[tyke1doe]

That is your mistake, right there! You are not thinking...


Anyway, carry on...

I guess this is an Orwellian society where everyone engages in Groupthink.

Yes, carry on.

 

[5Stars]

Just curious, why'd you bold that part? I haven't been paying attention to the conversation in this thread.

Niether has he, theogt!

 

[theogt]

Specter Wonders Why Goodell Punished Patriots Before Viewing Evidence
Ryan WilsonPosted Feb 15th 2008 1:52PM by Ryan Wilson
Filed under: Patriots, NFL Fans, NFL Rumors, Featured Stories

I know some people have this idealized notion of what our elected officials should be doing to represent us, and that spending tax dollars to investigate allegations of cheating in professional sports ranks somewhere well south of building a bridge to nowhere or planning future manned missions to Mars on the "why we put you in office" to-do list.

We're still waiting on that bridge, and the space exploration thing is more than a decade off, but Senator Arlen Specter is fully embracing cheating in sports. Frankly, I have no issue with it; I've mentioned before that gridlock is the ultimate checks-and-balances tool. With different parties controlling the White House and Congress, it's much more difficult to pass inane legislation that would end up benefiting a few and disappointing everybody else.

So instead of pretending to tackle the important issues, lawmakers are left to tend to their pet projects. And for Specter, it's the NFL's antitrust exemption, and now, Patriotgate.

After meeting with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell earlier this week, Specter learned that the Patriots have been illegally videotaping opponents since 2000. The senator also told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that New England had videotaped the Steelers on four occasions, including. two AFC Championship games.

Goodell has offered a mealy-mouthed argument for why the league was right to destroy the evidence, and he's also mumbled something about leveling a stiff punishment to send a clear message that cheating won't be tolerated. Or some such. But Specter makes an interesting point that raises more questions than it answers:

"The commissioner confirmed the taping had been going on since the year 2000,'' Mr. Specter said. "He made no valid explanation for [destroying the evidence]. There are a couple other major problems he had, to say the least."

One problem, the senator said, is that Mr. Goodell imposed a $500,000 fine on Patriots coach Bill Belichick, a $250,000 fine on the team and docked them a first-round draft pick this year before the commissioner learned New England's illegal taping had been more widespread.

The commissioner issued the punishment after a Patriots cameraman was caught taping signals of the New York Jets in their first meeting this season. He then ordered the Patriots to turn over any evidence they had of such taping, including notes. Afterward, no other evidence of illegal taping was mentioned by the league at the time.

"The taping occurred on Sept. 9,'' Mr. Specter noted. "He imposed the fine on the 13th, didn't get the material until the 17th and destroyed it on the 20th. He imposed the fine before he had the notes and tapes.''

Uh-oh. Goodell might've handed down the most severe sanctions in league history, but it's kind of odd to think that he did it without first viewing the evidence. Of course, there could be a perfectly logical explanation, one that I'm sure Specter will get to the bottom of ... assuming Goodell doesn't, say, relent on DirecTV's current monopoly on the NFL Sunday Ticket. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

 

[tyke1doe]

I don't ever know what you try to say when you take someone's example, claim its perfect in some example that exists in your mind, and then turn it into four times it length.

The NFL and Goodell operate under a different legal system than normal corporations under the US government because they are effectively a monopoly. Therefore, whenever distrust and lack of integrity become points of dispute in a multibillion dollar business that involves millions of people of the United States, those same millions of people have the authority in the name of their congressmen to request and investigation.

Yes, the NFL operates under a different legal structure. Therefore, it's procedures - if not involving criminal matters - is not subject to legal procedures that govern the government.

That is the point right there.

Thank you for once again underscoring it.

 

[tyke1doe]

Niether has he, theogt!

Ah, more gratiutious comments about people not paying attention.

 

[theogt]

Yes, the NFL operates under a different legal structure. Therefore, it's procedures - if not involving criminal matters - is not subject to legal procedures that govern the government.

That is the point right there.

Thank you for once again underscoring it.

Weren't you the turd that criticized me for this? By the way, you also have some subject-verb problems going on here.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Yes, the NFL operates under a different legal structure. Therefore, it's procedures - if not involving criminal matters - is not subject to legal procedures that govern the government.

That is the point right there.

Thank you for once again underscoring it.

You have no fing idea what you're talking about.

 

[tyke1doe]

Just curious, why'd you bold that part? I haven't been paying attention to the conversation in this thread.

Because if the issue is truth, why would Walsh want total indemnity?

Some suspect he really is blowing smoke. I don't know whether he is or isn't. But it would seem to me if he's ready to tell the truth and that he has tapes that expose the Patriots, that along should warrant him accepting the NFL's indemnity offer.

 

[Vintage]

Patriots getting sued.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3248055

 

[tyke1doe]

You have no fing idea what you're talking about.

And I would say you don't either.

This is clear, though. The NFL is not bound by the same legal requirements and procedures that the government is with respect to an investigation into violations of NFL policy, unless those violations are of a criminal nature.

Do you dispute this?

 

[theogt]

Because if the issue is truth, why would Walsh want total indemnity?

Some suspect he really is blowing smoke. I don't know whether he is or isn't. But it would seem to me if he's ready to tell the truth and that he has tapes that expose the Patriots, that along should warrant him accepting the NFL's indemnity offer.

If he has tapes, why is there an issue of truth at all? This seems like just a tactic by the league. Walsh wants full immunity. If he gets sued for lying, the litigation could be costly and the NFL could have a loophole to back out of their indemnity agreement, even if it turns out that he wasn't lying.

 

[5Stars]

I guess this is an Orwellian society where everyone engages in Groupthink.

Yes, carry on.

Stop it!

Did you even read my rebuttles to you?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

This has been repeated ad naseum and you Pats defenders are ridiculous in your rationalizations. You don't destroy evidence if you're 1) innocent because it vindicates you and 2) if it's inconclusive because you can't determine guilt one way or the other. So, that leaves 3) you're guilty and you want it covered up.

oh, so I'm a Pat fan now? ok

So, the only bullchitification is what is being done by Pats defenders. Go tell a judge why you destroyed evidence and see if he thinks that "it could fall into the wrong hands" is a sufficient enough reason. You'll be laughed out of a court room.

um, Goodell isn't the one under investigation for cheating, the Pats are

and as seeing that Goodell will never go to court over this, your example is just stupid