Specter: Patriots Cheated in '04 Against Steelers

[FuzzyLumpkins]

in that article you posted, Walsh will receive immunity from the Pats if he hands over the tapes that he took from them, and is truthful

simple

Walsh just looks like a scared *****, honestly

no it doesnt. he can think hes telling the truth and still be sued if he shows any inaccuracy. thats why typically the language is 'bad faith.'

the only thing is that if goodell continues to fail to get anything done then congress is going to take over and his legacy of incompetence continues.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

no it doesnt. he can think hes telling the truth and still be sued if he shows any inaccuracy. thats why typically the language is 'bad faith.'

all dude has to do is be prepared and make sure his story is straight and adds up ie be truthful

and hand over property that doesn't belong to him

screwing over Walsh would be professional suicide for Goodell

the only thing is that if goodell continues to fail to get anything done then congress is going to take over and his legacy of incompetence continues.

Walsh is holding up the proceedings too because he's too afraid of Goodell and his henchmen

and who gives a frick about Goodell's legacy? the whole thing behind this is the Pats getting their fair share of punishment

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

all dude has to do is be prepared and make sure his story is straight and adds up ie be truthful

and hand over property that doesn't belong to him

screwing over Walsh would be professional suicide for Goodell



Walsh is holding up the proceedings too because he's too afraid of Goodell and his henchmen

and who gives a frick about Goodell's legacy? the whole thing behind this is the Pats getting their fair share of punishment

He can think hes got his story straight and still be sued for any inconsistency that the Pats want to concoct.

This is already professional suicide for Goodell. Hes been in damage control mode from the beginning and its only getting worse for him. Its already readily apparent that his initial investigation was incompetent or intentiaonally ineffective. Not interviewing former video employees is about as stupid as possible.

Additionally its not the league that Walsh has to worry about. its that Pats and Goodell cannot prohibit them from filing suit against Walsh.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

He can think hes got his story straight and still be sued for any inconsistency that the Pats want to concoct.

if he's being truthful, there will be no inconsistencies to legitimately point out, now will there?

This is already professional suicide for Goodell. Hes been in damage control mode from the beginning and its only getting worse for him. Its already readily apparent that his initial investigation was incompetent or intentiaonally ineffective. Not interviewing former video employees is about as stupid as possible.

:laugh2: I knew you were going to say that

Additionally its not the league that Walsh has to worry about. its that Pats and Goodell cannot prohibit them from filing suit against Walsh.

if GOodell can't protect Walsh, what do you expect him to do then?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

if he's being truthful, there will be no inconsistencies to legitimately point out, now will there?



:laugh2: I knew you were going to say that



then it's useless to push GOodell to do something when he can't protect Walsh, I don't know why you're getting sore at him then

he'll just have to wait for Spectre to grant him immunity then, or take the risk and cooperate w/ Goodell to get the indemnity

Its not useless if he says tht the standard is good faith and not truth.

You dont know what youre talking about. Walsh is saying he is willing to go in there and not lie. The league wants him to tell the truth and those two things are not the same. you cannot lie but still not tell the truth. in order to lie you have to willingly report something you know to be false. if you do it unintentionally then you are acting in good faith and thus not lying.

Basically if Walsh goes in and speaks in good faith and says an inaccuracy then he is wide open for litigation from the Pats.

If he gets the indemnity he wants then the Pats would have to prove that he acted in bad faith which is a completely different story. i dont understand why they would give him that and bring him in.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

doesn't good faith and truth kind of go hand-in-hand anyways?



then tell the truth and return the tapes, idk, do something

no they arent. i can act in good faith and still not say what is true.

For a long time i thought ambivalent meant the same thing as apathetic. when i called someone ambivalent i wasnt lying but i still wasnt saying the truth.

and the league can protect him, they are just not choosing to do it.

you deleted you post is ee.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Its not useless if he says tht the standard is good faith and not truth.

don't they kind of go hand in hand anyways?

You dont know what youre talking about. Walsh is saying he is willing to go in there and not lie. The league wants him to tell the truth and those two things are not the same. you cannot lie but still not tell the truth. in order to lie you have to willingly report something you know to be false. if you do it unintentionally then you are acting in good faith and thus not lying.

wth? then dude should be telling Goodell what he knows to be truthful, instead of stuff that he doesn't know to be true

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

don't they kind of go hand in hand anyways?



wth? then dude should be telling Goodell what he knows to be truthful, instead of stuff that he doesn't know to be true

read my above. you can think you know something and be wrong. people make mistakes and the way it is right now the pats can sue walsh for making an honest mistake.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

no they arent. i can act in good faith and still not say what is true.

but wouldn't you try to avoid saying stuff you don't know to be true or not?

For a long time i thought ambivalent meant the same thing as apathetic. when i called someone ambivalent i wasnt lying but i still wasnt saying the truth.

and the league can protect him, they are just not choosing to do it.

indemnity is protection

you deleted you post is ee.

cuz you edited your's

 

[Bob Sacamano]

read my above. you can think you know something and be wrong. people make mistakes and the way it is right now the pats can sue walsh for making an honest mistake.

don't throw crap against the wall, and you won't make an honest mistake *not you per se*

sounds simple to me

just tell Goodell what you know to be true, not what you think may be true

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

don't throw crap against the wall, and you won't make an honest mistake

sounds simple to me

well its not.

liek i said i thought two words that are very similar in meaning meant the same thing. if he misses and dates, names, places, etc he is open for litigation.

hes going to grilled by them and asked tons of questions. one slip and hes sued. all hes saying is that he will act on good faith and not try to mislead them. its pretty standard.

the NFL not offering that is whats specious.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

don't throw crap against the wall, and you won't make an honest mistake *not you per se*

sounds simple to me

just tell Goodell what you know to be true, not what you think may be true

take out the word may and changes the meaning. i will tell you everything it hnk to be true.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

guess Walsh is just going to have to wait for Spectre then

that's his problem, not Goodell's

all I know is that most people won't take a man's word if he doesn't ensure that it's the truth, esp. when it comes to important subject matters

that's why in court they swear you in asking if you're telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth

or if you fill out a job application, it asks you that what you write down is true to the best of your knowledge, or you'll get fired

or how you'll get put in jail for filling out a false police report

of course there are going to be inconsistencies in what you give from time to time, but if what you say is littered w/ them, then that's where the honesty ends and you're just making crap up, and you can get into some trouble

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

guess Walsh is just going to have to wait for Spectre then

that's his problem, not Goodell's

all I know is that most people won't take a man's word if he doesn't point out that it's the truth

that's why in court they swear you in asking if you're telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth

or if you fill out a job application, asking you if what you write down is true to the best of your knowledge, or you'll get fired

or how you'll get put in jail for filling out a false police report

We dont know the language of the agreement so its pointless to speculate by comparing to others.

Goodell's unwillingness to set Good Faith as the indemnity standard which is what it typically is, is his fault. He snot doing that and as such Spectre is going to step in. Then itll be Goodell's problem.

Anyway my bro is in town and its our friends bday so im out.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

We dont know the language of the agreement so its pointless to speculate by comparing to others.

Goodell's unwillingness to set Good Faith as the indemnity standard which is what it typically is, is his fault. He snot doing that and as such Spectre is going to step in. Then itll be Goodell's problem.

Anyway my bro is in town and its our friends bday so im out.

the point I'm making is that it's perfectly ok for Goodell to get some concessions from Walsh, before he takes his testimony and makes a ruling on it, which will probably have a profound impact on the Pats

doesn't really matter what the language is, just no person in their right mind is going to take testimony that isn't ensured for truthfulness

 

[theogt]

I read you post.

You say the league doesn't want his tapes.

Hhhmm?



If the league doesn't want his tapes, why would Goodell want him to turn them over?

Furthermore, why would the league protect him to lie? That doesn't sound strange to you?

I meant they don't want the tapes public. Sorry, I was posting for my phone.

It seems reasonable to conclude he has to tell the truth to receive immunity. It appears to me Walsh is trying to weasel out of the deal. If he has the tapes that prove the Patriots taped the Rams walk-through, shouldn't that be evidence to support his claim, particularly since the Patriots say they did not tape the walk through?

Seems pretty simple to me.

Again, you didn't read my post. He can think he's telling the truth yet still get screwed by the NFL's indemnity.

 

[theogt]

POSTED 9:49 p.m. EST, February 15, 2008
WALSH HAS TAPES

For the first time since the football world was introduced to the name Matt Walsh, it is now obvious that Walsh has something that has made him sufficiently scared to get lawyered up -- and then to clam up.

His lawyer, Michael Levy, told Dave Goldberg of the Associated Press that Walsh has videotapes. Tapes that he made.

And we assume that they aren't bootleg copies of Death Blow and Cry, Cry Again.

Levy told Goldberg that Walsh will turn over the tapes if he receives sufficient protection from potential lawsuits or other legal actions.

"The NFL's proposal is not full indemnification," Levy said. "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."

The deal offered by the league requires Walsh to "tell the truth" and surrender anything that he took "improperly."

"No one wants to talk to Matt Walsh more than we do," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told the AP on 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?"

Here's why. Because if Walsh says, for example, that he personally taped the Rams' final walk-through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI, the league and/or the Patriots will claims that he hasn't told the truth. And thus he'll be exposed to litigation for violating his confidentiality agreement.

So Walsh's concern reasonable concern is that he'll be protected only if he says what the league and/or the Patriots want to hear him say.

Complicating Walsh's ability to achieve a sense of comfort in this regard is the news that the league has been doing some digging about him. "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 told the AP.

In our view, Walsh needs to have an opportunity to say what he knows without fear that he'll be immediately called a liar -- and then sued.

Finally, and as we've noted a couple of times in the past, why don't the Patriots merely release Walsh from his confidentiality agreement? If the team is confident in its position and secure in the notion that it has done nothing wrong (other than, you know, the stuff to which it already has admitted), then there should be no issue. By not providing Walsh with a vehicle for speaking absent fear of litigation against the blue-suited sharks from Covington & Burling, the league and the Patriots risk creating the perception that they're trying to keep the truth from coming out.

 

[peplaw06]

"The NFL's proposal is not full indemnification," Levy said. "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."

The deal offered by the league requires Walsh to "tell the truth" and surrender anything that he took "improperly."

"No one wants to talk to Matt Walsh more than we do," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told the AP on 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?"

If he gets indemnity, he's going to be testifying under oath in front of someone right? This seems like superfluous language that gives the league an "out" if Walsh doesn't say what they want him to say.

Complicating Walsh's ability to achieve a sense of comfort in this regard is the news that the league has been doing some digging about him. "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 told the AP.

This sounds like something the mob would do.

By not providing Walsh with a vehicle for speaking absent fear of litigation against the blue-suited sharks from Covington & Burling, the league and the Patriots risk creating the perception that they're trying to keep the truth from coming out.

I think most people already have that perception.

 

[tyke1doe]

Using this example, let's say that the cops are beating down the door as mom flushes sons drugs. Think there's a cover up?

Sure do. But the cops weren't come to the Patriots offices looking for the tapes, now were they?

And another thing, does mom have to have a search warrant to go into son's room and look through his dresser?

Because the parent owns the house. But if that child lived with his father and the mother was separated from the father, the mother wouldn't have the right to search the father's home now would she?

Second, Goodell may be the league commissioner, but he doesn't have the right to go to the Cowboys premise or the Pats premise and search it because ownership of the stadium belongs to Jerry Jones, and, if I'm not mistaken in the Pats' case, Kraft.

 

[tyke1doe]

So who has to give him permission to do a search and seizure? Is that not part of an investigation? If he doesn't have the authority to do that, how can he have "sole authority?"

But the way you're interpreting "sole authority" is more "absolute" authority. Based on your definition, he can do any and everything to investigate a matter. And I don't see him having the authority to do that.

Rather, I see "sole authority" as being he being the only one authorized to conduct investigations. Sole as in "lone" authority not "sole" as in having absolute power to search the offices of an NFL team.

I'm only frustrated because it seems like you're not reading English... it's like there's something being lost in translation.

I'm reading English. It's just that I'm not reading everything into the word "sole" like you are.

All you can do is spin words to create the facade that they comport with your argument, when they clearly don't. People bring up inconsistencies in your arguments, and you turn em around and say, "that's my point."

I can't help it if you guys are making my point for me. There are some things I have acknowledged I erred on, particularly calling a "search warrant" a "subpoena" (brain fart, there) and saying that the Pats were punished for spying on the Jets game when, after reading Superpunk's link, I changed my position.
But, yes, some of your arguments touch on the very things I've been saying. Me thinks the spin cycle isn't just operating on my side.

Yet another instance of you not being able to pick up on simple concepts. Sole authority is sole authority. You've yet to show any indication that Goodell would have to have anything even remotely resembling a search warrant to go in there and seize the tapes. You're the one trying to compare law enforcement requirements to the NFL's requirements. And it's apparently just because you say so, because I've yet to see anything that backs up what you've said.

I haven't shown where he might need a search warrant because it wasn't an issue. Goodell simply asked the Pats to turn the tapes over. I would assume that if he really had the power to investigate the matter, he wouldn't need to ask, and he could simply take them.
Of course, you don't know either whether he had the power to do so. You read sole as his ability to do so, but nothing suggests that he does. And, please, you're a lawyer. If you don't know that a lawyer can argue what's not spelled out in a document as one can argue what is in a document, you haven't been in many court rooms or read many cases. (As a tangent, the debate on homosexual marriages is an issue that illustrates this very clearly. Some states have had to go back and define what marriage is because this society has traditionally defined marriage in a certain way and never needed to spell it out until it faced legal challenge.)
Be that as it may, I'm going to make a call (or email) to the NFL offices and ask that very question, whether Goodell has the power in an investigation to seize records and documents from a team's headquarters. If I get an answer either way, I'll let you know. And if I'm wrong, I'll post it and apologize.

Does your boss have to have a search warrant to go through your emails or see what you've been looking at on your computer at work? I'll save you the suspense, he doesn't.

Uh, no, he doesn't because that computer belongs to the company. But he would have to have a search warrant to go through my car even though my car is parked on company property. And he would have to have a search warrant to go through my locked brief case. And the reason why is because his authority does not extend beyond property that is not his or the company's.

Furthermore, if I sent a work file to my home, even though it was the property of the company, he (my boss) would not have the authority to come to my home and search my personal computer. He would DEFINITELY need a search warrant. Moreover, if I stole company property, and my boss suspected that it is in my home, he has NO AUTHORITY to come into my home and search my premises to recover that property.

Everything within the Patriots office DOES NOT belong to the league. So the league is limited to what it can and can't do in this situation.

Yes that's what I'm saying. Do you have something that says otherwise?

I'll check on it and get back with you.