Specter: Patriots Cheated in '04 Against Steelers

[khiladi]

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.

The irony of it all is that Walsh is the one that should be conceding the language, and not the multi-million dollar Patriots... I love how the NFL and the Patriots are trying to paint him the bad guy...

this is getting more and more amusing....

 

[tyke1doe]

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.

Didn't the Pats say they didn't tape the Rams walk-through?

If this is the case, then the tapes are evidence to the contrary without Walsh's testimony.

The other thing that I find strange is why doesn't Walsh just hand the tapes over to Specter?

 

[tyke1doe]

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

I said this in the above post, but this seems to be a clear-cut issue.

The Pats said they did not tape the Rams walk-through.
Based on the stories I've read, Walsh appears to possess tapes of the walk-through.
All he has to do is hand those tapes over, and that should prove he's telling the truth.
Or, why not just hand the tapes over to Specter?

 

[theogt]

I said this in the above post, but this seems to be a clear-cut issue.

The Pats said they did not tape the Rams walk-through.
Based on the stories I've read, Walsh appears to possess tapes of the walk-through.
All he has to do is hand those tapes over, and that should prove he's telling the truth.
Or, why not just hand the tapes over to Specter?

This has been explained by several people in this thread, two of which are lawyers and one of which soon will be. He could be telling the truth, think he's telling the truth, and still get screwed. The NFL simply doesn't want his tapes to get public. Walsh isn't weaseling out. He just wants protection and the NFL isn't willing to give him that.

 

[Ren]

Bet if Goodell ever gets his hands on these tapes they'll just get destroyed like the others it's pretty obvious the NFL don't want the extent of the cheating to be known

 

[Ren]

Walsh isn't weaseling out. He just wants protection and the NFL isn't willing to give him that.

it's just a way for the NFL and the Pats to make him tell the "truth" they want to hear

 

[tyke1doe]

Bet if Goodell ever gets his hands on these tapes they'll just get destroyed like the others it's pretty obvious the NFL don't want the extent of the cheating to be known

But then Goodell will be especially guilty in the eyes of Specter and the public.

The first time he destroyed the tapes he had the "cover" of his excuse, i.e., he didn't want them to get into the wrong hands.

But if he were to destroy them after Specter has said he wants to interview Walsh and examine his "evidence," can you imagine the public outcry?

 

[tyke1doe]

This has been explained by several people in this thread, two of which are lawyers and one of which soon will be. He could be telling the truth, think he's telling the truth, and still get screwed. The NFL simply doesn't want his tapes to get public. Walsh isn't weaseling out. He just wants protection and the NFL isn't willing to give him that.

And another attorney also offered that no way would any prosecutor grant immunity to a witness who would lie.

Thus it appears to be a no-win situation for both sides. Walsh could lie and get protection from the NFL while doing so. I don't see where that benefits the NFL.

Or he could "think" he's telling the truth and lose his immunity. Of course, I would argue that it is harder to determine if one is lying just strictly on he said/he said arguments.

Furthermore, it seems pretty clear cut. The Patriots said they didn't tape the walk-through. Walsh implies that they did. If the tapes show this, then the tapes are really all that's at issue. Again, why can't Walsh just turn over those tapes to Specter?

I suspect I know the answer, but do any of our resident lawyers want to tackle that question?

 

[burmafrd]

Lets face it: Walsh will never work in the NFL again anyway and he knows it. No one will want to be tainted= and its not like he is a valuable coach. So this whole song and dance sounds like it is about money.

 

[khiladi]

It seems like people are missing an essential element in this discussion:

"It is very easy to allege someone has been untruthful even if it can't be proven,'' Michael Levy said. "The NFL's proposal would leave Mr. Walsh completely unprotected against such an unproven allegation, because he would have to defend against it himself. And the NFL wants Mr. Walsh to give up the very materials he might need to prove his truthfulness.''

There are two objections by Levy:

1. The language regarding telling the truth
2. Give all the material he took from the Patriots back to the Patriots

How ridiculous is it, for Walsh to testify, and not be able to use the evidence to prove his case, because that is part of the confidentiality contract he was required to sign, when employed by the Patriots?

Hey, give O.J. back the bloody glove, because you got that without his permission...

"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?"

The NFL is painting it that way, when in fact, that isn't the case. The idea of Walsh lying in a dispute would open him up to perjury, and that would open him up to criminal proceedings, irrespective of the NFL or the Patriots, would it not?

 

[tyke1doe]

But to accuse Walsh of lying would take evidence, wouldn't it? You just can't make a charge that someone is lying without proof.

And who would be suing Walsh? The NFL, right.

You don't think there's an attorney out there who would take Walsh's case, especially if so many lawyers out there are convinced that Goodell and Kraft are engaging in a cover up?

Moreover, why doesn't Walsh just give his tapes to Specter?

Is it because by doing so he will have breached his agreement with the Patriots? Well, wouldn't that make the Patriots look even more guilty if they were to sue him because he released tapes that showed the Pats cheated and taped the Rams Super Bowl walk-through, especially when Belichick and the Patriots denied they did so.

It seems to me that Walsh - if he's telling the truth - has more cards to play than the Pats or Goodell.

 

[theogt]

And another attorney also offered that no way would any prosecutor grant immunity to a witness who would lie.

That attorney works for the league. Of course he's going to say what the league wants him to say.

 

[theogt]

But to accuse Walsh of lying would take evidence, wouldn't it? You just can't make a charge that someone is lying without proof.

And litigation ensues to prove or disprove that he's lyihng. Costly litigation that the league could claim they won't indemnify him for.

Get it?

 

[khiladi]

That attorney works for the league. Of course he's going to say what the league wants him to say.

I don't even get it, because, in any court proceeding, whether civil or criminal, Walsh would have to testify that he is telling the truth. While perjury in civil courts may not always be pursued, it is illegal and a crime.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/perjury030398.htm

The demand by the NFL and the Patriots is pointless from a legal standpoint, and is propaganda on their part.

The only thing Walsh is asking for is that he can't be sued.

 

[tyke1doe]

And litigation ensues to prove or disprove that he's lyihng. Costly litigation that the league could claim they won't indemnify him for.

Get it?

Actually, no.

I don't know of anyone who gets sued for lying except ...

a.) if they lie while under oath. (And even if that's the case, the NFL isn't holding the proceedings but Specter and the Senate Judiciary Committee. So in this case, it would be the Justice Department that would have to pursue perjury charges, and I doubt it would.)

b.) if they libel or slander someone. And it is extremely difficult to libel (written) or slander (verbal) an organization like the NFL/Patriots (considering how much trouble they're in already I doubt they would meet the incredible burden of proof it would take to prove that they suffered as a result of slander or libel) or a public figure like Bill Belichick.

So forgive me if I don't see where the league or Pats would have grounds to sue Walsh for lying.

 

[theogt]

Actually, no.

Don't even attempt to tell me how it is on this issue.

I don't know of anyone who gets sued for lying except ...

a.) if they lie while under oath. (And even if that's the case, the NFL isn't holding the proceedings but Specter and the Senate Judiciary Committee. So in this case, it would be the Justice Department that would have to pursue perjury charges, and I doubt it would.)

b.) if they libel or slander someone. And it is extremely difficult to libel (written) or slander (verbal) an organization like the NFL/Patriots (considering how much trouble they're in already I doubt they would meet the incredible burden of proof it would take to prove that they suffered as a result of slander or libel) or a public figure like Bill Belichick.

So forgive me if I don't see where the league or Pats would have grounds to sue Walsh for lying.

This is all irrelevant. He wouldn't get sued for lying. He'd get sued for breaching his confidentiality agreement, then he'd look to his indemnity agreement with the NFL, and the NFL would argue that they think he's lying. Then he'd have to sue the NFL for breach of the agreement. At which time he'd have two very costly lawsuits (the lawyer he has probably charges about $500+ per hour) on his hands with a very real chance of him getting stuck with the bill even if he thinks he's telling the truth.

 

[tyke1doe]

This is all irrelevant. He wouldn't get sued for lying. He'd get sued for breaching his confidentiality agreement, then he'd look to his indemnity agreement with the NFL, and the NFL would argue that they think he's lying. Then he'd have to sue the NFL for breach of the agreement. At which time he'd have two very costly lawsuits (the lawyer he has probably charges about $500+ per hour) on his hands with a very real chance of him getting stuck with the bill even if he thinks he's telling the truth.

Ah, I thought you'd go there.

Breaching an confidentiality agreement is not exactly the same as being sued for lying.

And this is what you said:

And litigation ensues to prove or disprove that he's lyihng.

Which gets to my original question/point:

1. If the tapes are what's at issue, why not just turn them over to Goodell and let them speak for themselves? Why would he even have to speak? The Pats are saying they didn't tape the walk-throughs. The tapes supposedly say otherwise. Let the tapes speak for themselves.

2. If he turns over the tapes per the NFL's requirement, that should take care of the breach of contract issue. So now the only suit would be for lying, and exactly who is going to bring such a suit? The NFL? The Pats?
I don't think the Patriots or the NFL would dare bring a suit against Walsh on he said/he said stuff. They're already on the hot seat. And the NFL is very much concerned about its image. I doubt either would sue Walsh for lying, which would be very, very difficult to prove anyway absent a bold-face lie.
Besides, as I've said already, the government would be the one entity that would be interested in suing him for perjury since this is going to likely involve a Senate hearing. And I doubt it would.

 

[theogt]

Ah, I thought you'd go there.

Breaching an confidentiality agreement is not exactly the same as being sued for lying.

And this is what you said:



Which gets to my original question/point:

1. If the tapes are what's at issue, why not just turn them over to Goodell and let them speak for themselves? Why would he even have to speak? The Pats are saying they didn't tape the walk-throughs. The tapes supposedly say otherwise. Let the tapes speak for themselves.

2. If he turns over the tapes per the NFL's requirement, that should take care of the breach of contract issue. So now the only suit would be for lying, and exactly who is going to bring such a suit? The NFL? The Pats?
I don't think the Patriots or the NFL would dare bring a suit against Walsh on he said/he said stuff. They're already on the hot seat. And the NFL is very much concerned about its image. I doubt either would sue Walsh for lying, which would be very, very difficult to prove anyway absent a bold-face lie.
Besides, as I've said already, the government would be the one entity that would be interested in suing him for perjury since this is going to likely involve a Senate hearing. And I doubt it would.

What don't you get? I explained it all very clearly how the litigation would play out. Which part are you confused about?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

What don't you get? I explained it all very clearly how the litigation would play out. Which part are you confused about?

well, me, I'm having trouble w/ the zone blitz

could you tell me what that is?:

 

[tyke1doe]

What don't you get? I explained it all very clearly how the litigation would play out. Which part are you confused about?

I just don't find your explanation satisfactory.

You argue that the NFL/Pats can sue if they "think" he's lying. And I'm saying to you that people don't generally get sued for lying unless it's tied to perjury or libel/slander.

And, in the case of perjury, that would be something the government would pursue - not the NFL - because it involves lying under oath during an official, legal investigation.

Then you offer that the Pats would sue for breach of contract, which is not lying. But that would be something that before Walsh testifies, he would get in writing, i.e., that the NFL can not sue him for breach of contract if he hands over the tapes and speaks about what he knows.

And I doubt very seriously that in this current climate, the NFL or the Patriots, would sue him because to do so would invite even more public scrutinty and criticism. And the Pats as well as the league are sensitive to criticism and their image.

Moreover, it's almost ridiculous to suggest that the NFL should grant blanket indemnity even if he lies. So the NFL grants him indemnity for everything and then he proceeds to lie knowing full well the NFL can't do anything about it.

Does that even make sense to you? No organization or prosecutor in his right mind would do that.

I think Walsh and his attorney know this and are trying to play this for all they can.

To me, it's pretty simple. If you have the tapes, turn them over to Specter.

All of football fandom is interested in this case. If you turn them over and the tapes prove Walsh indeed taped the Rams walkthrough, that revelation will be a crushing blow to the Pats.

And if the Pats turn around and sue, the backlash will be incredible from football fandom.

This case isn't going to go anywhere because I doubt Walsh backs down from his position or gives the tapes to Specter, and I'm quite sure the NFL isn't going to approve of a blanket indemnity that allows Walsh to lie on its dime, so to speak. Aint gonna happen.