Specter: Patriots Cheated in '04 Against Steelers

[theogt]

I just don't find your explanation satisfactory.

I don't care. It's correct. You're quite uninformed as to how this will all play out and how the system works, so it's quite apparent that you'd be unsatisfied with my explanation.

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.

I didn't say that at all. I said they can sue him for breaching his confidentiality agreement. Do you know what that is?

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.

Who said anything about perjury? I told you that this is not how it works. Why are you bringing it up?

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.

Again, the Patriots would sue him for breaching his confidentiality. What Walsh wants is indemnification for his breach of the confidentiality agreement. Do you understand what indemnification is?

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.

The Pats could certainly sue him. The NFL wouldn't have to. He would have to sue the NFL if they failed to indemnify him (if they eventually signed an indemnity agreement).

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.

They're not asking for "blanket indemnity." They're asking for normal indemnity which provides for indemnity absent 'bad faith' false testimony by Walsh.

To me, it's pretty simple.

To you it's pretty simple because you don't understand what's going on.

If you have the tapes, turn them over to Specter.

Then he'll get sued.

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.

Well, if it's so obvious that he won't get sued by the Patriots, why is the NFL so reluctant to give him a normal indemnity contract?

 

[tyke1doe]

I don't care. It's correct. You're quite uninformed as to how this will all play out and how the system works, so it's quite apparent that you'd be unsatisfied with my explanation.

Actually, you do care. Otherwise, you wouldn't spend time explaining.
Second, you're only offering hypotheticals. Systems work great in the realm of hypotheticals.
Third, people can sue over anything. That doesn't mean that's how it will work out. And that doesn't tell me much of anything other than the system accommodates lawsuits of all types unless a judge dismisses them because they're frivilous.

I didn't say that at all. I said they can sue him for breaching his confidentiality agreement. Do you know what that is?

First, I do know what a "breach of confidentiality" or "breach of contract" is.

Second, that's not what you said. Here's what you said:

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

This is what you said, not me.

Who said anything about perjury? I told you that this is not how it works. Why are you bringing it up?

Because YOU raised the issue about Walsh being sued for lying. And my response to you is that you don't get sued for lying unless it's a matter of perjury or libel/slander.

Now you can stretch a "breach of contract" to be a suit about lying, but it is not the same.
If a suit ensues with respect to "breach of contract," it's usually going to revolve around differences and interpretations within that contract where one party thinks the other breached the contract and the other believes that he did not, not whether one lied or not.

Again, the Patriots would sue him for breaching his confidentiality. What Walsh wants is indemnification for his breach of the confidentiality agreement. Do you understand what indemnification is?

Yes. But that's different than what you said.
I agree with you that the Pats should wave their "confidentiality agreement" with him. But you said he would be sued for lying. You simply mispoke.

The Pats could certainly sue him. The NFL wouldn't have to. He would have to sue the NFL if they failed to indemnify him (if they eventually signed an indemnity agreement).

And they could. But I would contend that it would be a very bad thing for the Pats to do, especially if the tapes show they indeed taped the Rams walk-through. This is what this issue is all about.

They're not asking for "blanket indemnity." They're asking for normal indemnity which provides for indemnity absent 'bad faith' false testimony by Walsh.

So you're saying that if Walsh tells a bold face lie, then he wouldn't be covered?

To you it's pretty simple because you don't understand what's going on.

Or is it that I don't simply buy the argument of his attorney? Again, no group is going to provide indemnity to a witness who could lie. That just defies common sense.

Then he'll get sued.

Well, that gets to another point of how much of a farce this Senate investigation is, IMO, which is something I raised earlier. Specter has no power other than to ask questions. He can't demand Walsh turn over tapes. He can't legally compel him to testify. Paper tiger.

Well, if it's so obvious that he won't get sued by the Patriots, why is the NFL so reluctant to give him a normal indemnity contract?

First, I didn't say that they "won't" sue. I said it would look bad if they did sue.

Second, the answer to your question lies in the answer to this question: under a normal indemnity contract, if Walsh tells a bold-face lie would he be covered or exempt from a lawsuit?

 

[theogt]

First, I do know what a "breach of confidentiality" or "breach of contract" is.

Second, that's not what you said. Here's what you said:



This is what you said, not me.



Because YOU raised the issue about Walsh being sued for lying. And my response to you is that you don't get sued for lying unless it's a matter of perjury or libel/slander.

Now you can stretch a "breach of contract" to be a suit about lying, but it is not the same.
If a suit ensues with respect to "breach of contract," it's usually going to revolve around differences and interpretations within that contract where one party thinks the other breached the contract and the other believes that he did not, not whether one lied or not.

Ugh. You have no concept of how this works. He wouldn't get sued for lying. I never said he would. I said litigation over whether he lied would take place. That does not mean he would get sued for lying. He would get sued for breaching his confidentiality agreement. Then he would look to the NFL to indemnify him via the indemnity agreement. Then, the NFL could claim that he's lying and Walsh would have to sue the NFL in order to make them pay. That litigation would involve a contest over whether or not he was lying. None of this has anythign to do with perjury or libel or anything.

Why even argue over something you clearly have no clue about?

Yes. But that's different than what you said.
I agree with you that the Pats should wave their "confidentiality agreement" with him. But you said he would be sued for lying. You simply mispoke.

LOL. No, that's exactly what I said. I never said he would be sued for lying.

And they could. But I would contend that it would be a very bad thing for the Pats to do, especially if the tapes show they indeed taped the Rams walk-through. This is what this issue is all about.

If they're not going to sue him, then why don't they just release him from the confidentiality agreement? Since they're not releasing him, we can only presume that they're reserving the right to sue him.

So you're saying that if Walsh tells a bold face lie, then he wouldn't be covered?

Depends on what you mean by "bold face lie."

Or is it that I don't simply buy the argument of his attorney? Again, no group is going to provide indemnity to a witness who could lie. That just defies common sense.

You're buying the NFL's line hook line and sinker. The normal indemnity clause provides an 'out' for the NFL only in the case of "bad faith" lying. That pretty much means that they'd have to prove that he knew he was lying. Otherwise they can just say "he's lying," whether they really think he is or not and get out of indemnifying him. Of course, that's where the litigation would ensue.

Well, that gets to another point of how much of a farce this Senate investigation is, IMO, which is something I raised earlier. Specter has no power other than to ask questions. He can't demand Walsh turn over tapes. He can't legally compel him to testify. Paper tiger.

Actually, I'm sure he could demand them to be handed over, but I doubt that he will. He would rather the parties settle this without resorting to this.

First, I didn't say that they "won't" sue. I said it would look bad if they did sue.

That's ridiculous. You were clearly suggesting that they wouldn't sue. Otherwise, why even bring it up at all?

Second, the answer to your question lies in the answer to this question: under a normal indemnity contract, if Walsh tells a bold-face lie would he be covered or exempt from a lawsuit?

You have no idea what a normal indemnity contract is.

 

[superpunk]

This might have been covered already, but...

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d806bbf69&template=without-video&confirm=true

Commissioner Roger Goodell has said he offered Walsh a deal requiring him "to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity, but Levy has said the deal doesn't go far enough.

What does that mean, I wonder? Doesn't go far enough?

 

[theogt]

This might have been covered already, but...

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d806bbf69&template=without-video&confirm=true



What does that mean, I wonder? Doesn't go far enough?

Walsh's lawyer wants indemnity for everything short of 'bad faith' falsehoods. But the league isn't willing to go that far. Basically the league wants to be able to claim he's lying and not indemnify him without having to really prove that he's lying.

 

[superpunk]

Walsh's lawyer wants indemnity for everything short of 'bad faith' falsehoods. But the league isn't willing to go that far. Basically the league wants to be able to claim he's lying and not indemnify him without having to really prove that he's lying.

Any link to anything that goes into that further?

 

[theogt]

Any link to anything that goes into that further?

I think it's been linked to in this thread. Here's an article:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3248267

From a legal standpoint, the bad faith language simply makes it harder for the Patriots to back out of their indemnity contract based on the fact that they think he's lying. They would have to prove he knew he was lying rather than just proving something he said was factually incorrect.

 

[tyke1doe]

Ugh. You have no concept of how this works. He wouldn't get sued for lying. I never said he would. I said litigation over whether he lied would take place. That does not mean he would get sued for lying. He would get sued for breaching his confidentiality agreement. Then he would look to the NFL to indemnify him via the indemnity agreement. Then, the NFL could claim that he's lying and Walsh would have to sue the NFL in order to make them pay. That litigation would involve a contest over whether or not he was lying. None of this has anythign to do with perjury or libel or anything.

Sorry, theogt, but this is what you said:

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

And, yes, I do have a concept of how it works, which is why I checked you on your comment above.

Second, I know it has nothing to do with perjury or libel or anything. I was just highlighting the reasons why one gets sued for lying. And none of those cases I mentioned apply in this situation. Hence, there's no reason for any litigation which would prove or disprove he was lying.

Third, breaching his confidentiality agreement has NOTHING to do with whether he is lying or not. Either the evidence will prove that he indeed breached his agreement by the language of that agreement or it will not. That has nothing to do with lying.

You just misspoke and can't admit that you did so.

Why even argue over something you clearly have no clue about?

Any more than you have a clue why I offered libel and perjury as an example, as if I was saying that they had anything to do with this case. You do know what an example is don't you?

LOL. No, that's exactly what I said. I never said he would be sued for lying.

Here again is what you said:

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

And assuming you're a student of the law, you do know that in most lawsuits, the prosecutor and the defense attorney are trying to prove their case as well as raise questions of the credibility of the opponent's witnesses, i.e., raising the question whether they're telling the truth or lying.

Your above statement doesn't really tell me much.

If they're not going to sue him, then why don't they just release him from the confidentiality agreement? Since they're not releasing him, we can only presume that they're reserving the right to sue him.

Oh, I agree with you on releasing him from the confidentiality agreement. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the NFL needs to provide him with indemnity to cover him should he lie. Two different concepts.

Depends on what you mean by "bold face lie."

So now there are degrees of lying?
If he says something that is not the truth and reasonable people judge it to be a lie, should he be covered by "normal" indemnity?

You're buying the NFL's line hook line and sinker. The normal indemnity clause provides an 'out' for the NFL only in the case of "bad faith" lying. That pretty much means that they'd have to prove that he knew he was lying. Otherwise they can just say "he's lying," whether they really think he is or not and get out of indemnifying him. Of course, that's where the litigation would ensue.

Translation: even though he lies, it's the burden of the NFL to prove he lied. Otherwise, the NFL has to protect him.

Pulease. You're buying Walsh's lawyer's argument hook, line and sinker. There's no way the NFL is going to agree to such a deal. Walsh's attorney knew this too. This is merely a game being played.

Actually, I'm sure he could demand them to be handed over, but I doubt that he will. He would rather the parties settle this without resorting to this.

The parties already settled the issue. Specter brought more attention on this issue by calling the investigation, saying he wanted to get to the bottom of it. So why would he rely on the parties to settle this when he stated he's not satisfied with Goodell's investigation or Goodell's answers to his (Specter's) questions?

That's ridiculous. You were clearly suggesting that they wouldn't sue. Otherwise, why even bring it up at all?

Uh, because there's such a thing as the court of public opinion and the court of law.

In the court of public opinion, the Patriots would suffer even more public criticism if they sued. They could sue. But I doubt it because teams, individuals, organizations consider the court of public opinion very highly.

And the Pats would take a huge beating in the court of public opinion if they sued Walsh, especially if it is true he had tapes of the Rams walk-through.

You have no idea what a normal indemnity contract is.

But I do know what common sense is. And it makes no sense for the NFL to offer indemnity to Walsh and then be saddled with the burden of proving he lied.

Does that even make sense to you?

This entire process from Specter calling an investigation but not having any power to do so to this latest legal maneuver is a sham.

Walsh's attorney knew that the NFL would not agree to such a proposal. And if you think otherwise, well, open your mouth and just let me insert the hook.

 

[tyke1doe]

I think it's been linked to in this thread. Here's an article:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3248267

From a legal standpoint, the bad faith language simply makes it harder for the Patriots to back out of their indemnity contract based on the fact that they think he's lying. They would have to prove he knew he was lying rather than just proving something he said was factually incorrect.

So we have Levy on one side and the NFL's attorney on the other.

Any citation from a more independent, neutral source as to whether this deal isn't a "standard" one?

 

[theogt]

Sorry, theogt, but this is what you said:



And, yes, I do have a concept of how it works, which is why I checked you on your comment above.

Second, I know it has nothing to do with perjury or libel or anything. I was just highlighting the reasons why one gets sued for lying. And none of those cases I mentioned apply in this situation. Hence, there's no reason for any litigation which would prove or disprove he was lying.

Third, breaching his confidentiality agreement has NOTHING to do with whether he is lying or not. Either the evidence will prove that he indeed breached his agreement by the language of that agreement or it will not. That has nothing to do with lying.

You just misspoke and can't admit that you did so.

No, it's clear that you don't understand how it works. I didn't misspeak. Litigation would ensue to determine whether he's lying or not. I've outlined the steps that would take place and you still don't understand.

Any more than you have a clue why I offered libel and perjury as an example, as if I was saying that they had anything to do with this case. You do know what an example is don't you?

No, it's not an example. It's completely irrelevant to the conversation. You have no idea how the legal system and the contracts work.

Here again is what you said:


And assuming you're a student of the law, you do know that in most lawsuits, the prosecutor and the defense attorney are trying to prove their case as well as raise questions of the credibility of the opponent's witnesses, i.e., raising the question whether they're telling the truth or lying.

Your above statement doesn't really tell me much.

Prosecutor? LOL. You're totally clueless.

Oh, I agree with you on releasing him from the confidentiality agreement. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the NFL needs to provide him with indemnity to cover him should he lie. Two different concepts.

No, it's the same issue. You think they shouldn't indemnify him because they won't sue. But if they won't sue then they should release him from his confidentiality agreement. That they won't release him means that they might sue. Thus, the NFL should indemnify him.

So now there are degrees of lying?
If he says something that is not the truth and reasonable people judge it to be a lie, should he be covered by "normal" indemnity?

Of course there are different degrees of lying. That you disagree shows that you're clueless. It's about the burden of proof and knowledge of whether or not he's lying.

Translation: even though he lies, it's the burden of the NFL to prove he lied. Otherwise, the NFL has to protect him.

Pulease. You're buying Walsh's lawyer's argument hook, line and sinker. There's no way the NFL is going to agree to such a deal. Walsh's attorney knew this too. This is merely a game being played.

You don't quite understand what's going on here. The difference between the two standards is the NFL having to prove that he said something factually incorrect, and proving that he said something factually incorrect with the knowledge that it was factually incorrect. If the NFL gets its way, it can simply point to something factually incorrect or point to something it thinks is factually incorrect and then refuse to provide indemnity.

Uh, because there's such a thing as the court of public opinion and the court of law.

In the court of public opinion, the Patriots would suffer even more public criticism if they sued. They could sue. But I doubt it because teams, individuals, organizations consider the court of public opinion very highly.

And the Pats would take a huge beating in the court of public opinion if they sued Walsh, especially if it is true he had tapes of the Rams walk-through.

Right, you were suggesting that they wouldn't sue.

But I do know what common sense is. And it makes no sense for the NFL to offer indemnity to Walsh and then be saddled with the burden of proving he lied.

Does that even make sense to you?

This entire process from Specter calling an investigation but not having any power to do so to this latest legal maneuver is a sham.

Walsh's attorney knew that the NFL would not agree to such a proposal. And if you think otherwise, well, open your mouth and just let me insert the hook.

Gotcha. You don't know what a normal indemnity contract is.

 

[theogt]

So we have Levy on one side and the NFL's attorney on the other.

Any citation from a more independent, neutral source as to whether this deal isn't a "standard" one?

I'm telling you the difference between the two. You can decide which is enough protection.

In the NFL's version, they could simply say they think he's lying and then deny indemnification. Walsh would have to sue and the NFL would simply have to prove that something he said is false. Even if Walsh believed he was telling the truth, he would lose.

In Walsh's version, the NFL would have to prove that Walsh was intentionally lying. They would have to prove he knew what he said was false and he said it anyway.

So, let's answer these two questions:

1. Why should Walsh accept the NFL's version?
2. Why should the NFL not accept Walsh's version?

 

[peplaw06]

Gotcha. You don't know what a normal indemnity contract is.

Just add that to the long list of legal terms that he has absolutely no idea what they mean.

The man doesn't know the difference between a subpoena and a search warrant... Indemnity is way out of his league.

You'd think he would stop arguing with lawyers about legal concepts.

 

[tyke1doe]

I'm telling you the difference between the two. You can decide which is enough protection.

In the NFL's version, they could simply say they think he's lying and then deny indemnification. Walsh would have to sue and the NFL would simply have to prove that something he said is false. Even if Walsh believed he was telling the truth, he would lose.

In Walsh's version, the NFL would have to prove that Walsh was intentionally lying. They would have to prove he knew what he said was false and he said it anyway.

So, let's answer these two questions:

1. Why should Walsh accept the NFL's version?
2. Why should the NFL not accept Walsh's version?

1. He shouldn't.

2. Because if Walsh lied - whether intentionally or "non-intentionally" - it would still be incumbent upon the NFL to prove it. The NFL doesn't benefit either way.

Thus, this is all a sham. And Walsh's lawyer knows it. There's NO WAY the NFL is going to accept such an arrangement. And there's no way Walsh is going to accept otherwise. So the man's "tapes" will never be seen by anyone, and this whole process was a bunch of postering.

 

[tyke1doe]

Just add that to the long list of legal terms that he has absolutely no idea what they mean.

The man doesn't know the difference between a subpoena and a search warrant... Indemnity is way out of his league.

You'd think he would stop arguing with lawyers about legal concepts.

Yes, I misspoke and confused "subpoena" with "search warrant."

But you knew that I understood the legal concept of search and seizure enough to know what I was talking about and provide the correct term. Otherwise, you would not have been able to respond as such.

So I understood the concept even if I did use the wrong term. And that's the point.

Furthermore, you don't have to understand law to know this much: The NFL IS NOT going to offer Walsh indemnity and have Walsh possibly lie under its protection. And Walsh lawyer, I'm willing to bet, understands this.

It doesn't take a lawyer to understand that. Simply someone who understands human nature and gamemanship.

 

[tyke1doe]

No, it's the same issue. You think they shouldn't indemnify him because they won't sue. But if they won't sue then they should release him from his confidentiality agreement. That they won't release him means that they might sue. Thus, the NFL should indemnify him.

No. I don't think the NFL will indemnify him because it doesn't benefit the NFL to do so. Walsh could tell the truth or he could lie and the NFL still has to cover him all the same.

Of course there are different degrees of lying. That you disagree shows that you're clueless. It's about the burden of proof and knowledge of whether or not he's lying.

It doesn't matter. They would still have to prove he's lying in either situation. Intentional lie, non-intentional lie, factual inaccuracy. The burden would still be on the NFL. So the degree of lying is irrelevant in the overall scheme of things.

You don't quite understand what's going on here. The difference between the two standards is the NFL having to prove that he said something factually incorrect, and proving that he said something factually incorrect with the knowledge that it was factually incorrect. If the NFL gets its way, it can simply point to something factually incorrect or point to something it thinks is factually incorrect and then refuse to provide indemnity.

And in either case the NFL still would have to embark upon a process to determine whether he was lying or not, right? So there really isn't any difference in terms of what the NFL would have to do to revoke its indemnity.

Right, you were suggesting that they wouldn't sue.

Yes, "I doubt" they would sue because of public criticism amounts to they "wouldn't" sue.

It's clear what I said, if you want to receive it.

Gotcha. You don't know what a normal indemnity contract is.

But I know the NFL aint going for indemnity here because it doesn't benefit the NFL. That much is clear.

 

[peplaw06]

Yes, I misspoke and confused "subpoena" with "search warrant."

But you knew that I understood the legal concept of search and seizure enough to know what I was talking about and provide the correct term. Otherwise, you would not have been able to respond as such.

So I understood the concept even if I did use the wrong term. And that's the point.

No you don't understand the terms or concepts. You still think Goodell has to have a search warrant.

Furthermore, you don't have to understand law to know this much: The NFL IS NOT going to offer Walsh indemnity and have Walsh possibly lie under its protection. And Walsh lawyer, I'm willing to bet, understands this.

It doesn't take a lawyer to understand that. Simply someone who understands human nature and gamemanship.

This has been explained to you numerous times, yet it's still not clicking. It's standard practice to indemnify someone as long as they don't knowingly lie.... or tell a "bad faith" lie. You can claim someone simply lied on a difference of opinion. If Walsh says he taped the Rams for 30 minutes in their walkthrough, and their walkthrough only lasted 25 then they could get him, because technically that's a lie.

Thus, typical indemnity agreements cover that with the knowing, intentional, or bad faith lie terms.

And indemnity doesn't mean you won't get sued. It means that if you do get sued, and the Pats could still sue him even if the NFL offers indemnity, then the NFL would pay for his defense. To renege on that agreement for any statement that could be technically called a lie, makes the agreement worthless.

 

[DallasFanSince86]

I'm telling you the difference between the two. You can decide which is enough protection.

In the NFL's version, they could simply say they think he's lying and then deny indemnification. Walsh would have to sue and the NFL would simply have to prove that something he said is false. Even if Walsh believed he was telling the truth, he would lose.

In Walsh's version, the NFL would have to prove that Walsh was intentionally lying. They would have to prove he knew what he said was false and he said it anyway.

So, let's answer these two questions:

1. Why should Walsh accept the NFL's version?
2. Why should the NFL not accept Walsh's version?

No you don't understand the terms or concepts. You still think Goodell has to have a search warrant.



This has been explained to you numerous times, yet it's still not clicking. It's standard practice to indemnify someone as long as they don't knowingly lie.... or tell a "bad faith" lie. You can claim someone simply lied on a difference of opinion. If Walsh says he taped the Rams for 30 minutes in their walkthrough, and their walkthrough only lasted 25 then they could get him, because technically that's a lie.

Thus, typical indemnity agreements cover that with the knowing, intentional, or bad faith lie terms.

And indemnity doesn't mean you won't get sued. It means that if you do get sued, and the Pats could still sue him even if the NFL offers indemnity, then the NFL would pay for his defense. To renege on that agreement for any statement that could be technically called a lie, makes the agreement worthless.

I think we got two winners here.

I don't know how much simpler they can make these explanations.

It's not that hard to understand.

 

[theogt]

1. He shouldn't.

2. Because if Walsh lied - whether intentionally or "non-intentionally" - it would still be incumbent upon the NFL to prove it. The NFL doesn't benefit either way.

Thus, this is all a sham. And Walsh's lawyer knows it. There's NO WAY the NFL is going to accept such an arrangement. And there's no way Walsh is going to accept otherwise. So the man's "tapes" will never be seen by anyone, and this whole process was a bunch of postering.

So, let's assume he lies in bad faith, and the NFL knows he's lying. What does the NFL lose? You've already said that you don't think the Patriots will sue. And if the Patriots do sue, why should they have a problem proving that he lied intentionally?

 

[theogt]

No. I don't think the NFL will indemnify him because it doesn't benefit the NFL to do so. Walsh could tell the truth or he could lie and the NFL still has to cover him all the same.

You dont' think the NFL benefits from possibly getting more evidence of cheating? LOL.

It doesn't matter. They would still have to prove he's lying in either situation. Intentional lie, non-intentional lie, factual inaccuracy. The burden would still be on the NFL. So the degree of lying is irrelevant in the overall scheme of things.



And in either case the NFL still would have to embark upon a process to determine whether he was lying or not, right? So there really isn't any difference in terms of what the NFL would have to do to revoke its indemnity.

So if both standards have the same consequences for the NFL why accept one and not the other? Of course they're different. The litigation could be very expensive for Walsh. He wants the NFL to back him up. But the NFL wants an easy "out".

Yes, "I doubt" they would sue because of public criticism amounts to they "wouldn't" sue.

It's clear what I said, if you want to receive it.

So, we're back to your point being meaningless.

But I know the NFL aint going for indemnity here because it doesn't benefit the NFL. That much is clear.

Sure it benefits them. They get to investigate evidence of cheating.

 

[tyke1doe]

No you don't understand the terms or concepts. You still think Goodell has to have a search warrant.

There's still no proof that he has "sole" authority to march into the Pats offices and take what he wants.

So you have no more knowledge that he can do it than I do he can't. But I make an assumption that he doesn't have the power; otherwise he would have exercised it, just as you assume he does have the power to do so and didn't. But that's your interpretation of his powers, duties and responsibilities to investigate a matter.

Furthermore, if he doesn't have the power to do that then search and seizure is what he would need (and he wouldn't likely get that anyway), otherwise he would have to take the "word" of the Patriots that they gave up all their tapes.

And that was the point of the "search and seizure" reference anyway, my calling it a "subpoena" notwithstanding.

And you knew enough about my description to know what I was talking about, even if I got the term wrong.

This has been explained to you numerous times, yet it's still not clicking. It's standard practice to indemnify someone as long as they don't knowingly lie.... or tell a "bad faith" lie. You can claim someone simply lied on a difference of opinion. If Walsh says he taped the Rams for 30 minutes in their walkthrough, and their walkthrough only lasted 25 then they could get him, because technically that's a lie.

Let me approach this a different way.

So are you telling me that if Walsh says he taped the Rams for 30 minutes and he only taped them 25 minutes, that the NFL could revoke the indemnity it offered him?

Who gets to judge that? I would assume that the NFL's indemnity proposal would be a contract to be judged by the courts or an arbitrator.

And are you telling me that a judge/arbitrator would consider your example a lie sufficient enough to allow the NFL to withdraw its indemnity agreement with Walsh?

And indemnity doesn't mean you won't get sued. It means that if you do get sued, and the Pats could still sue him even if the NFL offers indemnity, then the NFL would pay for his defense. To renege on that agreement for any statement that could be technically called a lie, makes the agreement worthless.

Again, who makes the determination that the statement is technically a lie? The NFL? The NFL can't simply revoke a signed agreement. That would be determined in court or by an artibrator wouldn't it?

But let's assume that the NFL gives him a standard indemnity, and Walsh intentionally lies. Does the NFL have the power to revoke this indemnity merely because Walsh lied or is that decision too in the hands of another authority?

If so, I don't see where it benefits the NFL.