Kentucky attorney sues NFL over Spygate

[KYPack]

Well it took almost two years, but at long last, an NFL story breaks out of NKY. Maybe now you guys will figure out where it is. As of a half hour ago, this story appeared in the NKY/Cincy Enquirer website.
Two Northern Kentucky lawyers, a Cincinnati ticket broker and a former University of Kentucky football player have filed a lawsuit accusing the New England Patriots of cheating in the 2002 Super Bowl and asking for refunds.
The Patriots and coach Bill Belichick illegally videotaped a St. Louis Rams walk-though before the game to gain an unfair advantage, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in US District Court in New Orleans, the host city of the game. The Patriots upset the Rams 20-17 on a last-second field goal.
The Patriots and the NFL could not immediately be reached for comment.
Through the lawsuit, the broker Kevin Hacker, who also attended the Super Bowl, asked the federal court to grant 72,922 people who attended the game a full refund. At a face value of $400 per ticket, that would mean the NFL would have to return $29,168,800.

Willie Gary, who played on the Rams’ Super Bowl team and was team captain his senior year for UK, wants each member of the Rams’ Super Bowl roster to receive $25,000 – the difference between the bonuses paid to the losing team and the winning team.

Gary, who now lives in Atlanta and plays arena football, also wants compensation for not receiving a Super Bowl XXXVI ring, which now sell for $125,000 on eBay, according to the suit.

For 45 players, the difference in bonuses and the value of the rings would be $6,750,000.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys – Eric Deters of Independence and Hugh Campbell Jr. of Villa Hills along with John Young of New Orleans – have asked that the suit be granted class-action status. The three lawyers allege the Patriots committed numerous crimes including fraud, racketeering and breach of contract in addition to violating Louisiana’s unfair trade practices and consumer protection act.

Also named on the lawsuit as plaintiffs are Missouri residents Peter Trout, a Rams’ season-ticket holder, and Marcus Miller, who attended the 2002 Super Bowl.

The NFL first caught the Patriots cheating last September. A Patriots employee was videotaping signals by the New York Jets coaches. Belichick was fined $500,000 and his team was ordered to pay $250,000 for stealing an opponent’s defensive signals. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell also ordered the team to give up its next first-round draft choice.

The idea for the suit came to Campbell, a self-described lifelong NFL fan, while watching this year’s Super Bowl.

During Super Bowl week, the Boston Herald reported that Patriots had also tape the Rams. Citing an anonymous source, the newspaper said that a member of the Patriots video staff taped the Rams’ last walk-through practice by staying in the Louisiana Superdome after their team’s picture.

Campbell said he found the spying on the New York Jets “crazy,” but when he learned of the alleged spying on the Rams, he began to think there might be grounds for a lawsuit.

He said he went to online football chat boards and found overwhelming support from fans and ticket holders for suing the Patriots. (That must have included PackerRats, eh?)

The suit states that Patriots violated the rule that “no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches’ booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game.”

The suit claims the Patriots routinely taped opponents’ defensive signals from the sidelines, as it was caught doing against the Jets, to decode the communications and file them away for future games.

In the suit Kurt Warner, quarterback for the Rams in the 2002 Super Bowl, said that if the Patriots’ coaches knew the defensive signals, they could filter information to the quarterback through the headset in his helmet, which shuts off with 15 seconds left on the play clock.

Warner is again quoted in the suit stating he remembers little of the walk-through other than that the offense ran some of its red zone plays.

The Rams had seven plays inside the Patriots’ 30-yard line in the final quarter of the Super Bowl. At one point, the Patriots stopped the Rams on four successive plays inside the three-yard line.

Deters said a meeting Thursday between US Senator Arlen Specter and Goodell bolsters the claims made in the lawsuit during a Congressional inquiry Specter called for on the matter.

The New York Times reported today that Specter was informed that Belichick probably videotaped opposing sidelines for most of his head-coaching career and the NFL had destroyed evidence of the cheating dated to 2002, the year of the Rams went to the Super Bowl.

“We believe that the NFL definitely has culpability in light of the recent acknowledgment by … Goodell to Senator Specter that Belichick admitted they have been video taking teams since 2002,” Deters said. “We are consciously not naming the NFL as a defendant at this time in the hopes and belief it shows goodwill on our part to convince the NFL they should intervene on everyone’s behalf to encourage the Patriots to resolve this matter as soon as possible.”

Specter, the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, also told the Times that the league is investigating Matt Walsh, a former Patriots video assistant who worked for the team during the 2002 Super Bowl.

Deters and Campbell said they would like to speak with Walsh. He and Campbell have not been able to contact Walsh, who has not worked for the Patriots since 2003 and now lives in Hawaii.

“I would love for our first subpoena to go out as soon as possible and that would be to Matt Walsh in Hawaii,” Campbell said. “My close second would be Bill Belichick.”

(The Deters family used to own the Packer bar I hang at. Eric Deters is a grandstander and a headline grabbing attorney. He’s also pretty good at what he does.)

[twoseven]

It figures.

[packinpatland]

Maybe they'll settle for BB just being barred from the NFL :lol: ........I would...but then you all know that. :wink:

[RashanGary]

This is GREAT. This is what needed to happen to put pressure on the NFL and those cheating pricks.

[twoseven]

Refunds for fans? Reparations for opposing players?

"The idea for the suit came to Campbell, a self-described lifelong NFL fan, while watching this year’s Super Bowl. He said he went to online football chat boards and found overwhelming support from fans and ticket holders for suing the Patriots."

Some fans told him it would be a good idea. Well that settles it.

[packinpatland]

I have a ticket stub here somewhere........along with my Woodstock ticket and my stub from the Icebowl........

[RashanGary]

This is great. The best place to hit those "covering up" pricks is right in the pocket book. Hopefully this thing blows up even further in the faces of everyone involved.

[packinpatland]

...best do this correctly..

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080215/SPT0201/302150076/1067/SPT

[CaliforniaCheez]

There is always a greasy lawyer/extortionist who will shameleesly pounce on any situation for money and publicity. They are disgusting parasites.

[KYPack]

Heard a small update.

The lawyer (Deters) was on a local sports radio show.

This a Federal civil suit. They are doing it under RICO. the organized crime statute. The assertion is that the taping was a criminal enterprise involving the camera dudes, the coaches, & Patriot staffers.

Goodell is gonna have no fun for awhile. BB neither.

[vince]

The suit claims the Patriots routinely taped opponents’ defensive signals from the sidelines, as it was caught doing against the Jets, to decode the communications and file them away for future games.

In the suit Kurt Warner, quarterback for the Rams in the 2002 Super Bowl, said that if the Patriots’ coaches knew the defensive signals, they could filter information to the quarterback through the headset in his helmet, which shuts off with 15 seconds left on the play clock.

If this is true, and based on the evidence they've been doing this since 2000, it would appear to be the case...
How big of an [illegal] advantage has it been for Tom Brady to know what defense the opponents were going to be running on virtually every play for the last 8 years?

Those that are making light of this situation are not seeing what actually happened, IMO.

[packinpatland]

[quote="CaliforniaCheez"]There is always a greasy lawyer/extortionist who will shameleesly pounce on any situation for money and publicity. They are disgusting parasites.[/quote



You talking about the Pats?? :lol:

[RashanGary]

If this is true, and based on the evidence they've been doing this since 2000, it would appear to be the case...
How big of an [illegal] advantage has it been for Tom Brady to know what defense the opponents were going to be running on virtually every play for the last 8 years?

Those that are making light of this situation are not seeing what actually happened, IMO.

Right on!! This is a HUGE advantage. Even if there is a blitz, you know where it's coming from and you have a backup plan if your C gets beat on single coverage (for example). From there, you anticipate the pressure, slide to the left and unload a pass, just as you planned presnap.

For as big as this thing is, it's suprises me how many people say it's no big deal.

[MJZiggy]

The suit claims the Patriots routinely taped opponents’ defensive signals from the sidelines, as it was caught doing against the Jets, to decode the communications and file them away for future games.

In the suit Kurt Warner, quarterback for the Rams in the 2002 Super Bowl, said that if the Patriots’ coaches knew the defensive signals, they could filter information to the quarterback through the headset in his helmet, which shuts off with 15 seconds left on the play clock.

If this is true, and based on the evidence they've been doing this since 2000, it would appear to be the case...
How big of an [illegal] advantage has it been for Tom Brady to know what defense the opponents were going to be running on virtually every play for the last 8 years?

Those that are making light of this situation are not seeing what actually happened, IMO.Suddenly I'm wondering...at the beginning of the season, the Pats were completely blowing out the competition, toward the end of the year, they were barely squeaking out wins and ended with a loss. Was that because they wore themselves out leaving their starters in or because the advantage disappeared over the course of the season...?

[twoseven]

They got caught on play 5 of game one versus the Jets, how did they gain an advantage THIS season?

[packinpatland]

There's SOMETHING here, that can not be denied.

No one has yet to answer my question......why were they taping at the Packer game Nov. 2006?

[twoseven]

There's SOMETHING here, that can not be denied.

No one has yet to answer my question......why were they taping at the Packer game Nov. 2006?
It's feasible to believe that every game from 2000 through 2006 they could have pulled this taping technique. However, this cannot be the case for this 2007 season, they were busted immediately during the first game, we all know the rest.

[MJZiggy]

They got caught on play 5 of game one, how does any of this pertain to THIS season?

Because if they never gave up ALL of the information on ALL of the games that they taped last season (6 tapes? For 8 years of taping? Come ON) then they would still have an advantage especially if they had already started learning the signals for the following weeks (you know, the ones with the blowouts) My bet is they gave up a few of the tapes from the teams they thought they could blow out anyway and the rest are in Tom Brady's basement or something. It's not like the FBI came in and took evidence out, they ASKED for the tapes and trusted ( :!: ) Belichick to hand over all he had. You can't say it's not possible...

[packinpatland]

And we're supposed to believe they only had one copy of each team they taped, and they turned them all into Goodell...........all six of them. :roll:

Odd math.

[vince]

There's SOMETHING here, that can not be denied.

No one has yet to answer my question......why were they taping at the Packer game Nov. 2006?
It's feasible to believe that every game from 2000 through 2006 they could have pulled this taping technique. However, this cannot be the case for this 2007 season, they were busted immediately during the first game, we all know the rest.
After illegally taping opponents over an 8 year period, the way that would have been put into effect would be that the information gleaned from tape would have been transcribed to a "cheat sheet" for the booth coaches to refer to during games. To my knowledge, these weren't turned in, nor were the Patriots' IT systems wiped clean that such information would have been undoubtedly stored on.... The fact taht they turned in a few tapes means nothing to their ability to use the information they gleaned from them over the years.

[twoseven]

They got caught on play 5 of game one, how does any of this pertain to THIS season?

Because if they never gave up ALL of the information on ALL of the games that they taped last season (6 tapes? For 8 years of taping? Come ON) then they would still have an advantage especially if they had already started learning the signals for the following weeks (you know, the ones with the blowouts) My bet is they gave up a few of the tapes from the teams they thought they could blow out anyway and the rest are in Tom Brady's basement or something. It's not like the FBI came in and took evidence out, they ASKED for the tapes and trusted ( :!: ) Belichick to hand over all he had. You can't say it's not possible...
All I know is the entire world saw them get busted in game one. Everybody knew what they were doing with the tapes at that point and they were being watched like hawks. Are you telling me the teams they played from then on after realizing signals were stolen WOULD NOT change their signals? How smart is that? Any team that uses signals, codes, etc. can change them in a heartbeat if they feel they have been compromised, how is this situation any different?

[packinpatland]

I can just see Bretsky and Bulldog (and possibly a few others) rolling their eyes......'Leave it alone, drop it!' they're saying...

Well you know, how many other fans, in recent history, go this far to 'bi*tch about their loss?

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/02/09/cheaters-feel-cheated-patriots-fans-want-final-1-40-of-super-bo/

[MJZiggy]

They got caught on play 5 of game one, how does any of this pertain to THIS season?

Because if they never gave up ALL of the information on ALL of the games that they taped last season (6 tapes? For 8 years of taping? Come ON) then they would still have an advantage especially if they had already started learning the signals for the following weeks (you know, the ones with the blowouts) My bet is they gave up a few of the tapes from the teams they thought they could blow out anyway and the rest are in Tom Brady's basement or something. It's not like the FBI came in and took evidence out, they ASKED for the tapes and trusted ( :!: ) Belichick to hand over all he had. You can't say it's not possible...
All I know is the entire world saw them get busted in game one. Everybody knew what they were doing with the tapes at that point and they were being watched like hawks. Are you telling me the teams they played from then on after realizing signals were stolen WOULD NOT change their signals? How smart is that? Any team that uses signals, codes, etc. can change them in a heartbeat if they feel they have been compromised, how is this situation any different?

That's why I'm saying that their advantage seemed to suffer as the season went on. I mean look at the massive "FU" blowouts they had at the beginning of the season and then by the end, they were barely winning games. Maybe some of the teams had assumed that Goodell had handled it and we heard that tapes were confiscated with notes, but I don't recall when we found out that there were only 6 of them.

[twoseven]

They got caught on play 5 of game one, how does any of this pertain to THIS season?

Because if they never gave up ALL of the information on ALL of the games that they taped last season (6 tapes? For 8 years of taping? Come ON) then they would still have an advantage especially if they had already started learning the signals for the following weeks (you know, the ones with the blowouts) My bet is they gave up a few of the tapes from the teams they thought they could blow out anyway and the rest are in Tom Brady's basement or something. It's not like the FBI came in and took evidence out, they ASKED for the tapes and trusted ( :!: ) Belichick to hand over all he had. You can't say it's not possible...
All I know is the entire world saw them get busted in game one. Everybody knew what they were doing with the tapes at that point and they were being watched like hawks. Are you telling me the teams they played from then on after realizing signals were stolen WOULD NOT change their signals? How smart is that? Any team that uses signals, codes, etc. can change them in a heartbeat if they feel they have been compromised, how is this situation any different?

That's why I'm saying that their advantage seemed to suffer as the season went on. I mean look at the massive "FU" blowouts they had at the beginning of the season and then by the end, they were barely winning games. Maybe some of the teams had assumed that Goodell had handled it and we heard that tapes were confiscated with notes, but I don't recall when we found out that there were only 6 of them.
Huh? If what they got were signals, which team that they played after they were busted didn't change their signals????

Are you suggesting the blowouts were because the teams they played didn't change their signals? Why wouldn't they?

Here's an idea, they blew teams out because they were a very good team and then they added Moss, Welker, Stallworth, and Adaelius Thomas. Then they were an amazing lineup playing not such good teams for a lot of 07'. Which Juggurnauts did they destroy early on? Teams tend to slow at the end of the year because the teams they play have 10-15 different game films from the same year to analyze and prepare from. The Giants got to study 15 games before they lined up against the Pats and kept it close, then they got two more from the playoffs to work from for the SB. The conspiracy theory for 2007 is getting silly.

[packinpatland]

This is getting more interesting by the minute.
*
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d806b4ea7&template=without-video&confirm=true

Matt Walsh's lawyer asks NFL to protect his client on Spygate tapesAssociated Press


NEW YORK -- 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.

Rooney: Pats' taping vs. Steelers a 'non-issue'
The New England Patriots' taping of opposing coaches' signals did not affect the outcome of games against the Steelers, including two AFC Championship games, Steelers chairman Dan Rooney said.

"We consider the tapes of our coaching staff during our games against the New England Patriots to be a non-issue," Rooney said in a statement. "In our opinion, they had no impact on the results of those games."

Rooney's comments were fueled by remarks Thursday by U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who has questioned whether the NFL has properly handled allegations that Patriots coach Bill Belichick had assistants videotape opponents' signals. More ... "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

[packinpatland]

And this:

Lawsuit seeks compensation for Super Bowl loss
Associated Press


NEW ORLEANS -- A lawsuit filed Friday by a former St. Louis Rams player and others seeks millions of dollars in damages from the alleged taping of Rams practices by the New England Patriots before the 2002 Super Bowl.

The Patriots won the game 20-17 in the Superdome.

The $100 million suit, filed on behalf of former Rams player Willie Gary in U.S. District Court in New Orleans, names the Patriots, team owner Robert Kraft and head coach Bill Belichick.

Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved

[MJZiggy]

They got caught on play 5 of game one, how does any of this pertain to THIS season?

Because if they never gave up ALL of the information on ALL of the games that they taped last season (6 tapes? For 8 years of taping? Come ON) then they would still have an advantage especially if they had already started learning the signals for the following weeks (you know, the ones with the blowouts) My bet is they gave up a few of the tapes from the teams they thought they could blow out anyway and the rest are in Tom Brady's basement or something. It's not like the FBI came in and took evidence out, they ASKED for the tapes and trusted ( :!: ) Belichick to hand over all he had. You can't say it's not possible...
All I know is the entire world saw them get busted in game one. Everybody knew what they were doing with the tapes at that point and they were being watched like hawks. Are you telling me the teams they played from then on after realizing signals were stolen WOULD NOT change their signals? How smart is that? Any team that uses signals, codes, etc. can change them in a heartbeat if they feel they have been compromised, how is this situation any different?

That's why I'm saying that their advantage seemed to suffer as the season went on. I mean look at the massive "FU" blowouts they had at the beginning of the season and then by the end, they were barely winning games. Maybe some of the teams had assumed that Goodell had handled it and we heard that tapes were confiscated with notes, but I don't recall when we found out that there were only 6 of them.
Huh? If what they got were signals, which team that they played after they were busted didn't change their signals????

Are you suggesting the blowouts were because the teams they played didn't change their signals? Why wouldn't they?

Here's an idea, they blew teams out because they were a very good team and then they added Moss, Welker, Stallworth, and Adaelius Thomas. Then they were an amazing lineup playing not such good teams for a lot of 07'. Which Juggurnauts did they destroy early on? Teams tend to slow at the end of the year because the teams they play have 10-15 different game films from the same year to analyze and prepare from. The Giants got to study 15 games before they lined up against the Pats and kept it close, then they got two more from the playoffs to work from for the SB. The conspiracy theory for 2007 is getting silly.

If they were so damn good, why did they feel they needed to cheat?

[packinpatland]

"If they were so damn good, why did they feel they needed to cheat?"

MJ, I'm starting to think we may be the only ones on this site thinking along these lines............. :roll:

[MJZiggy]

Could be. I just saw an interesting pattern and wondered about it. How long have I been pondering things this way? Maybe I need to wonder in a different colored font or something... :roll:

[packinpatland]

He didn't do anything wrong, it was just mistake.....a simple mistake.


Belichick accepts punishment, responsibility
Associated Press

Updated: September 14, 2007, 12:16 AM ET
Text of the statement from New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick after he was fined $500,000 for stealing an opponent's signals:

"I accept full responsibility for the actions that led to tonight's ruling. Once again, I apologize to the Kraft family and every person directly or indirectly associated with the New England Patriots for the embarrassment, distraction and penalty my mistake caused. I also apologize to Patriots fans and would like to thank them for their support during the past few days and throughout my career.

As the commissioner acknowledged, our use of sideline video had no impact on the outcome of last week's game. We have never used sideline video to obtain a competitive advantage while the game was in progress.

Part of my job as head coach is to ensure that our football operations are conducted in compliance of the league rules and all accepted interpretations of them. My interpretation of a rule in the Constitution and Bylaws was incorrect.

With tonight's resolution, I will not be offering any further comments on this matter. We are moving on with our preparations for Sunday's game."

Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press

[RashanGary]

They got caught on play 5 of game one versus the Jets, how did they gain an advantage THIS season?

Are you really this stupid or have you just not read anything about how this illegal taping was used.

They would take tape of teams, study their hand signals and then the next time they played, they would use their own signals against them. If they had Jimmy Johnsons signals from Philly, they would keep that in their bank for years as DC's don't typically change their language. Do you change your language? No, people use what they know.

NE will still be able to use the info that Brady has in his head for years. Just by knowing the signal for MLB blitz in the A gap, Brady can pick that up from several defenses for the rest of his career.

And yes, they probably changed many signals after busting NE, but it's very hard to change the whole way defense is conveyed from the coach to the field in a short amount of time. Some signals have always been used and probably still will be used by many.

And even when teams got to NE, there is probably some priority to trying to win week to week instead of changing the entire way you communicate all season for your week 7 matchup against shady Brady and bellicheat.

Talking to you is like watching someone try to clap one hand or sitting in a car while someone takes 4 left turns to go straight. Funny, sad and frustrating all at the same time.

[Bretsky]

There's SOMETHING here, that can not be denied.

No one has yet to answer my question......why were they taping at the Packer game Nov. 2006?


Marketing propaganda for free agents explaining how their goal is to kick the creap out of every team and this is how it's done ?

[packinpatland]

There's SOMETHING here, that can not be denied.

No one has yet to answer my question......why were they taping at the Packer game Nov. 2006?


Marketing propaganda for free agents explaining how their goal is to kick the creap out of every team and this is how it's done ?

:lol: :lol: That's as good a reason as any. :lol: :lol:

[packinpatland]

I love it......
:lol: :lol: :lol: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/don_banks/02/15/nuggets/index.html

• "If the Patriots routinely video-taped their opponents' signals dating from the start of New England's Bill Belichick era in 2000, with Belichick maintaining to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell that he thought such practices were legal, what, pray tell, did the Pats head coach think that memo the league sent out Sept. 6, 2006, was all about?

You know the one I'm talking about. In it, the NFL's executive vice president of football operations, Ray Anderson, stated rather flatly that "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game.''

Not a lot of wiggle room there, is there? If Belichick read that and still thought he could make his case for the legality of his team's taping, he probably thought Roger Clemens came off as utterly convincing in this week's congressional hearing."

[vince]

There is always a greasy lawyer/extortionist who will shameleesly pounce on any situation for money and publicity. They are disgusting parasites.

Fraud, racketeering, breach of contract, violation of Louisiana’s unfair trade practices and consumer protection act...

I'm pretty sure I know which side I'd label as greasy and disgusting, and it ain't the group of fans - or their representatives - who paid $30 million for something about which it now appears they were duped.

[vince]

This is getting more interesting by the minute.
*
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d806b4ea7&template=without-video&confirm=true

Matt Walsh's lawyer asks NFL to protect his client on Spygate tapesAssociated Press


NEW YORK -- 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.

Rooney: Pats' taping vs. Steelers a 'non-issue'
The New England Patriots' taping of opposing coaches' signals did not affect the outcome of games against the Steelers, including two AFC Championship games, Steelers chairman Dan Rooney said.

"We consider the tapes of our coaching staff during our games against the New England Patriots to be a non-issue," Rooney said in a statement. "In our opinion, they had no impact on the results of those games."

Rooney's comments were fueled by remarks Thursday by U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who has questioned whether the NFL has properly handled allegations that Patriots coach Bill Belichick had assistants videotape opponents' signals. More ... "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

Here's the counter to the nfl spun article above...

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm


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 claim that he hasn't told the truth. And thus he'll be exposed to litigation for violating his confidentiality agreement.

So Walsh's 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.

[twoseven]

They got caught on play 5 of game one versus the Jets, how did they gain an advantage THIS season?

Are you really this stupid or have you just not read anything about how this illegal taping was used.

They would take tape of teams, study their hand signals and then the next time they played, they would use their own signals against them. If they had Jimmy Johnsons signals from Philly, they would keep that in their bank for years as DC's don't typically change their language. Do you change your language? No, people use what they know.

NE will still be able to use the info that Brady has in his head for years. Just by knowing the signal for MLB blitz in the A gap, Brady can pick that up from several defenses for the rest of his career.

And yes, they probably changed many signals after busting NE, but it's very hard to change the whole way defense is conveyed from the coach to the field in a short amount of time. Some signals have always been used and probably still will be used by many.

And even when teams got to NE, there is probably some priority to trying to win week to week instead of changing the entire way you communicate all season for your week 7 matchup against shady Brady and bellicheat.

Talking to you is like watching someone try to clap one hand or sitting in a car while someone takes 4 left turns to go straight. Funny, sad and frustrating all at the same time.
..guilty, you got me. (and I also don't spell opportunistic with an E)

First of all, at this point why don't we lose the namecalling and gradeschool banter, eh Justin? You are obviously a passionate fan, as am I, but this little thing you are seeming to intensify with me the last few days is starting to get on my fucking nerves. If I wanted cowardly namecalling from behind the annonimity of a nickname and a computer screen I would go back to the JSO forum. I do expect a little more over here, and I apologize if I am not keeping up my end of it. I really don't see a reason why you can't make your point without calling me 'stupid.' Clean it up. Make your point without attempting to belittle me personally. Lose the insults, as will I in regards to the insulting things I have said to you. Consider that an Olive branch.

Every team in the NFL knew exactly what had been going on with BB after the first game of the 2007 season. ESPN and every other sports media detailed in depth how their video could be used. The next team on their schedule had at least a full week to make necessary changes knowing full well their signals may have been compromised. The team after that had two weeks to prepare, and so on. But, you insist that none of them would actually do anything about it? That refusal to act is knowingly lowers your chance to succeed. No team would ever make themselves so vulnerable as to not be able to change something if it was being recognized, and IT WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE ENTIRE NFL! You call me 'stupid' for not understanding how the tapes were used. What are you calling the defensive coordinators that had the Pats on their schedule AFTER the Jets game that knew exactly what the Pats were doing and still did nothing about it?

Sure, DCs could keep the same signals sometimes for years and might not change them BECAUSE THE OTHER TEAMS DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. Players also change teams all the time. Why wouldn't it be so simple as to just get all the signals THAT NEVER CHANGE from them?

It seems the ONE thing that the sportsmedia, the entire NFL, and it's personnel seemed to agree on AFTER THE PATS WERE CAUGHT during game one, was the remainder of 2007 would be LEGIT because everyone knew their secret and could adjust. I already conceded that every game from 2000-2006 is fair game for the cheating, BECAUSE THEY HADN'T BEEN CAUGHT YET. I absolutely will not subscribe to this theory for 2007.

[Bretsky]

I can just see Bretsky and Bulldog (and possibly a few others) rolling their eyes......'Leave it alone, drop it!' they're saying...

Well you know, how many other fans, in recent history, go this far to 'bi*tch about their loss?

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/02/09/cheaters-feel-cheated-patriots-fans-want-final-1-40-of-super-bo/

Ah, just saw this; to be honest I use to eyeroll before the obsession began but now I just stop reading some threads unless I'm really bored (which now would be that time). Not sure about Bull. Bull is a Tom Brady Fan; not sure how much he liked NE the team. I've listed NE as one of my 5 favorite teams but I'm not a fanatic about them like I am Green Bay.

[packinpatland]

I can just see Bretsky and Bulldog (and possibly a few others) rolling their eyes......'Leave it alone, drop it!' they're saying...

Well you know, how many other fans, in recent history, go this far to 'bi*tch about their loss?

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/02/09/cheaters-feel-cheated-patriots-fans-want-final-1-40-of-super-bo/

Ah, just saw this; to be honest I use to eyeroll before the obsession began but now I just stop reading some threads unless I'm really bored (which now would be that time). Not sure about Bull. Bull is a Tom Brady Fan; not sure how much he liked NE the team. I've listed NE as one of my 5 favorite teams but I'm not a fanatic about them like I am Green Bay.

So we can safely assume your name isn't on the petition? :lol:

[Bretsky]

I can just see Bretsky and Bulldog (and possibly a few others) rolling their eyes......'Leave it alone, drop it!' they're saying...

Well you know, how many other fans, in recent history, go this far to 'bi*tch about their loss?

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/02/09/cheaters-feel-cheated-patriots-fans-want-final-1-40-of-super-bo/

Ah, just saw this; to be honest I use to eyeroll before the obsession began but now I just stop reading some threads unless I'm really bored (which now would be that time). Not sure about Bull. Bull is a Tom Brady Fan; not sure how much he liked NE the team. I've listed NE as one of my 5 favorite teams but I'm not a fanatic about them like I am Green Bay.

So we can safely assume your name isn't on the petition? :lol:

You can safely assume I didn't take the time to know what it was

[RashanGary]

Advice for you..instead of taking three left turns, just drive straight, it's faster and doesn't drive everyone in your car insane.


Talking to you is like clapping with one hand..


twoseven, I repeated the insults you tossed at me in another thread to show you how it feels to have someone take a disagreement and turn it into a personal attack. I hoped you would realize it's not worth the fight, but obviously I was wrong. It seems pretty clear that you want to play this game of distortion the same way you've been playing it since our last disagreement.

As far as the rest of your post, I'll just take that olive branch and agree to disagree with you on whatever opinions you have. Well, that and I got tired of reading it so I just stopped.

[twoseven]

twoseven, I repeated the insults you tossed at me in another thread to show you how it feels to have someone take a disagreement and turn it into a personal attack. I hoped you would realize it's not worth the fight, but obviously I was wrong. It seems pretty clear that you want to play this game of distortion the same way you've been playing it since our last disagreement.
And you added one of your own..

Are you really this stupid or have you just not read anything about how this illegal taping was used.
We've both contributed to this waste of space, I have had my fill, and I wanted to squash this thing with you. I made a point to apologize if I am not acting appropriate here at the Rats Forum, asked that we could focus on making our points without the uneeded insults, and told you I will stop throwing insults at you. Your interpretation of what I said and your response seems to suggest that I am still messing with you in some way? I don't get it. You're giving me the impression that you enjoy arguing. No thanks. As simply as I can type it, JH, I am sorry for anything I have said to offend you. I am not sure how that can be misunderstood. If you don't want accept it for what it is, an apology, that's not my problem.

[packinpatland]

I can just see Bretsky and Bulldog (and possibly a few others) rolling their eyes......'Leave it alone, drop it!' they're saying...

Well you know, how many other fans, in recent history, go this far to 'bi*tch about their loss?

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/02/09/cheaters-feel-cheated-patriots-fans-want-final-1-40-of-super-bo/

Ah, just saw this; to be honest I use to eyeroll before the obsession began but now I just stop reading some threads unless I'm really bored (which now would be that time). Not sure about Bull. Bull is a Tom Brady Fan; not sure how much he liked NE the team. I've listed NE as one of my 5 favorite teams but I'm not a fanatic about them like I am Green Bay.

I understand your pain B.........(tee hee). It's hard when the 'gods' fall.

[the_idle_threat]

Now come the frivolous lawsuits. If this doesn't underscore how overblown and stupid this whole "scandal" is, then there's no hope for you.

From comments on this thread and others, I can see that some fall into that category. Carry on with your lynch mob. :roll:

[packinpatland]

Now come the frivolous lawsuits. If this doesn't underscore how overblown and stupid this whole "scandal" is, then there's no hope for you.

From comments on this thread and others, I can see that some fall into that category. Carry on with your lynch mob. :roll:

I'll kick the horse, or chair, or........ :wink:

[Kiwon]

There is always a greasy lawyer/extortionist who will shameleesly pounce on any situation for money and publicity. They are disgusting parasites.

It's a particularly neat touch that they are seeking class-action status for this case.

Trial lawyers.....looking out for the interests of the little guy....(in addition to money, publicity, and, don't forget, influence).

"..Matthew Bergman of Vashon, Washington, has given more than $400,000 in his name to Democrats.

In the 2008 cycle alone he donated $78,300 to various campaigns. Bergman's law firm's website says he also specializes in 'identifying viable asbestos defendants, locating evidence and developing legal theories to hold offending companies accountable.'

In 2004, his firm split a $4.3 billion payout from Halliburton with seven other law firms. $30 million of that was delivered to their firm's asbestos victim clients."

$4,270,000,000 to lawyers. $30,000,000 to victim clients. Nice.

Article link (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/02/13/obama,_hillary,_dems_take_fisa_trial_lawyer_cash)

[vince]

Now come the frivolous lawsuits. If this doesn't underscore how overblown and stupid this whole "scandal" is, then there's no hope for you.

From comments on this thread and others, I can see that some fall into that category. Carry on with your lynch mob. :roll:
There's the patented personally-attacking, dismiss-the-facts, self-righteous, those-who-disagree-with-me-are-retarded post of the week.

Why is it, Idle, that the NFL and the Patriots are so EAGER to sweep the apparent FACT that they have been illegally obtaining information about opponents' strategic approaches before games for the last eight years under the rug? Any idea?

If you're correct, and everyone for whom there's any "hope" obviously understands that thinking such transgressions of the rules of the game are serious are "overblown," "stupid," and "frivolous" in their thinking, why the possible attempted cover up and lies?

Perhaps, since you're the hope dispenser, you'll understand better than those who aren't fortunate enough to receive your anointment of hope, so I'll ask you this.

How big (or small) of an advantage would it be for a quarterback to know on virtually every play what the defense is going to do on that play before it's run? If that went on for 8 years, do you think it would present an unfair advantage to that team? Do you think such advantage would have any impact on the earnings of those players who didn't advance into and/or through the playoffs as far as they might otherwise have? Any bonus money throughout the league riding on that type of thing? Any legal money been won or lost in Vegas based on speculation of the results of what was presented as a fair competition?

If there may exist credible evidence that would illuminate the extent to which any of these accusations either happened or did not, wouldn't that be worth investigating?

[vince]

There is always a greasy lawyer/extortionist who will shameleesly pounce on any situation for money and publicity. They are disgusting parasites.

It's a particularly neat touch that they are seeking class-action status for this case.

Trial lawyers.....looking out for the interests of the little guy....(in addition to money, publicity, and, don't forget, influence).

"..Matthew Bergman of Vashon, Washington, has given more than $400,000 in his name to Democrats.

In the 2008 cycle alone he donated $78,300 to various campaigns. Bergman's law firm's website says he also specializes in 'identifying viable asbestos defendants, locating evidence and developing legal theories to hold offending companies accountable.'

In 2004, his firm split a $4.3 billion payout from Halliburton with seven other law firms. $30 million of that was delivered to their firm's asbestos victim clients."

$4,270,000,000 to lawyers. $30,000,000 to victim clients. Nice.

Article link (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/02/13/obama,_hillary,_dems_take_fisa_trial_lawyer_cash)
1. Of what relevance is the attorney's political affiliation?
2. Does the fact that this attorney's firm deals extensively with asbestos cases somehow discredit them or prove that they are greasy extortionists?
3. Your conclusion about the amount of money that went to attorneys in the case you reference is completely incorrect. There were clients that were represented by seven different firms that were part of the case. It is not known what percentage of the group this firm represented. The fact that this firm's clients were allocated $30 million of the award says nothing whatever about how many clients the other firms represented (except that it was a big percentage), what their allocations were, how much the attorneys fees were or how those fees were structured in the attorney-client agreement before the case was accepted.

[vince]

x x

[Kiwon]

There is always a greasy lawyer/extortionist who will shameleesly pounce on any situation for money and publicity. They are disgusting parasites.

It's a particularly neat touch that they are seeking class-action status for this case.

Trial lawyers.....looking out for the interests of the little guy....(in addition to money, publicity, and, don't forget, influence).

"In 2004, his firm split a $4.3 billion payout from Halliburton with seven other law firms. $30 million of that was delivered to their firm's asbestos victim clients."

$4,270,000,000 to lawyers. $30,000,000 to victim clients. Nice.

Article link (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/02/13/obama,_hillary,_dems_take_fisa_trial_lawyer_cash)
1. Of what relevance is the attorney's political affiliation?
2. Does the fact that this attorney's firm deals extensively with asbestos cases somehow discredit them or prove that they are greasy extortionists?
3. Your conclusion about the amount of money that went to attorneys in the case you reference is completely incorrect. There were clients that were represented by seven different firms that were part of the case. It is not known what percentage of the group this firm represented. The fact that this firm's clients were allocated $30 million of the award says nothing whatever about how many clients the other firms represented (except that it was a small percentage), what their allocations were, how much the attorneys fees were or how those fees were structured in the attorney-client agreement before the case was accepted.

Vince, you're reading too much into 1 and 2. I did not highlight either of the things you mentioned. That information is part of the article.

On comment 3 you are correct. I did not read the article carefully enough. The $30 million was the payout from one firm. The difference in the amount going to lawyers versus clients is what I put in bold. However, like I said I had the math wrong. Good catch. :wink:

Now, what do you think about a class action status for this case? Outrageous or justified?

[vince]

First, the facts of the case, as they are ultimately presented, will determine whether a lawsuit is justified, whether class action or not. At this point, I think it appears justified that a suit is brought, as it appears, based on the little evidence we already know, that fraud and violations of unfair trade practices and the consumer protection act may in fact have occurred. It would be "frivolous" and "stupid" if there was serious doubt that what the suit alleges to have happened did in fact occur. Based on what's known at this point, it very well could have happened as accused. This is not a frivolous lawsuit. There is sound basis and it has important ramifications.

As to the class action, the facts of every case would be the same for each individual. Further, it would be incredibly inefficient to have 70,000 consumers each sue independently for $400 each for being defrauded. That's the very definition of why a class-action suit is taken, so it is perfectly justified.

In the end, there is so much money that flows through the NFL that it is absolutely vital for the teams and league to zealously uphold the integrity of the game. It's pretty clear that hasn't been done here. Now they (understandably from a business perspective) want to cover it up and minimize their financial exposure from such transgressions.

As a fan, I want to have this exposed to its fullest extent, so I can maintain my highest trust that the games - and the game itself - I have invested in are on the up and up. That's our right as consumers.

My guess is that there will be a lot of money exchanging hands in this case in exchange for the Patriots and NFL not having to admit guilt and continue to sweep it under the rug.

Fortunately for the future of the game, this lawsuit and Spechter's actions are serving to expose this. It's likely that all of this will have a positive impact on the league's and teams' future actions to uphold and protect the integrity of the game. Those who actively diminish the importance of upholding the integrity of the game are (to the extent that they are persuasive) aiding its undermining. Fortunately, based on what I have read throughout the Internet, most people are not doing that in this case.

[Patler]

It's not just the fans, either. The suit appears to include at least one player. The players, too, make for a nice class in a class action. Each losing Super Bowl player can argue that he was defrauded out of the value of a Super Bowl ring and the difference between the losers' share and the winners' share of the Super Bowl payment. Those damages are clear. Others can argue the loss of endorsement opportunities that go to the winners, notoriety, etc.

The differences in winners' and losers shares' have been around $35,000 recently. The values of the rings in recent years, at the time of presentations to the players, have been in the range of $10,000 to $15,000. Three Super Bowl losers have claims for this alone at around $8 million plus interest on the cash, and maybe appreciation on the values of the rings.

[the_idle_threat]

Like I said, vince, there's no hope for you. I can't stop you from enjoying your lynching. You desparately want this to be a huge scandal. Meanwhile, the league and the Patriots---who, unlike you, actually know what happened exactly---want people to stop making a huge deal out of nothing. Go ahead and call that a cover up if you want. And you know you want to. But maybe they're just calling for cooler heads to prevail.

For one thing, try to distinguish between "illegal" and against league rules. There's a difference, and it's a pretty big one. Nobody broke any laws here.

Obviously, lots of videotaping goes on at practices and games; otherwise we would not see games on TV, and teams would have no film to watch later. The league rule apparently disallows some kinds of taping. Big whoop. Nevermind the fact that these signals were apparently in plain sight to be taped. Do you think nobody could have gotten an advantage just by watching, but not taping? Do you think nobody ever actually did so? You're naive if you think this is anything more than a small incremental step in the old game of signal stealing. It's been around forever, and not just in football. It's slap-on-the-wrist stuff, not class-action lawsuit stuff.

The lawsuits are frivolous. It's lawyers smelling blood in the water, plain and simple.

In order to sue, plaintiffs must show damages. What are the 70,000 Super Bowl fans gonna show as damages? They were there to be entertained. Even if we assume the facts in their favor, were they less entertained at that Super Bowl, in hindsight, if the Pats had an unfair advantage? Of course not. In fact, the Pats were underdogs going into the game. If the plaintiffs are to be believed, and the taping made the Pats more competitive, those fans enjoyed a more competitive and entertaining Super Bowl than was expected. No damages. It's a stupid lawsuit.

With regard to the players, they have damages because they lost, but they still have to show that the taping is what caused the loss. There are two problems with proving that.

First, the degree to which this taping might help a team is speculative. You assume that Brady knew everything ahead of time and gained a huge advantage because you are assuming the worst. It's a huge stretch to think they had all or even a large portion of any team's signals, and an even larger stretch to believe that Brady memorized all of them for every opponent. Get serious.

Second, A million things go into a win or a loss in a football game. Sure, the Pats were underdogs in that Super Bowl, but ya know, any given Sunday? Underdogs win all the time in football, as we Packer fans are all-too-aware. Proving that whatever advantage the Pats might have gained from this taping (which is an unknown) was the thing that caused them to win---as opposed to a number of other factors---is impossible. The only way they win a suit like this is if they get a jury of biased, self-righteous blowhards like you.

The league is a deep pocket, and lawyers love suing deep pockets. Especially with class-action lawsuits. These lawsuits are junk.

[MJZiggy]

The people who bet on the game have damages...as does Vegas in general if there's any question as to the integrity of the game. If some idiot bet his whole life savings on the Pats losing and there was any advantage gained (remember this is about the taping of the walk through as much as signal stealing, and I'm pretty sure Tom is bright enough to remember them for one game at a time), then his homelessness becomes his own fault but they become contributors to it.

I find the idea fascinating and not just because of my intense dislike for the cheater. :drma:

[RashanGary]

Destroying the evidence is extremely suspicious to me. Why would you have to destroy evidence in a case of wrong doing rather than saving it in case of an appeal? What if BB disagreed a coule days later? The league already destroyed huge amounts of evidence. It just reaks of a league affraid of what might happen if people knew what was going on.

If they hadn't destroyed all of that evidence, I'd be less suspicious, but the NFL looks like they think it's a big enough deal to hide what happened.

As far as the lynching goes, I'm also happy to join on the lynch mob and if you don't like it then don't read it.

[Patler]

The people who bet on the game have damages...as does Vegas in general if there's any question as to the integrity of the game. If some idiot bet his whole life savings on the Pats losing and there was any advantage gained (remember this is about the taping of the walk through as much as signal stealing, and I'm pretty sure Tom is bright enough to remember them for one game at a time), then his homelessness becomes his own fault but they become contributors to it.

I find the idea fascinating and not just because of my intense dislike for the cheater. :drma:

That's exactly right, which potentially makes the Patriots actions violations of laws, not just league rules. People undertake legalized gambling with certain beliefs as to how the contest will be run, especially as to following established league rules. If someone violates those rules, to give themselves a significant competitive advantage, laws can be broken.

It is not surprising the the Patriots and the NFL want to downplay this, especially the NFL. Their credibility is at stake. Without that, they can become professional wrestling!

[packinpatland]

Destroying the evidence is extremely suspicious to me. Why would you have to destroy evidence in a case of wrong doing rather than saving it in case of an appeal? What if BB disagreed a coule days later? The league already destroyed huge amounts of evidence. It just reaks of a league affraid of what might happen if people knew what was going on.

If they hadn't destroyed all of that evidence, I'd be less suspicious, but the NFL looks like they think it's a big enough deal to hide what happened. By their actions, the NFL also seems to be siding with those who think this is a pretty big deal.

As far as the lynching goes, I'm also happy to join on the lynch mob and if you don't like it then don't read it.

I like the way SI's Don Banks put it:

"• If the Patriots routinely video-taped their opponents' signals dating from the start of New England's Bill Belichick era in 2000, with Belichick maintaining to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell that he thought such practices were legal, what, pray tell, did the Pats head coach think that memo the league sent out Sept. 6, 2006, was all about?

You know the one I'm talking about. In it, the NFL's executive vice president of football operations, Ray Anderson, stated rather flatly that "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game.''

Not a lot of wiggle room there, is there? If Belichick read that and still thought he could make his case for the legality of his team's taping, he probably thought Roger Clemens came off as utterly convincing in this week's congressional hearing."

[RashanGary]

First, the degree to which this taping might help a team is speculative. You assume that Brady knew everything ahead of time and gained a huge advantage because you are assuming the worst. It's a huge stretch to think they had all or even a large portion of any team's signals, and an even larger stretch to believe that Brady memorized all of them for every opponent. Get serious.


Defensive signals can be looked at as a mini sign language. A sign language designed to communicate a pretty narrow array of information (in relation to someone who speaks in sign language). People learn full human language in signs, why do you think Tom Brady isn't capable of learning 1% of that (esspecially over the course of the last 7 or 8 years)

2nd, there are 32 teams, but I think it woudl be very likely that many DC's came from similar backrounds and use similar signals. Brady doesn't have to know every signal of 32 teams. He might need to know 6 or 7 language concepts and then brush up on the details of each before the game. I don't know about you Idle, but I piece things together in concept groups and it makes learning very doable. Do you really have to memorize every detail of everything you learn or do you think you're an intelligent person who's capable of more? I give you more credit than you give Tom Brady and I give Tom Brady more credit that that too.

3rd, he doesn't even need the full signal. He needs to know where the pressure is coming from and through normal tape study and common sense you can deduct what will happen from there. Example, if brady were given the MLB in the A gap and the SLB outside the tackle as the blitz of the currrent play, he could think about how this team usually covers with this blitz. He could also look at the formation and make deductions as to the few options they even have to cover his guys. Just a little info (like who's blitzing) can go a really, really long way, both in setting the protection and in anticipating the coverage in a way that most QB's have to decipher as the ball is snapped (in a matter of 1 or 2 seconds while Brady gets 15 seconds and he's just sitting there, not running for his life)


I don't know if you've thought about this or not, but Bellicheat and Brady obviously thought it helped enough to keep doing it (even after the league memo directly stating it's not tolerated) and thought it helped enough to do it in the first place for the last 8 years including post seasons when if they could have been preparing for all sorts of football related information. Instead they took the time out of their busy week to study this useless, non-factor stuff. I love your arrogant tone as if to say this donsn't matter while ignoring the common sense evidence that disagrees with everything you say.

[RashanGary]

Brett Favre and Mike McCarthy were both asked if it would help knowing the blitz before the play and both had the same suprised tone that Idle has right now with those who think it's a big deal.

The both said (and they looked shocked by the way) "yeah it would help, it would help the quarterback a lot"

Obviously nobody got the idle memo saying this stuff doesn't matter.

[KYPack]

Whoa, I didn't realize there was such a divide on this issue!

I'm down on the NFL and their handling of Spygate. Roger Goodell came in like the new sheriff in town and has parlayed that image into his calling card. And it obscures the fact that he is an incompetent boob, who shouldn't be commissioner.

He has made many missteps in his early reign and Spygate points out that they need to get somebody doing that gig that knows what in the hell they are doing.

He has hammered players and everybody applauds. But the players are just glorified paycheck guys who are basically working for a living for a short run. When it came time to show some authority and defend the integrity of the NFL by penalizing a team, Goodell fumbled by running a quickie cover-up, which is now coming apart at the seams.

Not only was his handling of the manner quick, it was amateurish. Proof of that are the Specter investigation and this law suit. Neither Specter or the lawsuit are noble causes, but they are the kind of things that crop up when you don't handle things right in the investigation and penalty phase.

Goodell presided over a royal fuck-up and now the league will pay for his lack of expertise. The NFL is the world's premier sports league. They may need to make a quick change at the top to retain that status.

[Joemailman]

I agree with the KyPack. The Commish needs to go. The problem is getting 32 NFL owners, many of whom have an ego the size of Mount Everest, to admit they made a big mistake in hiring the guy. I'm afraid the situation will have to get worse before they'll act.

[packinpatland]

Will all 120,000+ 'owners' of the Packers get to vote? :lol:

[b bulldog]

The owners around the league really need to apply pressure to the commish to get something done here.

[GrnBay007]

Whoa, I didn't realize there was such a divide on this issue!

I'm down on the NFL and their handling of Spygate. Roger Goodell came in like the new sheriff in town and has parlayed that image into his calling card. And it obscures the fact that he is an incompetent boob, who shouldn't be commissioner.

He has made many missteps in his early reign and Spygate points out that they need to get somebody doing that gig that knows what in the hell they are doing.

He has hammered players and everybody applauds. But the players are just glorified paycheck guys who are basically working for a living for a short run. When it came time to show some authority and defend the integrity of the NFL by penalizing a team, Goodell fumbled by running a quickie cover-up, which is now coming apart at the seams.

Not only was his handling of the manner quick, it was amateurish. Proof of that are the Specter investigation and this law suit. Neither Specter or the lawsuit are noble causes, but they are the kind of things that crop up when you don't handle things right in the investigation and penalty phase.

Goodell presided over a royal fuck-up and now the league will pay for his lack of expertise. The NFL is the world's premier sports league. They may need to make a quick change at the top to retain that status.

I agree. When Goodell came in he was cheered on by the fans for the tough stance he took on substance use and the thugs getting arrested. It APPEARS he was in over his head when this whole spygate thing started. If I had to guess at certain mistakes that may have been made, I would say he should have handled the situation more slowly, there should have been a more thorough investigation done from day one of when they were actually caught and from the looks of things he should have had someone with more expertise assisting him with all this. (and maybe there was...we don't know) But to destroy evidence that quickly gave the fans the impression he was just trying to sweep this mess under the rug and forget it. Fans don't forget that quickly Goodell. He should know that.

[vince]

Like I said, vince, there's no hope for you. I can't stop you from enjoying your lynching. You desparately want this to be a huge scandal.Somehow, despite the fact that you haven't given me any "hope," I somehow think I'll be OK. I am not desparate about anything idle. This is what it is, and we'll see what happens with this. As a result, I'm confident the NFL will take additional steps to ensure this type of thing doesn't happen again, which is good for everyone.


Meanwhile, the league and the Patriots---who, unlike you, actually know what happened exactly---want people to stop making a huge deal out of nothing. Go ahead and call that a cover up if you want. And you know you want to. But maybe they're just calling for cooler heads to prevail.If what's been reported is true, and this Walsh guy has taped numerous tapes over many years. How can you possibly not see that what happened here is being covered up? If the allegations are true, and the league has come to find out about it, then both the Patriots and the league are making a concerted effort to keep the acts from being made public. If that's not the very definition of a cover up, please tell me what is.


For one thing, try to distinguish between "illegal" and against league rules. There's a difference, and it's a pretty big one. Nobody broke any laws here.That's not what the legal experts for the wronged players and fans are saying. I think I'll give them a tad more credibility than you.


Do you think nobody could have gotten an advantage just by watching, but not taping? Do you think nobody ever actually did so? You're naive if you think this is anything more than a small incremental step in the old game of signal stealing. It's been around forever, and not just in football. It's slap-on-the-wrist stuff, not class-action lawsuit stuff.IMO, this is NOT an incremental step from stealing a coach's signs during a game. This is the premeditated and organized cataloguing of other team's signs and the attempt at predetermining with relative certainty what the opponents are going to do before they do it IN ORDER TO GAIN AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE in a competition that has millions of dollars at stake. This flies directly in the face of all common definitions of the preservation of a fair playing field, and must be dealt with squarely.

Should the rest of the teams start doing the same, since you believe this is nothing more than an incremental movement of the line between legal and illegal that you keep moving to encompass the Patriots actions here?


In order to sue, plaintiffs must show damages. What are the 70,000 Super Bowl fans gonna show as damages? They were there to be entertained. Even if we assume the facts in their favor, were they less entertained at that Super Bowl, in hindsight, if the Pats had an unfair advantage? If you are willing to stipulate that the game was not played on a level playing field from the start, then they absolutely did NOT receive what the league presented they were buying. This is the crux of their suit. Their money ($30 million) was received by the league with the understanding that the customers were receiving a fair competion. In my view, if this occurred, they have a right to ask for their money back. That's what they're doing here. THIS IS WHY THE LEAGUE IS COVERING IT UP.


With regard to the players, they have damages because they lost, but they still have to show that the taping is what caused the loss.Brush up on your law in this area, idle. They have no such burden. Damages could be awarded if they can prove that Patriots cheated them out of competing on a level playing field. That, IN AND OF ITSELF, is the burden here for them. The players were guaranteed that by contract with the league. It is impossible to prove that the cheating caused the loss, but they don't have to prove that in order to have been defrauded.


The only way they win a suit like this is if they get a jury of biased, self-righteous blowhards like you. You have proven in this exchange without a doubt who, in FACT, is the self-righteous blowhard. I have done nothing but present facts, state my opinions from those facts, and respond to your personal accusations.

Overall, thanks for the post Idle. Your opinions are as valid as mine and everyone else's, but please stop denigrating the exchange with personal attacks. Nobody appreciates them here.

[RashanGary]

My understanding is that in a civil case, the only burden on the plaintiff is to present a preponderance of evidence, not "beyond a reasonable doubt" like in a criminal case. This is why people are not convicted criminally, but decided against in a civil suite that follows to pay damages.

We'll see how the evidence unfolds, but it looks like they might have a case. As a avid NFL fan, I really want to see this thing unfold because I rate what happens based on the teams I've seen and I want to have a proper perspective for what Bellichick, Brady and the Pats have accomplished. Also, as a fan of winning without cheating, I think there is justice to the Dungy's, Coughlins, Mannings and Favres of our era who won through effort and ability, not cheating.

[RashanGary]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0EU1O-hGxgg

This is a really profound piece. I think it really does a nice job putting all of his in perspective.

[the_idle_threat]

vince, your "I know you are, but what am I" response to the blowhard comment above shows that you're not above the fray as much as you claim to be. I agree that I've gone too far down the JSO vitriol road here, and I need to check myself. I will try to do that. But don't forget to do the same.

Let's be clear about what I'm claiming in this thread, and what I'm not claiming.

I'm claiming that this whole big deal with lawsuits and congressional hearings and fan outrage is a huge overreaction (and in the case of the lawsuits, exploitation of that overreaction by greedy lawyers) to a minor wrong.

I'm not claiming that the taping was A-OK and all other teams should go ahead and do it (although I DO think that other teams were doing it or some variation of it---and only the Pats got caught & punished). Obviously, the league has looked at the issue and has explicitly said it is not allowed within its rules. The league imposed a fine and took away a draft pick. I think that was plenty punishment enough.

I don't buy that there's a cover up of some bigger issue. So the tapes were destroyed. The league office---which has reason to believe it is the highest authority on its own rules---ruled on the issue, issued a punishment, and considered it closed. So they should have saved the tapes in case there was an appeal? An appeal to whom---the U.S. Supreme Court? This was a business ruling on a business policy, not a ruling in a court of law. There are no appeals.

If you get written up at work, maybe you can appeal it up the chain of command, but once you reach the top at your company, you're out of appeals. The commissioner's office is the "top" of the NFL. There are no appeals from there.

So the league office considered the issue closed, and they still had these tapes of other teams' signals that they obviously weren't gonna return to the Pats, and they didn't necessarily want falling into anyone else's hands. What else to do but dispose of them---i.e. destroy them?

Put them away, some of you say, but why would they think they needed to do that? The issue was closed as far as they were concerned, and again, there are no appeals. They surely didn't see this media firestorm coming. Maybe that lack of foresight makes them inept, as KYPack claims (and I could agree with that, I suppose), but it doesn't make them the author of some grand cover up or conspiracy.

So now we get this Walsh guy, who wants legal immunity for lying, and claims he has all these old tapes at home, "just in case." Sounds like a real credible character to me.

If Walsh's allegations are true (even though he wants immunity for lying); If what's being reported is true (but reporters don't have any first hand knowledge---but what they do have is a great deal of dislike for Belichick because he's unfriendly to the media, which is the factor that's keeping this in the news, IMO); If the Pats actually gained a big enough advantage from this to determine the outcome of games (which is purely speculative); If, If, If ... then maybe there's a cover up. But in reality, there are just a lot of Ifs. And the league hasn't even said it's unwilling to reopen the issue to consider new evidence. So where's the cover up?

Regarding the lawsuits, I still maintain they're frivolous. The plaintiffs' attorneys claim that the Pats committed all kinds of wrongs, including legal violations. But that's standard overlawyering. They throw everything but the kitchen sink into the complaint, start discovery, and then amend the complaint or concede some claims later when more facts emerge. So there's no reason to believe---solely from the allegations in the complaint---that the defendants actually committed any or all of those wrongs. They're accusations. (Now for any of you lawyers out there, I know about Federal Rule 11 and local/state rules to the same effect regarding frivolous claims, but if you're aware of this rule, then you're also surely aware of how impotent it has been in its application. There are still frivolous lawsuits filed all the time.)

I stated my argument on the Super Bowl fans' lawsuit, and I stand by it. Even if all the allegations about the Pats' taping and its effect are true (and that's a big IF), those patrons received an evening of entertainment in exchange for their money, which is what they signed up for. All this high-minded "fair competition" stuff is post-hoc rationalization for wanting their money back now that they already had their good time. Who wouldn't want to have their cake and eat it too? It's a bogus claim. Giving anyone a refund after they've already enjoyed the party is unjust enrichment.

Regarding the players' claim, they are claiming civil damages based upon losing the game (e.g. difference between winners' and losers' shares, value of Super Bowl rings). Therefore, they have to prove the Pats caused thoses losses---i.e. cheated them out of the win. If something else might have caused the damages (i.e. caused them to lose) then the Pats do not have to pay for the damages they did not cause. It's basic tort law.

If a "level playing field" was a reasonable and contractual expectation that could give rise to a lawsuit, then where were the lawsuits after (1) the Super Bowl HGH allegations that came out a few years back---anybody remember Bill Romanowski?---or (2) the Broncos were punished for salary cap violations they allegedly committed in Elway's final Super Bowl seasons? There were no lawsuits, because there was no big media controversy in either case like we have here. These suits are not about valid legal claims---they're about exploiting a high-profile situation and hoping for quick settlements by a deep pocket that probably wants to avoid more bad publicity.

These lawsuits are about opportunism, which plaintiffs' attorneys are quite good at. Same goes for the Congressional hearings and Congressmen/women. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it unless and until further credible evidence comes out to bolster the claims. I'm not willing to just believe or assume the worst. Some folks are, and as I've said all along, I can't stop you from forming a lynch mob.

[vince]

vince, your "I know you are, but what am I" response to the blowhard comment above shows that you're not above the fray as much as you claim to be. I agree that I've gone too far down the JSO vitriol road here, and I need to check myself. I will try to do that. But don't forget to do the same.
Fair enough Idle. I'll keep my ego in check as well. You obviously put a lot of effort and detail into that response, and I appreciate that. While there's a tendency for opinions to become polarized, your opinions here definitely have merit.

Obviously, I want to see this play out in public, as does IMO the majority of the public, so as to expose the situation and ensure that it end it's occurrence once and for all. I also want to know the facts here, as we've heard just enough to expect the worst. If this is true, I believe this will (and should) have serious ramifications on the Patriot legacy as it has been understood up to this point in history.

[MJZiggy]

If Walsh's allegations are true (even though he wants immunity for lying); If what's being reported is true (but reporters don't have any first hand knowledge---but what they do have is a great deal of dislike for Belichick because he's unfriendly to the media, which is the factor that's keeping this in the news, IMO); If the Pats actually gained a big enough advantage from this to determine the outcome of games (which is purely speculative); If, If, If ... then maybe there's a cover up. But in reality, there are just a lot of Ifs. And the league hasn't even said it's unwilling to reopen the issue to consider new evidence. So where's the cover up?


But you have to answer the ifs before you just dismiss the whole thing as frivolous and overblown. The media do dislike Belichick, but the media aren't the ones bringing suit and in the other cases you mentioned, a suit likely could have been brought. Don't know if it would have been successful or not, but we don't know whether this one will be either. If there's no liability, none will be assessed, the plaintiffs lose and we all go on with life (grumbling how it should have gone the other way) but there's a possibility that there actually is more to this and even if it's not likely, don't you want to see them find out more surely?

[packinpatland]

All this just makes that little '*' get bigger.

[the_idle_threat]

If Walsh's allegations are true (even though he wants immunity for lying); If what's being reported is true (but reporters don't have any first hand knowledge---but what they do have is a great deal of dislike for Belichick because he's unfriendly to the media, which is the factor that's keeping this in the news, IMO); If the Pats actually gained a big enough advantage from this to determine the outcome of games (which is purely speculative); If, If, If ... then maybe there's a cover up. But in reality, there are just a lot of Ifs. And the league hasn't even said it's unwilling to reopen the issue to consider new evidence. So where's the cover up?


But you have to answer the ifs before you just dismiss the whole thing as frivolous and overblown. The media do dislike Belichick, but the media aren't the ones bringing suit and in the other cases you mentioned, a suit likely could have been brought. Don't know if it would have been successful or not, but we don't know whether this one will be either. If there's no liability, none will be assessed, the plaintiffs lose and we all go on with life (grumbling how it should have gone the other way) but there's a possibility that there actually is more to this and even if it's not likely, don't you want to see them find out more surely?


But if liability is "not likely," why make the defendant spend the time and money answering the claim, and why waste the court's time and taxpayer dollars? Courts are way overburdened with cases as it is, and some of those other cases actually have merit. Where the plaintiffs' allegations are "not likely," it's unfair to make defendants and the courts go through with handling the case.

Anyone can file a lawsuit if they can dream up a theory of liability. But lawsuits are acts of aggression---declarations of war. They're not about fact-finding---they're about winning the dispute. Once the suits are filed, the defendants have no choice but to be dragged into an expensive and time-consuming mess.

My point is that the lawsuits above don't meet the threshold: they're based upon weak arguments and are not "likely" enough to prevail that they deserve to be heard. The legal system makes judgements like this all the time.

And the sad part is, the plaintiffs (and their lawyers) might secretly agree with me and don't even care. They have an opportunity to snap at the heels of a deep pocket who wants this media-created story to blow over already. They might get a settlement out of the deal in exchange for shutting up and going away, even before they have to prove a thing. Also, they know that if the cases get thrown out (on summary judgement or even on a 14(b)(6) motion---failure to state a claim), the legal system often does little or nothing to penalize them for taking a shot.

I don't believe these lawsuits are about "the facts" coming to light. I think they are parasitic upon---and therefore are bad for---the NFL.

Now with regard to "the facts" coming to light, which I consider an entirely separate issue from the lawsuits: I do think the NFL would be wise to reopen its investigation if that is warranted. But they've already said they're willing to do that. Meanwhile, the "new evidence" is pretty much this Walsh guy's story and his supposed archive of tapes. They're willing to talk to him, but I don't fault them for scoffing at Walsh's insistence that he can lie with impunity or otherwise he won't talk at all. Does that not strike you as shady?

The PFT guy made a very bad case for why Walsh would want such immunity: because the NFL would sue him right away for lying, even if he wasn't lying. PFT guy ignores the fact that in such a suit, the NFL (plaintiff) would bear the burden of proving Walsh is lying---if they can't do that then they lose. Perhaps the case even gets thrown out of court right up front if they don't have enough evidence. Then the NFL is looking at a P.R. nightmare---they filed an abusive suit to silence the kid and further the so-called "cover up," etc. Even if the NFL has made some ham-handed decisions so far in this whole affair, I don't see them filing a frivolous lawsuit. This situation is way too high-profile.

But what if the NFL can show that Walsh is lying? Then, maybe Walsh is actually lying :!: . If that's the case, then why should he have immunity? In that case, "the facts" he supposedly brings to light are not facts at all and add nothing to the understanding of this situation, and the NFL is well within its rights to sue him for fueling this firestorm.

PFT guy mentions releasing Walsh from his confidentality agreement as some sort of solution, but that has nothing to do with the above situation. The league---according to PFT guy---would sue Walsh for lying, NOT for breach of confidentiality. How would waiving the confidentaility agreement change this?

In the most likely scenario, Walsh wants to be released from the confidentiality agreement AND released from liability for lying, because then he could go public (to an eager media and a bloodthristy public) with whatever story he wants.

[MJZiggy]

But if reopening the investigation to bring the facts to light is warranted, isn't that an admission that the base of the suit is possible and therefore warranted as well? I think they should have at least waited with the suit to see if the NFL reopens and if they do what comes of it. This could press them to find out the facts in a hurry though, don't you think? That said, it does smack of parasitic behavior...

I think it matters less what Walsh says and more what the tapes he has contain. Lying or not, video evidence is tough to dispute.

[the_idle_threat]

But if reopening the investigation to bring the facts to light is warranted, isn't that an admission that the base of the suit is possible and therefore warranted as well?

My last post was largely about how possible does not equal warranted. All kinds of legal theories are possible, but not all of them warrant dragging a defendant into court.

Also, I believe there are two logical leaps in your question.

(1) Reopening the investigation to hear new evidence

leaps to

(2) admitting there was greater wrongdoing than previously thought,

which leaps to

(3) admitting greater wrongdoing is enough to make the lawsuits warranted.


(1) By reopening the league investigation to review new evidence, the NFL is not acknowledging further wrongdoing. It's just keeping an open mind and reviewing evidence. Certainly that's the right thing to do, and they have said all along they will do it.

(2) If the NFL took the next step and increased the punishment on Belichick and/or the Pats based upon the new evidence, then that would be admitting further wrongdoing. But there's no reason to believe that will happen just yet. Goodell has already stated that he knows Belichick did some taping in previous seasons, so this "new evidence"---to the extent it's true---might very well be redundant to the evidence Goodell had previously.

(3) The lawsuits need more help than the NFL acknowledging further wrongdoing by the Pats before they are warranted. A civil lawsuit is not appropriate every time someone does something unethical or wrong. It's only appropriate when that unethical or wrong conduct (i.e. breach of duty) harms another person. There has to be an injured party to bring the lawsuit. That plaintiff bears the responsibility of showing there was unethical or wrong behavior, and also must show they suffered damages and the "wrong" caused those damages.

The problem with these lawsuits is not really in proving that the Pats broke the rules. This has already been shown---the Pats have been punished for it. Finding out that they might have broken the rules more than previously thought doesn't really add much to that part of the equation.

The problem is with linking the rule-breaking to causation and damages. My previous posts above establish how I believe it's the causation and/or damages arguments that are severely lacking in these cases.



I think they should have at least waited with the suit to see if the NFL reopens and if they do what comes of it. This could press them to find out the facts in a hurry though, don't you think?

Only if lawsuits were actually about finding out the real story. Lawsuits are about winning, not about bringing the whole story to light. In litigation, facts are disputed and slanted by both parties---it is hard to know what to believe. IMO, litigation will just confuse the issues rather than clarify them. Especially junk litigation like this, where the plaintiffs have big gaps in causation and damages and are bound to float some implausible legal theories to make a case.


That said, it does smack of parasitic behavior...

Yes it does ...


I think it matters less what Walsh says and more what the tapes he has contain. Lying or not, video evidence is tough to dispute.


The tapes are meaningless without Walsh's testimony. Even if they contain the footage he says they contain, Walsh will have to testify to that fact, and also that he made the tapes at the Pats' bidding and for their benefit. Is it possible that he taped things he was not directed to tape, perhaps for his own reasons? Why, again, did he save the tapes? His testimony will be huge if the tapes are to be considered. If he is exposed as a liar, it calls into question what can be deduced from the footage.

[Patler]

The PFT guy made a very bad case for why Walsh would want such immunity: because the NFL would sue him right away for lying, even if he wasn't lying. PFT guy ignores the fact that in such a suit, the NFL (plaintiff) would bear the burden of proving Walsh is lying---if they can't do that then they lose. Perhaps the case even gets thrown out of court right up front if they don't have enough evidence. Then the NFL is looking at a P.R. nightmare---they filed an abusive suit to silence the kid and further the so-called "cover up," etc. Even if the NFL has made some ham-handed decisions so far in this whole affair, I don't see them filing a frivolous lawsuit. This situation is way too high-profile.

But what if the NFL can show that Walsh is lying? Then, maybe Walsh is actually lying :!: . If that's the case, then why should he have immunity? In that case, "the facts" he supposedly brings to light are not facts at all and add nothing to the understanding of this situation, and the NFL is well within its rights to sue him for fueling this firestorm.

PFT guy mentions releasing Walsh from his confidentality agreement as some sort of solution, but that has nothing to do with the above situation. The league---according to PFT guy---would sue Walsh for lying, NOT for breach of confidentiality. How would waiving the confidentaility agreement change this?

In the most likely scenario, Walsh wants to be released from the confidentiality agreement AND released from liability for lying, because then he could go public (to an eager media and a bloodthristy public) with whatever story he wants.

The point you are missing is that Walsh would be virtually defenseless in any action brought by the NFL. He would never be able to afford a lawyer to defend the action in the manner the NFL would run it. Any lawsuit from the NFL would effectively shut him up for ever.

[Patler]

Also, they know that if the cases get thrown out (on summary judgement or even on a 14(b)(6) motion---failure to state a claim), the legal system often does little or nothing to penalize them for taking a shot.

I believe you mean FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) not 14(b)(6). I believe Rule 14 is the Rule governing third party practice, and Rule 12 is Defenses and Objections, including (b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

[Patler]

But if liability is "not likely," why make the defendant spend the time and money answering the claim, and why waste the court's time and taxpayer dollars? Courts are way overburdened with cases as it is, and some of those other cases actually have merit. Where the plaintiffs' allegations are "not likely," it's unfair to make defendants and the courts go through with handling the case.

Anyone can file a lawsuit if they can dream up a theory of liability. But lawsuits are acts of aggression---declarations of war. They're not about fact-finding---they're about winning the dispute. Once the suits are filed, the defendants have no choice but to be dragged into an expensive and time-consuming mess.

My point is that the lawsuits above don't meet the threshold: they're based upon weak arguments and are not "likely" enough to prevail that they deserve to be heard. The legal system makes judgements like this all the time.

And the sad part is, the plaintiffs (and their lawyers) might secretly agree with me and don't even care. They have an opportunity to snap at the heels of a deep pocket who wants this media-created story to blow over already. They might get a settlement out of the deal in exchange for shutting up and going away, even before they have to prove a thing. Also, they know that if the cases get thrown out (on summary judgement or even on a 14(b)(6) motion---failure to state a claim), the legal system often does little or nothing to penalize them for taking a shot.

I don't believe these lawsuits are about "the facts" coming to light. I think they are parasitic upon---and therefore are bad for---the NFL.

Now with regard to "the facts" coming to light, which I consider an entirely separate issue from the lawsuits: I do think the NFL would be wise to reopen its investigation if that is warranted. But they've already said they're willing to do that. Meanwhile, the "new evidence" is pretty much this Walsh guy's story and his supposed archive of tapes. They're willing to talk to him, but I don't fault them for scoffing at Walsh's insistence that he can lie with impunity or otherwise he won't talk at all. Does that not strike you as shady?

The PFT guy made a very bad case for why Walsh would want such immunity: because the NFL would sue him right away for lying, even if he wasn't lying. PFT guy ignores the fact that in such a suit, the NFL (plaintiff) would bear the burden of proving Walsh is lying---if they can't do that then they lose. Perhaps the case even gets thrown out of court right up front if they don't have enough evidence. Then the NFL is looking at a P.R. nightmare---they filed an abusive suit to silence the kid and further the so-called "cover up," etc. Even if the NFL has made some ham-handed decisions so far in this whole affair, I don't see them filing a frivolous lawsuit. This situation is way too high-profile.

But what if the NFL can show that Walsh is lying? Then, maybe Walsh is actually lying :!: . If that's the case, then why should he have immunity? In that case, "the facts" he supposedly brings to light are not facts at all and add nothing to the understanding of this situation, and the NFL is well within its rights to sue him for fueling this firestorm.

PFT guy mentions releasing Walsh from his confidentality agreement as some sort of solution, but that has nothing to do with the above situation. The league---according to PFT guy---would sue Walsh for lying, NOT for breach of confidentiality. How would waiving the confidentaility agreement change this?

In the most likely scenario, Walsh wants to be released from the confidentiality agreement AND released from liability for lying, because then he could go public (to an eager media and a bloodthristy public) with whatever story he wants.

I am surprised that you express great concern about the potential of a frivolous action filed by fans or players against the NFL and seemingly disregard the potential of a frivolous action by the NFL against Walsh.

I have little concern about a frivolous suit against the NFL. They are a huge business fully capable of defending themselves against anyone. I do worry about the power and might of the NFL stifling legitimate claims against them just by the power they can wield in court.

[vince]

Also, they know that if the cases get thrown out (on summary judgement or even on a 14(b)(6) motion---failure to state a claim), the legal system often does little or nothing to penalize them for taking a shot.

I believe you mean FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) not 14(b)(6). I believe Rule 14 is the Rule governing third party practice, and Rule 12 is Defenses and Objections, including (b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.The plaintiffs have very clearly stated their claim. They are demanding their money back. That is as straightforward as can be.

[Patler]

Also, they know that if the cases get thrown out (on summary judgement or even on a 14(b)(6) motion---failure to state a claim), the legal system often does little or nothing to penalize them for taking a shot.

I believe you mean FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) not 14(b)(6). I believe Rule 14 is the Rule governing third party practice, and Rule 12 is Defenses and Objections, including (b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.The plaintiffs have very clearly stated their claim. They are demanding their money back. That is as straightforward as can be.

The rule Idle was referring to relates to formalities of proper pleading. It is in place to ensure that a defendant can properly determine what he is being asked to defend. It requires that the plaintiff properly plead all the elements of the cause of action.

I agree that the plaintiffs should have a legitimate claim, if properly pleaded, especially on behalf of players. I am less convinced of the likelihood of ultimate success for the claims by fans, but again, if properly pleaded, they should at least have an opportunity to prove their case.

[vince]

But if liability is "not likely," why make the defendant spend the time and money answering the claim, and why waste the court's time and taxpayer dollars? Courts are way overburdened with cases as it is, and some of those other cases actually have merit. Where the plaintiffs' allegations are "not likely," it's unfair to make defendants and the courts go through with handling the case.

Anyone can file a lawsuit if they can dream up a theory of liability. But lawsuits are acts of aggression---declarations of war. They're not about fact-finding---they're about winning the dispute. Once the suits are filed, the defendants have no choice but to be dragged into an expensive and time-consuming mess.

My point is that the lawsuits above don't meet the threshold: they're based upon weak arguments and are not "likely" enough to prevail that they deserve to be heard. The legal system makes judgements like this all the time.Determining liability goes to who is responsible for the acts. If the facts are as they've been stated, then the Patriots would CLEARLY be liable for them. That too is clear.

The question here is whether the acts - if the tapes (or tape in this isolated case) prove out, and if Walsh can prove he was acting on behalf of the team and not on his own - that the Patriots clearly would have committed, and for which there is clearly a claim - actually violate the laws in question. There is no question (assuming the allegations to prove out) about liability or whether a claim has been stated.

The Patriots are denying the action or having any knowledge of it altogether. If the tape exists and/or can be proven to have existed, then that's a tough argument to hold IMO.

[vince]

Regarding the players' claim, they are claiming civil damages based upon losing the game (e.g. difference between winners' and losers' shares, value of Super Bowl rings). Therefore, they have to prove the Pats caused thoses losses---i.e. cheated them out of the win. If something else might have caused the damages (i.e. caused them to lose) then the Pats do not have to pay for the damages they did not cause. It's basic tort law.This is incorrect, IMO. We're not talking about tort law. It's a breach of contract suit.

The cheated players have a right to claim the winnings because they were cheated out of a fair opportunity to win them by the defendants - who got them. They don't need to prove that the act caused the loss - just that the act caused an unfair "playing field," which they were guaranteed by contract. There's an important difference there, and damages would be the difference between the winner's share and the loser's share.

Two parties competed for a monetary prize, with a contract (certain rules and laws) governing the competition. One breached the contract and got the money. The cheated party then has a right to the prize.

[vince]

Also, they know that if the cases get thrown out (on summary judgement or even on a 14(b)(6) motion---failure to state a claim), the legal system often does little or nothing to penalize them for taking a shot.

I believe you mean FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) not 14(b)(6). I believe Rule 14 is the Rule governing third party practice, and Rule 12 is Defenses and Objections, including (b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.The plaintiffs have very clearly stated their claim. They are demanding their money back. That is as straightforward as can be.

The rule Idle was referring to relates to formalities of proper pleading. It is in place to ensure that a defendant can properly determine what he is being asked to defend. It requires that the plaintiff properly plead all the elements of the cause of action.

I agree that the plaintiffs should have a legitimate claim, if properly pleaded, especially on behalf of players. I am less convinced of the likelihood of ultimate success for the claims by fans, but again, if properly pleaded, they should at least have an opportunity to prove their case.In both cases, there is a clear claim to be made. The cause of action comes into play to determine whether there is a reasonable interpretation as whether the law was even broken. That's different than his questioning "(b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." as he did above.

[Patler]

Also, they know that if the cases get thrown out (on summary judgement or even on a 14(b)(6) motion---failure to state a claim), the legal system often does little or nothing to penalize them for taking a shot.

I believe you mean FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) not 14(b)(6). I believe Rule 14 is the Rule governing third party practice, and Rule 12 is Defenses and Objections, including (b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.The plaintiffs have very clearly stated their claim. They are demanding their money back. That is as straightforward as can be.

The rule Idle was referring to relates to formalities of proper pleading. It is in place to ensure that a defendant can properly determine what he is being asked to defend. It requires that the plaintiff properly plead all the elements of the cause of action.

I agree that the plaintiffs should have a legitimate claim, if properly pleaded, especially on behalf of players. I am less convinced of the likelihood of ultimate success for the claims by fans, but again, if properly pleaded, they should at least have an opportunity to prove their case.In both cases, there is a clear claim to be made. The cause of action comes into play to determine whether there is a reasonable interpretation as whether the law was even broken. That's different than his questioning "(b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." as he did above.

I think we have stated basically the same thing, with perhaps some minor disagreements on the details of a successful motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6). Not worth arguing about, as it is not really the subject of this thread.

[vince]

Also, they know that if the cases get thrown out (on summary judgement or even on a 14(b)(6) motion---failure to state a claim), the legal system often does little or nothing to penalize them for taking a shot.

I believe you mean FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) not 14(b)(6). I believe Rule 14 is the Rule governing third party practice, and Rule 12 is Defenses and Objections, including (b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.The plaintiffs have very clearly stated their claim. They are demanding their money back. That is as straightforward as can be.

The rule Idle was referring to relates to formalities of proper pleading. It is in place to ensure that a defendant can properly determine what he is being asked to defend. It requires that the plaintiff properly plead all the elements of the cause of action.

I agree that the plaintiffs should have a legitimate claim, if properly pleaded, especially on behalf of players. I am less convinced of the likelihood of ultimate success for the claims by fans, but again, if properly pleaded, they should at least have an opportunity to prove their case.In both cases, there is a clear claim to be made. The cause of action comes into play to determine whether there is a reasonable interpretation as whether the law was even broken. That's different than his questioning "(b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." as he did above.

I think we have stated basically the same thing, with perhaps some minor disagreements on the details of a successful motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6). Not worth arguing about, as it is not really the subject of this thread.Agreed, and I jumped the gun a tad above. I should have said that determining the proper cause of action is the preliminary determination as whether the law MAY HAVE BEEN broken based on the representations by the plaintiff's in the suit. Whether those representations hold up depends upon the facts presented in the trial, if it gets that far.

The question about the claim would come in to play in cases where a plaintiff has been wronged, but there serious question as to damages to claim. Perhaps it would be in a situation where there was a fight and the plaintiff is claiming pain and suffering damages. Even if the defendant would be found liable, the defendant has no documentable pain or suffering (ie no treatment for trauma, doctors bills, lost income, etc.) to support the suit.

[vince]

When it comes to the ticket buyers, a ticket stub would likely be required to participate in the suit, since there is no other way to prove a right to the claim...

I would presume a majority of people would have saved their ticket stub, but even if the case goes to court and the plaintiff class wins and/or a plea bargain is struck, the actual claimable damages would be far less than the award, since I doubt there are still 72,000 ticket stubs in existence and many ticket holders would fail to come forward to claim their award...

[MJZiggy]

When it comes to the ticket buyers, a ticket stub would likely be required to participate in the suit, since there is no other way to prove a right to the claim...

I would presume a majority of people would have saved their ticket stub, but even if the case goes to court and the plaintiff class wins and/or a plea bargain is struck, the actual claimable damages would be far less than the award, since I doubt there are still 72,000 ticket stubs in existence and many ticket holders would fail to come forward to claim their award...

Wouldn't credit card records and receipts suffice?

[vince]

When it comes to the ticket buyers, a ticket stub would likely be required to participate in the suit, since there is no other way to prove a right to the claim...

I would presume a majority of people would have saved their ticket stub, but even if the case goes to court and the plaintiff class wins and/or a plea bargain is struck, the actual claimable damages would be far less than the award, since I doubt there are still 72,000 ticket stubs in existence and many ticket holders would fail to come forward to claim their award...

Wouldn't credit card records and receipts suffice?Good point. :oops: Any means of documenting the purchase of the ticket would work I'm sure...

[Patler]

When it comes to the ticket buyers, a ticket stub would likely be required to participate in the suit, since there is no other way to prove a right to the claim...

I would presume a majority of people would have saved their ticket stub, but even if the case goes to court and the plaintiff class wins and/or a plea bargain is struck, the actual claimable damages would be far less than the award, since I doubt there are still 72,000 ticket stubs in existence and many ticket holders would fail to come forward to claim their award...

Wouldn't credit card records and receipts suffice?

Likely it would depend on the specificity of the receipt, whether it is conclusive that the charge was fro the Super Bowl ticket and not something else.

[Merlin]

Every team in every sport tries to steal signals. The only difference here is that the Patriots were blatant about it and Blichek is an idiot for not ponying up right away. This whole thing is ludacris.

[the_idle_threat]

The PFT guy made a very bad case for why Walsh would want such immunity: because the NFL would sue him right away for lying, even if he wasn't lying. PFT guy ignores the fact that in such a suit, the NFL (plaintiff) would bear the burden of proving Walsh is lying---if they can't do that then they lose. Perhaps the case even gets thrown out of court right up front if they don't have enough evidence. Then the NFL is looking at a P.R. nightmare---they filed an abusive suit to silence the kid and further the so-called "cover up," etc. Even if the NFL has made some ham-handed decisions so far in this whole affair, I don't see them filing a frivolous lawsuit. This situation is way too high-profile.

But what if the NFL can show that Walsh is lying? Then, maybe Walsh is actually lying :!: . If that's the case, then why should he have immunity? In that case, "the facts" he supposedly brings to light are not facts at all and add nothing to the understanding of this situation, and the NFL is well within its rights to sue him for fueling this firestorm.

PFT guy mentions releasing Walsh from his confidentality agreement as some sort of solution, but that has nothing to do with the above situation. The league---according to PFT guy---would sue Walsh for lying, NOT for breach of confidentiality. How would waiving the confidentaility agreement change this?

In the most likely scenario, Walsh wants to be released from the confidentiality agreement AND released from liability for lying, because then he could go public (to an eager media and a bloodthristy public) with whatever story he wants.

The point you are missing is that Walsh would be virtually defenseless in any action brought by the NFL. He would never be able to afford a lawyer to defend the action in the manner the NFL would run it. Any lawsuit from the NFL would effectively shut him up for ever.

It's not that I "missed" that point; it's that I can't cover every possible point out there. You don't think my posts on this topic are long enough? :P

But in any case, I don't buy what you're selling. Walsh is not defenseless---he already has a lawyer. And this case is high-profile enough that if that lawyer flies the coop, defense lawyers will be coming out of the woodwork to get their names on this case. Also, he could stand to win a lot of money in a counter suit if the NFL sues him in bad faith.



I am surprised that you express great concern about the potential of a frivolous action filed by fans or players against the NFL and seemingly disregard the potential of a frivolous action by the NFL against Walsh.

I am concerned about frivolous and abusive lawsuits regardless of who files them.

I addressed the concept of the NFL filing a frivolous suit in the post that you quoted. See the highlighted language above. So clearly I didn't disregard this idea. You did disregard my argument, however. I have stated that I don't believe the NFL will file a frivolous action to bully Walsh, and I made a case for why I believe that. If you disagree, then perhaps you might share why?

Now I did say that the NFL might file a legitimate suit against Walsh, meaning they would have evidence that he is in fact lying. I don't have a problem with that. It is their right, as it is the right of any individual or business to pursue a claim against someone who is wrongfully causing them harm. I'm not worried about them "shut[ting] him up forever" if they're shutting up a liar who is causing them harm.



I have little concern about a frivolous suit against the NFL. They are a huge business fully capable of defending themselves against anyone. I do worry about the power and might of the NFL stifling legitimate claims against them just by the power they can wield in court.

I can't believe you think it's OK to file illegitimate claims against the NFL, Patler. I know you have more sense than that. Now I understand that the NFL is a "big boy" and can handle it, but that doesn't make it in any way ethical. If, hypothetically, you have a fair amount of money or maybe a big umbrella insurance policy, Patler, is it OK for me to sue you for no good reason just because you can afford it?

I don't care if the plaintiffs style themselves "little guys." Clogging the courts with opportunistic trash litigation for a chance to win the lottery is every bit as wrong in my opinion as a large entity using the courts as a bully to squash a legitimate claim by a "little guy." And you did read that right---if the NFL does file an illegitimate claim against Walsh just to shut him up, I won't be in their corner. Considering that it seems I'm one of the few supporters they have left when it comes to their legal issues, that's why I don't think they would do it. It would be a P.R. nightmare for them, as if this thing hasn't blown up in their faces enough already.

[the_idle_threat]

Also, they know that if the cases get thrown out (on summary judgement or even on a 14(b)(6) motion---failure to state a claim), the legal system often does little or nothing to penalize them for taking a shot.

I believe you mean FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) not 14(b)(6). I believe Rule 14 is the Rule governing third party practice, and Rule 12 is Defenses and Objections, including (b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Yes, I meant 12(b)(6). :oops: Funny thing is, I looked it up just to be sure, and still wrote it wrong after doing that. :butt:

[the_idle_threat]

But if liability is "not likely," why make the defendant spend the time and money answering the claim, and why waste the court's time and taxpayer dollars? Courts are way overburdened with cases as it is, and some of those other cases actually have merit. Where the plaintiffs' allegations are "not likely," it's unfair to make defendants and the courts go through with handling the case.

Anyone can file a lawsuit if they can dream up a theory of liability. But lawsuits are acts of aggression---declarations of war. They're not about fact-finding---they're about winning the dispute. Once the suits are filed, the defendants have no choice but to be dragged into an expensive and time-consuming mess.

My point is that the lawsuits above don't meet the threshold: they're based upon weak arguments and are not "likely" enough to prevail that they deserve to be heard. The legal system makes judgements like this all the time.Determining liability goes to who is responsible for the acts. If the facts are as they've been stated, then the Patriots would CLEARLY be liable for them. That too is clear.

The question here is whether the acts - if the tapes (or tape in this isolated case) prove out, and if Walsh can prove he was acting on behalf of the team and not on his own - that the Patriots clearly would have committed, and for which there is clearly a claim - actually violate the laws in question. There is no question (assuming the allegations to prove out) about liability or whether a claim has been stated.

The Patriots are denying the action or having any knowledge of it altogether. If the tape exists and/or can be proven to have existed, then that's a tough argument to hold IMO.

vince, this doesn't make sense to me. How is liability clear? There is no liability unless the defendants are liable to somebody. Who are they liable to? Who did they injure, and how? Offending someone's sense of fair play is not a compensable injury. What actual injuries were suffered? How will you calculate damages? These are the causation and damages issues I keep harping about, and you're ignoring them completely while stating, in all caps no less, that liability is clear. :?:

[Patler]

But in any case, I don't buy what you're selling. Walsh is not defenseless---he already has a lawyer. And this case is high-profile enough that if that lawyer flies the coop, defense lawyers will be coming out of the woodwork to get their names on this case. Also, he could stand to win a lot of money in a counter suit if the NFL sues him in bad faith.


Having a lawyer for what he has done to date and having a lawyer to defend him if the NFL decides to sue him are totally different things; and I doubt very much that he would have defense lawyers (good, experienced ones anyway) beating a path to his door. There is little for him to recover in the type of action the NFL would file, so little for the lawyers to participate in on a contingency fee even if they win. His actual damages would be minimal and it is unlikely that a contract action would warrant punitive damages. The long-term notoriety from the suit would be insignificant and the costs could be quite high. Too much investment for the firm with little to be gained from it financially or otherwise.

[the_idle_threat]

Regarding the players' claim, they are claiming civil damages based upon losing the game (e.g. difference between winners' and losers' shares, value of Super Bowl rings). Therefore, they have to prove the Pats caused thoses losses---i.e. cheated them out of the win. If something else might have caused the damages (i.e. caused them to lose) then the Pats do not have to pay for the damages they did not cause. It's basic tort law.This is incorrect, IMO. We're not talking about tort law. It's a breach of contract suit.

But they're not claiming contract damages. They're claiming damages as if they had won the game. Those are tort damages. In order to get those damages, they have to show that they would have won the game but for the Patriots' misconduct.



The cheated players have a right to claim the winnings because they were cheated out of a fair opportunity to win them by the defendants - who got them. They don't need to prove that the act caused the loss - just that the act caused an unfair "playing field," which they were guaranteed by contract. There's an important difference there, and damages would be the difference between the winner's share and the loser's share.

Where is this stated, and in what contract? If teams are really guaranteed by contract a "level playing field"---however that is defined (???)---then is the team that commits fewer penalties in the game able to enforce breach of contract? Those are violations of the rules too. It sounds like you're making this stuff up.



Two parties competed for a monetary prize, with a contract (certain rules and laws) governing the competition. One breached the contract and got the money. The cheated party then has a right to the prize.

There is no such contract. Where can you direct me to see this contract?

Whether it's with late hits to "get an edge" against the other team's quarterback, or regular run-of-the-mill signal stealing (as opposed to this way overblown video kind) teams try to get whatever edge they can. If signal stealing and the like were not so common, then why do you think coaches cover their faces with that big laminated play sheet whenever they call the play into the microphone?

Do you really think that when teams do these things, as they all do, it should result in litigation by losing teams, based on some fairness contract?

[Patler]

I am surprised that you express great concern about the potential of a frivolous action filed by fans or players against the NFL and seemingly disregard the potential of a frivolous action by the NFL against Walsh.

I am concerned about frivolous and abusive lawsuits regardless of who files them.

I addressed the concept of the NFL filing a frivolous suit in the post that you quoted. See the highlighted language above. So clearly I didn't disregard this idea. You did disregard my argument, however. I have stated that I don't believe the NFL will file a frivolous action to bully Walsh, and I made a case for why I believe that. If you disagree, then perhaps you might share why?



Either you did not understand my argument, or you are intentionally twisting this to try and substantiate your argument.

I did not say you disregarded the idea, I said you disregarded the potential of it occurring. You discussed it, but disregarded it as being unlikely. I am of the opinion you are completely wrong in this. In my opinion the potential is high, and should not be summarily dismissed as unlikely to occur. It is a practice used not infrequently, unfortunately.

[the_idle_threat]

But in any case, I don't buy what you're selling. Walsh is not defenseless---he already has a lawyer. And this case is high-profile enough that if that lawyer flies the coop, defense lawyers will be coming out of the woodwork to get their names on this case. Also, he could stand to win a lot of money in a counter suit if the NFL sues him in bad faith.


Having a lawyer for what he has done to date and having a lawyer to defend him if the NFL decides to sue him are totally different things; and I doubt very much that he would have defense lawyers (good, experienced ones anyway) beating a path to his door. There is little for him to recover in the type of action the NFL would file, so little for the lawyers to participate in on a contingency fee even if they win. His actual damages would be minimal and it is unlikely that a contract action would warrant punitive damages. The long-term notoriety from the suit would be insignificant and the costs could be quite high. Too much investment for the firm with little to be gained from it financially or otherwise.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one then.

Even if the NFL has a lot of money to pursue the case, there are limits on how expensive they can make a simple contract case. And if they lose, and it's apparent they tried to use their heft to squash a "little guy"---there is no reason to believe punitive damages are so unlikely. Even if they're rare in contract cases, it's the conduct that matters, not the claim. This would be just the case for them. Judges are aware of what's going on in front of them.

[the_idle_threat]

I am surprised that you express great concern about the potential of a frivolous action filed by fans or players against the NFL and seemingly disregard the potential of a frivolous action by the NFL against Walsh.

I am concerned about frivolous and abusive lawsuits regardless of who files them.

I addressed the concept of the NFL filing a frivolous suit in the post that you quoted. See the highlighted language above. So clearly I didn't disregard this idea. You did disregard my argument, however. I have stated that I don't believe the NFL will file a frivolous action to bully Walsh, and I made a case for why I believe that. If you disagree, then perhaps you might share why?



Either you did not understand my argument, or you are intentionally twisting this to try and substantiate your argument.

I did not say you disregarded the idea, I said you disregarded the potential of it occurring. You discussed it, but disregarded it as being unlikely. I am of the opinion you are completely wrong in this. In my opinion the potential is high, and should not be summarily dismissed as unlikely to occur. It is a practice used not infrequently, unfortunately.

Apparently, I "didn't understand you argument." More like you didn't make an argument. And you still haven't.

In a case like this---where most of the lurid details are public and are followed intensely by the media---how could the NFL possibly get away with filing a junk lawsuit to shut Walsh up? The media would be all over it, and it would be a P.R. nightmare. For that matter, if they would be so willing or likely to file such a lawsuit, why haven't they filed one already?

[Patler]

I have little concern about a frivolous suit against the NFL. They are a huge business fully capable of defending themselves against anyone. I do worry about the power and might of the NFL stifling legitimate claims against them just by the power they can wield in court.

I can't believe you think it's OK to file illegitimate claims against the NFL, Patler. I know you have more sense than that. Now I understand that the NFL is a "big boy" and can handle it, but that doesn't make it in any way ethical. If, hypothetically, you have a fair amount of money or maybe a big umbrella insurance policy, Patler, is it OK for me to sue you for no good reason just because you can afford it?


Again, either you did not understand my argument, or you are intentionally twisting this to try and substantiate your argument.

I did not say it was OK, nor do I think any reasonable reading of what I wrote could be interpreted as a statement that I think it is "OK" to file frivolous lawsuits by anyone. I simply don't worry about well-healed defendants (or plaintiffs) in those situations because they can take care of themselves, and the good judges can weed them out and make transgressors pay. Yes there are problems because of it and it should be eliminated to the extent possible. But do I worry about the NFL having to defend itself? Absolutely not. I have better things to worry about than that.

On the other hand, I do worry about well-healed plaintiffs imposing their will on those individuals or businesses who can not much them dollar for dollar in protracted litigation. It happens more often then some would like to admit.

So yes, I do worry more about the NFL filing a frivolous suit against Walsh than vice versa. It's not a fair fight.

[Patler]

Apparently, I "didn't understand you argument." More like you didn't make an argument. And you still haven't.

In a case like this---where most of the lurid details are public and are followed intensely by the media---how could the NFL possibly get away with filing a junk lawsuit to shut Walsh up? The media would be all over it, and it would be a P.R. nightmare. For that matter, if they would be so willing or likely to file such a lawsuit, why haven't they filed one already?

It would be pretty easy for the NFL to file an action stating a claim requiring Walsh to defend based on the confidentiality agreement that has been mentioned, or what he was or was not told to do by the team. Those are facts we do not have, and would not come out, if at all until after potentially very costly discovery. Heck, it is common for confidentiality agreements themselves to be confidential, so the wording of that may never be public. How does the media or public opinion protect Walsh from that?

Why have they not filed a lawsuit yet? Because they hope to make it blow over without doing that. Sort of like the way they handled it initially. Get it out of the public eye, and hope people forget. Howver, it seems Walsh's attorneys have done a good job in raising the potential of the NFL suing him, probably making it less likely.

[the_idle_threat]

I have little concern about a frivolous suit against the NFL. They are a huge business fully capable of defending themselves against anyone. I do worry about the power and might of the NFL stifling legitimate claims against them just by the power they can wield in court.

I can't believe you think it's OK to file illegitimate claims against the NFL, Patler. I know you have more sense than that. Now I understand that the NFL is a "big boy" and can handle it, but that doesn't make it in any way ethical. If, hypothetically, you have a fair amount of money or maybe a big umbrella insurance policy, Patler, is it OK for me to sue you for no good reason just because you can afford it?


Again, either you did not understand my argument, or you are intentionally twisting this to try and substantiate your argument.

Don't make this about me, Patler. Consider the possibility that if I "don't understand" your arguments, then perhaps you aren't stating them very well.

And your accusations that I'm twisting them is self-serving and disingenuous. I read the line that you wrote: "I have little concern about a frivolous suit against the NFL," and understood you to mean that you don't care if people file frivolous suits against the NFL. Do I need to diagram the sentence? That is a reasonble understanding of your statement. If it is not what you meant, you weren't very clear at all.



I did not say it was OK, nor do I think any reasonable reading of what I wrote could be interpreted as a statement that I think it is "OK" to file frivolous lawsuits by anyone. I simply don't worry about well-healed defendants (or plaintiffs) in those situations because they can take care of themselves, and the good judges can weed them out and make transgressors pay. Yes there are problems because of it and it should be eliminated to the extent possible. But do I worry about the NFL having to defend itself? Absolutely not. I have better things to worry about than that.

I come to this site---you might notice it is a Packers site---as a fan of the NFL. I am concerned when people file garbage lawsuits against the league that I'm a fan of.


On the other hand, I do worry about well-healed plaintiffs imposing their will on those individuals or businesses who can not much them dollar for dollar in protracted litigation. It happens more often then some would like to admit.

So yes, I do worry more about the NFL filing a frivolous suit against Walsh than vice versa. It's not a fair fight.

It's not fair either way. Garbage lawsuits are garbage lawsuits. There are plenty of people who cry for the "little guy" when he gets squashed. Few people, apparently, care when a corporation's costs go up. Never mind the fact that a corporation who faces needless losses will pass on the cost to employees (fewer raises or perhaps layoffs if they're in the red) and/or to consumers (higher prices). Eiher that or they go belly up and all the jobs are lost. But never mind. They have lots of money. They can handle it.

[the_idle_threat]

Apparently, I "didn't understand you argument." More like you didn't make an argument. And you still haven't.

In a case like this---where most of the lurid details are public and are followed intensely by the media---how could the NFL possibly get away with filing a junk lawsuit to shut Walsh up? The media would be all over it, and it would be a P.R. nightmare. For that matter, if they would be so willing or likely to file such a lawsuit, why haven't they filed one already?

It would be pretty easy for the NFL to file an action stating a claim requiring Walsh to defend based on the confidentiality agreement that has been mentioned, or what he was or was not told to do by the team. Those are facts we do not have, and would not come out, if at all until after potentially very costly discovery. Heck, it is common for confidentiality agreements themselves to be confidential, so the wording of that may never be public. How does the media or public opinion protect Walsh from that?

I don't see how a breach of confidentiality claim, or a he-said/she-said suit about what he was told to do by the team could result in "very costly discovery." These are simple claims that would require simple proof. You look at a contract or interview some witnesses. It's true that some cases get bogged down in costly discovery, but the potential just isn't there here. And even if it were somehow, it's obvious to everyone involved that the NFL wants this to go away, and bogging down litigation in order to starve Walsh of money might be one very unethical way to accomplish that. The judge would be watching this like a hawk.


Why have they not filed a lawsuit yet? Because they hope to make it blow over without doing that. Sort of like the way they handled it initially. Get it out of the public eye, and hope people forget. Howver, it seems Walsh's attorneys have done a good job in raising the potential of the NFL suing him, probably making it less likely.

Walsh's attoney(s) doing "a good job" is pretty inconsistent with the idea that he's defenseless. And it's a huge stretch in logic to think the NFL would go from (a) trying to get this thing out of the public eye to (b) suing a guy who has publicly announced he has incriminating evidence toward an already-existing scandal, in order to shut him up. The fact that this would garner ridiculous publicity---all bad for the NFL---is what protects him from a frivoulous and abusive suit like this.

[vince]

vince, this doesn't make sense to me. How is liability clear? There is no liability unless the defendants are liable to somebody. Who are they liable to? Who did they injure, and how? Offending someone's sense of fair play is not a compensable injury. What actual injuries were suffered? How will you calculate damages? These are the causation and damages issues I keep harping about, and you're ignoring them completely while stating, in all caps no less, that liability is clear. :?:
Based on the original article, it's my belief that you are founding your argument on the wrong premises. Perhaps that's why the suit doesn't seem valid to you. This case is about a breach of contract - not personal injury. Go back to the original article and it will tell you what type of suit is being put forth. Proving that an injury was caused by an action isn't even a consideration, and while liability involves responsibility for the acts in question, it's actually not technically relevant either in a breach of contract case.

There are two sides to a contract. If the contract was breached by one party, then the other party has a right to a remedy. All this ties into the next post by you also, so I'll include it here and add more below it.


But they're not claiming contract damages. They're claiming damages as if they had won the game. Those are tort damages. In order to get those damages, they have to show that they would have won the game but for the Patriots' misconduct.

...

Where is this stated, and in what contract? If teams are really guaranteed by contract a "level playing field"---however that is defined (???)---then is the team that commits fewer penalties in the game able to enforce breach of contract? Those are violations of the rules too. It sounds like you're making this stuff up.

...

There is no such contract. Where can you direct me to see this contract?

Whether it's with late hits to "get an edge" against the other team's quarterback, or regular run-of-the-mill signal stealing (as opposed to this way overblown video kind) teams try to get whatever edge they can. If signal stealing and the like were not so common, then why do you think coaches cover their faces with that big laminated play sheet whenever they call the play into the microphone?

Do you really think that when teams do these things, as they all do, it should result in litigation by losing teams, based on some fairness contract?

As to your first statement, the plaintiffs are claiming a remedy for breach of contract, not tort damages for injury.

Further, a contract does not have to be in writing, so without leafing through the NFL's constitution, bylaws, rulebook, and player agreements, which undoubtedly establish a premise for fair competition, there is a legally-biding implied contract in place between the parties. There are legally-enforceable implied contracts everywhere. If I buy a toaster, and it doesn't work as advertised, I have claim to a remedy - to get my money back. Here's a passage from Wikipedia about contracts.


There must be evidence that the parties had each from an objective perspective engaged in conduct manifesting their assent, and a contract will be formed when the parties have met such a requirement. An objective perspective means that it is only necessary that somebody gives the impression of offering or accepting contractual terms in the eyes of a reasonable person, not that they actually did want to contract.

Offer and acceptance does not always need to be expressed orally or in writing. An implied contract is one in which some of the terms are not expressed in words. This can take two forms. A contract which is implied in fact is one in which the circumstances imply that parties have reached an agreement even though they have not done so expressly. For example, by going to a doctor for a checkup, a patient agrees that he will pay a fair price for the service. If he refuses to pay after being examined, he has breached a contract implied in fact.

Say a plumber accidentally installs a sprinkler system in the lawn of the wrong house. The owner of the house had learned the previous day that his neighbor was getting new sprinklers. That morning, he sees the plumber installing them in his own lawn. Pleased at the mistake, he says nothing, and then refuses to pay when the plumber hands him the bill. Will the man be held liable for payment? Yes, if it could be proven that the man knew that the sprinklers were being installed mistakenly, the court would make him pay. If that knowledge could not be proven, he would not be liable. Such a claim is also referred to as "quantum meruit".

In the case at hand, in-game penalties - and their remedy - are also part of the implied contract. Everyone understands when they compete in or pay to attend the game that the accepted remedy for being offsides is a five-yard penalty. The accepted remedy for those transgressions is built into the contract that is accepted beforehand. Nor is anyone claiming damages for those transgressions.

Back to the implied contract... In my opinion, any "objective person" has the right to expect the game to be contested on a "fair playing field." Any objective person rightfully expects that one team won't be taping and studying the other team's practices and signals before the game in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage. That's part of the implied contract when money is exchanged and when it's won or lost as a result of the contract. For such a breach, the court then rightfully imposes a "remedy," which is a penalty for the breach.


A legal remedy is the means by which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes some other court order to impose its will.
In my view, that penalty would logically be exactly what the player class and the ticket-buyer class are asking for.

[Patler]

I don't see how a breach of confidentiality claim, or a he-said/she-said suit about what he was told to do by the team could result in "very costly discovery." These are simple claims that would require simple proof. You look at a contract or interview some witnesses. It's true that some cases get bogged down in costly discovery, but the potential just isn't there here. And even if it were somehow, it's obvious to everyone involved that the NFL wants this to go away, and bogging down litigation in order to starve Walsh of money might be one very unethical way to accomplish that. The judge would be watching this like a hawk.

Walsh's attoney(s) doing "a good job" is pretty inconsistent with the idea that he's defenseless. And it's a huge stretch in logic to think the NFL would go from (a) trying to get this thing out of the public eye to (b) suing a guy who has publicly announced he has incriminating evidence toward an already-existing scandal, in order to shut him up. The fact that this would garner ridiculous publicity---all bad for the NFL---is what protects him from a frivoulous and abusive suit like this.


From what has been said, a prominent question to answer is what Walsh was or was not instructed to do. Looking down the Packers staff listing, if this were against them it is easy to identify 20-30 potential witnesses, and potential depositions just looking at the coaching staff, video staff, etc. That alone alone could be extremely expensive for an individual to foot the bill.

Who said Walsh was "defenseless"? It is a far cry from getting some good advice now, which probably costs little, and being able to afford to wage litigation against the NFL. It may even be that the attorney advising him now is not a litigator, or from a litigating firm. If the gloves come off, things change.

If Walsh does not go away, or reveals whatever "evidence" he has, etc. the NFL's strategy could very easily change from being quietly defensive to being aggressively defensive. If one strategy does not work, changing strategy is generally in order. It is simply imposing their will by the shear weight of the litigation. There might be very little that the judge can do about it at initial stages, and that might be all the NFL needs.

The publicity is bad already. If one strategy to make it stop doesn't work, it is not a stretch to assume a different strategy will be attempted. It wouldn't be the first time a large entity has tried to force submission by litigation, and the suit does not have to be totally groundless to do it, even if it is not highly winnable if taken to the end.

We obviously disagree on the very fundamentals of this situation and will not convince the other. So rather than beating this to death and boring or stifling others who may simply want to discuss the facts and not the legalities, lets simply agree to disagree.

[the_idle_threat]

vince,

I'm aware of implied contracts, but in practice they are pretty hard to establish and prove in court. The article you quote makes it sound like winning such a case is easy or routine. Well that's not how I understand it works in the real world.

This idea of an "implied" fairness contract is exactly the kind of shaky legal theory that defines a junk lawsuit in my mind. Obviously that's my opinion. But I think it's very convenient to come up with such a concept for the purpose of litigation. Are they really interested in fairness, or just in filthy lucre?

In any case, the complaints are apparently filed, so we'll have to see what happens.

I'll be so bold as to predict the chances of success for these lawsuits at less than 5%, however. with a 100% chance of wasting judicial time and resources.


Patler,

I agree to agree to disagee. :)

From all appearances, neither of us are fond of junk lawsuits. We only seem to disagree, really, on the likelihood of the NFL filing one. It's another wait and see situation.

[Patler]

Patler,

I agree to agree to disagee. :)


I would have been surprised if you had disagreed to agree to disagree, because then we would agree.....I think! :lol: