Walsh's attorney: NFL's indemnification offer falls short - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

FirstAndGoal · 02-15-2008, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amber

Your welcome.

The one thing that is very clear, to me at least, is that Walsh is for real.

All he had to do was deny he had anything and destroy whatever he had so he did not get swept up in a big, ugly story. He's never denied a thing, nothing.

I don't know what type of receptors the Patriots' legal counsel has, but I suspect they picked up on this as well.

If that's clear, then why couldn't you have spent the time to learn the difference between "your" and "you're"?

***ctpatsfan77*** · 02-15-2008, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoePats

I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't this mean that he could lie and not be penalized for it?

Yes.

And that is why, for all practical purposes, NO offer of immunity ever includes immunity from perjury. It's the only way to ensure truthfulness (otherwise, things like this and this would be far too common).

SVN · 02-15-2008, 07:26 PM

i know there is athread about this but this particular line caught my attn

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...v29PAD8UR1L2G0

Quote:

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.

what the heck are these tapes ? is he blowing smoke ?

***reflexblue*** · 02-15-2008, 07:27 PM

Enquiring minds want to know what team you root for,as well as what trailer park you live in.

***blackglass3*** · 02-15-2008, 07:29 PM

I suspect that this lawsuit will be tried at the same time the one filed by Jets fans will be.

***reflexblue*** · 02-15-2008, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SVN

i know there is athread about this but this particular line caught my attn

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...v29PAD8UR1L2G0

what the heck are these tapes ? is he blowing smoke ?

I said this on another thread. The longer he stalls the less I beleive he actually has anything tangable. He seems to be stalling so he doesn't look like an idiot with nothing to hand over but inuendo.

***reflexblue*** · 02-15-2008, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amber

Born in Pittsburgh. Coming to a neighborhood near you.

Don't forget to take the trailer off the blocks before you drive away.

khayos · 02-15-2008, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amber

Born in Pittsburgh. Coming to a neighborhood near you.

Wow, when Pittsburgh starts exporting its trash, this country must really be in a tough spot!

FirstAndGoal · 02-15-2008, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amber

I suspect, greatly, that Walsh would testify that Ernie knew and/or took possession of the tapes.

Moreover, if you read the lawsuit you will see that Ernie seems to think that he, Belichick and others appear to have done a lot of "funny" stuff, all the way back to their days in Cleveland.

I read the lawsuit as I've read many, but you clearly don't understand law. It would take too long to explain why this would never hold up in court but keep on playing *****house lawyer. Maybe I can perform your next surgery. I watched ER when I was younger so I figure my medical knowledge is on par with your legal expertise.

***patpatriot*** · 02-15-2008, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SVN

i know there is athread about this but this particular line caught my attn

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...v29PAD8UR1L2G0

what the heck are these tapes ? is he blowing smoke ?

Is it my turn to play Internet Lawyer? Oh Goody! There was no crime performed therefore there is no way that any tapes in Mr Walsh's alleged possession that can be anything other than property stolen from his former employer in contranvention of his Non-Disclosure agreement. Therefore, there is no remedy, Civil or Criminal no matter what the venue that can allow him to make any such alleged property public for his "benefit" in any ordinary or extraordinary definition.

He is under no criminal indictment nor civil suit. To allow him to make any such alleged material public would only be to directly or indirectly produce a material benefit for him allowing him to get the benefit of "Fruit from the Poisoned Tree".*

Wow...that was FUN!

*See "The Verdict" with Paul Newman