Competition Commitee wants answers - New England Patriots Forums

***blackglass3*** · 04-04-2008, 06:55 PM

Latest from PFT: http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/...on-spygate-ii/

I would say this nukes most peoples accusations of the NFL trying to silence Walsh.

***reflexblue*** · 04-04-2008, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackglass3

Latest from PFT: http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/...on-spygate-ii/

I would say this nukes most peoples accusations of the NFL trying to silence Walsh.

I didn't read much on the thread about the Pats sueing the Herald. But what I did read was that Walsh couldn't be forced to divulge what he had. That seemed strange to me. I thought that if the Patriots sued him or the Herald, Walsh would be compeld to testify. I don't know much about the law but that seemed logical.

PatriotsReign · 04-04-2008, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reflexblue

I didn't read much on the tread about the Pats sueing the Herald. But what I did read was that Walsh couldn't be forced to divulge what he had. That seemed strange to me. I thought that if the patriots sued him or the Herald Walsh would be compeld to testify. I don't know much about the law but that seemed logical.

He can not be forced to give testimony that would cause him harm...otherwise known as immunity from giving testimony that would incriminate himself. If I rob a bank and get arrested, I can't be forced to take the stand by the prosecutor.

***spacecrime*** · 04-04-2008, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatriotsReign

He can not be forced to give testimony that would cause him harm...otherwise known as immunity from giving testimony that would incriminate himself. If I rob a bank and get arrested, I can't be forced to take the stand by the prosecutor.

That is a criminal case and isn't quite the same as a civil case.

If you are being sued, refusal to testify merely results in your losing the case.

PatriotsReign · 04-04-2008, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacecrime

That is a criminal case and isn't quite the same as a civil case.

If you are being sued, refusal to testify merely results in your losing the case.

Actually, that makes damn good sense! I stand corrected & I thank you spacecrime!

***reflexblue*** · 04-04-2008, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatriotsReign

He can not be forced to give testimony that would cause him harm...otherwise known as immunity from giving testimony that would incriminate himself. If I rob a bank and get arrested, I can't be forced to take the stand by the prosecutor.

So you're saying he can take the 5th? And if he did take the 5th nothing could happen to him? That makes no sense to me because HE Walsh started the whole defamation/slander of the Pats by claiming he had Physical eveidence (a tape) and knowalge of cheating on there part. Unlike the bank robber, (where there are most likely cameras and witnesses) if the state didn't have any eveidence except the word of the thief they wouldn't bring the case before a judge or jury for lack of evidence. Walsh is the key, if the pats sue him and he says I'm not talking the judge would just let it go? I doubt it. I see it playing out that the judge would say You said You had physical evidence, Mr. Walsh. And You Mr. Walsh said You had knowlage of wrong doing. No matter what Walsh says or does at this point the Pats win. And even if he Actually possesses a tape,produces it,and it shows what he claims it did. Then the Pats would counter he was never told to tape the walk- through.

Jimke · 04-04-2008, 07:30 PM

The draft is coming and the competition committee has it's eye

on that #7 pick. They'd like nothing better than drive a stake

thru Belichick's heart.

***PatsDeb*** · 04-04-2008, 07:30 PM

This is complete fallacy. The league is now going to force the Pats to file a defamation suit against the Herald to find out what Matt Walsh knows? Give me a break. Even if the league was proposing this I would tell Goodell, Bill Polian & Jeff Fisher to pound sand. It is becoming more obvious by the day that Matt Walsh 1) has nothing; 2) has something but if he shows his cards he is exposing himself to criminal liability; and/or 3) has lost his cajones.

We're never going to find out what this guy "knows" (which my bet is NOTHING).

Kraft & BB should stick to their "Sorry we embarrassed the league; let's move on" stance and refuse to discuss the matter further, except to call the editor of the Herald to tell him that if Tomasse ever shows his sorry ass again at Foxboro he'll find himself buried under 12 feet of man mall.

***PatsDeb*** · 04-04-2008, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reflexblue

So you're saying he can take the 5th? And if he did take the 5th nothing could happen to him? That makes no sense to me because HE Walsh started the whole defamation/slander of the Pats by claiming he had Physical eveidence (a tape) and knowalge of cheating on there part. Unlike the bank robber, (where there are most likely cameras and witnesses) if the state didn't have any eveidence except the word of the thief they wouldn't bring the case before a judge or jury for lack of evidence. Walsh is the key, if the pats sue him and he says I'm not talking the judge would just let it go? I doubt it. I see it playing out that the judge would say You said You had physical evidence, Mr. Walsh. And You Mr. Walsh said You had knowlage of wrong doing. No matter what Walsh says or does at this point the Pats win. Unless he Actually possesses a tape,produces it,and it shows what he claims it did. Then the Pats would counter he was never told to tape the walk- through.

Judges aren't that proactive. You can always plead the 5th, and if you do in a civil situation, the judge may rule against you (i.e. award damages against Walsh, if there was enough other evidence that he slandered or libeled the Pats [which in this case there may not be enough - see other thread]). Otherwise, there is nothing he can do, except offer immunity in exchange for his testimony. I don't think this is that big a case for a judge to do that. Plus, I don't think the Pats are ever going to bring suit. They want this to go away. They'll gladly let Matt Walsh fade into the sunset unless he keeps himself on the front page, which he seems to be trying to avoid at this point. Nothing but whistling coming from his camp.

***MoLewisrocks*** · 04-04-2008, 08:14 PM

For a lawyer, Florio reports some pretty silly crap. Discovery being what it is, nobody but an obcessed moron would ever file suit in a case like this. The league can't compel Walsh to testify to rumor mongering via insinuation or lots of wannabe mediots would be in a world of trouble... This guy never said he had anything specific, just possibly some tape that he now realizes is redundant and therefore worthless so not worth sharing with the media because doing so opens him up to criminal charges based on how he came to possess it. And he "reportedly" hinted he might know more, but hinting is not something you can be sued or prosecuted over...

Probably the best course for Matty now would be to issue a statement claiming that the media misquoted him and read more into his comments than he ever intended and created this whole unfortunate situation and he just wants to be left alone since he has nothing of value to the league and no additional information worth sharing.

Then he best have his lawyer inform the good senator from PA that if he tries to call Matt to compel him to testify he's the one who will be looking even more foolish than the idiot client he hooked him up with...