Competition Commitee wants answers

[blackglass3]

Latest from PFT: http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/04/competition-committee-pushes-commish-on-spygate-ii/

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

 

[reflexblue]

Latest from PFT: http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/04/competition-committee-pushes-commish-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Re: Competition Committees wants answers

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...

 

[ctpatsfan77]

This is, of course, assuming that PFT isn't just making #@%# up.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

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.

The way I understand things--again, I could be wrong--the NFL simply cannot take that pick away, no matter how much they might want to.

 

[reflexblue]

Quote from MOLewis Rocks.
"
"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".

I think you hit on the most likely case scenario. He claims he was misquoted, and he's been in seclusion hopeing the whole thing would blow over.

 

[billikens]

I think it's a pretty brilliant way to force Walsh to put up or shut up. Sue him for defamation, not necessarily to win, but to force Walsh to come forward with the evidence. He can ignore the lawsuit, in which case he will lose and may have to pay a lot of money to the league. Or he can defend himself, in which case under discovery he will be compelled to hand over any evidence he may have pertaining to the matter. It will put Mr. Walsh in a litle pickle (unless, of course, he actually has the evidence).

 

[ScottieC]

Latest from PFT: http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/04/competition-committee-pushes-commish-on-spygate-ii/

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

Shocker. That's Polian's committee...........and Jeff Fishers.

Two total tools.

I'm sure it's meant to be another message to Walsh and his HIGH PRICED WASHINGTON LAWYER to talk and talk now, but DAMN I'm sick of this crap.

 

[Jimke]

The way I understand things--again, I could be wrong--the NFL simply cannot take that pick away, no matter how much they might want to.

I hope you're right but I think the NFL sometimes changes their

rules when the Patriots are involved.

 

[ScottieC]

I think it's a pretty brilliant way to force Walsh to put up or shut up. Sue him for defamation, not necessarily to win, but to force Walsh to come forward with the evidence. He can ignore the lawsuit, in which case he will lose and may have to pay a lot of money to the league. Or he can defend himself, in which case under discovery he will be compelled to hand over any evidence he may have pertaining to the matter. It will put Mr. Walsh in a Little pickle (unless, of course, he actually has the evidence).

My ¢.02 -

No way this guy has anything. He's been given a release by the NFL and the Patriots, if he had anything he would have already thrown those cards on the table.

What's happening now is the NFL is listening to his lawyer say "he knows about taping!!" - To which the NFL says, "yea, no kidding, Belichick has already come clean with all that, IDIOT!"

Soooooo, now we are down to protecting one loud mouthed senator - That's the sticky situation that the NFL is in now. No matter how much of an idiot this guy is (Specter), the NFL does not want this guy to go down in a blaze. He ran his mouth and now they all realize that Matty can't dig him out.

Personally, I say let him burn for it - BUT Goodell and the Lawyers must feel differently OR Walsh's lawyers (who have connections to Specter) are stalling to figure out what can be done to save the pompous jackass.

 

[ScottieC]

I hope you're right but I think the NFL sometimes changes their

rules when the Patriots are involved.

True - But, TECHNICALLY it's not ours so they can't take it away.

 

[Metaphors]

Walsh wants to cash in. Simple as that. Even if he had video of Belichick shooting JFK, he would never offer it up for the public good.

The information that he would put in a book or say in a paid interview must put him in legal jeopardy with the Pats. Stolen materials or illegal taping or something like that.

Walsh needs legal protection to do whatever he wants with the information, regardless of how the information was acquired or if he stretches the truth a bit. The NFL is willing to give him protections to talk to them or Specter, but that is all. The NFL lawyers will never give him total protection and Walsh will never talk without it.

If he had the the Rams walkthrough, he could "leak" it to Specter off the record. Specter could then use that to force Goodell to give Walsh whatever protection he wants. The tape comes forward, Belichick is suspended and likely fired and Walsh gets rich with a best-seller.

Walsh has nothing new to offer and the only way this gets resolved is if Walsh is somehow forced to admit that. He will never get his book money or speaking fees. The window of opportunity for cashing in on ViolationOfOperatingProceduresGate is rapidly closing.

 

[PonyExpress]

The "competition committee" can go F themselves. They're the eminence grise behind this fiasco.