Lawyers to withdraw suit against Patriots over "Spygate"

[Clonamery]

Wag the dog, brother.

Someone has to.....

 

[WTE]

Patriots spokesman Stacey James commented on the dismissal and said, ""Dismissal at this stage -- before the complaint was even served -- probably helps the plaintiffs' lawyers avoid being sanctioned. It was a publicity-driven, frivolous claim and I don't think anyone took it too seriously."

Love it.

 

[Bella*chick]

Patriots spokesman Stacey James commented on the dismissal and said, ""Dismissal at this stage -- before the complaint was even served -- probably helps the plaintiffs' lawyers avoid being sanctioned. It was a publicity-driven, frivolous claim and I don't think anyone took it too seriously."

Love it.

Snicker. Except for Arlen Specter.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Patriots spokesman Stacey James commented on the dismissal and said, ""Dismissal at this stage -- before the complaint was even served -- probably helps the plaintiffs' lawyers avoid being sanctioned. It was a publicity-driven, frivolous claim and I don't think anyone took it too seriously."

Love it.

Which, again, leads me to believe that there's a lot more smoke here than anything else--why mock the case when you know that if Walsh actually has the goods, so to speak, that lawsuit is definitely going to be refiled?

 

[kkpat]

Saying that Walsh would likely exercise his constitutional right not to incriminate himself, the lawyers called getting him to testify as "an exercise in futility."

Guys! This is a lawyer speak for "Walsh guy got nothing useful for the case." The lying lawyers will never admit that. First of all, they don't know if he is going to plead fifth or not. They are speculating it. Why?

They either got info that he has no such tape or some strong indication that he has taped this all by himself.

Walsh is not going to say that PATS asked him to tape the walk through under oath. He is not going to say that because he is lying and he knows that. It is one thing to tell this lie to ESPN morons or Herald or John Stupid Tomase. He is just feeding it to them. He got his revenge. Walsh, ESPN, Specter, NYTimes and Boston Herald had succeeded in their mission to distract PATS enough that they lost the super bowl.

No one cared if he was telling the truth. They just wanted to sensationalize to distract PATS. They accomplished their mission.

If he says those lies in a court, he is going to go to jail. That's why he will assert his rights under fifth amendment.

 

[Watson's IQ]

Patriots spokesman Stacey James commented on the dismissal and said, ""Dismissal at this stage -- before the complaint was even served -- probably helps the plaintiffs' lawyers avoid being sanctioned. It was a publicity-driven, frivolous claim and I don't think anyone took it too seriously."

Love it.

That's pretty definitive, and I have to believe they would have left some wiggle room in their official statement if they thought there was any chance that Walsh's claims might hold water.

Or maybe that's just wishful thinking.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Good news! Arlen will be disappointed.

Thanks for the info.

This suit was all about deposing Walsh under oath in a public proceeding, whether or not it ever got to court. However, the suit was withdrawn because Walsh was going to take the Fifth in any deposition. No testimony from Walsh, no point to the suit.

Specter called off his dogs because he thought that Walsh was going to testify as part of the civil proceedings. Now, that isn't going to happen. I hope Specter doesn't decide that he has to hold hearings in order to get Waslh on the record. And, Specter's committee can give Walsh immunity for that testimony. So, this ain't over.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

This suit was all about deposing Walsh under oath in a public proceeding, whether or not it ever got to court. However, the suit was withdrawn because Walsh was going to take the Fifth in any deposition. No testimony from Walsh, no point to the suit.

Specter called off his dogs because he thought that Walsh was going to testify as part of the civil proceedings. Now, that isn't going to happen. I hope Specter doesn't decide that he has to hold hearings in order to get Waslh on the record. And, Specter's committee can give Walsh immunity for that testimony. So, this ain't over.

Except that it's not Specter's committee. It's Leahy's committee. I'm not saying that it won't happen, but I haven't seen much to indicate that Leahy is inclined to hold hearings on the matter. Specter can't single-handedly call hearings or issue subpoenas, for that matter.

 

[Watson's IQ]

Except that it's not Specter's committee. It's Leahy's committee. I'm not saying that it won't happen, but I haven't seen much to indicate that Leahy is inclined to hold hearings on the matter. Specter can't single-handedly call hearings or issue subpoenas, for that matter.

I don't think he ruled it out entirely, but I'd have to think he's hold it to a higher standard of plausibility than Specter would before holding hearings.

 

[Clonamery]

I don't think he ruled it out entirely, but I'd have to think he's hold it to a higher standard of plausibility than Specter would before holding hearings.

....especially in light of the Clemens Hearings.

 

[Watson's IQ]

....especially in light of the Clemens Hearings.

Indeed. Even if Walsh ultimately has nothing, that kind of circus is the last thing we want.

 

[tuckeverlasting]

Indeed. Even if Walsh ultimately has nothing, that kind of circus is the last thing we want.

why ? watching congress make asses out of themselves is always enjoyable and espngate is already a circus.

 

[Clonamery]

Indeed. Even if Walsh ultimately has nothing, that kind of circus is the last thing we want.

I meant that Leahy might be reticent to put himself out there given how poorly Congress looked during the proceedings.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Except that it's not Specter's committee. It's Leahy's committee. I'm not saying that it won't happen, but I haven't seen much to indicate that Leahy is inclined to hold hearings on the matter. Specter can't single-handedly call hearings or issue subpoenas, for that matter.

the senate has some pretty arcane traditions, so who knows what might happen. as a general rule, if the ranking member wants to make a big deal about it, s/he can usually get hearings, but the majority has the power to keep anything from leaving committee.

just to be safe, though, it might be time for our Vermont board members to send a letter to their senior senator, since he will ultimately do what he thinks is in his own self interest:

Hon. Patrick Leahy
433 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Proper salutation is "Dear Senator Leahy"

His Chief of Staff is a guy by the name of Ed Pagano, whom you can address at the same office. Sometimes it's better to go right to these people since they will have a lot to do with shaping the Senator's view on an issue.

 

[BPF]

Here is the official dismissal document: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/louisiana/laedce/2:2008cv01002/123943/8/

There are many errors here by Atty Deters. First he states Matt Walsh said in his own words he had the tape, never happened. Second, he says Patriots did not deny till mid-February when they actually denied this ever happened the day before the SB.

It seems to me that they now understand/know that there is no tape of the walkthrough.

 

[thenepatsrule]

lol thats good news

 

[the Patriot]

There should be repercussions for stunts like that

No, there is nothing wrong with suing somebody. If you could be sued for suing then corporations would destroy all individuals who didn't win their cases. This just happened to be one of the dumber ones.

 

[BPF]

No, there is nothing wrong with suing somebody. If you could be sued for suing then corporations would destroy all individuals who didn't win their cases. This just happened to be one of the dumber ones.

There is something wrong when their argument was absolutely, positively, incompetent. They didn't even have the facts and dates correct. In this case they were not only wrong but completely out of their mind. This lawsuit was a complete misuse of a public right. Lawsuits like these if allowed to go through drive up the cost of ins and products/services. They also consume court time and delay processing of legitimte cases and reward undeserving lawyers and plaintiffs. They also force innocent defendants to spend money for legal defense and settlements.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

There is something wrong when their argument was absolutely, positively, incompetent. They didn't even have the facts and dates correct. In this case they were not only wrong but completely out of their mind. This lawsuit was a complete misuse of a public right. Lawsuits like these if allowed to go through drive up the cost of ins and products/services. They also consume court time and delay processing of legitimte cases and reward undeserving lawyers and plaintiffs. They also force innocent defendants to spend money for legal defense and settlements.

Actually, Stacey James alluded to this in his comments on the dismissal of the suit:

Dismissal at this stage — before the complaint was even served — probably helps the plaintiffs' lawyers avoid being sanctioned. It was a publicity-driven, frivolous claim and I don't think anyone took it too seriously.

In a sense, the legal profession puts an onus on attorneys to not file cases that they know are utter cr*p, and allows for penalties for those who insist on going ahead (e.g., paying opposing legal fees). [An example of this was that judge who sued for millions over a pair of pants--I don't know if he was sanctioned, but he was forced to pay the cleaners' legal fees.]

I don't know how many of these suits get filed a year, but I think that perhaps there should be a higher bar for dismissal without prejudice (dismissed with prejudice means you can't re-file).