Reiss' thoughts on Walsh meeting

[PatsFanSince74]

Couple Points:
1. I strongly believe Walsh has something of relevance. Don't think his attorney would be associating himself with him if he did not. The man doesn't get paid $500 an hour because he is an idiot.

2. If he has something, regardless of whether he did it on his own or not, the Patriots will be in trouble. Under a legal doctrine sometimes referred to as "respondeat superior" (Latin for "Let the superior answer"), an employer is legally responsible for the actions of its employees if the employee is acting within the course and scope of employment. In other words, the employer will generally be liable if the employee was doing his or her job, carrying out company business, or otherwise acting on the employer's behalf when the incident took place.

3. Goodell will drop the hammer, and the Patriots know it. Caper's was hired as Plan B, not because we need additional defensive mind power. BB is a defensive genious.

PREDICTION: (I love the Pats, just being real) I think BB will hit the pine for an extended period of time (at least 4 games).

Re your points:

1) My guess is that Walsh's attorney is "associating himself" with Walsh because his lawfirm's major client, Comcast, is asking him to do so at the behest of a beloved Senator from Pennsylvania. So, I'm not sure this fact alone proves anything, one way or the other.

2) I'll let the lawyers argue this one out, but, if a Walkthrough tape exists, that argument will be lost in the din. No one outside of New England and this Board will care about the details.

3) If something bad enough to suspend BB for a quarter of a season comes out of this (I DON'T think this will happen, BTW) and puts a lie to the Patriots' repeated statements that there is nothing more to any of this than they have already admitted, the embarrassment to the Franchise would be so great that the Krafts would have no choice but to tell BB not to come back.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Couple Points:
1. I strongly believe Walsh has something of relevance. Don't think his attorney would be associating himself with him if he did not. The man doesn't get paid $500 an hour because he is an idiot.

2. If he has something, regardless of whether he did it on his own or not, the Patriots will be in trouble. Under a legal doctrine sometimes referred to as "respondeat superior" (Latin for "Let the superior answer"), an employer is legally responsible for the actions of its employees if the employee is acting within the course and scope of employment. In other words, the employer will generally be liable if the employee was doing his or her job, carrying out company business, or otherwise acting on the employer's behalf when the incident took place.

3. Goodell will drop the hammer, and the Patriots know it. Caper's was hired as Plan B, not because we need additional defensive mind power. BB is a defensive genious.

PREDICTION: (I love the Pats, just being real) I think BB will hit the pine for an extended period of time (at least 4 games).

I don't mean this as insulting in any way, but I think the assumption that Goodell will automatically punish the Patriots if "any" tape exists of the walk-through is ridiculous.

"What if" someone from the Rams organization handed a video of the walk-through to Walsh? We all know how many haters there are out there and we certainly know many from the Rams organization probably still feel sick they lost that game. So I don't think it is far fetched at all to consider this a distinct possibility.

Anyone else agree?

 

[stcjones]

This is why and where I part company with Reiss who seems to be saying that the prima facie existance of any walkthru tape will result in Patriots punishment. ANYONE could have a videotape of a walkthru. Goodell has heard testimony from 50 people none of whom substantiate the existance of a PATRIOTS walkthru tape. So the existance of a tape taken by gawd knows who should in no way result in a penalty against the Patriots without reasonable supporting evidence that it was done by them at their request. I'm not sure I have faith in Goodell's judgement in such a hypothetical instance. The man panics under media pressure.

"The man panics under media pressure."

This is the biggest problem on this thing............GOD-dell LOVES the spotlight and also caves in under MEDIA pressure..........He will also have to deal with that butthole Arlene Sphincter once again, because as a sore a##ed fan of the Eagles, he sees no shame in wasting the taxpayers money to conduct his own self serving, and biased witch hunt against the Pats........However, that having been said......The best thing Goodell could do is dismiss this thing and GET ON TO NEXT YEAR......This thing has been WAY OVERBLOWN....and if this was any other team.....IT WOULD HAVE NEVER COME THIS FAR!!!!

I just want this thing to go away.....and cease......But, I guess I doubt the media and sore a##ed fans of other teams will ever let this go!

 

[stcjones]

(1) That "something of relevance" could be that the Pats were taping back in 2000/2001. That, somehow, apparently was not public knowledge until after the Walsh story broke.

(2) I'm not sure that respondeat superior applies here, unless Walsh can produce a tape that he made. As has been established already, tapes of the walkthrough might well exist, but there is strong evidence arguing against the Pats doing it. Moreover, the indemnity agreement specifically states that producing such a tape would not be considered a normal part of his activities. In other words, it's up to Walsh to provide evidence that it was authorized. [Might they get penalized if he made it and never told anyone in the organization, since Goodell has said no one in the organization has knowledge of this? Yes, it's possible. But it wouldn't be as severe; as someone else pointed out, they didn't hire Walsh.]

(3) Please re-read my posts in the main Hawaii Hack thread. The Patriots know that Walsh was taping stuff. If they are actually guilty of "illegal videotaping activities", then they have been acting in not just a stupid manner, but a monumentally idiotic manner since late September.

And I'll go you one better:

(4) There is no #%_#@ing way that Walsh would make this tape, currently possess a copy, and not know exactly where it is; this isn't exactly a tape of a tasty recipe he saw on TV. If he does in fact have an axe to grind--as appears to be the case, from all indications--why not release the tape back in September, when it would have caused maximum damage? Back then, I think it would have been taken by the media as absolute proof the Pats had cheated (regardless of what the facts might be); now, the burden of proof is significantly higher, since Goodell's had plenty of time to investigate.

Can I say there's absolutely no chance that Walsh has anything? No. But I wouldn't bet much money that he has stuff, either.

This is true.....and if HE MADE IT.....There has to be SOME PROOF THAT BB/PIOLI AUTHORIZED HIM/ORDERED HIM to make this tape. Considering this guy's pathetic character issues, GOD-dell can not just ASSume that Belichick gave the orders here.......This jackbag is a loose cannon and an unscrupulous, spineless weasel.......surely goodell is going to take this into consideration if Walsh produces a tape.......Warner said....No conventional walkthrough ever took place..........Several, several present and past Pats employees came forward and said "NO tape like this was ever made".......Obviously I agree that Walsh has SOMETHING in his grimy paws.......HOWEVER, HE MUST PROVE that BB was aware/or authorizing the taping......or this should just disappear!!!!!

 

[stcjones]

I don't mean this as insulting in any way, but I think the assumption that Goodell will automatically punish the Patriots if "any" tape exists of the walk-through is ridiculous.

"What if" someone from the Rams organization handed a video of the walk-through to Walsh? We all know how many haters there are out there and we certainly know many from the Rams organization probably still feel sick they lost that game. So I don't think it is far fetched at all to consider this a distinct possibility.

Anyone else agree?

Yes I agree......I think unless Walsh has Belichick on film or audio saying "GO tape the Rams or ANYFRIGGIN THING ELSE.........GOD-dell should just put this whole debacle/witch hunt in the shredder......and move on the upcoming season....... GO PATS!

 

[PatriotsReign]

Yes I agree......I think unless Walsh has Belichick on film or audio saying "GO tape the Rams or ANYFRIGGIN THING ELSE.........GOD-dell should just put this whole debacle/witch hunt in the shredder......and move on the upcoming season....... GO PATS!

I KNEW IT!!!

I knew there was someone else as crazy as me!

 

[scout]

After reading every one's post I've got to say, I still don't know. However, if Walsh is found to have absolutely nothing, he'll need to find another job. Who the hell is going to take advise from a golfer who lies.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

I don't mean this as insulting in any way, but I think the assumption that Goodell will automatically punish the Patriots if "any" tape exists of the walk-through is ridiculous.

"What if" someone from the Rams organization handed a video of the walk-through to Walsh? We all know how many haters there are out there and we certainly know many from the Rams organization probably still feel sick they lost that game. So I don't think it is far fetched at all to consider this a distinct possibility.

Anyone else agree?

I second that, and it should be easy to prove. If they ask Walsh point blank where he got it, he better not lie ot they can legally go after him.

 

[spacecrime]

Couple Points:
1. I strongly believe Walsh has something of relevance. Don't think his attorney would be associating himself with him if he did not. The man doesn't get paid $500 an hour because he is an idiot.

I don't understand this. You are a lawyer. Someone offers you $500 an hour to look after his legal interests. "Sorry, I will only look after your legal interests if you have a tape."

Now THAT is being an idiot, and a man doesn't get paid $500 an hour because he is an idiot. Walsh needs legal help whether he has the tape or not, and if someone with deep pockets is shelling out $500 per billable hour, you can bet a smart lawyer is doing plenty of billing.

 

[spacecrime]

I don't mean this as insulting in any way, but I think the assumption that Goodell will automatically punish the Patriots if "any" tape exists of the walk-through is ridiculous.

This is why and where I part company with Reiss who seems to be saying that the prima facie existance of any walkthru tape will result in Patriots punishment.

except that Reiss never said that existence of any taping would result in patriots being punished.

He said that taping by a Patriots employee would result in punishment.

Ultimately, I think the NFL would penalize the Patriots, because even though the tape might not have been authorized, it was still produced by an employee of the team, and thus the team must be held accountable.

Of course it would. Isn't that what happened already? A Patriots employee taped the Jets on the orders of another Patriots employee. Kraft didn't order it, but still his team was fined and lost a first round draft pick.

I would expect that if Walsh taped a walk-through they will be further fines and forfeited draft picks.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

would expect that if Walsh taped a walk-through they will be further fines and forfeited draft picks

The question isnt whether Walsh made the tape he may have, and most of us feel its 99,999% chance that theres no tape, its if he got a hold of a tape from another source i.e. a rams fan or relative of a Rams player that was there.

 

[GPR11788]

The question isnt whether Walsh made the tape he may have, and most of us feel its 99,999% chance that theres no tape, its if he got a hold of a tape from another source i.e. a rams fan or relative of a Rams player that was there.

That's an interesting point, if the tape did come from someone else it is going to be hard to prove. Ultimately if Walsh has a tape of the rams practice, the patriots legacy will be tarnished. That being said all I think he has is probably more taping of defensive signals.

Does anybody know if the superbowl walkthroughs are open to the public or media?

 

[PatriotsReign]

except that Reiss never said that existence of any taping would result in patriots being punished.

He said that taping by a Patriots employee would result in punishment.



Of course it would. Isn't that what happened already? A Patriots employee taped the Jets on the orders of another Patriots employee. Kraft didn't order it, but still his team was fined and lost a first round draft pick.

I would expect that if Walsh taped a walk-through they will be further fines and forfeited draft picks.

And this man was caught red-handed with plenty of witnesses. So there was ABSOLUTE PROOF beyond any doubt. Why on earth do you think a statement or even a tape in Walsh's possession amounts to the same situation? It does not even come close...the 2 can't even be compared. So stop comparing them.

 

[kkpat]

This is true.....and if HE MADE IT.....There has to be SOME PROOF THAT BB/PIOLI AUTHORIZED HIM/ORDERED HIM to make this tape. Considering this guy's pathetic character issues, GOD-dell can not just ASSume that Belichick gave the orders here.......This jackbag is a loose cannon and an unscrupulous, spineless weasel.......surely goodell is going to take this into consideration if Walsh produces a tape.......Warner said....No conventional walkthrough ever took place..........Several, several present and past Pats employees came forward and said "NO tape like this was ever made".......Obviously I agree that Walsh has SOMETHING in his grimy paws.......HOWEVER, HE MUST PROVE that BB was aware/or authorizing the taping......or this should just disappear!!!!!

Don't worry. I am 100% sure that such a tape does not exist. How?

If Walsh made the tape on PATS authorization, he has to work with at least some helper/assistant in PATS organization. He has to reveal the name. NFL already spoke to 50 employees/former employees of PATS according to Goddell. No one knew about any such taping. If the Walsh weasel comes out with a tape, he has to reveal the other person who helped him. That person never existed and does not concur with this weasel puts that matter to a rest. Sure. The losers, low-esteem and low IQ NY media journalists will try to rake up the issue. But it will fall on deaf ears.

 

[Iron Helmet]

I don't understand this. You are a lawyer. Someone offers you $500 an hour to look after his legal interests. "Sorry, I will only look after your legal interests if you have a tape."
Now THAT is being an idiot, and a man doesn't get paid $500 an hour because he is an idiot. Walsh needs legal help whether he has the tape or not, and if someone with deep pockets is shelling out $500 per billable hour, you can bet a smart lawyer is doing plenty of billing.

Read my post. I never said a tape. It might be. I just think there is SOMETHING.

I think the difference is representing someone who is a liar with no justification for his claims (which is what everyone hopes Walsh is) versus representing someone that has some reasonable basis for the claims they are making.

Levy, I would imagine, is not pining for clientele, and to spend his time on a case that could potentially make him look like a moron doesn't make sense. A small time lawyer looking to bill hours, maybe. Levy, I don't think so.

High profile attorneys become high profile by winning. Winning comes from being good at lawyering, a function of which is picking battles you can win. Levy, I am sure, had a "come to Jesus" meeting with Walsh before he attaching his name to the case. Whatever was said in that meeting was enough to convince him to move forward.

At the end of the day, Levy isn't doing this for $$. He is doing it for publicity and name recognition. To have his name tied to a lying, vidictive idiot, with nothing but words and a lofty imagination, would not be good for him, I think. Dealing a blow to the NFL and the Patriots, would propel him to stardom in the legal world. My bet is he is going for the latter.

 

[ScottieC]

That's an interesting point, if the tape did come from someone else it is going to be hard to prove. Ultimately if Walsh has a tape of the rams practice, the patriots legacy will be tarnished. That being said all I think he has is probably more taping of defensive signals.

Does anybody know if the superbowl walkthroughs are open to the public or media?

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/01/rams-didnt-have-a-walk-through/

I think that this story has fallen thru the cracks. There has to be some truth to it or it would not have been written by the person that claims to have been present that day.

 

[Sicilian]

At the end of the day, Levy isn't doing this for $$. He is doing it for publicity and name recognition. To have his name tied to a lying, vidictive idiot, with nothing but words and a lofty imagination, would not be good for him, I think. Dealing a blow to the NFL and the Patriots, would propel him to stardom in the legal world. My bet is he is going for the latter.

Defending OJ certainly didn't hurt Cochran's career, did it? And in the court of public opinion (and the civil courts, oddly enough) NO ONE believed he was innocent.

You're right, lawyers gain recognition by winning. But in this case, "winning" is making sure that Walsh, who opened his mouth too wide to close it again, doesn't get nailed for stealing property and illegally audiotaping his boss.

That's my theory anyway, of course I don't know for sure.

 

[Hoodie]

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/01/rams-didnt-have-a-walk-through/

I think that this story has fallen thru the cracks. There has to be some truth to it or it would not have been written by the person that claims to have been present that day.

And don't forget that the NFL's original investigation found that there was no power to the video equipment during the walkthrough and that the Pats video crew had not brought their battery packs with them. That info was in the Globe article on Walsh which I would post the link to if I had been able to find it.

Edited -- here is the link and the relevant paragraph

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2008/03/10/to_some_a_vindictive_videotaper/

A league source said NFL investigators found two practical reasons why the Patriots could not have used their video equipment to tape the Rams the day before the Super Bowl. First, the team's video crew did not take any battery packs to the Superdome because they planned only to set up the equipment, not to use it. Second, the league confirmed there was no electrical power available at the camera positions in the stadium.

 

[jmt57]

When you read the legal document Reiss provided us with there were a few things that caught my attention.


First, In Section 1, part (b),

"in no event shall any Tangible property (or copy thereof) in the possession or control of Walsh or such counsel be used for any commercial purposes or in any manner that could reasonably be expected to be disparaging to the NFL (including the Club)or the NFL's or the Club's current and former owners or employees"

"and (iii) in no event shall Walsh or his counsel make any Document copies or other Tangible Property available to any third party without the NFL's prior written consent"

To me, that means that both sides have agreed that these tapes - if there are any - will never be seen by us, the public. That is something that a lot fans have been clamoring for and will result in a lot of people once again screaming "cover-up" - regardless of what Walsh does or does not have.


Second,

"Further, all of the restrictions in the second preceding sentence will apply only to Document copies and other items of Tangible Property themselves, and Walsh remains free to discuss and disclose the contents of the Documents and other Tangible Property subject to the other provisions of this Agreement."

That to me sounds like he is free to hit the talk show circuit. If Walsh was really a guy looking for the spotlight - as many have suggested - he's got the green light to get his fifteen minutes of fame.


Third, the Indemnification in Section 3 covers Walsh

"absent intentional untruthfulness on the part of Walsh",

which to me was a major point that the NFL and the Pats wanted to be covered for. Even though he's free to talk, he's not covered if he goes out and lies.


It then goes on to state that

"all videotaping ... shall be deemed to have been within the scope of Walsh's employment by the Club. In connection with any Losses for which indemnification may be sought ... if the NFL disputes that any actions other than Covered Videotaping Actions were within the scope of Walsh's employment by the Club ... Walsh shall bear the burden of proof on this issue by a preponderance of the evidence"

I'm no lawyer but to me that sounds like the two sides have agreed that it would be up to Walsh to prove, for example, that even if a tape of the Rams walk through does exist, then it is up to him to also prove that he was ordered to film it.


The final interesting tidbit is in Section 4, barring Walsh

"from seeking any commercial advantage ... During the subsequent five years, in the event that Walsh obtains or has obtained any cash or other property in exchange for his disclosure ... Walsh shall donate to a charity selected by the NFL and approved by Walsh ... the net proceeds"

So Walsh is not expressly forbidden from going on talk shows and writing a book, but he can't profit it from it either. Seems like this was probably a compromise and the two sides met in the middle. He can write a book, but he won't get paid. Or he can wait five years to write the book and roll the dice that the public still cares enough to buy it.

 

[The Boston Patriot]

Who the hell is going to take advise from a golfer who lies.

Is there any other kind?