Tom's OTHER legal options, including going nuclear

[MassPats38]

I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this. The leaked report would be evidence of malice. It goes to legal requirements/sufficiency of case questions, not the cause for the suit.

That was a discussion to whether that particular issue may fall within the umbra of the CBA and thus pre-emption.

I agree the fact a declarant (or re-publisher) of a falsehood takes pains to make the information public would certainly substantiate malice.

Since you stopped by, if you played attorney in drafting a defamation claim with regard to the Mortensen story, would you have issues alleging that cause of action on "information and belief" against the NFL (not Mortensen, who obviously published the specific statement allegedly published to him) and filing that complaint in federal court? It came up in discussion, and I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that particular issue. This seems to me the equivalent of the Tomase garbage, with the same associated problems. Who actually said it? Was the statement repeated accurately? Does the declarant speak for the organization? Etc. Could you certify the pleading under the good faith standard and file it?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

But the league knew the report by Mortenson was false, yet the neither publicly denied the figures, they also lied directly to the Patriots about the air pressure of their balls as well as the Colts balls.

No argument on any of that (please see my first sentence). I'm just saying that there are many "defenses" that $1,000 an hour lawyers can throw up in a Defamation suit filed by a high profile individual.

 

[Deus Irae]

That was a discussion to whether that particular issue may fall within the umbra of the CBA and thus pre-emption.

I understand what you're saying, but it wouldn't go under any specific issue, imo, because I'd classify it as evidence rather than cause. The letter to the Patriots would be much more likely to fit the bill as a cause, but it was private.

Since you stopped by, if you played attorney in drafting a defamation claim with regard to the Mortensen story, would you have issues alleging that cause of action on "information and belief" against the NFL (not Mortensen, who obviously published the specific statement allegedly published to him) and filing that complaint in federal court? It came up in discussion, and I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that particular issue. This seems to me the equivalent of the Tomase garbage, with the same associated problems. Who actually said it? Was the statement repeated accurately? Does the declarant speak for the organization? Etc. Could you certify the pleading under the good faith standard and file it?

Given only what we know to date, I don't think you're going to want to claim a cause of action based upon that one erroneous tweet.