Spygate Part II is growing legs.
Glenn Greenstein
I now really believe they are trying to hide something here. If there was
nothing to this, you would not have gotten a solitary comment out BB. They
guy won't comment on what the status of his QB, but he is going to comment
on something that supposedly never occurred?
Also, it appears the league is in cahoots with the Pats.
They are not giving Walsh blanket indemnity. They are putting the burden of
truth on Walsh. He has to prove everything he is going to say is the truth,
just like a suspect who defends himself in a court of law. All the league
has to say is we will not sue you if you give us the information you have.
I can't believe the league is not interested in any of the evidence that
Walsh has, unless they know the truth and want in it buried. They also have
said he has to return anything that might belong to the Pats, like the
evidence.
stra...@netscape.net
wrote:
> They are not giving Walsh blanket indemnity. They are putting the burden of
> truth on Walsh.
It sure sucks that he would be required to tell the truth.
"Eric Holder, a partner in Covington and Burling, the NFL's outside
law firm, said: "No responsible investigator would offer blanket
immunity to a potential witness without a commitment that the witness
will be truthful. Any witness who refuses to make that commitment
doesn't deserve immunity.""
John C (tx)
> law firm, said: "No responsible investigator would offer blanket
> immunity to a potential witness without a commitment that the witness
> will be truthful. Any witness who refuses to make that commitment
> doesn't deserve immunity.""
Strazz stop it.
Walsh could get sued for telling the truth as all the plaintiff has to
do is allege that he lied. Walsh wants indemnification for good
reason. He is claiming he has no problem having his indemnification
voided if he acted in bad faith, but it is the NFL, not another party
(like the Pats) to determine. So if the NFL tries to void the
agreement they are liable and will be open to a counter suit and
possibly a court order to honor the indemnification.
It is similar to the problem with Special Prosecutors. If they go
after you, your legal bills are covered, if you prevail. Well how
many civil servants have $1-2 MM to risk by defending themselves?
From espn:
Under the NFL's indemnification offer, Walsh's attorney said his
client could still be sued if, for instance, the Patriots contested
the accuracy of whatever information he comes forward with. That could
prove an enormous cost battling an NFL franchise in court.
"It is very easy to allege someone has been untruthful even if it
can't be proven,'' Michael Levy said. "The NFL's proposal would leave
Mr. Walsh completely unprotected against such an unproven allegation,
because he would have to defend against it himself. And the NFL wants
Mr. Walsh to give up the very materials he might need to prove his
truthfulness.''
Someone could argue, according to both Levy and Specter, that Goodell
was untruthful when he misconstrued facts in a Jan. 31, 2008, letter
to Specter. While assuring Specter that the league's investigation
uncovered no videotaping chicanery by the Patriots leading up to their
2005 Super Bowl victory against the Philadelphia Eagles, Goodell
wrote, "The two teams had only played one other game against each
other in the current decade, a preseason game in the summer of 2003.''
In fact, the Super Bowl showdown was the fifth game between the teams
in the preceding 2½ years.
"Clearly, commissioner Goodell should not seek to hold Mr. Walsh to a
higher standard than the standard to which he would hold himself,''
Levy said. The attorney was careful to note that although Goodell's
letter was inaccurate, he doesn't believe he acted in bad faith.
Glenn Greenstein
<stra...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:ac14505a-1559-4a56...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 9:26 am, "Glenn Greenstein" <glen.jack...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
>> They are not giving Walsh blanket indemnity. They are putting the burden
>> of
>> truth on Walsh.
>
> It sure sucks that he would be required to tell the truth.
Strazz, that is a pretty naive comment.
If Wash says he was instructed by the Pats to take this video and the Pats
say they never said such a thing, Walsh can be in some really deep crap if
he can't prove such a thing was ever spoken. I think he knows there is no
written records to prove his side and he wants to be taken at his word.
>
> "Eric Holder, a partner in Covington and Burling, the NFL's outside
> law firm, said: "No responsible investigator would offer blanket
> immunity to a potential witness without a commitment that the witness
> will be truthful. Any witness who refuses to make that commitment
> doesn't deserve immunity.""
Yeah, but the prosecutors are normally on the side of the witness. In this
case it would appear both the league and the Pats are against him.
Harlan Lachman
<ac14505a-1559-4a56...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
stra...@netscape.net wrote:
Joe, I think this is a prime example of selective perception. Your bias
is to hope that your team is not exposed as cheats whose success is
deserving of an asterisk or removal of victory.Hence you read the Holder
quote and take it verbatim.
The legal issue here is much more subtle. We are seeing the issue of
standard of proof. This is serious as Walsh risks being ruined for life.
If Walsh is only protected for statements that are "truthful," the
burden of proof is on Walsh. He must not only tell the truth, he must be
able to prove he is telling the truth. IOW, if he tells the truth and
those who he accuses do not admit to their actions, he may not be able
to prove he is telling the truth. He may not have indisputable proof.
Hence, in spite of telling the truth, with this standard, he would still
be liable and given the league's desire to justify itself and Kraft and
Patriot's desire to justify their legacy, Walsh would likely be
destroyed.
If, as his lawyer has requested, the standard is that he make a good
faith effort to tell the truth, if it can be proven he has lied, he is
not protected. For him to be liable, someone has to prove he lied and
knew he was lying. Otherwise he is indemnified.
IOW, the question is the burden of proof.
Any unbiased person would realize that given that Walsh is now being
taken on by a multi-millionaire (Kraft) and the entire NFL (as others
have posted, why else are they investigating him if not to smear him),
he would have to be a complete moron to settle for anything less than
the standard his lawyers are seeking.
I am not suggesting he has anything to say. He may be looking for his 15
minutes of fame. I am not suggesting he wants to tell the truth. Why
hasn't he earlier? I am suggesting he and his lawyers are following the
only reasonable course of action and he is right to insist on this
standard of proof.
Harlan
--
To respond, obviously drop the "nospan"?
Glenn Greenstein
"Harlan Lachman" <hlac...@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
news:hlachman-5EFD98...@news.verizon.net...
agreement the Pats had him sign.
Harlan Lachman
<f0Guj.628495$kj1.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Glenn Greenstein" <glen.j...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> H, the reason he has not said anything is because of the confidetiality
> agreement the Pats had him sign.
That is part of the liability he faces. But he could have let on he had
something to say a lot earlier. To me, that would raise a question or
three.
h
Michael
"Glenn Greenstein" <glen.j...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:SGBuj.238582$MJ6....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Hiya...
My background is in business and not legal, so, forgive me for being
ignorant on this matter. I have a question though for anyone that knows
law. Can not sentiment play a huge part in this sort of thing irrespective
of the evidence ??? They convicted Manson with less evidence then they had
on O.J. Given that the Patriots were caught and penalized for breaking the
rules, wont Walsh have instant credibility even if he isn't holding signed
documents asking him to carry out illegal taping ??? I mean for heck sake...
Who would ever expect that their would be documentation associated with this
sort of thing ??? Why not expect Nixon to give written contracts to the
"Plumbers" ??? If Walsh has tapes, wouldn't "motive" suggest guilt on the
part of the Patriots ??? What would Walsh want with tapes like that but to
give them to BB ???
Is the only way for Walsh to prove himself legally is to produce documents
that no one would ever have provided him with ??? This stuff is way
complicated now.
Michael
Polarhound
> BB and Pioli legitimizes allegations with a response
So by your logic:
If they didn't speak up, they are hiding something.
If they did speak up, then the allegations are legitimate.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Polarhound
>
> My background is in business and not legal, so, forgive me for being
> ignorant on this matter. I have a question though for anyone that knows
> law. Can not sentiment play a huge part in this sort of thing irrespective
> of the evidence ???
Where would you like to start? Perhaps with Walsh breaking State
wiretap laws by secretly recording private conversations?
Remember: Massachusetts is a TWO party state. Without a court order or
documented consent, it is a crime.
Michael
"Polarhound" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:q6udnXEr44fl_iba...@comcast.com...
I don't know the first thing about any of that legal stuff. What seems to
be a cogent argument according to common sense is full of holes legally
speaking. I couldn't even begin to get my hands around this. As far as the
sport goes, I don't think anyone looks good in this sort of thing. Legal
fees will look good to a few I'm sure.
Michael
Glenn Greenstein
> In article
> <f0Guj.628495$kj1.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Glenn Greenstein" <glen.j...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> H, the reason he has not said anything is because of the confidetiality
>> agreement the Pats had him sign.
>
> That is part of the liability he faces. But he could have let on he had
> something to say a lot earlier. To me, that would raise a question or
> three.
I really don't see why he would say anything unless someone asked him or
offered him something for the info.
Glenn Greenstein
I had not said a thing about the Pats position in all of this until now.
So far it has not even been an issue with the Pats, it has been between the
league and Spector.
Now that the Pats have chimed in, something nobody has asked them to do, I
believe they are trying to cover this up with Goodell. As far as what has
come out with the talks between Goodell and Spector, I would say Goodell has
been less than forthcoming in all this and seems to be trying to kick this
under the rug as best he can.
John C (tx)
> that no one would ever have provided him with ??? This stuff is way
> complicated now.
I have no idea how much $ Walsh has to his name but the issue is legal
costs. As I mentioned, the most dangerous part of the special
prosecutors. As both pol parties have experienced, you have an
investigator with carte blanche on legal costs while a defendant has
to figure out what is usually some very competent prosecutors. How can
walsh go toe to toe with teh NFL & or the Pats?
John C (tx)
> wiretap laws by secretly recording private conversations?
>
> Remember: Massachusetts is a TWO party state. Without a court order or
> documented consent, it is a crime.
Is it against the law to tape your own conversations in MA? I know MA
is one of 12 states that require everyone on a phone call to know the
call is being taped (in 38 states only one person has to know) but if
it is conversation I don't think any laws prevent taping.
Harlan Lachman
"Glenn Greenstein" <glen.j...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> "Harlan Lachman" <hlac...@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
> news:hlachman-72B5C0...@news.verizon.net...
> > In article
> > <f0Guj.628495$kj1.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Glenn Greenstein" <glen.j...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> H, the reason he has not said anything is because of the confidetiality
> >> agreement the Pats had him sign.
> >
> > That is part of the liability he faces. But he could have let on he had
> > something to say a lot earlier. To me, that would raise a question or
> > three.
>
> I really don't see why he would say anything unless someone asked him or
> offered him something for the info.
>
> >
> > h
> >
> > --
> > To respond, obviously drop the "nospan"?
Glenn, how about three reasons he probably would have said it earlier if
he really has something to share:
a) payback for being fired
b) 15 minutes of fame
c) book rights advance
Assuming he has a story to tell, he could have done exactly what he
ended up doing, implying he had something to say without violating any
non-disclosure agreement or exposing himself to court costs or worse.
The fact that he waited should at least be a red flag and if he ever
tells his story will have to be explained.
harlan
Glenn Greenstein
> In article <5ZVuj.241288$MJ6....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Glenn Greenstein" <glen.j...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> "Harlan Lachman" <hlac...@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:hlachman-72B5C0...@news.verizon.net...
>> > In article
>> > <f0Guj.628495$kj1.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> > "Glenn Greenstein" <glen.j...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> H, the reason he has not said anything is because of the
>> >> confidetiality
>> >> agreement the Pats had him sign.
>> >
>> > That is part of the liability he faces. But he could have let on he had
>> > something to say a lot earlier. To me, that would raise a question or
>> > three.
>>
>> I really don't see why he would say anything unless someone asked him or
>> offered him something for the info.
>>
>> >
>> > h
>> >
>> > --
>> > To respond, obviously drop the "nospan"?
>
> Glenn, how about three reasons he probably would have said it earlier if
> he really has something to share:
>
> a) payback for being fired
what Pioli has said as utter lies.
I do agree though that he probably wants some pay back now since the league
has sent someone to dig up dirt on him so they can discredit him in court.
> b) 15 minutes of fame
Well, he's already gotten that much
> c) book rights advance
He can't write a book now or ever unless that indemnity deal goes on for the
rest of his life.
>
> Assuming he has a story to tell, he could have done exactly what he
> ended up doing, implying he had something to say without violating any
> non-disclosure agreement or exposing himself to court costs or worse.
Non of us know how the confidentiality deal works, so I think it is some
what far fetched to think he can say even that he was a video asst.
>
> The fact that he waited should at least be a red flag and if he ever
> tells his story will have to be explained.
H, I don't think that is the case at all. I think he is just trying to avoid
getting sued right now and having to pay any legal fees in a he said she
said fight with the Pats.
John C (tx)
> costs. As I mentioned, the most dangerous part of the special
> prosecutors. As both pol parties have experienced, you have an
> investigator with carte blanche on legal costs while a defendant has
> to figure out what is usually some very competent prosecutors. How can
> walsh go toe to toe with teh NFL & or the Pats?
Now in English:
I have no idea how much $ Walsh has to his name but the issue is
legal
costs. As I mentioned, the most dangerous part of the special
prosecutors is the cost of fighting them. As both pol parties have
experienced, you have an
investigator with carte blanche on legal costs while a defendant has
to figure out how to battle, what is usually some very competent
prosecutors, w/o going broke. How can
Walsh go toe to toe with the NFL & or the Pats if they decide to sue
him?
Michael
"John C (tx)" <jcn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:db3af359-8cd0-4faf...@41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
John... I this case... Now you can say with confidence that you don't trust
my judgment. I have no idea what the hell to make of any of this. The
legal fees sure will be concrete. I'm sure of that much.
Michael
Polarhound
Here is a link to a news story about a guy who got busted for "wiretapping":
http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2001/august/nw0810-6.htm
A motorist who secretly recorded an encounter with police during a
routine traffic stop violated the state's wiretap law, Massachusetts'
highest state court has ruled. (Commonwealth v. Hyde, July 13, 2001.)
Although the case does not involve a media defendant, its outcome could
have ramifications for newsgathering by members of the press, at least
in Massachusetts.
...
Unlike the federal wiretap act and analogous laws in various other
states, Massachusetts law prohibits the secret tape recording of any
speech, even if the speaker had no reasonable expectation of privacy in
the contents of that speech. According to the state's highest court, the
Massachusetts law thus prohibits individuals from recording a
conversation without the "permission or knowledge" of all parties to the
conversation.
The court declined to recognize an exception for speech by police or
other public officials acting in their official roles. Such an exception
would open the door "even wider to electronic 'bugging' or secret audio
tape recording," the court hypothesized, "of virtually every encounter
or meeting between a person and a public official."
"Secret tape recording by private individuals has been unequivocally
banned, and, unless and until the legislature changes the statute, what
was done here cannot be done lawfully," the court concluded.
-
As for the specific law:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-99.htm
Here is a snip of the most relevant parts:
B. Definitions. As used in this section—
2. The term “oral communication” means speech, except such speech as is
transmitted over the public air waves by radio or other similar device.
3. The term “intercepting device” means any device or apparatus which is
capable of transmitting, receiving, amplifying, or recording a wire or
oral communication other than a hearing aid or similar device which is
being used to correct subnormal hearing to normal and other than any
telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment, facility, or a component
thereof, (a) furnished to a subscriber or user by a communications
common carrier in the ordinary course of its business under its tariff
and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its
business; or (b) being used by a communications common carrier in the
ordinary course of its business.
4. The term “interception” means to secretly hear, secretly record, or
aid another to secretly hear or secretly record the contents of any wire
or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device by any
person other than a person given prior authority by all parties to such
communication; provided that it shall not constitute an interception for
an investigative or law enforcement officer, as defined in this section,
to record or transmit a wire or oral communication if the officer is a
party to such communication or has been given prior authorization to
record or transmit the communication by such a party and if recorded or
transmitted in the course of an investigation of a designated offense as
defined herein.
C. Offenses.
1. Interception, oral communications prohibited.
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this section any person who—
willfully commits an interception, attempts to commit an interception,
or procures any other person to commit an interception or to attempt to
commit an interception of any wire or oral communication shall be fined
not more than ten thousand dollars, or imprisoned in the state prison
for not more than five years, or imprisoned in a jail or house of
correction for not more than two and one half years, or both so fined
and given one such imprisonment.
5. Possession of interception devices prohibited.
A person who possesses any intercepting device under circumstances
evincing an intent to commit an interception not permitted or authorized
by this section, or a person who permits an intercepting device to be
used or employed for an interception not permitted or authorized by this
section, or a person who possesses an intercepting device knowing that
the same is intended to be used to commit an interception not permitted
or authorized by this section, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
punishable by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more
than two years or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or both.
Polarhound
They've been trying to get the Pats to "chime in" on the allegations
every day of every week of the season. If you look back, you will see
the mediots doing a six-month long public tearjerker session because he
DIDN'T talk about it.
EZ
I guess they don't have voice mail in MA?
MZ
news:8D4vj.270620$1x.1...@fe05.news.easynews.com...
When you leave voice mail, you're not aware that you're being taped?
Glenn Greenstein
So you are trying to tell me now that BB actually cares about what the media
wants to ask?
John C (tx)
> John C (tx) wrote:
> >> Where would you like to start? Perhaps with Walsh breaking State
> >> wiretap laws by secretly recording private conversations?
>
> >> Remember: Massachusetts is a TWO party state. Without a court order or
> >> documented consent, it is a crime.
>
> > Is it against the law to tape your own conversations in MA? I know MA
> > is one of 12 states that require everyone on a phone call to know the
> > call is being taped (in 38 states only one person has to know) but if
> > it is conversation I don't think any laws prevent taping.
>
> Here is a link to a news story about a guy who got busted for "wiretapping":
>
> http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2001/august/nw0810-6.htm
Yeah, besides all that?
: )
Wow, I would have bet a steak dinner on that. How do reporters work?
What s the genesis of that law? A state senator having a conversation
taped with a secretary he was hitting on?
So if the Pats used an audio surveillance w/o the other teams
permission they broke the law as well as NFL rules? Maybe that is why
they never pressed charges?
Polarhound
I'm saying that if he DIDN'T speak up, you would be claiming that he is
hiding something, as opposed to you claiming the charges are legitimate
because he did in fact address them.
Glenn Greenstein
Why? I never even really considered the Pats defendants until now. This
whole thing is mainly between Congress and the NFL. The Pats were just side
dish in all this before then. I would say Goodell is by far the biggest
culprit here if this is a cover up. BB saying nothing would have been the
status quo.