NFL: Saints Bounty Thread

[AsylumGuido]

(05-17-2012 10:36 PM)phocis850 Wrote:  ZERO NADA NOTHING

That is what has changed. Vilma said he was innocent before today. So he files a lawsuit because Goodell says he's not.

What of that has changed? You are getting excited over nothing.

No, much has changed. Last week Goodell made distinct public proclamations of guilt toward Vilma. Unless proven, that constitutes various degrees of slander and/or libel on a personal basis. Goodell has exposed himself to a degree that the league may be nervous about backing. But, the league is in the clear. The suit is against Goodell personally. The league can back off and let Goodell blow in the wind on this one without consequence.

Peter Ginsberg knew what he was doing when he brought this suit against Goodell alone.

Sorry, but a heck of as lot has changed, Phocis.

[phocis850]

You are SOOOOO wrong with this.

Just because a personal lawsuit is filed does not all of a sudden make Vilma look like he is innocent. Nothing has changed. No evidence from either side has been brought forward.

You fail to realize that there has been ZERO fight about this from the coaches and owners. They took it like men. The other players haven't been very vocal about it. Yet, one guy decides to look like an ASS and try and make this whole bountygate go away on his own. This case is not just against specific players, it's against the entire team for allowing it to happen. Vilma is setting his team up for failure.

His claim is that he is losing revenue because of endorsements and such. That is understandable when you aren't allowed to play. But, when he comes through the other side of this, no company will give a damn about him anymore. Vilma WILL be the fool when this is all said and done.

Your conspiracy will be debunked soon enough. Stop getting your panties in a wad over every bit of news. This lawsuit helps Vilma in no way.

[ATLBound]

(05-17-2012 10:32 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  No, a tremendous change has happened since yesterday. A colossal change has happened since yesterday.

That supposed evidence that Goodell claimed was enough to severely punish and possibly cripple careers is going to have to be presented as proof to protect Goodell personally from slander and libel based upon his public statements.

Tell me, why would Vilma demand that evidence if it would support Goodell's case?

Explain, please.

I will use a lil Guido logic and assumptions here because if the tables were turned here is EXACTLY what you would have said:

One of the grievances that were filed was heard yesterday. Vilma and his lawyers was at that hearing. Could it be possible that this lawsuit was a backup plan and some type of last resort if what they heard at the grievance hearing wasn't to their liking?

See what I believe is that Vilma and his lawyers know that this grievance will not go the way he wants it to so he files this in hopes that it will work. But it probably won't work.

[JDaveG]

(05-17-2012 10:26 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  Why not? If he knows that Goodell publicly issued statements that were untrue as a statement of fact then he has grounds, correct? Goodell issued many statements as FACT when he levied the punishments of all of the supposedly guilty personnel. If he would have kept is silent it may not have been a problem. But, he chose to make it all public and share it with the worldwide press as to show that the league cared about the player's well being.

No, I am not a lawyer. But, I live and deal with these type cases through a very personal contact every day.

As I said, I know you want the Saints raped. But, if Goodell has greatly over stepped his bounds ...

IF.

That's the problem. IF you would say "if" more often instead of stating your wishes as facts, then you might be treated better.

This is really simple -- a lawsuit was filed. It wasn't won. It hasn't even been litigated. It was filed. That means, simply, that one person has made allegations against another. It doesn't mean those allegations are true. It doesn't mean he can prove his case. It just means he says Goodell did something wrong. I'd bet dollars to donuts Goodell files an Answer that says he did nothing wrong. And you won't be on here saying "oh, look, his lawyers wouldn't have said those things if they weren't true." You'll say "well of course he's going to deny it."

That's how simple it is, Guido. You're taking this as if something has been decided. The process has just begun. And the real issue is simple -- Goodell is the Commissioner of the NFL. When he said what he said and imposed the punishments he imposed, he did so in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the NFL. If Goodell knew those statements to be false, or acted without regard to whether they were true, it's possible he could be personally liable for libel (couldn't resist the play on words). But that's a lot of "ifs," and while you are quick to assume that Vilma's lawyers wouldn't file a lawsuit they couldn't prove, I think it equally likely that Goodell wouldn't make public statements he couldn't back up. And keep this in mind while you are at it -- Vilma has the burden of proof. Falsity is an element of defamation, so he has to prove the statements were false. If he presents a prima facie case, then the burden switches to Goodell to provide evidence refuting Vilma's account. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. But Goodell doesn't even have to prove the statement is true. All he has to show is that he REASONABLY BELIEVED the statements to be true, and he wins. Probably on summary judgment. Depending on what the CBA says about Goodell's ability to impose punishments, there might even be a consent defense -- if the CBA says Goodell can impose punishment and state the basis for it, Vilma by signing it may have consented to the publication, which is a defense to defamation. You act as if Vilma is going to win. The likelihood is he will not.

This is not to mention that Vilma is a "public figure," and therefore will likely have to demonstrate actual malice, as referenced before. If that's the case, the burden of proof is even higher -- Vilma has to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.

He could do all that. But the fact that he filed a lawsuit is no basis to conclude that he will. He has a huge uphill climb. That's why defamation lawsuits are rarely filed, and even more rarely successful.

[phocis850]

^

[ATLBound]

Well damn.....

[Jimusmc]

and guido put in his place.. well done dave.

[Drathdon]

What are the first words out of any criminal's mouth when they are caught?

"You can't prove it!"

Seems Vilma is following Hollywood stereotype and, after talking to his boys who swear they won't rat, is hanging everything on his belief that there is no way anyone can prove he did anything.

I've seen this movie before. They always get ratted out in court.

Maybe Vilma feels empowered by watching Bonds, Clemmons, and others walk free when people know they are guilty just because they cannot "prove it."

If anything, this just shows me Vilma is more guilty than ever. Not "I didn't do it" but "You can't prove it." SMH

[phocis850]

$100 that Goodell has audio of Vilma.

[Dale4Saul2Red0]

(05-17-2012 11:14 PM)JDaveG Wrote:  IF.

That's the problem. IF you would say "if" more often instead of stating your wishes as facts, then you might be treated better.

This is really simple -- a lawsuit was filed. It wasn't won. It hasn't even been litigated. It was filed. That means, simply, that one person has made allegations against another. It doesn't mean those allegations are true. It doesn't mean he can prove his case. It just means he says Goodell did something wrong. I'd bet dollars to donuts Goodell files an Answer that says he did nothing wrong. And you won't be on here saying "oh, look, his lawyers wouldn't have said those things if they weren't true." You'll say "well of course he's going to deny it."

That's how simple it is, Guido. You're taking this as if something has been decided. The process has just begun. And the real issue is simple -- Goodell is the Commissioner of the NFL. When he said what he said and imposed the punishments he imposed, he did so in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the NFL. If Goodell knew those statements to be false, or acted without regard to whether they were true, it's possible he could be personally liable for libel (couldn't resist the play on words). But that's a lot of "ifs," and while you are quick to assume that Vilma's lawyers wouldn't file a lawsuit they couldn't prove, I think it equally likely that Goodell wouldn't make public statements he couldn't back up. And keep this in mind while you are at it -- Vilma has the burden of proof. Falsity is an element of defamation, so he has to prove the statements were false. If he presents a prima facie case, then the burden switches to Goodell to provide evidence refuting Vilma's account. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. But Goodell doesn't even have to prove the statement is true. All he has to show is that he REASONABLY BELIEVED the statements to be true, and he wins. Probably on summary judgment. Depending on what the CBA says about Goodell's ability to impose punishments, there might even be a consent defense -- if the CBA says Goodell can impose punishment and state the basis for it, Vilma by signing it may have consented to the publication, which is a defense to defamation. You act as if Vilma is going to win. The likelihood is he will not.

This is not to mention that Vilma is a "public figure," and therefore will likely have to demonstrate actual malice, as referenced before. If that's the case, the burden of proof is even higher -- Vilma has to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.

He could do all that. But the fact that he filed a lawsuit is no basis to conclude that he will. He has a huge uphill climb. That's why defamation lawsuits are rarely filed, and even more rarely successful.