NFL: Saints Bounty Thread

[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.