+- Atlanta Falcons Talk (http://atlantafalconstalk.com)
+-- Forum: Falcons Fans Message Boards (/Forum-Falcons-Fans-Message-Boards)
+--- Forum: Talk About The Falcons & So Much More (/Forum-Talk-About-The-Falcons-So-Much-More)
+--- Thread: NFL: Saints Bounty Thread (/Thread-NFL-Saints-Bounty-Thread)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 12-11-2012 04:49 PM
Vilma’s lawyer bashes Goodell for “manufactured allegations”
Posted by Michael David Smith on December 11, 2012, 2:55 PM EST
The attorney for Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma says NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s “manufactured allegations” have tarnished Vilma’s reputation.
And attorney Peter Ginsberg says that while former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue did the right thing by lifting Vilma’s suspension, Tagliabue now needs to publicly release all of the testimony he relied on in making his decision in the bounty case.
“Two competing forces have been at play since at least March of this year – Roger Goodell has been trying every conceivable maneuver to avoid real and honest scrutiny of his manufactured allegations that Jonathan Vilma engaged in a bounty program aimed at opposing players and Jonathan has been fighting to have an open and fair review of those accusations,” Ginsberg said in a statement. “We are obviously relieved and gratified that Jonathan no longer needs to worry about facing an unjustified suspension. On the other hand, Commissioner Tagliabue’s rationalization of Commissioner Goodell’s actions does nothing to rectify the harm done by the baseless allegations lodged against Jonathan. Jonathan has a right and every intention to pursue proving what really occurred and we look forward to returning to a public forum where the true facts can see the light of day. We call upon Commissioner Tagliabue to release the transcripts of the proceedings held before him so that they are available as we go forward. Finally, it is regrettable that the NFL continues unjustifiably to attack the New Orleans Saints, an organization comprised of decent and honest people who continue to stand strong in the face of these baseless attacks.”
The big question as Vilma goes forward with his defamation case is what impact those transcripts will have. Tagliabue has rescinded Vilma’s suspension, but he hasn’t said Vilma did nothing wrong. If Vilma’s defamation case goes to trial, a jury will get to see the same evidence Tagliabue has seen, and a jury will determine whether Goodell defamed Vilma by overstating just what the case was against him.
______________________________________________
So, who wants to bet that Mike Cerullo's story and his personal handwritten documents were ripped apart in the proceedings? That could explain why Ginsberg wants the transcripts released so vehemently. If they didn't strongly support Vilma's cause why try to get them made public?
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - JDaveG - 12-11-2012 04:55 PM
(12-11-2012 04:34 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: That was interpretations I have read today from some of the legal experts out there. They said that Tagliabue carefully worded his response so that not only could he state that he affirms Goodell's finding, but still clears the way to vacate all player penalties.
If he had simply vacated the penalties without the stated affirmation it would have weakened Goodell's stance in the defamation case being handled by the firm in which Tagliabue is a partner.
Oh, and it is not "[the NFL's] cause in the defamation case", it is Goodell's cause given it is Vilma vs. Goodell.
So he didn't "state as much." Rather, some folks you listened to inferred as much, and you believe them.
Are you suggesting Goodell is "Tagliabue's client?" Because I put in NFL because I thought your use of the phrase "his client" was inaccurate. Now I think it's even more so.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - papachaz - 12-11-2012 04:55 PM
what you've posted and what I've read are different, I don't know which to believe, and in reality, don't care. Here's the excerpt from what I just read about it.
"Having reviewed the testimony very carefully, including documentary evidence that is at the center of the conflict, and having assessed the credibility of the four central witnesses on these matters, I find there is more than enough evidence to support Commissioner Goodell's findings that Mr. Vilma offered such a bounty (on Brett Favre)," Tagliabue continued in his statement.
I still don't see how defamation can be proved, and I do think that this will be appealed out until vilma is out of the NFL. Regardless of what saints fans think, a New Orleans judge is NOT an impartial party. I can't believe the NFL hasn't requested a change of venue.
I'm also wondering, PT clearly said there were grounds for punishment, (fines) so does the NFL now fine them, or just let it go?
For the record, I have been anti Goodell in his handling of suspensions and fines, and his sissification of the No Fun League ever since he started. I was cheering the fans booing him at the draft last year during the lockout. His handling of the lockout, the refs, too harsh of fines for hits that don't even deem a flag in the games and now the way he handled this.....man I wish we had Pete Rozelle back
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 12-11-2012 04:59 PM
Haha whats funny about all of this is that both sides get what they want. We have confirmation that the evidence was not delusional and skewed as Guido has claimed and also Guido gets his players unsuspended.
The fact that the coaches are suspended speaks to the fact that the evidence was enough.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 12-11-2012 05:02 PM
(12-11-2012 04:55 PM)JDaveG Wrote: So he didn't "state as much." Rather, some folks you listened to inferred as much, and you believe them.
Are you suggesting Tagliabue is "Goodell's client?" Because I put in NFL because I thought your use of the phrase "his client" was inaccurate. Now I think it's even more so.
No, Goodell is Tagliabue's client. Goodell is being personally represented by Tagliabue's law firm in the defamation case.
And, of course Tags would "state as much". That would be stupid. But, legal analysts (not "some folks") have reasonably ascertained that from studying Tags' detailed response.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 12-11-2012 05:08 PM
Sigh...Guido still fighting. Heres the breakdown:
1. Tags confirms bounties happen
2. But punishments should be towards the team, not the players. Hence coaches supensions and GM suspensions staying true.
3. Vilma did pledge 10k as evidence shows, but unsure of intent.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 12-11-2012 05:08 PM
(12-11-2012 04:55 PM)papachaz Wrote: what you've posted and what I've read are different, I don't know which to believe, and in reality, don't care. Here's the excerpt from what I just read about it.
"Having reviewed the testimony very carefully, including documentary evidence that is at the center of the conflict, and having assessed the credibility of the four central witnesses on these matters, I find there is more than enough evidence to support Commissioner Goodell's findings that Mr. Vilma offered such a bounty (on Brett Favre)," Tagliabue continued in his statement.
I still don't see how defamation can be proved, and I do think that this will be appealed out until vilma is out of the NFL. Regardless of what saints fans think, a New Orleans judge is NOT an impartial party. I can't believe the NFL hasn't requested a change of venue.
I'm also wondering, PT clearly said there were grounds for punishment, (fines) so does the NFL now fine them, or just let it go?
For the record, I have been anti Goodell in his handling of suspensions and fines, and his sissification of the No Fun League ever since he started. I was cheering the fans booing him at the draft last year during the lockout. His handling of the lockout, the refs, too harsh of fines for hits that don't even deem a flag in the games and now the way he handled this.....man I wish we had Pete Rozelle back
You notice he said he found there is enough evidence to support Goodell's findings. He is not saying that he agrees with Goodell's finding in totality. That is why he stated the following saying the evidence does not convince him personally of an actual bounty being placed upon Favre.
"Adding to the complexity, there is little evidence of the tone of any talk about a bounty before the Vikings game. Was any bounty pledged serious? Was it inspirational only? Was it typical "trash talk" that occurs regularly before and during games? The parties presented no clear answers. No witness could confirm whether Vilma had any money in his hands as he spoke; no evidence was presented that $10,000 was available to him for purposes of paying a bounty or otherwise. There was no evidence that Vilma or anyone else paid any money to any player for any bounty-related hit on an opposing player in the Vikings game.
"I neither excuse nor condone the alleged offer of a bounty on Favre, whether offered by any player, coach, other Saints' employee or third party. Such conduct has no place in the game of professional football. I cannot, however, uphold a multi-game suspension where there is no evidence that a player's speech prior to a game was actually a factor causing misconduct on the playing field and that such misconduct was severe enough in itself to warrant a player suspension or a very substantial fine. Nor can I find justified a suspension where Williams and other Saints' personnel so carefully crafted an environment that would encourage and allow a player to make such an ill-advised and imprudent offer. I therefore vacate the suspension of Jonathan Vilma."
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - JDaveG - 12-11-2012 05:09 PM
(12-11-2012 05:02 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: No, Goodell is Tagliabue's client. Goodell is being personally represented by Tagliabue's law firm in the defamation case.
Tagliabue doesn't represent Goodell. He is of counsel at a law firm that represents Goodell and the NFL. That doesn't make Goodell "his client." I was in court this morning representing a client. That doesn't mean lawyers at my firm who have never met that client suddenly represent them. That's not how legal representation works.
Quote:And, of course Tags would "state as much". That would be stupid. But, legal analysts (not "some folks") have reasonably ascertained that from studying Tags' detailed response.
You said he "stated as much." Sorry to hold you to your own words. Perhaps you should choose them more carefully.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 12-11-2012 05:11 PM
(12-11-2012 05:08 PM)ATLBound Wrote: Sigh...Guido still fighting. Heres the breakdown:
1. Tags confirms bounties happen
2. But punishments should be towards the team, not the players. Hence coaches supensions and GM suspensions staying true.
3. Vilma did pledge 10k as evidence shows, but unsure of intent.
No, Tags said there was no evidence of bounties, but there was evidence of the performance pool which the league has renamed a bounty pool.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - Peyton - 12-11-2012 05:12 PM
(12-11-2012 03:57 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: You might find this interesting:
The parties presented no clear answers. No witness could confirm whether Vilma had any money in his hands as he spoke; no evidence was presented that $10,000 was available to him for purposes of paying a bounty or otherwise.
Wow, that is the most fascinating part of today's statement. Unbelievable considering all the information to the contrary the NFL has been trying to get out there.