(05-17-2012 10:56 PM)ATLBound Wrote:  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.

(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.

(05-18-2012 07:51 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  Vilma and his lawyers were not at that hearing.

(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.

(05-18-2012 10:30 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  Thank you for that. I agree completely that Vilma isn't likely to win because of what you stated in capital letters.

REASONABLY BELIEVED

But, Vilma is doing this for one reason and one reason only ... to clear his name. He isn't in it for the money.

Since the day this whole ordeal began Vilma has been vocally consistent on two points. The first is that he has strongly repeatedly denied what he has been publicly accused of doing by Goodell. The second is that he has constantly demanded evidence for what he is accused.

IF Vilma is telling the truth and has been wrongly accused he deserves the chance to clear his name. Can any of you argue that point? Goodell as judge, jury and appeal judge prohibits that chance. The only chance Vilma has is to force Goodell to present the evidence. Vilma's lawyer will be able to subpoena that evidence IF this goes to court. IF upon examination Vilma can prove that the evidence used to "convict" him in Goodell's mind was faulty or outright false he would be able to clear his name.

As you pointed out, Goodell very well could have REASONABLY BELIEVED that information to be the truth. In that case, Vilma would lose the suit yet still get the result he ultimately wishes ...

... to simply clear his name.

(05-18-2012 10:09 AM)ATLBound Wrote:  Somebody that represents Vilma's camp was there

(05-18-2012 10:32 AM)JDaveG Wrote:  That's right, although I suspect Vilma's intentions are more geared toward negotiating a settlement as to his suspension and less toward clearing his name. The fact is, the potential for his name to be smeared by whatever comes out in discovery is high.

If Vilma truly didn't do anything wrong, everything you wrote is accurate. That's a big "if" right now, though.

(05-17-2012 10:52 PM)phocis850 Wrote:  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.

(05-18-2012 10:36 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  Actually, there wasn't. It was only the NFLPA lawyer Jeff Kessler, Anthony Hargrove and Scott Fujita. But, that doesn't matter. Vilma's action is a totally separate issue. IF he is indeed not guilty of what he has been accused he wishes to clear his name. That is not a league or union issue. That is a personal issue between Goodell and himself.