LOLSAINTS Bounty Program - Pair of Pliers and a Blowtorch - Page 87 - Sporting Events and Fantasy Sports

Noze · 07-12-2012, 01:03 AM

The NFL filed a grievance against Vilma and the NFLPA under the CBA demanding that he drop his defamation suit.

Jonathan Vilma

✔

@JonVilma51

The nfl sent me a letter "demanding" I drop my defamation suit or else...lol or else wat?!?? They no likey me lawsuitey

Quote:

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the more accurate description is that the NFL has filed a grievance under the CBA against the NFLPA and Vilma seeking an order forcing Vilma to dismiss his defamation suit. On Wednesday, lawyer Peter Ginsberg informed the league that Vilma will not be withdrawing the defamation suit, arguing that the grievance filed by the league has no merit.

The letter, a copy of which PFT has obtained, contends that the grievance procedure contained in the Collective Bargaining Agreement doesn’t apply in this case, because Vilma filed his suit not “against the NFL or any Club” but against Goodell, and because the defamation claim arises not from the suspension imposed by Goodell on Vilma but from the allegedly false public statements made by Goodell before imposing discipline.

The grievance “constitutes an improper effort to interfere with a pending judicial matter,” Ginsberg writes in his letter to Dennis Curran, NFL Sr. Vice President of Labor Litigation & Policy. “If you pursue the Grievance, we will consider seeking sanctions against the NFL [Management Council] before Honorable Helen G. Berrigan . . . based on NFLMC’s improper attempt to obstruct a pending judicial action in which it is not a party.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...famation-case/

Weird.

camz2895 · 07-13-2012, 11:14 AM

are they really gonna drag this brees deal out until monday?

camz2895 · 07-13-2012, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by camz2895

are they really gonna drag this brees deal out until monday?

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

nath · 07-13-2012, 08:58 PM

So on another note, now that the Freeh report on Penn State is out, I feel like i should mention that the Saints hired the Freeh Group to do a full investigation of their organization with regards to the bounty scandal, as well as the stories of Loomis having bugged the offices and/or the locker rooms.

I was impressed with their report on Penn State, so no matter what they come up with, I think I'll be satisfied that it's pretty accurate. Much more so than the NFL's slipshod investigation, at least.

ForumWithdrawal · 07-13-2012, 10:58 PM

Let Freehdom ring.

Ray Horton · 07-13-2012, 11:24 PM

Freeh report = death penalty

Gonso · 07-14-2012, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noze

The NFL filed a grievance against Vilma and the NFLPA under the CBA demanding that he drop his defamation suit.

I have only fuzzy recollections of defamation law from school, but doesn't Vilma have to show that the statements were not only untrue but malicious? And that's if Goodell acting in official capacity of Commissioner doesn't get him off the hook as far as being targetable for the suit in the first place. I don't blame Vilma for trying but I wonder what his chances are.

grizy · 07-14-2012, 10:26 AM

Virtually none. It's almost a freeroll for him. Compared to what he expects to make this year and what he expects to lose going forward due to lost playing time, the lawyer fees are nothing.

Noze · 07-14-2012, 12:18 PM

The chances are tiny, I think the main point of the lawsuit is to actually see everything Goodell supposedly has

AcTiOnJaCsOn · 07-14-2012, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nath

So on another note, now that the Freeh report on Penn State is out, I feel like i should mention that the Saints hired the Freeh Group to do a full investigation of their organization with regards to the bounty scandal, as well as the stories of Loomis having bugged the offices and/or the locker rooms.

I was impressed with their report on Penn State, so no matter what they come up with, I think I'll be satisfied that it's pretty accurate. Much more so than the NFL's slipshod investigation, at least.

I really liked what he did with that psu report and agree that his report should have more merit. I hope it doesn't take nine months, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForumWithdrawal

Let Freehdom ring.

andyhop · 07-14-2012, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gonso

I have only fuzzy recollections of defamation law from school, but doesn't Vilma have to show that the statements were not only untrue but malicious?

If Goodell's comments are found to be unsupported by the evidence I would have thought that they would be found to be malicious because he can't really claim it was an honest mistake or a reasonable statement given the facts known to him when he has the results of a major investigation in front of him when he made the statement.

Riverman · 07-27-2012, 04:46 PM

Schefter is reporting that there is speculation that a Federal judge is going to invalidate the penalties. Didn't see that coming if true.

Noze · 07-27-2012, 04:54 PM

Yeah they had a hearing yesterday:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...siextra_072712

Excerpt:

Quote:

NFL attorneys did not attempt to challenge testimony denying the existence of a bounty program. Rather, they argued the real question in Vilma's case was whether the federal courts had jurisdiction to overturn a process that was collectively bargained. They noted that multiple system arbitrators have already agreed that Goodell has followed the very policies for imposing discipline to which players agreed in the league's labor agreement.

"Mr. Vilma may not like that bargain but it's not for him ... or this court to decide,'' NFL attorney Gregg Levy argued.

Berrigan did not say when she would rule on the temporary restraining order that Vilma's attorney requested in Thursday's seven-hour hearing. However, she is attempting to fast-track Vilma's lawsuit, along with a separate but parallel lawsuit brought by NFL Players Association on behalf of three other current or former Saints slapped with partial-season suspensions in the bounty matter: Will Smith, Scott Fujita and Anthony Hargrove.

Berrigan did say she was troubled by some of the NFL's arguments.

She said Goodell's contention that players were being punished for actions that occurred not on the field, but in meeting rooms and locker rooms, "borders on ridiculous,'' and cited it as one of several examples of "slicing the salami very thin.''

Goodell has stated that he has jurisdiction because he is dealing with conduct detrimental to the game, not for on-field infractions that require the use of an arbitrator other than the commissioner.

Vilma attorney Peter Ginsberg said that Goodell violated the CBA by failing to serve as a neutral arbitrator. He said Goodell's bias in the matter was evident in his public comments even before he handed down players' suspensions.

Goodell "is allowed to be commissioner and arbitrator. He is not allowed to pre-judge,'' Ginsberg said.

Current New Orleans defensive players Roman Harper, Sedrick Ellis, Jonathan Casillas and Scott Shanle testified on Vilma's behalf, along with retired former teammates Troy Evans and Randall Gay.

They denied ever seeing Vilma offer $10,000 cash knocking quarterbacks Brett Favre or Kurt Warner out of the 2009-10 NFC playoffs, as the NFL has said he did.

The witnesses also corroborated Vilma's description of some of the terms that the NFL has highlighted in its report about the bounty program.

They explained that the term "kill the head'' means to legally stop a ball carrier's forward progress, to literally turn his body so that his head is facing sideways or backward, and not in the direction the offense was trying to go. They testified the term "whack'' described legal hit below the waist in which a ball carrier in the open field has his legs cut out from under him.

A "cart-off,'' they said, also was a legal hit, albeit one that forced a player to take at least a few plays off to re-gather himself. They described a "knockout'' as a high-impact, dramatic and legal hit that did not necessarily result in injury.

They also testified that the pool they were involved in was a pay-for-performance pool that largely rewarded big plays such as forced fumbles, sacks or interceptions, but added that the program also fined players for mental errors or penalties including unnecessary roughness.

That's a lot of guys going on stand under oath flat out denying the bounty stuff. The NFL doesn't really seem to care one way or another about that and just want the judge to rule that they have the authority to keep things as is. Supposedly 8/10 is the date for some kind of resolution or the next step with all the litigation toward Goodell/NFL, so we'll see I guess.

camz2895 · 07-27-2012, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

Didn't see that coming if true.

that's because you've been an ignorant bafoon during this whole fiasco

Riverman · 07-27-2012, 04:57 PM

So basically it comes down to whether or not the discipline is for on-field or off-field conduct. It's pretty clearly for on-field conduct IMO, which apparently takes it out of Goodell's jurisdiction.