Maddog69 Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 this is a very bad move by Vilma. It stinks that the league chose to selectively punish only certain people, but I think Vilma is going to blow through a crap load of money and lose out in the end. Then who is going to bring him in after his suspension is over? Would it be legal if the league decided to suspend him for another year for 'conduct detrimental to the league" with this suit?
Malazan Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 I would hope for Vilma's sake that he is confident. At a MINIMUM. He'll need that and VERY deep pockets to see this through. He has the NFLPA's pockets. DeMaurice Smith is behind this lawsuit. So it's ok to spend all the other's players money to defend a guy who put money on hurting them.
K-9 Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 Makes you wonder if the claims are true, no? It seems you havent softened your stance on this at all since the initial nfl declaration. I'm not going to say nothing was going on, but I'm pretty sure we will find some shades of gray between the nfl claims and the reality of it all. Soften my stance? On the activity? Never. On Vilma et al? That will only happen if Vilma proves his case. On Williams? Not a chance. Has it occurred to you that what the NFL claims pales in comparison to what they actually discovered? That they may have more compelling reasons to not share this evidence than any single player's potential legal recourse? I admire Vilma's guts though. GO BILLS!!! He has the NFLPA's pockets. DeMaurice Smith is behind this lawsuit. So it's ok to spend all the other's players money to defend a guy who put money on hurting them. That's true. But there are deep pockets and then there are DEEP POCKETS. The league has DEEP POCKETS. The NFLPA? Not so much. It's the difference in depth between a C-130 cargo plane and a dime purse. GO BILLS!!!
Mr. WEO Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 He has the NFLPA's pockets. DeMaurice Smith is behind this lawsuit. So it's ok to spend all the other's players money to defend a guy who put money on hurting them. The NFLPA either can't or otherwise isn't going to pay the legal fees for this lawsuit. This suit can't be won by Vilma. He would have to prove 4 things--first, he has to prove Goodell's claims are false, second he has to prove he was harmed, third he has to prove that Goodell's claim was made without adequate due diligence or research, and 4th (as a celebrity or public figure) he has to prove that Goodell made his claims with the intent to do harm or with reckless regard for the truth. Vilma knows the evidence against him, as he most certainly is guilty. I would guess almost all of the evidence comes from his teammates and coaches. Goodell isn't a crazy person. He took a lot longer to suspend these players than he did the coaches. He had the evidence vetted by a former federal prosecutor and probably dozens of other lawyers/ Vilma is being preyed upon by unscrupulous counsel, it seems. This lost cause will cost him a bundle.
JuanGuzman Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 Good On Vilma - while I think he is probably guilty of participating in the bounty program and pledging money I think its outrageous that Goodell gets to act as judge, jury and executioner -- you need some form of independent arbitration as well as public disclosure of evidence. Since that is not available Vilma should use all the tools available rush the evidence to a public forum with the goal of trying play this season. This is one of those tools.
NoSaint Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 The NFLPA either can't or otherwise isn't going to pay the legal fees for this lawsuit. This suit can't be won by Vilma. He would have to prove 4 things--first, he has to prove Goodell's claims are false, second he has to prove he was harmed, third he has to prove that Goodell's claim was made without adequate due diligence or research, and 4th (as a celebrity or public figure) he has to prove that Goodell made his claims with the intent to do harm or with reckless regard for the truth. Vilma knows the evidence against him, as he most certainly is guilty. I would guess almost all of the evidence comes from his teammates and coaches. Goodell isn't a crazy person. He took a lot longer to suspend these players than he did the coaches. He had the evidence vetted by a former federal prosecutor and probably dozens of other lawyers/ Vilma is being preyed upon by unscrupulous counsel, it seems. This lost cause will cost him a bundle. Quality and accuracy will be big here. There have been rumors floating that the nfl wrote Gregg's full apology and that even the admission he signed had been changed to fit the story better. The fact that he is suspended until the nfl feels like letting him in is going to be argued as central to his reliability, assuming he's the star witness here. The nfl might have some magic smoking gun, but so far it's seemed to be a bit of a house of cards feel to it. Of course the disclaimer that I'm getting a bounty gate all the time on local news and they know who the audience is.
Mr. WEO Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) Quality and accuracy will be big here. There have been rumors floating that the nfl wrote Gregg's full apology and that even the admission he signed had been changed to fit the story better. The fact that he is suspended until the nfl feels like letting him in is going to be argued as central to his reliability, assuming he's the star witness here. The nfl might have some magic smoking gun, but so far it's seemed to be a bit of a house of cards feel to it. Of course the disclaimer that I'm getting a bounty gate all the time on local news and they know who the audience is. Even if it was true that the league wrote Greggg's aopolgy, it doesn't matter--he read it and released it in his name and he hasn't recanted. As for the defamation suti, it doesn't matter what a single witness says, star or not. Vilma will never be able to prove the 4th element of the charge that has to be proven--essentially that Goodell knew the charges were false and leveld them anyway, maliciously. There is simply no way that is true. The jury would not be deciding whether Vilma is guilty, but whether he has proven all of the elements regarding Goodell's charge/suspension meet the criteria to win a verdict of defamation against Goodell. If any reasonable person reviewing Goodell's evidence can conclude the it warrented suspending Vilma, the defamation case evaporates. By the way, did you get to the Jazz Fest? It was HOT! Edited May 17, 2012 by Mr. WEO
Malazan Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) The NFLPA either can't or otherwise isn't going to pay the legal fees for this lawsuit. I believe this is an attempt to uncover further information (ie names of the people who provided the information that they don't currently know and the league is not revealing). My feeling is that this is part of a strategy by the NFLPA to get this information. Edited May 17, 2012 by jeremy2020
NoSaint Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 Even if it was true that the league wrote Greggg's aopolgy, it doesn't matter--he read it and released it in his name and he hasn't recanted. As for the defamation suti, it doesn't matter what a single witness says, star or not. Vilma will never be able to prove the 4th element of the charge that has to be proven--essentially that Goodell knew the charges were false and leveld them anyway, maliciously. There is simply no way that is true. The jury would not be deciding whether Vilma is guilty, but whether he has proven all of the elements regarding Goodell's charge/suspension meet the criteria to win a verdict of defamation against Goodell. If any reasonable person reviewing Goodell's evidence can conclude the it warrented suspending Vilma, the defamation case evaporates. By the way, did you get to the Jazz Fest? It was HOT! It's always hot. But yea I made it out for a couple days. You made it down? What I was getting at though is if goodell is found to have essentially manufactured some of the evidence through threatening Gregg with his career- things could get real ugly real quickly. Beyond the CBA and who hears the appeals arguments that is something that I'm starting to hear bubble up more and more with vague "sources close to...." type statements. Obviously only so reliable and even if true, you have to get someone on record. This whole thing will be interesting to watch play out, and set a lot of precedents for future punishments
Fan in San Diego Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 The NFLPA either can't or otherwise isn't going to pay the legal fees for this lawsuit. This suit can't be won by Vilma. He would have to prove 4 things--first, he has to prove Goodell's claims are false, second he has to prove he was harmed, third he has to prove that Goodell's claim was made without adequate due diligence or research, and 4th (as a celebrity or public figure) he has to prove that Goodell made his claims with the intent to do harm or with reckless regard for the truth. Vilma knows the evidence against him, as he most certainly is guilty. I would guess almost all of the evidence comes from his teammates and coaches. Goodell isn't a crazy person. He took a lot longer to suspend these players than he did the coaches. He had the evidence vetted by a former federal prosecutor and probably dozens of other lawyers/ Vilma is being preyed upon by unscrupulous counsel, it seems. This lost cause will cost him a bundle. They may be doing this case pro bono which wont cost Vilma a cent. Or maybe he worked out a flat rate. We dont know the facts, but I wouldn't assume anything. Good On Vilma - while I think he is probably guilty of participating in the bounty program and pledging money I think its outrageous that Goodell gets to act as judge, jury and executioner -- you need some form of independent arbitration as well as public disclosure of evidence. Since that is not available Vilma should use all the tools available rush the evidence to a public forum with the goal of trying play this season. This is one of those tools. Vilma and Greggo know the truth. So someone is lying, they either did or they didn't. Greggo and the othesr are not squealing like pigs so you have to assume its the truth. I wonder why Vilma wants to push the issue?
Mango Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 In how many other professions would you still have a job after suing the chairman of your company? Howard Stern seems to do it regularly and he just keeps getting more work
Malazan Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 I wonder why Vilma wants to push the issue? Demaurice Smith wants names of who talked to the NFL.
NoSaint Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 http://m.deadspin.com/5911215/jonathan-vilma-sues-roger-goodell-for-defamation On my phone - so mobile link but deadspin has the actual suit. Strong claims.
Mr. WEO Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 It's always hot. But yea I made it out for a couple days. You made it down? What I was getting at though is if goodell is found to have essentially manufactured some of the evidence through threatening Gregg with his career- things could get real ugly real quickly. Beyond the CBA and who hears the appeals arguments that is something that I'm starting to hear bubble up more and more with vague "sources close to...." type statements. Obviously only so reliable and even if true, you have to get someone on record. This whole thing will be interesting to watch play out, and set a lot of precedents for future punishments Yeah, second weekend--Grand Marshall passes!. Great time. Great food, as always. Well, if it could be proven that evidence was manufactured, the that would go towards proving malicious intent. But I can't imagine Goodell would do this. Most evidence will be personal accounts anyway, not hard pieces of evidence.
NoSaint Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) Yeah, second weekend--Grand Marshall passes!. Great time. Great food, as always. Well, if it could be proven that evidence was manufactured, the that would go towards proving malicious intent. But I can't imagine Goodell would do this. Most evidence will be personal accounts anyway, not hard pieces of evidence. It's always fun. You should check out French quarter fest if you like jazz fest. You don't get the headliners but it's all free, stages all over the quarter and river front - awesome time. And a little less hot since its a few weeks earlier. This article touches on some of what I was talking about: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/07/report-league-misrepresented-gregg-williams-interviews/ If the Gregg Williams statements are a bit off truth, and ornstein is mostly joking- it gets pretty hazy quickly - from what we know. I don't think it's likely it's all made up, but I don't think vilma does this if the allegations are 100% true. Even the lead investigator resigning lends some degree of a cloud over the process until the facts come out Edited May 18, 2012 by NoSaint
Just in Atlanta Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 Howard Stern seems to do it regularly and he just keeps getting more work NFL players, shock jocks and...
Santana Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 Vilma deserves everything he gets, he's know's his part in the bounty gate and now he's trying to make it sound like there's no proof. I don't think for one second that the commissioner would lay down the hammer like he did with no proof. When he goes to appeal this he's going to embarrass himself immensely.
NoSaint Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) Vilma deserves everything he gets, he's know's his part in the bounty gate and now he's trying to make it sound like there's no proof. I don't think for one second that the commissioner would lay down the hammer like he did with no proof. When he goes to appeal this he's going to embarrass himself immensely. So now it's the players job to prove innocence, with the only method of appeal being asking the person that won't give them the evidence to reevaluate the evidence they haven't seen, in hopes he has a change of heart? You must see the issues with that? And how it could lead to abuses of power quickly. While I believe there, for the sake of sanity, must be some truth to the allegations.... It's hard to damn men that have no chance to defend themselves against claims that for all public intents and purposes are on a "trust us" basis. Especially when several of the finer points have been misrepresented when claims are compared to the few documents released. Edited May 18, 2012 by NoSaint
papazoid Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 Vilma wrote on his Twitter account that, "As I've said before..I NEVER PAID, NOR INTENDED TO PAY ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY, TO ANY PLAYER FOR INTENTIONALLY HURTING AN OPPONENT." the key words are "INTENTIONALLY HURTING AN OPPONENT"......he is NOT denying he was a part of a "bounty" system.
billsfan89 Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 If this guy is innocent than this is actually what you would be doing. I hope he wins this case because Goodell is a bully.
Recommended Posts