Bountygate turns litigate

[NoSaint]

Thanks for posting that link. Very interesting reading. If I'm Vilma and the others, I'm concerned that my lawyers don't know the difference between three calendar days and 72 hours and, secondly, that they have so little regard for what their representatives, including the estimable Drew Brees, collectively bargained for.

 

The court of public opinion is nice and all but it's fickle. Hargrove, he who can "lie with the best of them" should have understood that when he made his public dissertation in front of league headquarters in June.

 

These guys don't have a chance.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

You also have to remember the sourcing on that. Reading the filings from ginsberg or the nflpa would leave you a much different gut reaction. The 3 day vs 72 hour issue for instance is not as cut and dry as roger outlines from what "the other side" is arguing. Both sides are blending the PR and legal aspects and there's some claims each are making that don't sit entirely well with me and I think a judge may disagree with.

 

Some of the "yea right" moments I got from my first read when the letter came out included Mary Jo being called independent still, calling out the players for refusing to meet with adolpho birch in march (will smith just finished a pretty big labor case with him via star caps in which the judge tore birch pretty well for his actions - honestly ginsberg vs birch has A LOT of history of bad blood via that) etc...

 

That said, I imagine that the odds of this going against the nfl are slim to none. If somehow vilma can get the judge to hold the suspension even a year while stuff is in court, that is a huge victory for him. I think best case for the players is similar to star caps is they get to atleast expose some of the shady handlings of the situation even if they still have to sit eventually. I just am not sure how any judge would take this out of the CBA and into her courtroom at this point. I've had some friends with legal backgrounds outline the cracks that might hurt the nfl but essentially echo the same sentiments.

 

All the court documents and filings (and this letter) have been linked in the 2 q&a pieces I posted and encourage people to check them out.

[K-9]

You also have to remember the sourcing on that. Reading the filings from ginsberg or the nflpa would leave you a much different gut reaction. The 3 day vs 72 hour issue for instance is not as cut and dry as roger outlines from what "the other side" is arguing. Both sides are blending the PR and legal aspects and there's some claims each are making that don't sit entirely well with me and I think a judge may disagree with. ...

 

It can't be any more cut and dried given the fact that in other articles of the CBA 72 hours is specified clearly vs. the 3 calendar days in article 46. A first year law student should catch that. I get the impression these lawyers haven't really read the thing.

 

It's a moot point anyway. There are decades of precedent at play here. Not to mention that two arbitrators have already ruled against the players. They have no chance of getting a judge to rule against a collectively bargained right of the commissioner to do exactly as he has done.

 

The testimony by Hargrove that he can "lie with the best of them" doesn't sit well either. That's on the record. And it really cheapens his act in front of the league offices.

 

All these players have is the court of public opinion. Goodell's letter doesn't help them in that regard. And while the league certainly loves the idea of favorable public opinion as well, it doesn't need it in the least. Is anybody gonna stop watching or attending games because Goodell exercised his right as league Commissioner? Outside of a handful down in the Big Easy, I seriously doubt it.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited July 9, 2012 by K-9

[NoSaint]

It can't be any more cut and dried given the fact that in other articles of the CBA 72 hours is specified clearly vs. the 3 calendar days in article 46. A first year law student should catch that. I get the impression these lawyers haven't really read the thing.

 

It's a moot point anyway. There are decades of precedent at play here. Not to mention that two arbitrators have already ruled against the players. They have no chance of getting a judge to rule against a collectively bargained right of the commissioner to do exactly as he has done.

 

The testimony by Hargrove that he can "lie with the best of them" doesn't sit well either. That's on the record. And it really cheapens his act in front of the league offices.

 

All these players have is the court of public opinion. Goodell's letter doesn't help them in that regard. And while the league certainly loves the idea of favorable public opinion as well, it doesn't need it in the least. Is anybody gonna stop watching or attending games because Goodell exercised his right as league Commissioner? Outside of a handful down in the Big Easy, I seriously doubt it.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

though the 3 day vs 72 may be grandstanding, i think it would be a bit arrogant to imply that they werent familiar with the CBA. from what i have been explained by some decent lawyers is that the court case really boils down to two big questions:

 

Are any, some or all of the claims presented by Vilma and the NFLPA (on behalf of itself and of Smith, Hargrove, and Fujita) preempted by Section 301 of the NLRA, which requires that the parties rely on the exclusive remedies in the CBA - and enforcement of the "no suit" clause also contained therein?

 

Is the appeal process and subsequent appeal decision under CBA Article 46 the legal equivalent of arbitration for purposes of the limit access to judicial review of CBA arbitration results in accordance with the NLRA and interpretive jurisprudence?

 

a bit above my law education, but the person seems to think theres a chance, however its unlikely. as far as im concerned, ill continue to call it a hail mary and who knows - maybe the judge will "just give it to them!"

 

 

truly though, i think the nfl does win this, but i think the process is ridiculous the way it has worked out. its the players own faults for not seeing it coming (and the saints for having the system in place to any degree), but i worry everyone loses (fans included) the way its set up currently. even if it helps you nail a guy like pacman, it was a slippery slope to continue to let roger have as much power as he does. with no need to negotiate on a cba for nearly a decade, he really may take some liberties shaping the game.

 

 

whats been really interesting lately is watching the media coverage of all this - as some have shown critical thinking (regardless of which side they fall on) with evolving commentary and opinions, while others are still just reading from the nfls march 2nd press release. its definitely put a few people on my black list as far as just realizing they flat out lie, or others that just dont care but want to act like their opinion is worth anything. the other day on espn they had a couple of talking heads on first take that were just unbelievably uneducated about the topic giving the narrative (still parroting things like the knockout being for a player being unconcious and cartoff for stretchers). amazingly the local saints beat reporter has been among the worst. If you remember the slide on Karney (how rams YPC drop by like 5+ yards when he comes in - just a basic scouting slide with some jokes thrown in) - Jeff Duncan went ahead and called karney telling him that the saints (who he used to play for) had a bounty targeted on his head as proved by the evidence submitted to the NFLPA. just baffling that a local beat writer would go that direction.

 

between this, and the skip bayless - mark cuban debacle, it really gives me new appreciation for the good analysts vs the loud guys.

Edited July 9, 2012 by NoSaint

[NoSaint]

Well, in put up or shut up status- joe vitt filed an sworn affidavit on behalf of Jonathan vilma today. Legally he's putting himself on the hook too if this was thought to just be a ploy by vilma.

[Malazan]

Well, in put up or shut up status- joe vitt filed an sworn affidavit on behalf of Jonathan vilma today. Legally he's putting himself on the hook too if this was thought to just be a ploy by vilma.

 

He's saying the bounty system never existed at all. That's a bold statement.

Edited July 17, 2012 by jeremy2020

[NoSaint]

He's saying the bounty system never existed at all. That's a bold statement.

 

That it was pay for performance, not injury. Which is blurred a bit.

 

I think his intention, though I haven't had a chance to read his statement start to finish, is that there were never dollars on any specific head and that primary goals were always big hits, not injuries.

 

For all those saying the coaches went down quiet- not anymore.

Edited July 17, 2012 by NoSaint

[Malazan]

For all those saying the coaches went down quiet- not anymore.

 

He did go down quietly. Seems more like 'changing his story' after the fact as a favor to Vilma.

[Mr. WEO]

That it was pay for performance, not injury. Which is blurred a bit.

 

I think his intention, though I haven't had a chance to read his statement start to finish, is that there were never dollars on any specific head and that primary goals were always big hits, not injuries.

 

For all those saying the coaches went down quiet- not anymore.

What will Gregg Williams and Payton say when they are subpoenaed? Why did they not fight their suspensions or even make a peep when they go the hammer?

[NoSaint]

What will Gregg Williams and Payton say when they are subpoenaed? Why did they not fight their suspensions or even make a peep when they go the hammer?

To be reinstated?

 

He did go down quietly. Seems more like 'changing his story' after the fact as a favor to Vilma.

They denied it then, but this is the first legal action from the coaches. Its a big favor to risk perjury for a player that possibly wouldn't even be a starter for you.

[Mr. WEO]

To be reinstated?

 

 

They denied it then, but this is the first legal action from the coaches. Its a big favor to risk perjury for a player that possibly wouldn't even be a starter for you.

There is no question of Payton's reinstatement. It's a one year suspension. Regardless, are you saying they would accept a severe punishment for something they didn't do....so that the punishment would be lifted or reduced at some point? I don't follow the logic.

[NoSaint]

There is no question of Payton's reinstatement. It's a one year suspension. Regardless, are you saying they would accept a severe punishment for something they didn't do....so that the punishment would be lifted or reduced at some point? I don't follow the logic.

 

payton still has to be reinstated. its a one year suspension which goodell personally has to approve reinstatement after. hence the accusations of a gag order on both him and williams. if they didnt think that they had a real shot to legally persue anything, yes, i think they may have gone quietly.

 

and they did not only deny it publicly at the time, but appealed it with the nfl. its not like they threw their hands up and said - "oh well, see you next year i guess"

 

this is just the first time the coaches have gone into a court of law with these claims. do you think vitt and vilma put their names on sworn affadavits just for fun, or to get the name of the person? or do you think there might be some grey area where this falls short of what the nfl claims? i think it would be incredibly dumb to risk this much on a game of chicken with the nfl over evidence. they must feel theres some grain of truth in these claims they are making.... atleast common sense would hope.

 

itll be interesting to continue to watch.

Edited July 18, 2012 by NoSaint

[Mr. WEO]

payton still has to be reinstated. its a one year suspension which goodell personally has to approve reinstatement after. hence the accusations of a gag order on both him and williams. if they didnt think that they had a real shot to legally persue anything, yes, i think they may have gone quietly.

 

and they did not only deny it publicly at the time, but appealed it with the nfl. its not like they threw their hands up and said - "oh well, see you next year i guess"

 

They have the same shot to persue it legally as their players have now.

 

Every guilty party denies guilt intially. An innocent man will look to prove his innocense, not take a huge penalty--just so it doens't become a more huge penalty. And there is no reason that if Payton fought his suspension that he wouldn't be reinstated a year from now--any more than there is to believe that the players actually suing Goodell and the NFL won't be reinstated right after they serve their suspensions.

 

Williams did not appeal his suspension, which was based on his own testimony of how he ran the bounty system. I don't know where he publically denied the boutny system existed. In fact he said they knew it was wrong and kept doing it anyway. One of the player's lawyers claimed at the player's appeal that Williams retracted his confession, but there is no proof of that. Why would Williams concoct a scandal that would ruin his career? In 2010, the league was already asking Williams and Vitt about the bounty. Loomis told Payton about that.

 

Payton did appeal on April 5th. Unfortunately for him, he had already said this on March 23rd: "I am sorry for what has happened and as head coach take full responsibility." He may have denied it earlier in the year when he was first confronted by the league. But after the full investigation, he admitted his culpability.

[NoSaint]

They have the same shot to persue it legally as their players have now.

 

Every guilty party denies guilt intially. An innocent man will look to prove his innocense, not take a huge penalty--just so it doens't become a more huge penalty. And there is no reason that if Payton fought his suspension that he wouldn't be reinstated a year from now--any more than there is to believe that the players actually suing Goodell and the NFL won't be reinstated right after they serve their suspensions.

 

Williams did not appeal his suspension, which was based on his own testimony of how he ran the bounty system. I don't know where he publically denied the boutny system existed. In fact he said they knew it was wrong and kept doing it anyway. One of the player's lawyers claimed at the player's appeal that Williams retracted his confession, but there is no proof of that. Why would Williams concoct a scandal that would ruin his career? In 2010, the league was already asking Williams and Vitt about the bounty. Loomis told Payton about that.

 

Payton did appeal on April 5th. Unfortunately for him, he had already said this on March 23rd: "I am sorry for what has happened and as head coach take full responsibility." He may have denied it earlier in the year when he was first confronted by the league. But after the full investigation, he admitted his culpability.

 

right, and like i was trying to say, again.... any type of pay for play is illegal. it seems to me that consistently all parties have accepted pay for big hits and turnovers, etc.... they have also consistently denied that there were ever targeted bounties.

 

besides roger goodell and the nfl lawyers (and yes i am counting mary jo white as an nfl lawyer), no one has publicly supported the claims of bounties on favre and warner. now in legal documents we have both the player accused of holding the cash up, as well as a coach accused of pledging to the same exact pool on favre (though the nfl claims he wasnt punished for this contribution, it just happened to be listed with vilmas pledge in the handwritten note provided by - we reasonably assume - mike cerullo) both putting their names on signed, sworn court documents that this is just not true.

 

what do either stand to gain for rolling the dice on this if their statements a straight lie? they get the name of who spoke? or if the nfl doesnt have proof but it did still happen they might get lucky and see suspensions lifted? if its proven that they are straight out lying, i imagine things could get ugly. if the nfl truly does have SERIOUS proof of this, both men will have committed perjury at this point.

 

as ive learned more about cerullo.... well... if hes the smoking gun witness on the targeted bounties... hes definitely got an axe to grind. he was fired, accused the saints of blacklisting him for nfl jobs, and was livid about his superbowl ring not being real diamonds like the rest of the coaches... but with accusations that he disappeared multiple times including the week before the superbowl and having been proved that he lied about where he was - i get why the team would fire him and not give real diamonds. it also raises a bunch of flags with regards to his willingness to lie... granted there are many questions on the flip side of this (pay me my money, regardless of who said it -- ornsteins emails, even if in jest, etc.... not dismissing that, just telling the other side of the story primarily since it hasnt been in the media near as much)

 

 

legally, the coaches do not have the same rights as the players. they do not have the union, and a collectively bargained labor agreement. the players are all arguing (minus vilmas defamation suit) that the nfl has violated the terms of that CBA. coaches and players are in a very different spot with what they can do from here.

Edited July 18, 2012 by NoSaint

[Mr. WEO]

right, and like i was trying to say, again.... any type of pay for play is illegal. it seems to me that consistently all parties have accepted pay for big hits and turnovers, etc.... they have also consistently denied that there were ever targeted bounties.

 

besides roger goodell and the nfl lawyers (and yes i am counting mary jo white as an nfl lawyer), no one has publicly supported the claims of bounties on favre and warner. now in legal documents we have both the player accused of holding the cash up, as well as a coach accused of pledging to the same exact pool on favre (though the nfl claims he wasnt punished for this contribution, it just happened to be listed with vilmas pledge in the handwritten note provided by - we reasonably assume - mike cerullo) both putting their names on signed, sworn court documents that this is just not true.

 

what do either stand to gain for rolling the dice on this if their statements a straight lie? they get the name of who spoke? or if the nfl doesnt have proof but it did still happen they might get lucky and see suspensions lifted? if its proven that they are straight out lying, i imagine things could get ugly. if the nfl truly does have SERIOUS proof of this, both men will have committed perjury at this point.

 

as ive learned more about cerullo.... well... if hes the smoking gun witness on the targeted bounties... hes definitely got an axe to grind. he was fired, accused the saints of blacklisting him for nfl jobs, and was livid about his superbowl ring not being real diamonds like the rest of the coaches... but with accusations that he disappeared multiple times including the week before the superbowl and having been proved that he lied about where he was - i get why the team would fire him and not give real diamonds. it also raises a bunch of flags with regards to his willingness to lie... granted there are many questions on the flip side of this (pay me my money, regardless of who said it -- ornsteins emails, even if in jest, etc.... not dismissing that, just telling the other side of the story primarily since it hasnt been in the media near as much)

 

 

legally, the coaches do not have the same rights as the players. they do not have the union, and a collectively bargained labor agreement. the players are all arguing (minus vilmas defamation suit) that the nfl has violated the terms of that CBA. coaches and players are in a very different spot with what they can do from here.

 

I appreciate your digging deep into this, NoSaint. It's fascinating to me also, all of this.

 

But everyone has access to legal council. And the first lawsuit Vilma filed, I believe, was the defamation suit--which has nothing to do with the CBA, the union, etc. Any of the coaching staff suspended could go the same route and make the same claim. The coaches are not bound by a prohibitive CBA from exploring legal review of their suspension. And if it went to court, the innocnet would likely be exonerated if none of this happened as the NFL claims.

 

I haven't seen any denial by Payton or Williams rergarding targeted bounties. And again, if there is no case against them, why are they just taking such a heavy penalty? And why don't they say anything. The league has denied a gag order exists. It doesn't make sense that an innocent party would keep quiet in order to reduce his sentence.

[NoSaint]

I appreciate your digging deep into this, NoSaint. It's fascinating to me also, all of this.

 

But everyone has access to legal council. And the first lawsuit Vilma filed, I believe, was the defamation suit--which has nothing to do with the CBA, the union, etc. Any of the coaching staff suspended could go the same route and make the same claim. The coaches are not bound by a prohibitive CBA from exploring legal review of their suspension. And if it went to court, the innocnet would likely be exonerated if none of this happened as the NFL claims.

 

I haven't seen any denial by Payton or Williams rergarding targeted bounties. And again, if there is no case against them, why are they just taking such a heavy penalty? And why don't they say anything. The league has denied a gag order exists. It doesn't make sense that an innocent party would keep quiet in order to reduce his sentence.

 

i definitely will admit some haziness on some of the finer points - but i think the vilma defamation suit is primarily with regards to some issues involving the direct claim that vilma had cash in hand, and that cerullo may have retracted the statement and some specific public claims roger made about jonathan vilma during the process etc....

 

with regards to payton and williams - i think the commissioner went much broader and punished them under (to steal an ncaa term) institutional control, and impeding the investigation, more than direct claimed actions and publicly has not made the same types of statements about them that vilma is fighting in the defamation suit. which regardless of whether vilma held up cash.... there were issues in that realm of institutional control, so a defamation claim would be.... tough.... and they wouldnt be able to follow the CBA route that the other 3 players as well as vilma are going. they do have legal rights, but the coaches do not have the same legal rights as the players here.

 

the outline of this issue is one of the ways i think the media has really let down the public in the reporting of this. instead of just saying "well the coaches didnt fight it" on espn, it would be nice if they spent more time outlining some of the differences between the coaches and players legal situations - and what avenues the coaches could follow if they wanted to. from my understanding, its EXTREMELY limited at this point but a lot of that is coming from a random law blog here and there. florio has talked about this more than anyone, which has been educational - surprisingly.

 

part of what makes this hard is that the nfl has been a bit inconsistent with what the cause in the suspension letters was, vs appeal reasonings, vs public statements and player to player and players vs coaches.... the term "moving the goal line" has been used in the articles and for some of these guys - its just not even clear what the nfl would want them to prove in an appeal process anymore, yet alone how they would go about doing it.

[mattsox]

Pretty good jumping off point FAQ by defense lawyer/Law blogger that covers basics of what's going on legally here. With 3 lawsuits against the nfl/roger there's some interesting stuff for an nfl fan with 9 years left under this CBA.

 

http://www.stradleylaw.com/saints-bountygate-now-saints-litigate-common-qas/

 

Has all the filings linked, and additionally a common sense breakdown of some of the core issues at hand.

 

Edit:

Part 2 added: http://www.stradleylaw.com/roger-goodell-moves-goal-line-part-2-saints-bountygate-qa/

 

Some more talk about why it's an important process not just for those 4 players but fans of all 32 teams the next 9 years. Essentially with free reign for 9 more years, what's left to keep RG in check for future punishments if he wins this battle?

 

OMG, This is soo stupid. Just shut up and take it like a man. If you're so against it, Quit the NFL and go Play elsewhere...

[NoSaint]

OMG, This is soo stupid. Just shut up and take it like a man. If you're so against it, Quit the NFL and go Play elsewhere...

 

if they are claiming it didnt happen, wouldnt fighting it be acting like a man? or do men quietly take the punishment, even if they didnt do it? i was just told that was indicative of guilt in fact.

 

your insights have really proved valuable on this one.

[Malazan]

its just not even clear what the nfl would want them to prove in an appeal process anymore, yet alone how they would go about doing it.

 

They can't appeal. The players opted not to appeal. They now have no rights under the CBA to appeal.

[NoSaint]

They can't appeal. The players opted not to appeal. They now have no rights under the CBA to appeal.

well, goodell has stated it would still be open if they choose to meet with him.

 

and under the players contention, under the CBA the original appeal process was not handled properly. essentially they are arguing they opted to appeal, and are still waiting for the proper appeal process to take place - that they have not actually missed that event for a variety of reasons.

 

which brings it to the court room now.

Edited July 19, 2012 by NoSaint

[Mr. WEO]

well, goodell has stated it would still be open if they choose to meet with him.

 

and under the players contention, under the CBA the original appeal process was not handled properly. essentially they are arguing they opted to appeal, and are still waiting for the proper appeal process to take place - that they have not actually missed that event for a variety of reasons.

 

which brings it to the court room now.

 

I understood they didn't show up at their appeals.

 

I don't think Vilma's defamation suit is in regard to any specific event (holding money)--it is the fact that Goodell has labled Vilma of paid bounty hunting. His suit has no chance of winning, but it will bring in the evidence.

 

The CBA constricts the legal avenues of the players, not the coaches. The coaches can bring any civil action they want if they think they are being wrongly accused. I have seen no evidence that Payton or Williams have claimed publically anything other than their culpability in this whole mess. It is not possible for me at this time to believe they are being railroaded. Until they say otherwise, they are as guilty as they have already claimed to be.