Ex-Pat employee, Matt Walsh, ready to turn over evidence to NFL (1 Viewer)

[Hang 10]

 

[Idiot Boxer]

 

[derek19]

He'll just destroy all the evidence again.

 

[Workhorse]

He'll just destroy all the evidence again.

Wrong. Read the agreement with the NFL.

Under paragraph 1(b) of the agreement, Walsh’s lawyer may keep one copy of each “document” that is given to the league. Also, Walsh and his lawyer have the ability to inpect on request any “tangible property” that is surrendered to the NFL.

The entire agreement has been leaked by the NFL to the press. I think they're clearly laying all the cards on the table and telling Walsh/Specter "put up or shut up".

 

[fatness]

Mike Florio at PFT says he's received 2 copies of the agreement. He won't publish it in full, but as he's reading it he's talking about different parts of it. Right now the updates at PFT are quite informative. Here are some:

Under the agreement, Walsh must return any tapes or other items in his possession that belong to the team. The league and the Patriots have promised not to sue him. And the league and the Patriots “will indemnify him for any expenses, including legal fees that he incurs in connection with the interview.”

after Walsh surrenders to the league whatever tangible evidence that he has in his possession, he’ll still have access to it.Under paragraph 1(b) of the agreement, Walsh’s lawyer may keep one copy of each “document” that is given to the league. Also, Walsh and his lawyer have the ability to inpect on request any “tangible property” that is surrendered to the NFL.In other words, the suspicion held by some that the league will harvest Walsh’s documents and/or videotapes and/or any other hard evidence only to destroy the materials is erroneous. Walsh will be able to keep a copy of certain things, and he will be able to retrieve and inspect certain other things that he turns over.

During much of the legal impasse between the NFL and Matt Walsh, the sticking point was whether Walsh would be required to “tell the truth” in order to achieve and maintain protection against possible civil claims from the Patriots or any third party.Walsh’s lawyer, Michael Levy, wisely pointed out that truth is in the eye of the beholder. If the Patriots were to disagree with the substance of Walsh’s account regarding, for example, whether the Rams’ walk-through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI was videotaped or otherwise spied upon, the Pats could claim that he’s lying, and that he therefore isn’t entitled to any protections.But Walsh could both be wrong and truthful. Indeed, ten people can witness a car accident, and then give ten different versions of what occurred. Each would be technically telling the truth, and yet each could be wrong about some aspect of what they remember seeing or hearing.On this specific point, Walsh has prevailed; still, it was very prudent for the NFL to yield. The league’s prior position was unrealistic, and put Walsh unnecessarily at risk for a game of “gotcha.” In paragraph 2 of the agreement, Walsh is required ”to provide the NFL full, complete and accurate information, in good faith and to the best of his knowledge.”The indemnification commitment Walsh receives in paragraph 3(a) applies even if there is “alleged untruthfulness” in Walsh’s disclosures to the NFL, unless there is “intentional untruthfulness.”In other words, Walsh is not exposed to a claim that he’s being untruthful merely if he happens to be factually wrong. Basically, then, it’s not a lie if Walsh genuinely believes that any factual inaccuracies he discloses are the truth.

An intriguing element of the Matt Walsh agreement is that Walsh has agreed to donate to charity any “cash or other property” that he obtains on exchange for disclosing information regarding his knowledge of matters relating to the Patriots. The charity will be selected by the NFL and approved by Walsh. (May we suggest “The Human Fund”?)But the contributions are required by Walsh only up to the amount paid by the NFL in its indemnification of Walsh.It’s only fair. If the NFL forks over, say, $100,000 on Walsh’s behalf for his travel and legal fees and other expenses covered by the indemnification commitment (more on that later), then Walsh should be required to give up the first $100,000 that he makes from any book deal or other transaction.Beyond the amounts paid by the NFL pursuant to the indemnity commitment, Walsh gets to keep the money, if he so chooses.

 

[Big_Russel]

I honestly can't believe this is still in the news. Crazy.

I don't think this Walsh guy has anything more damaging to them then what was already uncovered. My guess is that he regrets even hinting at it and just wants this mess to end.

 

[Big_Russel]

Wow... After reading those PFT blurbs it sounds like this dude is free to say whatever he wants and not have to produce any physical evidence to back it up. That is a SWEET position for him to be in. Dude is about to cash in something serious.

Too bad for the Patriots. Ouch.

 

[twitch]

Wow... After reading those PFT blurbs it sounds like this dude is free to say whatever he wants and not have to produce any physical evidence to back it up. That is a SWEET position for him to be in. Dude is about to cash in something serious. Too bad for the Patriots. Ouch.

You obviously didnt read that agreement very closely.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I'm starting to get the feeling that Walsh is just trying desperately to figure out a way to get out of this without getting sued for everything that he's worth.

 

[Big_Russel]

Wow... After reading those PFT blurbs it sounds like this dude is free to say whatever he wants and not have to produce any physical evidence to back it up. That is a SWEET position for him to be in. Dude is about to cash in something serious.

Too bad for the Patriots. Ouch.

You obviously didnt read that agreement very closely.

You're right. I didn't. Is this not the case?? But what else do the below statements mean? "In other words, Walsh is not exposed to a claim that he’s being untruthful merely if he happens to be factually wrong. Basically, then, it’s not a lie if Walsh genuinely believes that any factual inaccuracies he discloses are the truth."

and

"Beyond the amounts paid by the NFL pursuant to the indemnity commitment, Walsh gets to keep the money, if he so chooses."

I'm not ball busting, I am genuinely asking. Personally, I think it's all a bunch of BS. I've said this story has been GROSSLY overblown by the media from day 1, and my position on that still has not changed.

 

[fatness]

This explains a little more about what you're asking.

During much of the legal impasse between the NFL and Matt Walsh, the sticking point was whether Walsh would be required to “tell the truth” in order to achieve and maintain protection against possible civil claims from the Patriots or any third party. Walsh’s lawyer, Michael Levy, wisely pointed out that truth is in the eye of the beholder. If the Patriots were to disagree with the substance of Walsh’s account regarding, for example, whether the Rams’ walk-through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI was videotaped or otherwise spied upon, the Pats could claim that he’s lying, and that he therefore isn’t entitled to any protections.

But Walsh could both be wrong and truthful. Indeed, ten people can witness a car accident, and then give ten different versions of what occurred. Each would be technically telling the truth, and yet each could be wrong about some aspect of what they remember seeing or hearing.

On this specific point, Walsh has prevailed; still, it was very prudent for the NFL to yield. The league’s prior position was unrealistic, and put Walsh unnecessarily at risk for a game of “gotcha.”

In paragraph 2 of the agreement, Walsh is required ”to provide the NFL full, complete and accurate information, in good faith and to the best of his knowledge.” The indemnification commitment Walsh receives in paragraph 3(a) applies even if there is “alleged untruthfulness” in Walsh’s disclosures to the NFL, unless there is “intentional untruthfulness.” In other words, Walsh is not exposed to a claim that he’s being untruthful merely if he happens to be factually wrong. Basically, then, it’s not a lie if Walsh genuinely believes that any factual inaccuracies he discloses are the truth.

Though it sounds Costanza-esque, this dynamic accounts for many of the disputes in witness testimony that arise every day in courts throughout the country. Sure, some of the witnesses are committing perjury. More often than not, however, the witnesses who provide incorrect testimony think they’re telling the truth, but simply are misinformed about what the truth really is.

 

[twitch]

Wow... After reading those PFT blurbs it sounds like this dude is free to say whatever he wants and not have to produce any physical evidence to back it up. That is a SWEET position for him to be in. Dude is about to cash in something serious.

Too bad for the Patriots. Ouch.

You obviously didnt read that agreement very closely.

You're right. I didn't. Is this not the case?? But what else do the below statements mean? "In other words, Walsh is not exposed to a claim that he’s being untruthful merely if he happens to be factually wrong. Basically, then, it’s not a lie if Walsh genuinely believes that any factual inaccuracies he discloses are the truth."

and

"Beyond the amounts paid by the NFL pursuant to the indemnity commitment, Walsh gets to keep the money, if he so chooses."

I'm not ball busting, I am genuinely asking. Personally, I think it's all a bunch of BS. I've said this story has been GROSSLY overblown by the media from day 1, and my position on that still has not changed.

Here's the agreement. Read it at your own peril, but its of course 'legalese', so it'll bore you to tears. I responded to what you had to say about his cashing in on his role in this scandal. First of all, I dont think that's what this guy is looking to do. I think he's looking to go back to living a quiet and pleasant life some day, free of reporters and paparazzi and unwanted 15minute fame. But the significant wording in the agreement on what would happen with the 'profited' monies, atleast within the next 5 years, if 'cashing in' is indeed an intent, is found on page 5, section 4a under "Commerical Advantage; Reputational Repair". Basically, in short, he'll have to donate all net proceeds from any interviews, appearances, books, etc. to a charity of the NFL's choice. Its not as 'sweet' for Walsh as it may seem. But some worthwhile charities would surely make out. Btw, I appreciate your stance on this thing. And apologize for being a little short in that response. And I wasnt really willing to explain myself until you responded because it sounded like you were just piling on like so many others that Ive grown weary of. And at this point, I really dont care how the rest of this goes down as long as the air is cleared, potential penalties are dealt out or dismissed, and we can all just move on. This thing is beyond old.

 

[Workhorse]

I'm starting to get the feeling that Walsh is just trying desperately to figure out a way to get out of this without getting sued for everything that he's worth.

Most of the rumbling I've heard about Walsh indicates that he's stolen all sorts of stuff from the Patriots and THAT'S really what he was seeking indemnity for. Things like memorabilia.

 

[fatness]

I'm starting to get the feeling that Walsh is just trying desperately to figure out a way to get out of this without getting sued for everything that he's worth.

He was wise to do that. Prior to this agreement there was nothing to prevent the NFL or Patriots from suing him, no matter what he said or what information he had. He could have told what he knows, handed over what he has, and been sued into oblivion after doing so. No one in their right mind would put themselves in such jeopardy.

 

[GregR_2]

Wow... After reading those PFT blurbs it sounds like this dude is free to say whatever he wants and not have to produce any physical evidence to back it up. That is a SWEET position for him to be in. Dude is about to cash in something serious.

Too bad for the Patriots. Ouch.

You obviously didnt read that agreement very closely.

You're right. I didn't. Is this not the case?? But what else do the below statements mean? "In other words, Walsh is not exposed to a claim that he’s being untruthful merely if he happens to be factually wrong. Basically, then, it’s not a lie if Walsh genuinely believes that any factual inaccuracies he discloses are the truth."

and

"Beyond the amounts paid by the NFL pursuant to the indemnity commitment, Walsh gets to keep the money, if he so chooses."

I'm not ball busting, I am genuinely asking. Personally, I think it's all a bunch of BS. I've said this story has been GROSSLY overblown by the media from day 1, and my position on that still has not changed.

It spells it out pretty clearly when they say:

”to provide the NFL full, complete and accurate information, in good faith and to the best of his knowledge.”

The indemnification commitment Walsh receives in paragraph 3(a) applies even if there is “alleged untruthfulness” in Walsh’s disclosures to the NFL, unless there is “intentional untruthfulness.”

No, he can't just go in there and lie. If he does, he can be sued and would have to show in court that there was no intentional untruthfulness or else the agreement wouldn't protect him.What he is protected against is the Patriots saying that something he said is not factually correct, and so now he can be sued without the agreement protecting him. Since the Patriots have already completely denied the taping having happened that he purportedly has the tape of, obviously they already do not agree on what the truth is, so it would have been stupid for him to agree to the original offer.

The agreement won't protect for intentional lies, but will protect him against something he believes to be true even if it isn't. For example, if he says, "Pioli sent the camera crew to record the walkthrough" when it was actually Bellichick that sent them, he probably would not have been covered against a slander suit by Pioli under the original offer from the NFL if it could be shown that BB sent them and Walsh was just mistaken as to where the order came from.

But under the terms they actually agreed to, he would be covered so long as he could show a judge/jury that he had reason to honestly believe what he'd said. If, for example, his boss had told him mistakenly it was Pioli, and so he honestly believed that was the case, his legal fees and such would be covered by the NFL in a slander suit with the actual agreement they signed.

 

[Red Apples]

he's going to say he taped the super bowl practice and a bunch of other stuff-

and pats will say they never saw it-

 

[GregR_2]

he's going to say he taped the super bowl practice and a bunch of other stuff-and pats will say they never saw it-

Yep. A couple of weeks ago I said this will probably end up turning into a debate about what responsibility a team has for their employee's actions. It looks like that is where it is probably headed given the Pat's statements and what it sounds like Walsh has.And quite possibly that may include, if Walsh indicates the Pats at some point knew he made the tape, a debate on what actions a team should take if they find out an employee broke the rules even if it wasn't at the club's bidding.

 

[twitch]

he's going to say he taped the super bowl practice and a bunch of other stuff-and pats will say they never saw it-

Yep. A couple of weeks ago I said this will probably end up turning into a debate about what responsibility a team has for their employee's actions. It looks like that is where it is probably headed given the Pat's statements and what it sounds like Walsh has.And quite possibly that may include, if Walsh indicates the Pats at some point knew he made the tape, a debate on what actions a team should take if they find out an employee broke the rules even if it wasn't at the club's bidding.

FWIW, Peter King was asked this morning on ESPN radio if he thought Walsh had anything on tape in connection with the Rams walkthrough, and he felt certain the guy had nothing on that.

 

[Big_Russel]

I dont think Walsh has a tape of the SB walk through either. TBH, I don't think Walsh ever even claimed to have had it. I heard yesterday (Morten Anderson??) that Walsh is actually on record saying that he never claimed to have had a copy of the walk through.

I don't think the guy who broke that story ever named Walsh as his source. There is a VERY real possibility that the rumor may have started elsewhere and people just assumed that Walsh was the source.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

ESPN mentioned that at the least... he has videos showing the Patriots cheating all the way back to the first year or two, by illegally taping coaches signals.

How the hell would espn know what he has or he doesnt have?

 

[twitch]

ESPN mentioned that at the least... he has videos showing the Patriots cheating all the way back to the first year or two, by illegally taping coaches signals.How the hell would espn know what he has or he doesnt have?

Youre asking this question NOW? Thats good stuff right there. good stuff.