Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports

"Who Dat" Bounty Games...

AUChizad

  • Female Pledge Trainer
  • ***
  • 19523
  • Auburn Basketball Hits Everything
Re: "Who Dat" Bounty Games...
« Reply #540 on: December 14, 2012, 01:08:27 PM »
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/12/14/new-vilma-filing-targets-alleged-warner-bounty-cerullos-credibility/

Quote
New Vilma filing targets alleged Warner bounty, Cerullo’s credibility
Posted by Mike Florio on December 14, 2012, 10:59 AM EST

The bounty case definitely isn’t over.

In a new court filing opposing the efforts of Commissioner Roger Goodell to obtain a dismissal of Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma’s defamation lawsuit, Vilma takes aim at two key factors:  the alleged bounty on Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner prior to the 2009 NFC divisional playoff game, and the credibility of former Saints assistant Mike Cerullo.

The overriding goal is to persuade Judge Helen Berrigan that Goodell knew the allegation of a bounty on Warner was false, or that Goodell made the statement with reckless disregard as to whether the claim of a Warner bounty was true or false.  This enhanced legal standard applies in cases of defamation brought by public figures.

Along the way, Ginsberg calls Goodell’s statements “wanton and malicious,” “fictional,” and “inflammatory,” and Ginsberg writes that Goodell accused Vilma of engaging in “quasi-criminal” behavior.

In making the argument that the case against Goodell should proceed, Vilma’s lawyer, Peter Ginsberg, explains that the NFL’s May 2, 2012 press release states that “multiple independent sources . . . confirmed” that Vilma offered the bounty on Warner.  Ginsberg then alleges that, ultimately, the only source was Cerullo.  “Even former Saints defensive coordinator Williams, the mastermind of the alleged Bounty Program, does not contend that Vilma put a bounty on Warner,” Ginsberg writes.

The lawyer for Vilma next contends that the league knew or should have realized that Cerullo’s story was false.

“[A]s Goodell well knew,” Ginsberg writes, “Cerullo was fired for his incompetence and repeated and material lies to the Saints which caused him to miss several weeks of the 2009 season.”  (Cerullo has denied that he was absent from work, in a recent letter to Tagliabue.)

Here’s the kicker from Ginsberg:  “The Saints were so concerned about Cerullo’s stability, as Goodell also knew, that, when Cerullo was terminated, Saints head coach Sean Payton also was forced to obtain police protection at his house for fear that Cerullo would seek some type of retribution.”  (Cerullo has denied that he held a grudge against the team.)

Ginsberg likewise points out that Cerullo’s story has changed, arguing that “Goodell was well aware of these inconsistencies during the months before he imposed discipline on Vilma but nonetheless kept polluting Vilma’s reputation publicly with this fictitious allegation.”

The attack on Cerullo includes not only his motives but his accuracy.  Ginsberg writes that Cerullo allegedly told NFL investigators in November 2011 that he had taken “detailed notes” about the bounties offered as to Warner.  At the hearing before Tagliabue, Cerullo admitted that he made no notes during the defensive team meeting before the game against the Cardinals.

As to the spreadsheet of pledges for the Favre bounty a week later, Cerullo now says the numbers were “inaccurate,” and that “I don’t know what I was trying to do with this document.”

We know what Ginsberg is trying to do with his latest document.  He’s trying to show that the league trumped-up its case against Vilma based solely on the testimony of a former Saints employee who is, in Ginsberg’s apparent view, mistaken and/or corrupt.  And while Ginsberg continues to push the notion that Vilma didn’t offer $10,000 as to Vikings quarterback Brett Favre (and that, as Tagliabue concluded, if it happened it was simply “talk” and not a real offer), it’s clear that the defamation case against Goodell will be driven by the notion that the league knew or should have known that the allegation of a Warner bounty was false.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Vandy Vol

  • ***
  • 3637
  • Bitches ain't shit but hos and tricks.
Re: "Who Dat" Bounty Games...
« Reply #541 on: December 14, 2012, 01:10:38 PM »
But more importantly, that's why he has to continue with the "I'm not saying they didn't do it, but..." routine. He is protecting his client from further litigation. There is no other possible way that a rational person can justify those statements lining up with that ruling, despite your efforts.

Tagliabue is not representing Goodell or the NFL; the law firm in which he was previously a member, and is now of counsel, is representing the NFL.  Gregg Levy, specifically, is representing the NFL for the firm.  Tagliabue did not receive payment from the NFL for the firm's representation of them.  He is not involved and neither the NFL nor Goodell is his client, despite your efforts to classify either of them as his client.

Ethically speaking, Tagliabue can be an arbitrator for the NFL in this case even though "his" law firm is defending the NFL in related litigation.  This requires, among other things, that Tagliabue be "screened off" from the firm's involvement with the litigation, which neither you nor I know whether they've done that.  You're speculating without evidence as to Tagliabue's professional and ethical ability to be impartial, just as you're claiming Goodell speculated without evidence as to what the players did or did not do.


No evidence of anything besides some tough talk from one coach in one game.

And tough talk from players referencing payouts pre-game, PowerPoint slides referencing previous injuries to QBs, PowerPoint slides referencing intent to injure QBs, admissions from more than one coach that evidence was destroyed, admissions from more than one coach that payout schedules existed, etc.


Far from the three year institutionalized program designed to injure players. Who were the players actually injured by the players in question? None.

So you're suggesting that a club can have a bounty program intact, so long as their players don't actually hurt anyone?  I'm pretty sure that's not what the NFL intends for its league.  As is referenced by the NFL and even the players themselves, the existence of a bounty program revolves around intent to injure; actual injury is not required.  It would be like saying a helmet-to-helmet hit is legal and nonpunishable so long as no one is injured.


Full PDF of Vilma's Legal Brief:

Wait, wait, wait...so Goodell's findings can't be trusted because the NFL has an unexplained and unproven vendetta against the New Orleans Saints.

Tagliabue's findings can't be trusted because he is associated with a law firm that is defending the NFL in related litigation.  You assume that there is bias there without knowing what Tagliabue has or has not done to insure his impartiality.  In fact, even though the player suspensions have been lifted due to a disagreement between Goodell and Tagliabue as to how and whether the players should be punished, your unproven assumption is still that Tagliabue is Goodell's minion sent to do his bidding.

BUT, we're expected to believe every word of a defendant in this matter who has submitted nothing but a legal brief that makes undocumented claims?  Vilma's word is the gospel despite what other coaches say, despite what PowerPoint slides say, despite an audio clip of a player in a game yelling about getting his money, despite the findings of the current NFL commissioner, and despite the findings of a former NFL commissioner?  Vilma's statement is supposed to convince me that all of this evidence is falsified and in no way suggests that the Saints (players or coaches) ever did anything improper?

You've gone more Bammer than any of us expected.  I guess Antonio Langham needs to be interviewed again, and if he submits a legal brief claiming that the coaches lied and he never declared for the draft, then he and the Alabama team need to be exonerated based on his own statements.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." - Dean Martin

chinook

  • ****
  • 5649
Re: "Who Dat" Bounty Games...
« Reply #542 on: December 14, 2012, 01:21:21 PM »
who gives a fuck!>!>?
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

AUChizad

  • Female Pledge Trainer
  • ***
  • 19523
  • Auburn Basketball Hits Everything
Re: "Who Dat" Bounty Games...
« Reply #543 on: December 14, 2012, 01:22:20 PM »
Tagliabue is not representing Goodell or the NFL; the law firm in which he was previously a member, and is now of counsel, is representing the NFL.  Gregg Levy, specifically, is representing the NFL for the firm.  Tagliabue did not receive payment from the NFL for the firm's representation of them.  He is not involved and neither the NFL nor Goodell is his client, despite your efforts to classify either of them as his client.

Ethically speaking, Tagliabue can be an arbitrator for the NFL in this case even though "his" law firm is defending the NFL in related litigation.  This requires, among other things, that Tagliabue be "screened off" from the firm's involvement with the litigation, which neither you nor I know whether they've done that.  You're speculating without evidence as to Tagliabue's professional and ethical ability to be impartial, just as you're claiming Goodell speculated without evidence as to what the players did or did not do.


And tough talk from players referencing payouts pre-game, PowerPoint slides referencing previous injuries to QBs, PowerPoint slides referencing intent to injure QBs, admissions from more than one coach that evidence was destroyed, admissions from more than one coach that payout schedules existed, etc.


So you're suggesting that a club can have a bounty program intact, so long as their players don't actually hurt anyone?  I'm pretty sure that's not what the NFL intends for its league.  As is referenced by the NFL and even the players themselves, the existence of a bounty program revolves around intent to injure; actual injury is not required.  It would be like saying a helmet-to-helmet hit is legal and nonpunishable so long as no one is injured.


Wait, wait, wait...so Goodell's findings can't be trusted because the NFL has an unexplained and unproven vendetta against the New Orleans Saints.

Tagliabue's findings can't be trusted because he is associated with a law firm that is defending the NFL in related litigation.  You assume that there is bias there without knowing what Tagliabue has or has not done to insure his impartiality.  In fact, even though the player suspensions have been lifted due to a disagreement between Goodell and Tagliabue as to how and whether the players should be punished, your unproven assumption is still that Tagliabue is Goodell's minion sent to do his bidding.

BUT, we're expected to believe every word of a defendant in this matter who has submitted nothing but a legal brief that makes undocumented claims?  Vilma's word is the gospel despite what other coaches say, despite what PowerPoint slides say, despite an audio clip of a player in a game yelling about getting his money, despite the findings of the current NFL commissioner, and despite the findings of a former NFL commissioner?  Vilma's statement is supposed to convince me that all of this evidence is falsified and in no way suggests that the Saints (players or coaches) ever did anything improper?

You've gone more Bammer than any of us expected.  I guess Antonio Langham needs to be interviewed again, and if he submits a legal brief claiming that the coaches lied and he never declared for the draft, then he and the Alabama team need to be exonerated based on his own statements.
Full. Tard.

Read what I've already posted today about Cerullo and his fabricated PowerPoint slides.

I believe that Tagliabue is Goodell's minion sent to do his bidding, because Goodell himself chose him as a supposed third party.

If Goodell & Tagliabue are incapable of mistruths, yet Vilma's a babbling liar, as you are purporting, why in your estimation, is he continuing his legal battle? If it's all about the paycheck and missing games, then why doesn't he do what multiple people in this thread have demanded of him from page one of this thread? Just shut up and take it like a man. Because he is 100% confident, and has been all along, that the entire fucking thing is a complete fabrication. In your expert lawyer opinion, why the fuck would Vilma continue to press the issue after he "won" for all intents and purposes? What does he have to gain from introducing "lies" as you see them, into this case at this juncture, versus what he obviously has to lose if they are proven untrue?

What we have here is a clear abuse of power by Goodell. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can finally see that now.

You're wrong. Fact. End of story. Get over it.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Snaggletiger

  • *
  • 44525
  • My Fighting Pearls
Re: "Who Dat" Bounty Games...
« Reply #544 on: December 14, 2012, 01:22:35 PM »
37 pages devoted to the Saints
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
My doctor told me I needed to stop masturbating.  I asked him why, and he said, "because I'm trying to examine you."

AUChizad

  • Female Pledge Trainer
  • ***
  • 19523
  • Auburn Basketball Hits Everything
Re: "Who Dat" Bounty Games...
« Reply #545 on: December 14, 2012, 01:28:10 PM »
As I've said before, removing New Orleans from this equation entirely, I am sick and fucking tired of people being so quick to condemn athletes over complete fucking bullshit it makes me physically ill. Ignoring any evidence of their innocence, yet magnifying any specious allegation x10 and passing it off as fact.

The obvious Cam Newton comparison has already been raised.

The exact same can be said for someone I have no personal connection to, Lance Armstrong.

The majority of people, to this day, think that he's a disgraceful cheater. He should just own up to the fact that he cheated. Everyone knows he did. Deny, deny, deny. All this in spite of the fact that he passed every fucking drug test thrown his way. It's pure lunacy and makes me question the sanity of the majority of the population.

Everyone wants blood. Everyone wants to look down their nose at someone and drag them down. Scandals sell headlines. Exoneration gets dismissed. It's seriously fucking pathetic and I'm beyond sick of it.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

noxin

  • ***
  • 421
Re: "Who Dat" Bounty Games...
« Reply #546 on: December 14, 2012, 01:57:10 PM »
37 pages devoted to the Saints

As the Superdome burns....
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Vandy Vol

  • ***
  • 3637
  • Bitches ain't shit but hos and tricks.
Re: "Who Dat" Bounty Games...
« Reply #547 on: December 14, 2012, 01:59:15 PM »
Read what I've already posted today about Cerullo and his fabricated PowerPoint slides.

Again, this came from Vilma's legal brief.  My understanding is that this legal brief refers to the transcripts of interviews and statements made by various individuals to Tagliabue during his appeal investigation.

My understanding is also that Vilma filed this brief under seal, effectively making the transcripts unavailable to the public.  Thus, we have no clue what Cerullo actually said to Tagliabue about anything.

There are, however, some purported leaks of the transcript which have made its way out since Vilma's filing of this brief.  Specifically, Vilma's claim that Cerullo fabricated payout spreadsheets and/or PowerPoint slides relies on the following testimony from Cerullo:

Cerullo now admits he has no explanation for the outrageous amounts shown on his spreadsheet. (Hearing Tr. at 963:17-19 (“that’s inaccurate, so I don’t know what I was trying to do with this document”); Hearing Tr. at 966:1-2 (“it is an inaccurate document”)

Was that the only spreadsheet Cerullo submitted?  Does Cerullo's statement that one spreadsheet is "inaccurate" mean that he admits that he outright fabricated the thing?  How many figures were deemed to be "outrageous," and why were they deemed to be "outrageous?"  Are we just assuming that players or coaches wouldn't put up those figures for a bounty system?

I think you've jumped to conclusions about one specific document and the relevant testimony that's still not known.  And thanks to Vilma sealing the record, we still don't know.  Your "evidence" that Cerullo fabricated something is not evidence of fabrication at all, nor does it address other spreadsheets and other documents that were submitted for review.

I believe that Tagliabue is Goodell's minion sent to do his bidding, because Goodell himself chose him as a supposed third party.

The players bitched that Goodell had too much authority, and that he needed to step aside and let someone else rule over the appeals.

So he appoints the former NFL commissioner, and suddenly the guy becomes his minion.

Who was Goodell supposed to appoint if a former commissioner of 17 years can't be trusted to make a decision that's in the best interest of the NFL and its players?  Tagliabue has no financial interest in the outcome of litigation involving Goodell and the NFL, so what is it that makes him partial to one side and not the other?


If Goodell & Tagliabue are incapable of mistruths, yet Vilma's a babbling liar, as you are purporting, why in your estimation, is he continuing his legal battle?

I never said they are incapable of mistruths.  All I'm pointing out is that you refuse to look at the evidence that has been shown and acknowledge the possibility that the coaches and/or players were doing something wrong.  We have two separate NFL commissioners who have determined the same factual findings based on the same evidence.

Yet all you need to overcome multiple pieces of documentation and findings by two separate individuals is a written statement from one of the defendants himself.  A statement that can not yet be proven to be backed by the testimonies from Tagliabue's appellate review, because the defendant himself has sealed the record for unknown reasons.


In your expert lawyer opinion, why the fuck would Vilma continue to press the issue after he "won" for all intents and purposes? What does he have to gain from introducing "lies" as you see them, into this case at this juncture, versus what he obviously has to lose if they are proven untrue?

Why would Vilma file his legal brief under seal so that the transcripts which presumably exonerate him can't be seen by the public?  My guess is that there is enough evidence in the transcripts to prove wrongdoing on behalf of the coaches, but presumably not enough to prove which players were directly involved.

Just a guess, but I see no other reason why Vilma would request the court to seal documents which would supposedly prove his claims.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2012, 02:04:02 PM by Vandy Vol »
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." - Dean Martin

AWK

  • Caller of the "Taint"
  • ***
  • 8190
  • Damn Right.
Re: "Who Dat" Bounty Games...
« Reply #548 on: December 14, 2012, 02:06:26 PM »
As I've said before, removing New Orleans from this equation entirely, I am sick and fucking tired of people being so quick to condemn athletes over complete fucking bullshit it makes me physically ill. Ignoring any evidence of their innocence, yet magnifying any specious allegation x10 and passing it off as fact.

The obvious Cam Newton comparison has already been raised.

The exact same can be said for someone I have no personal connection to, Lance Armstrong.

The majority of people, to this day, think that he's a disgraceful cheater. He should just own up to the fact that he cheated. Everyone knows he did. Deny, deny, deny. All this in spite of the fact that he passed every fucking drug test thrown his way. It's pure lunacy and makes me question the sanity of the majority of the population.


Everyone wants blood. Everyone wants to look down their nose at someone and drag them down. Scandals sell headlines. Exoneration gets dismissed. It's seriously fucking pathetic and I'm beyond sick of it.
I can agree with the other examples, but the Armstrong comparison falls short...

http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Redskins cornerback DeAngelo Hall said, "Guys don't mind hitting Michael Vick in the open field, but when you see Cam, you have to think about how you're going to tackle him. He's like a big tight end coming at you."

AUChizad

  • Female Pledge Trainer
  • ***
  • 19523
  • Auburn Basketball Hits Everything
Re: "Who Dat" Bounty Games...
« Reply #549 on: December 14, 2012, 02:34:31 PM »
My understanding is also that Vilma filed this brief under seal, effectively making the transcripts unavailable to the public.  Thus, we have no clue what Cerullo actually said to Tagliabue about anything.
...
Why would Vilma file his legal brief under seal so that the transcripts which presumably exonerate him can't be seen by the public?  My guess is that there is enough evidence in the transcripts to prove wrongdoing on behalf of the coaches, but presumably not enough to prove which players were directly involved.

Just a guess, but I see no other reason why Vilma would request the court to seal documents which would supposedly prove his claims.
Your understanding is exactly the opposite of the reality of the situation.

From what I posted earlier today:
Vilma dropped his claims against the league concerning the disciplinary process, but moved forward with his defamation case against the commissioner, asking Berrigan to allow discovery, which consists of the collection of evidence and deposing of witnesses. Berrigan has so far delayed discovery while the Goodell's motion to dismiss the case is pending.

Also:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20121212/jonathan-vilma-defamation-roger-goodell.ap/#ixzz2F3WjTJiL
Quote
Vilma said he could not be sure what kind of settlement he might be willing to accept, but sounded like he was more interested in seeing through a court case with evidence made public than taking a financial settlement and keeping quiet.

So take your exact argument, and reverse it. What is Goodell and the NFL trying to hide?

Quote
I think you've jumped to conclusions about one specific document and the relevant testimony that's still not known.  And thanks to Vilma sealing the record, we still don't know.  Your "evidence" that Cerullo fabricated something is not evidence of fabrication at all, nor does it address other spreadsheets and other documents that were submitted for review.
Show me those documents, and we can talk. Again, you seem to want to put the burden of proof on the accused, and have no problems jumping to conclusions about the validity of this supposed evidence that Goodell obviously doesn't have. Unless you believe that he has it, he just really likes the egg all over his and the NFL's face for still not producing it, even after these accusations have blown up in his face.

Quote
The players bitched that Goodell had too much authority, and that he needed to step aside and let someone else rule over the appeals.

So he appoints the former NFL commissioner, and suddenly the guy becomes his minion.

Who was Goodell supposed to appoint if a former commissioner of 17 years can't be trusted to make a decision that's in the best interest of the NFL and its players?  Tagliabue has no financial interest in the outcome of litigation involving Goodell and the NFL, so what is it that makes him partial to one side and not the other?
How about allowing a true third party, like the judge in the defamation suit, pick a third party to review the evidence? How about someone who is not legal counsel to the firm representing Goodell in the defamation suit? Is this really such a difficult concept to grasp?

Quote
I never said they are incapable of mistruths.  All I'm pointing out is that you refuse to look at the evidence that has been shown and acknowledge the possibility that the coaches and/or players were doing something wrong.  We have two separate NFL commissioners who have determined the same factual findings based on the same evidence.
Then why overturn the ruling? You can't rationalize Tagliabue overturn the ruling and protecting Goodell's case in the defamation suit by saying the punishment did in fact fit the crime...unless it didn't.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2012, 02:43:38 PM by AUChizad »
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

chinook

  • ****
  • 5649
Re: "Who Dat" Bounty Games...
« Reply #550 on: December 14, 2012, 02:56:20 PM »
i hope the saints burn in hell. 
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Vandy Vol

  • ***
  • 3637
  • Bitches ain't shit but hos and tricks.
Re: "Who Dat" Bounty Games...
« Reply #551 on: December 14, 2012, 03:03:59 PM »
Your understanding is exactly the opposite of the reality of the situation.

So Vilma didn't file his legal brief under seal?  The transcript is readily available to those who wish to view it?

Great.  Post the transcript for our review, and show us where Cerullo states he fabricated anything.  Because from what little is presumed to be known of Cerullo's testimony currently, he only admitted that one particular document was inaccurate as to the amounts pledged.


From what I posted earlier today:

If discovery has been halted and Vilma has nothing with which to back up the claims in his legal brief, then that even further goes to show that these are claims by Vilma with no evidence.

If, on the other hand, my understanding was correct, and Vilma's claims are based on the transcripts, and if the language of the transcript regarding Cerullo states what I posted, then there's not evidence of any fabrication.  There is questioning of the credibility of one aspect of one document (the amounts listed on one spreadsheet), but there is no direct evidence of this.  All you have is a statement that amounts purported to be paid are "inaccurate."

Even if direct evidence of this one claim of fabrication were to be shown, there are still other documents and statements that need to be addressed.  The accuracy of this one spreadsheet is not, by itself, going to prove that no bounty system existed; there's too much other evidence that has yet to be challenged, other than to lamely claim that the public just doesn't understand what they meant by players being "carted off" and "knocked out."


So take your exact argument, and reverse it. What is Goodell and the NFL trying to hide?

Rumor on the interwebz is that the leaks of the transcript have come from the NFL.  That rumor appears to hold true if Vilma filed his brief under seal, as a leak wouldn't come from a party that is actively trying to seal records.

Again, I'm not stating that this rumor is a fact; just pointing out that A.) Vilma's legal brief is a creation of his attorney, and B.) the statements in Vilma's brief haven't been verified by any evidence that we know of.  Meanwhile, there are other documents and statements out there that, from what we've seen so far of Vilma's brief, haven't been addressed.

Show me those documents, and we can talk. Again, you seem to want to put the burden of proof on the accused, and have no problems jumping to conclusions about the validity of this supposed evidence that Goodell obviously doesn't have.

In civil matters, the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  "Preponderance of the evidence" simply means that the evidence shows that it is more likely than not that X occurred.  The NFL has released enough documentation to the public that, in my mind, it is more likely than not that a bounty system existed.

You don't have express mentioning of injuring players in multiple pieces of documentation, including PowerPoint slides that have yet to be contested by anyone, unless there was something improper occurring.  You don't have players yelling about money during games and during pre-game meetings for no reason.  You don't put up slides about your success at injuring QBs previously and your intent to injure QBs in upcoming games for no reason.  You don't have coaches admitting that evidence was destroyed if nothing was going on. 


Then why overturn the ruling? You can't rationalize Tagliabue overturn the ruling and protecting Goodell's case in the defamation suit by saying the punishment did in fact fit the crime...unless it didn't.

Tagliabue didn't overturn the ruling as a whole.  He affirmed the factual findings of Goodell.  He affirmed that the players could have been punished due to their involvement in improper conduct.  He railed on the coaches' conduct and specifically referenced to a "bounty system" in regard to the coaches' actions.  Nothing that Tagliabue said or ruled has refuted what Goodell determined to have happened.

What he disagreed with is the type of punishment that was passed down.  Tagliabue had no issues with lambasting the coaches as being the responsible party for the wrongdoing that he found to exist.  However, he thought that the players should undergo a "discipline-free transition year" to make them aware that what they did was improper and that it would not be tolerated in the future.  Essentially, Tagliabue preferred that Goodell fire a warning shot before shooting players in the face.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." - Dean Martin

Snaggletiger

  • *
  • 44525
  • My Fighting Pearls
Re: "Who Dat" Bounty Games...
« Reply #552 on: December 14, 2012, 03:11:23 PM »
Come ooonnnn 38.....Come onnnn 38... you can do it.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
My doctor told me I needed to stop masturbating.  I asked him why, and he said, "because I'm trying to examine you."

AUChizad

  • Female Pledge Trainer
  • ***
  • 19523
  • Auburn Basketball Hits Everything
Re: "Who Dat" Bounty Games...
« Reply #553 on: December 14, 2012, 03:25:58 PM »
So Vilma didn't file his legal brief under seal?  The transcript is readily available to those who wish to view it?

Great.  Post the transcript for our review, and show us where Cerullo states he fabricated anything.  Because from what little is presumed to be known of Cerullo's testimony currently, he only admitted that one particular document was inaccurate as to the amounts pledged.

Full PDF of Vilma's Legal Brief:

Which was linked here, but you have to be a member to view it.
http://saintsreport.com/forums/4816833-post14.html

Selected quotes I've gathered from Twitter from it.
Furthermore, I've posted like 15 articles that quote directly from it.

Quote
If discovery has been halted and Vilma has nothing with which to back up the claims in his legal brief, then that even further goes to show that these are claims by Vilma with no evidence.

If, on the other hand, my understanding was correct, and Vilma's claims are based on the transcripts, and if the language of the transcript regarding Cerullo states what I posted, then there's not evidence of any fabrication.  There is questioning of the credibility of one aspect of one document (the amounts listed on one spreadsheet), but there is no direct evidence of this.  All you have is a statement that amounts purported to be paid are "inaccurate."

Even if direct evidence of this one claim of fabrication were to be shown, there are still other documents and statements that need to be addressed.  The accuracy of this one spreadsheet is not, by itself, going to prove that no bounty system existed; there's too much other evidence that has yet to be challenged, other than to lamely claim that the public just doesn't understand what they meant by players being "carted off" and "knocked out."

There is much more credibility in doubt than "one aspect of one document", not the least being the fact that Cerullo was clearly disgruntled to the point that Payton had to hire security at his house for fear of retribution. Again, since you don't read, this was reported to the NFL by the Saints organization long before any bounty accusations ever came to light.

Vilma's statements are based on the scant supposed "evidence" that Goodell has made public. Goodell has claimed there is more evidence from the beginning, yet refuses to make any of it public. Vilma wants it to be made public. Because he knows it doesn't exist.

The veracity of "one aspect of one document", read: the entire falsified document, may be insignificant if there was one piece of legitimate physical evidence. There is not. Unless you're foolish enough to believe Goodell has the evidence, but chooses to keep it to himself, which you apparently are. Yet you continue to claim that there is hard physical evidence. If you've got it, I'm sure Goodell could use it right about now. Please to be sharing. Apparently tough locker room talk is your "evidence". You should invistigate the 689,000 attempted murders being admitted to in high school locker rooms across the country if you insist on taking these types of motivational tough talk literally.

Quote
Rumor on the interwebz is that the leaks of the transcript have come from the NFL.  That rumor appears to hold true if Vilma filed his brief under seal, as a leak wouldn't come from a party that is actively trying to seal records.

Again, I'm not stating that this rumor is a fact; just pointing out that A.) Vilma's legal brief is a creation of his attorney, and B.) the statements in Vilma's brief haven't been verified by any evidence that we know of.  Meanwhile, there are other documents and statements out there that, from what we've seen so far of Vilma's brief, haven't been addressed.
Link? I have seen (and displayed) nothing but the exact opposite. Vilma demanding the supposed "evidence" in this farcical "trial" be made public, and Goodell and the NFL have consistently refused.

That is the whole point of Vilma's defamation case continuing. Do you read the shit I post at all? It is a fact that is not up for debate. Vilma wants the evidence made public. Goodell does not. The. End.

Quote
In civil matters, the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  "Preponderance of the evidence" simply means that the evidence shows that it is more likely than not that X occurred.  The NFL has released enough documentation to the public that, in my mind, it is more likely than not that a bounty system existed.

You don't have express mentioning of injuring players in multiple pieces of documentation, including PowerPoint slides that have yet to be contested by anyone, unless there was something improper occurring.  You don't have players yelling about money during games and during pre-game meetings for no reason.  You don't put up slides about your success at injuring QBs previously and your intent to injure QBs in upcoming games for no reason.  You don't have coaches admitting that evidence was destroyed if nothing was going on.
In your opinion. In almost no one else's.

Again the "coaches" admitting this evidence was destroyed was one coach. Cerullo. The one making the accusations to begin with. He also admitted he never saw any money.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2012, 03:28:25 PM by AUChizad »
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

AUChizad

  • Female Pledge Trainer
  • ***
  • 19523
  • Auburn Basketball Hits Everything
Re: "Who Dat" Bounty Games...
« Reply #554 on: December 14, 2012, 03:29:31 PM »
Come ooonnnn 38.....Come onnnn 38... you can do it.
As long as RWS and/or VV continue to stubbornly go down with the ship, we'll take this bitch to 100.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Snaggletiger

  • *
  • 44525
  • My Fighting Pearls
Re: "Who Dat" Bounty Games...
« Reply #555 on: December 14, 2012, 03:51:20 PM »
As long as RWS and/or VV continue to stubbornly go down with the ship, we'll take this bitch to 100.

You guys could quit now or you could muscle through a few more pages.

+12 to Token
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
My doctor told me I needed to stop masturbating.  I asked him why, and he said, "because I'm trying to examine you."

AUChizad

  • Female Pledge Trainer
  • ***
  • 19523
  • Auburn Basketball Hits Everything
Re: "Who Dat" Bounty Games...
« Reply #556 on: December 14, 2012, 03:55:38 PM »
Great.  Post the transcript for our review, and show us where Cerullo states he fabricated anything.  Because from what little is presumed to be known of Cerullo's testimony currently, he only admitted that one particular document was inaccurate as to the amounts pledged.

http://whodatwarriors.com/2012/12/14/dec-14-court-documents/

Quote
PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROGER GOODELL’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff Jonathan Vilma, through his undersigned counsel, hereby submits this Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Roger Goodell’s Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 23).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On July 5, 2012, Goodell moved to dismiss the instant action, arguing, inter alia, that his public attacks on Vilma were immune from judicial scrutiny by virtue of the NFL-NFLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”). As set forth in Vilma’s Opposition, Goodell conducted a systematic, persistent and public campaign against Vilma that fell outside of any activity authorized – or countenanced – by the CBA. The recent proceedings conducted by former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue serve to highlight the wanton and malicious public allegations against Vilma and to emphasize the lack of merit in Goodell’s Motion to Dismiss.

 FACTS

Vilma was disciplined for his alleged involvement in the Bounty Program on May 2, 2012. The most inflammatory of the allegations Goodell lodged at Vilma is that Vilma walked into a Defensive Team meeting on the night before the New Orleans Saints – Arizona Cardinals 2009 – 2010 Playoff Game, held $10,000 in cash high above his head, and pledged the money to any teammate who knocked Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner out of the January 16, 2010 NFC Divisional Playoff Game. Complaint ¶ 33 (Rec. Doc. 1).1 By the end of the Tagliabue proceedings, the NFL was no longer pursuing that allegation, which was so obviously fictional and malicious that the NFL could not contend in good faith that the event had ever occurred.

However, for over two months before Goodell imposed disciplined, Goodell had publicly made the Warner allegation no fewer than four times and thereafter continued to make the allegation publicly. Goodell’s proclamation that Vilma had put a bounty on Warner was made in the: (1) March 2, 2012 Press Release (Rec. Doc. 23-4); (2) March 2, 2012 Memorandum issued to Clubs (Rec. Doc. 23-3); (3) March 21, 2012 Press Release (Rec. Doc. 23-6); (4) March 21, 2012 Memorandum issued to Clubs (Rec. Doc. 23-5). Goodell thereafter repeated the allegation in the: (5) May 2, 2012 Letter of Discipline (Rec. Doc. 1-11 at p. 35 in 12-cv-1744 matter);2 (6) May 2, 2012 Press Release (Rec. Doc. 23-7); and (7) October 9, 2012 Letter of Discipline (Ginsberg Decl. Ex. 2).3 The NFL’s outside counsel also made the allegation in a media briefing on May 3, 2012.

Moreover, Goodell claimed in the May 2, 2012 Press Release that “[m]ultiple independent sources… confirmed that Vilma offered a specific bounty – $10,000 in cash – to any player who knocked Arizona quarterback Kurt Warner out of the 2009 Divisional Playoff Game.” This statement is false in every way possible, as discussed below, including Goodell’s contention that others corroborated Cerullo’s story.

In his October 9, 2012 Letter of Discipline, Goodell advised that he was no longer relying on the Warner allegation as a basis for Vilma’s discipline. (Ginsberg Decl. Ex. 2). In the NFL’s findings of fact submitted to Tagliabue, the NFL omitted the Warner allegation. Now, there can no longer be any doubt that Goodell acted with malice and wanton disregard and without any CBA-ordained authority in making this quasi-criminal accusation against Vilma.

 

ARGUMENT

 I.             VILMA DID NOT OFER $10,000 TO KNOCK KURT WARNER OUT OF THE NFC DIVISIONAL PLAYOFF GAME

Former Saints assistant Mike Cerullo is the only person who has ever alleged there was any type of bounty on Warner, as the Tagliabue hearings made clear. Goodell’s claim that “[m]ultiple independent sources” contended Vilma offered a bounty on Warner was simply false. And even the NFL does not believe Cerullo’s story.

First, as Goodell well knew, Cerullo was fired for his incompetence and repeated and material lies to the Saints which caused him to miss several weeks of the 2009 season. (Hearing Tr. at 1625-1633.) The Saints were so concerned about Cerullo’s stability, as Goodell also knew, that, when Cerullo was terminated, Saints head coach Sean Payton was forced to obtain police protection at his house for fear that Cerullo would seek some type of retribution. (Hearing Tr. at 1617:9-16.)

Not only was there no one to corroborate Cerullo’s story about the Warner bounty, but essentially every person who was present at the pre-game Defensive Team meeting before the Cardinals play-off game has denied that Vilma ever placed a bounty – or said anything that could have been remotely conceived in that way. Even former Saints defensive coordinator Williams, the mastermind of the alleged Bounty Program, does not contend that Vilma put a bounty on Warner. (Hearing Tr. at 1079-81.)

Vilma has adamantly denied ever placing a bounty on Warner — or on Brett Favre or any other player – in both judicial and arbitral proceedings, including under oath. (Hearing Tr. at 1805:1-20; 1817:16-22; Vilma Aff. ¶ 13 (Rec. Doc. 44-1).) Twenty current and former Saints corroborate that Vilma offered no bounties. (Rec. Doc. 76-2 (Pierson Prioleau); Rec. Doc. 91 at 84-85 (Troy Evans), 93 (Randall Gay), 141 (Scott Shanle), 145-46 (Sedrick Ellis), 148-49 (Jonathan Casillas), 159-60 (Roman Harper); Ginsberg Decl. Ex. 3 (Isa Abdul-Quddus, Casillas, Junior Galette, Jabari Greer, Harper, Roman Humber, Malcolm Jenkins, Tom Johnson, Cameron Jordan, Johnny Patrick, Patrick Robinson, Shanle, Martez Wilson); Rec. Doc. 150 at 17-22 (Anthony Hargrove); Rec. Doc. 151 at 23-26 (Will Smith); Rec. Doc. 152 at 32-40 (Scott Fujita).)4 Saints Assistant head coach Joe Vitt also vehemently denies that there was ever a bounty on any player, including Warner (Rec. Doc. 91 at 124-25; Hearing Tr. at 1517:15; 1527:3-6; 1529:10-1530:3; 1547:6-15), and made special note of Cerullo being “with stability problems.”

The wanton irresponsibility of Goodell’s pronouncements of the non-existent Warner bounty was made even clearer when Cerullo recently testified.5

We now know that, on November 13, 2011, in his first interview with Goodell and his investigators, Cerullo contended to Goodell that Vilma “presented” the non-existent $10,000 in cash to Cerullo (Ginsberg Decl. Ex. 5 at 3) and Cerullo claimed he gave the money to Williams (Rec. Doc. 136-2, Ex. G at ¶13). Williams has consistently denied to Goodell that he ever received $10,000 – or any bounty money – from Cerullo (Rec. Doc. 136-2, Ex. H at ¶ 12); (Hearing Tr. at 1143:6), and, as noted above, Williams never backed up Cerullo’s claim that Vilma put a bounty on Warner. Goodell was well aware of these inconsistencies during the months before he imposed discipline on Vilma but nonetheless kept polluting Vilma’s reputation publicly with this fictitious allegation.

Cerullo’s story about the number of people who placed a bounty on Warner also has consistently changed. On November 13, 2011, Cerullo told the NFL that, in addition to Vilma, “Charles Grant, Joe Vitt and Michael Ornstein each offered a $10,000 bounty” on Warner. (Ginsberg Decl. Ex. 5 at 3.) Cerullo claimed Grant and Vitt “put up cash on the spot.” (Ginsberg Decl. Ex. 5 at 3.) As Goodell has always known, not a single person corroborated those claims. And, moreover, Cerullo reversed course, stating that only “one person” pledged a bounty on Warner (Hearing Tr. at 735:4-8; Hearing Tr. at 961:4-5 (“Mr. Vitt never put any money down on the quarterback”)), and “only Vilma had the cash on his person” (Ginsberg Decl. Ex. 6 at 3).

On November 13, 2011, Cerullo also claimed that “Ornstein gave his $10,000 to Gregg Williams at the hotel later that night.” (Ginsberg Decl. Ex. 5 at 3.) Williams, as with the other Cerullo fantasies, never told Goodell that this accusation was true.

Cerullo’s story also changed concerning whether he memorialized the supposed bounties on Warner. On November 13, 2011, Cerullo told Goodell and his investigators that he had taken “detailed notes” about the supposed bounties on Warner. (Ginsberg Decl. Ex. 5 at 3.) Of course, no such notes were ever provided, as Goodell clearly knew, and Cerullo later denied taking any such notes (Hearing Tr. at 734:16-24 (Q. “[D]id you make any notes during the Cardinals defensive team meeting? A. No”)).

Cerullo also manufactured a spreadsheet of “bounties” that even the NFL could not believe. In total, the spreadsheet contended that the Saints defensive team and staff pledged an improbable $235,500 during the playoffs. Cerullo now admits he has no explanation for the outrageous amounts shown on his spreadsheet. (Hearing Tr. at 963:17-19 (“that’s inaccurate, so I don’t know what I was trying to do with this document”); Hearing Tr. at 966:1-2 (“it is an inaccurate document”).) His lack of credibility is, and always has been, palpable.

Moreover, in total, Cerullo claims the players and staff put $100,000 in cash into the “kitty” prior to the Vikings game. (Hearing Tr. at 953:9-10.) Williams has always told Goodell, and continues to state, that there was never any cash put up for a bounty on any player. (Hearing Tr. at 1182:2-6.) It was “just talk.” (Hearing Tr. at 1061; 1183.) Nonetheless, Goodell irresponsibly chose to contend that Vilma walked around with $10,000 before the Cardinals game.

Vilma’s bank records also demonstrate that Vilma never withdrew $10,000 or any other large amount of cash during the 2009-10 postseason. (Ginsberg Decl. Ex. 5 at 3.) Goodell never asked to see the bank records.

Based on the foregoing, there is no credible evidence that Vilma ever offered a $10,000 bounty – or any bounty – on Warner, and Goodell cannot hide behind the CBA to shield himself from disseminating such a wanton reckless allegation against Vilma. Even if Goodell were to rationalize that, as some point, he needed to explain publicly his decision to discipline Vilma, that time certainly did not precede by over two months Goodell’s own decision regarding the suspension. In relying on Cerullo in making the Warner allegation, Goodell spoke either knowing the allegation was not true or in reckless disregard of its truth. Such conduct establishes malice and supports Vilma’s claims for defamation. See LaRavia v. Cerise, 462 Fed.Appx. 459, 462-63 (5th Cir. 2012) (discussing the malice standard).6

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for those previously set forth, Vilma respectfully requests the Court to deny Goodell’s Motion to Dismiss in its entirety, and grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York December 14, 2012

Respectfully submitted,
PETER R. GINSBERG LAW, LLC

Footnotes

1 Goodell also alleges that Vilma placed a bounty on Brett Favre before the Minnesota Vikings playoff game. Vilma – and every person in the pre-game meeting other than the two people who are seeking Goodell’s permission to get into the NFL – denies that Vilma ever offered such a bounty. However, even Gregg Williams dismisses what occurred in the Vikings pre-game meeting as “just talk,” Hearing Tr. at 1061:22-24, including Williams’ own admitted “bounty” on Favre. Of note, even in his effort to provide cover for his predecessor and his law firm’s client, Tagliabue could not bring himself to find that the Favre bounty allegation was credible: “The evidence as to whether Vilma made such an offer is sharply disputed, but other key points are undisputed: the Saints’ coaches conducted, directed and choreographed all defensive team meetings; in the same defensive team meeting where Vilma allegedly offered a bounty, the Saints’ defensive coordinator, Gregg Williams, admits that he offered a $5,000 bounty reward of his own to knock Favre out of the game, and Williams admitted that he was the responsible team official who unfortunately let the team meeting get out of control.” (Rec. Doc. 169-1 at 2.)   References to “Hearing Tr.” refer to transcript excerpts from the Appeal Hearing before former NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue and attached as Exhibit 1 to the December 14, 2012 Declaration of Peter R. Ginsberg, submitted herewith.

2 “A court may take judicial notice of related proceedings and records in cases before the same court.” MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Flintkote Co., 760 F.2d 580, 587 (5th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).

3 References to “Ginsberg Decl.” refer to the December 14, 2012 Declaration of Peter R. Ginsberg, submitted herewith. The Declaration and its attached Exhibits are being filed in hard copy under seal and is being emailed to opposing counsel.

4 The NFL had the opportunity to cross-examine ten of these players during either the July 26, 2012 Hearing in this Court (Rec. Doc. 91), or in individual meetings with Goodell in September 2012 (Rec. Docs. 150-52).

5 See Hearing Tr. at 871:4-8 (“Q. You were fired because you lied to the organization, right? A. In March 2010, I informed Sean Payton that I had lied to him in January, yes”). Cerullo’s credibility is further undermined by the rambling and vengeful emails he sent to Saints General Manager Mickey Loomis and the NFL in the fall of 2011. (See Ginsberg Decl. Ex. 4 (“I don’t want MONEY!!!! I want my NFL JOB BACK! I WANT MY NFL LIFE BACK!”); see also Rec. Doc. 159-1, Ex. B.

6 Moreover, whether a defendant’s statements were published with malice is a question for a jury. See Wilson v. UT Health Center, 973 F.2d 1263 (5th Cir. 1992); Braun v. Flynt, 726 F.2d 245 (5th Cir. 1984); Diplomat Elec., Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Supply Co., 430 F.2d 38 (5th Cir. 1970).

#Sealed
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

ssgaufan

  • ***
  • 4123
  • WDE!!!
Re: "Who Dat" Bounty Games...
« Reply #557 on: December 14, 2012, 04:06:10 PM »
Holy Shit that was TL;DR
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

AUChizad

  • Female Pledge Trainer
  • ***
  • 19523
  • Auburn Basketball Hits Everything
Re: "Who Dat" Bounty Games...
« Reply #558 on: December 14, 2012, 04:11:16 PM »
Holy Shit that was TL;DR
Only posted because VV claimed it didn't exist.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

noxin

  • ***
  • 421
Re: "Who Dat" Bounty Games...
« Reply #559 on: December 14, 2012, 04:22:38 PM »
As long as RWS and/or VV continue to stubbornly go down with the ship, we'll take this bitch to 100.

I believe you'll start to time-travel as soon as you hit 88
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions