Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[Mr. WEO]

15 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

that’s right. There’s also this:

 

“Private citizens are also allowed to utilize these exceptions in a much more limited capacity. In order to use this exception 2 circumstances must be met:

The person recording must be a part of the conversation, this essentially changes California law from an all-party consent state into a single-party consent state.

They must be recording conversations in order to gather evidence that the other party committed one of the following crime: Extortion, kidnapping, bribery, harassing phone calls, or any felony involving violence against another person. This allows you to record conversations in most instances where you feel threatened.”

 

7 minutes ago, mannc said:

Not if it was illegally obtained; can’t be used for any purpose, and in most states an illegal recording is itself a crime.

 

4 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

 

As well as two-party consent.

 

Eleven states require two-party consent, however. In other words, everyone involved in a conversation must agree to be recorded. Those states are California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington

 

 

[TheyCallMeAndy]

1 minute ago, SCBills said:

All these people saying “cut him for the culture” not realizing cutting Araiza because Bills podcasters are trying to earn Twitter social justice credits is going to potentially destroy the culture. 
 

Why would anyone want to work for an org that fires people based off allegations?  Well, aside, from a handful of people here who would apparently be ecstatic to do that. 

That’s what I’ve been saying 

[JoPoy88]

3 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

 

As well as two-party consent.

 

Eleven states require two-party consent, however. In other words, everyone involved in a conversation must agree to be recorded. Those states are California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington

 

one more time for the peeps in the back:

 

“Law enforcement personnel are allowed to legally record conversations that they are not a party to. Police officers may then legally use this evidence for criminal prosecutions.

 

Private citizens are also allowed to utilize these exceptions in a much more limited capacity. In order to use this exception 2 circumstances must be met:

The person recording must be a part of the conversation, this essentially changes California law from an all-party consent state into a single-party consent state, [and,]

They must be recording conversations in order to gather evidence that the other party committed one of the following crime: Extortion, kidnapping, bribery, harassing phone calls, or any felony involving violence against another person. This allows you to record conversations in most instances where you feel threatened.”

 

exceptions to every law…

[Ghs24mike]

Just now, YoloinOhio said:

That’s what makes this so bizarre. We know the SOP of this regime. Either it’s not what we thought it was or there is more to this story. 

This. The Bills don’t make mistakes like this. They wouldn’t risk their entire organizations reputation for a rookie punter.

 

They must be iron clad in his innocence.

[Cheektowaga Chad]

8 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Yea what the *****? He’s a ***** punter. Should’ve cut bait then.

Agree with this, innocent or guilty

 

The guys a punter

 

On the other hand the bills must believe in him character wise 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Cheektowaga Chad

[BeastMaster]

2 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

No it really isn't. I never suggested taking any of his rights away. I don't think he should be in prison, but he doesn't have an inalienable right to be on a football team either.

 

It's a pretty ***** up perspective you have to have to play devil's advocate here. At a bare minimum he admitted to a felony that would make him a registered sex offender.

 

During the call, Araiza confirmed having sex with her, the lawsuit states, but when she asked him “And did we have actual sex?” he responded “This is Matt Araiza. I don’t remember anything that happened that night” and hung up.

 

This doesn't sound like he admitted to anything

[KDIGGZ]

Cut him. Who cares? Nobody is going to sign him. If he clears it up bring him back at a later time

[Warcodered]

10 minutes ago, Steel City Mafia said:

 

Seriousness of the case aside Dan Gilleon made himself look like a ***** idiot right here.

[Mrbojanglezs]

After listening to his lawyer and the fact that the bills knew about this for a while and how her lawyer is throwing ***** at the fan on Twitter. I will reserve judgement. Sounds like his lawyer has a lot of contradictory witness testimony. But it does sound like she was raped by someone that night. 

[mannc]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

 

Ok, but if it falls under one of those exceptions, then it wasn’t illegally obtained.

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, JoPoy88 said:

one more time for the peeps in the back:

 

“Law enforcement personnel are allowed to legally record conversations that they are not a party to. Police officers may then legally use this evidence for criminal prosecutions.

 

Private citizens are also allowed to utilize these exceptions in a much more limited capacity. In order to use this exception 2 circumstances must be met:

The person recording must be a part of the conversation, this essentially changes California law from an all-party consent state into a single-party consent state, [and,]

They must be recording conversations in order to gather evidence that the other party committed one of the following crime: Extortion, kidnapping, bribery, harassing phone calls, or any felony involving violence against another person. This allows you to record conversations in most instances where you feel threatened.”

 

exceptions to every law…

 

this thread is filled with posters plowing through everything just to make the same errors over and over

[PromoTheRobot]

2 minutes ago, mannc said:

That could take hours.  What did I miss?

[Mango]

14 minutes ago, StHustle said:

According to his attorney, the accuser admitted to coming in already drunk and agreed to consensual sex. 
 

I say we all sit back and wait for FACTS to come out before rushing to judgement.

Let me start by saying that I am not a lawyer. Times have changed in many ways for the better. I have a lot of contacts in college athletics and academics. The predominant verbiage I hear is “you can’t give consent when you are drunk”

[sodbuster]

3 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:

Is it me or do those texts imply the defence attorney wanted to settle out of court?

I thought it was the other way around. The defense had zero intent to settle. 

[YoloinOhio]

4 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

I think it means both the plaintiff's lawyer and Araiza's are too intoxicated to give legal consent

Well I know I am *hic*
 

listen I had a long week and was looking for a nice, calm thirsty Thursday night watching the chefs and hoping they suck. Not prepared for Law and Order: San Diego, Bills punter edition 

Edited August 26, 2022 by YoloinOhio

[UKBillFan]

Just now, KDIGGZ said:

Cut him. Who cares? Nobody is going to sign him. If he clears it up bring him back at a later time

If cleared a number of teams will be looking to sign him. Would he return to the one who cut him rather than stand by him?

[John from Riverside]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

Seriousness of the case aside Dan Gilleon made himself look like a ***** idiot right here.

It’s making him look like an amateur lawyer

[PromoTheRobot]

1 minute ago, KDIGGZ said:

Cut him. Who cares? Nobody is going to sign him. If he clears it up bring him back at a later time

 

Oh yeah. That'll happen.

[Beck Water]

3 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:

Is it me or does those texts imply the defence attorney wanted to settle out of court?

 

They seem to imply the plaintiff's (which would be the alleged victim) attorney (which would be Gilleon) wanted to settle out of court

and that Araiza's (the defendent) attorney said "not interested" but then later "well his parents asked me to enquire what figure your client had in mind"

 

I don't see this coming to a good end.

[YoloinOhio]

Just now, UKBillFan said:

If cleared a number of teams will be looking to sign him. Would he return to the one who cut him rather than stand by him?

[Doc]

Just now, John from Riverside said:

It’s making him look like an amateur lawyer

 

Yup.  That and allowing her to talk.

[stevestojan]

THE BILLS KNEW ABOUT THIS AND DIDN’T JUST SIGN HAACK!!? 
 

From a 100% football prescriptive only, it doesn’t matter if he’s guilty or not. It brings horrible attention to the Bills, leaves us potentially punter-less, and can become a huge distraction. 
 

Because they believe in his character and he’ll really kick the ***** out of the 11 punts we’ll need this year? 
 

WTF. 

[Beck Water]

1 minute ago, YoloinOhio said:

Well I know I am *hic*
 

listen I had a long week and was looking for a nice, calm thirsty Thursday night watching the chefs and hoping they suck. Not prepared for Law and Order: San Diego, Bills punter edition 

 

You and me both, Brutha

[78thealltimegreat]

8 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

his lawyer is less convincing on that...

The investigation really just needs to play out are there witnesses vouching for the attorney saying she was telling people she was 18 and college 

[iccrewman112]

18 minutes ago, MiltonWaddams said:

 For those of you who are jumping on board the “cut Matt Araiza immediately” bandwagon, I hope you never make a terrible mistake in your life. You will automatically be cancelled and should feel that you yourself deserve it.

You have to let due process happen. We should all hope that we are treated that way. Things happen that are out of your control in your life that could put you in a terrible position. This may or may not be the case, but this is why the justice system exists.

people could be saying cut Matt Ariaza immediately because the Bills season doesn’t need this distraction. You can believe in due process, but you may not want to be handcuffed while it plays out.
 

the whole situation can play itself out with him as a free agent. If nothing comes from the suit and he is found innocent he can be signed by any team. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by iccrewman112

[El Guapo]

9 minutes ago, mannc said:

Nope. If illegal, can’t be used for any purpose.

Maybe the recording could be excluded, but the testimony of the accuser and detectives listening to the conversation is admissible. There are many hearsay exceptions in the rules of evidence. 

[PromoTheRobot]

8 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

Yeah I guess if you’re not worried about $1 million defamation lawsuit if you’re just completely fabricating a story and filing a false police report

 

Who would know it was me? Accusers identities are often shielded.

[Dablitzkrieg]

36 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

Yeah but loyal bills fans will just say she’s trying to do it just for money because he plays for the billsYeah but loyal bills fans will just say she’s trying to do it just for money because he plays for the bills

Is there a specific reason you are writing your posts twice? Is there a specific reason you are writing your posts twice?

[UKBillFan]

3 minutes ago, sodbuster said:

I thought it was the other way around. The defense had zero intent to settle. 

Blue texts from the victim’s attorney, grey texts from someone linked to Araiza. The grey text says they will pass the advice to Araiza but he has no interest in settling, I think?

[sullim4]

My take based on everything thus far:

 

- Araiza probably had oral sex with the plaintiff based on the phone call and the way his attorney behaved in that TV interview.  What's much less clear is whether Araiza knew she was under age or not.

- The gang rape seems like a he said/she said.  My guess is we'll probably never know one way or the other, although it's possible one side or the other might have credible witnesses that tip the scales in either direction.

- I agree with Araiza's attorney that it is odd that the civil lawsuit came before the DA decided to file criminal charges.

- Those texts between the attorneys read exactly like a shakedown and a money grab... and if I am on that civil jury, it tips the preponderance of the evidence scale pretty heavily in Araiza's favor.

 

I think the likeliest source of "trouble" for him is the statutory rape charge, but if the DA's office thinks their case is weak with regards to whether he knew she was underage... then they might fail to file charges.

 

This is my guess on why the Bills are sticking with him... I don't think any of it sticks.

[Warcodered]

1 minute ago, stevestojan said:

THE BILLS KNEW ABOUT THIS AND DIDN’T JUST SIGN HAACK!!? 
 

From a 100% football prescriptive only, it doesn’t matter if he’s guilty or not. It brings horrible attention to the Bills, leaves us potentially punter-less, and can become a huge distraction. 
 

Because they believe in his character and he’ll really kick the ***** out of the 11 punts we’ll need this year? 
 

WTF. 

Sounds like the NFL isn't going to do anything, Bills and his lawyer seem confident he's not getting charged, and he'll probably just settle civilly eventually.

[Mango]

13 minutes ago, MiltonWaddams said:

 For those of you who are jumping on board the “cut Matt Araiza immediately” bandwagon, I hope you never make a terrible mistake in your life. You will automatically be cancelled and should feel that you yourself deserve it.

You have to let due process happen. We should all hope that we are treated that way. Things happen that are out of your control in your life that could put you in a terrible position. This may or may not be the case, but this is why the justice system exists.

 

The accusation in the law suit is that Araiza dropped a girl off to a gang rape.  So I guess I agree with you. I hope I never make that mistake….The world is full of whoopsies.
 

Having consensual sex with her and her age are actually the least of the moral concerns. There isn’t 50+ pages of “can you believe a college kid had sex with a high school kid at a party. Get him off my team!”. 
 

 

 

[wppete]

4 minutes ago, Mango said:

Let me start by saying that I am not a lawyer. Times have changed in many ways for the better. I have a lot of contacts in college athletics and academics. The predominant verbiage I hear is “you can’t give consent when you are drunk”

BTW she was 17 and a minor…. Unbelievable and disgusting if this is true. 

[BIGFOOTspaceman]

7 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

 but he doesn't have an inalienable right to be on a football team either. 

 

Yes, he actually does... Read the constitution sometime.  We all have the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

 

If being on a football team fulfills his pursuit of happiness, it is his inalienable right to play football. 

 

[CaliBills]

8 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:

Is it me or do those texts imply the defence attorney wanted to settle out of court?

Yep - it made it seem the victims attorney reached out looking for a settlement and Araiza's attorney said go pound sand.

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, BeastMaster said:

 

During the call, Araiza confirmed having sex with her, the lawsuit states, but when she asked him “And did we have actual sex?” he responded “This is Matt Araiza. I don’t remember anything that happened that night” and hung up.

 

This doesn't sound like he admitted to anything

 

 

His lawyer certainly isn't denying they had sex.

 

Plus he says he is not sure whether Araiza will or will not be charged.

[Doc]

Just now, 78thealltimegreat said:

The investigation really just needs to play out are there witnesses vouching for the attorney saying she was telling people she was 18 and college 

 

I have no doubt she was.  Have you ever heard of a HS'er going to a college party and admitting they're a HS'er?

 

Just now, Dablitzkrieg said:

Is there a specific reason you are writing your posts twice? Is there a specific reason you are writing your posts twice?

 

Sometimes when you hit "submit reply," it doesn't forward you to the end of the thread and your reply.  So you hit it again (and again, and again, and...).

[JoeF]

SDPD has turned their report over to the DA for possible charges.  This may take a while.  If there are criminal charges then I believe its an easy decision to cut.  But let the criminal as opposed to civil process play out.

 

Until then I think reserve/suspended is an option.   It shows the Bills believe this is serious and are not tone deaf to the times, but still says we need more time to understand the veracity of the possible criminal charges.

 

Reserve/Suspended

Players who have been suspended by the NFL are not eligible for PUP (unless they have a pre-existing injury situation that's keeping them out of practice). Suspended players are allowed to practice during the offseason and play in preseason games.

 

During final roster cuts, suspended players are moved to the Reserve/Suspended list and do not count against the 53-man roster limit. They are not allowed to be around NFL team facilities while being forced to train on their own, absent from their teammates and coaches.

 

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by JoeF

[Chicken Boo]

17 minutes ago, StHustle said:

According to his attorney, the accuser admitted to coming in already drunk and agreed to consensual sex. 
 

I say we all sit back and wait for FACTS to come out before rushing to judgement.

 

The agreement of consensual sex probably didn't include being gang raped by 3 or 4 other guys and having piercings ripped from her body.

 

The phone recording where he confirms, then denies remembering anything and suggesting she get tested for an STD certainly isn't helping his case. 

 

This will all play out in court, but it doesn't look good at all. 

[BeastMaster]

His lawyer pretty much nailed it in his TV appearance when he said that it's a huge red flag to file a civil suit before we even know if there will be a criminal charge.

 

That in itself is very telling IMO