Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[ExiledInIllinois]

7 minutes ago, gobills404 said:

So her attorney:

1)is going on an unprofessional twitter tirade

2) has posted peoples emails, phone numbers, text conversations, and now his clients personal diary

3) posted a text conversation where he withdrew and “offer” he previously made to Araizas attorney

4) waited until right after Araiza made the team to file the case

5) follows a bunch of pornstars on twitter

 

And yet somehow people are still taking their word at face value and calling for Araizas head

 

[dje85]

13 minutes ago, Awwufelloff said:

This is pretty cut and dry with California state law. Hes on tape admitting to having sex with a 17 year old. That's illegal and a felony if hes over 3 yrs older than she was. There are no if, ands, or buts about it. The sooner we move on from this the better.

No he isn't or the cops wouldn't of asked her to ask him again. 

Per the LA Times article - 

Later in the conversation, she asked him, “And did we have actual sex?” Araiza allegedly changed his tone and replied, “This is Matt Araiza. I don’t remember anything that happened that night.”

[SectionC3]

5 minutes ago, Mattymafia said:

Didnt she also tamper with evidence?

 

I think you’re thinking about her mom, if I recall correctly.  You might be right, but I thought it was mom who intervened in that respect. 

[Draconator]

11 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Why did the accuser stop cooperating? 

She claimed the media attention the case was generating was causing too much stress for her and her family. 

[mannc]

1 minute ago, BarleyNY said:

That’s correct, but there’s nothing in the CBA that would prevent the Bills from releasing him. They don’t even owe him a reason. 
 

I agree that teams have extremely broad leeway with regard to releasing players, but the players still have protections under the CBA in that regard.

[ddaryl]

5 minutes ago, Mango said:

 

So she wasn't well and had to go lie down? Matt Araiza had sex with a girl who was not well. 

See what I am getting at here. He can't have it both ways. He cannot be a good Samaritan taking care of her, because that means she wasn't able to give proper consent. 

 

 

now where are you coming up with this.

According to reports the sex happened outside and he escourted her to a bedroom afterwards.

If you drink enough fast enough you feel fine for awhile but it catches up to you...  You know kind of what happens at college parties....

 

 

 

 

[YoloinOhio]

13 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

It has not been proven that Araiza knew she was too drunk to consent, or that she was too drunk to consent, at that part of the night. There's no timeline listed in the lawsuit at all. All we know for sure is that they had sex, and then at some point she was allegedly raped by a group of men while blackout drunk. Nothing about that framing tells us that Araiza committed a crime or did anything wrong at all.

 

The issue I have with a lot of these title IX cases in general is that a lot of times it involves two individuals who are both very drunk and I don't think it's fair that one party is automatically guilty in that scenario. That kind of logic implies that sex is something men do, and something women have done to them. I don't think that's a fair standard. If Araiza and the girl were both drunk and hooked up and she ended up regretting it, I don't believe that is a crime. And obviously we don't know for sure exactly how malicious it was. It is entirely possible that she was clearly blackout drunk and he took advantage of her in which case of course he committed a crime, but there is no evidence of that assertion.

 

The focus really should be on the gang rape and how culpable Araiza was in participating or knowing that it happened. Those are the facts that need to come out before a decision is made.

His lawyer asserts that he has witnesses that say she was not obviously drunk 

[ColoradoBills]

3 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

No, the commissioner's exempt list is not an option here.  The CBA prohibits the NFL from action against players for events that occurred before they were drafted.

 

These lists are also at the discretion of the league office; the team can not place a player on them.

 

It seems to me that maybe this rule should be re-evaluated.  In other instances, a team can have a players go on that list and wait to

see what happens in the legal proceedings, correct?

 

In this situation it puts a lot more burden on the team to make a decision without that outlet.  In a way it could force a team to make a

decision before the final result is in.

[mrags]

4 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Do you want to take a poll on how many people had drunk sex with a minor when they were an adult?

We seem to be conveniently dropping that point off of these excuses and a startling regularity.

I'll start : Not me.

KNOWINGLY had sex with a minor you mean?  Because there’s multiple sides to all this and one side (with apparent witnesses) is stating she said she was a college student. 

[Awwufelloff]

15 minutes ago, mannc said:

How do you know he's on tape admitting that?  Has the tape been released or are you relying on what a plaintiff's lawyer is telling you is on the tape?  And your legal conclusion is simply wrong.

A lawyer wouldn't say there is a tape unless there was, 0% chance of that. 

[mrags]

6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Does a sober one night stand count? 

Wait, someone was sober and actually slept with you? Lol

[Mattymafia]

3 minutes ago, mannc said:

Watson's case was investigated for many months by the league and the authorities and involved at least 24 different accusers.  And Watson never went on the exempt list. 

He wasnt on the exempt list for houston?

[YoloinOhio]

Just now, Mattymafia said:

He wasnt on the exempt list for houston?

No, he was just inactive 

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, YoloinOhio said:

His lawyer asserts that he has witnesses that say she was not obviously drunk 

I don’t doubt that he would say that.  I’m sure the witnesses are experts in that field.  (Yes, that was sarcastic.). A lot of this is posturing.  But I’ll say that Araiza better start fighting back because the alleged vic’s lawyer is killing him on the PR front. 

[SCBills]

4 minutes ago, Mattymafia said:

His "love the new picture" tweet to a girl with big fake boobs is so absurd

Imagine being sued by the king of the simps. 
 

This lawyer is the same kind of guy that incessantly comments on the pics of IG models. 

[mannc]

Just now, Awwufelloff said:

A lawyer wouldn't say there is a tape unless there was, 0% chance of that. 

I don't doubt that there's a tape, but I would put absolutely zero faith in what Mr. Gilleon tells me is or is not on said tape.   

[DrDawkinstein]

4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I just read the diary entries and saw the photos.  Woof.  New thought: the alleged vic and the parents are at the end of their ropes with all of this, they don’t like the way the SD has acted, and they’re looking to both burn down Araiza and cajole the cops into prosecuting the case.  That is, this may be a leverage play on the SD cops as well.  

 

This. When you have entities as large and powerful as SD State and the local SD police coordinating against you, what other options do you have than to go nuclear?

[Eastside Oasis]

Wow, that journal.  Regardless of the facts of this situation, that may be the most heartbreaking thing I've ever started to read.  Could not get far.

[mannc]

1 minute ago, Mattymafia said:

He wasnt on the exempt list for houston?

I don't believe he was ever put on the Commissioner's Exempt List.  Houston just held him out. 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, mrags said:

Wait, someone was sober and actually slept with you? Lol

The next morning I just felt…used. 

[ArdmoreRyno]

Is Pat McAfee available? 

[RiotAct]

Just now, ArdmoreRyno said:

Is Pat McAfee available? 

give me Tom Tupa or give me death!

[Mattymafia]

1 minute ago, SCBills said:

Imagine being sued by the king of the simps. 
 

This lawyer is the same kind of guy that incessantly comments on the pics of IG models. 

Yo, his ripoff report says he got fired from coaching his sons baseball team for sending bullying emails to the parents of a kid that wasnt very good. This guy is a buffoon. 

[The Red King]

Honestly, the lawyer's conduct has me questioning.  He's trying to win in the court of public opinion, which leads me to think he can't win in a legal court and is pushing for a settlement.  His behavior is utterly unprofessional.  I'm thinking when actually pressed on things, this guy will claim his witnesses will no longer come forward, they were intimidated but *trust me* they did see everything.

 

Again, the accusations might well be true, but the more this lawyer goes on, the more skeptical I'm getting.

[PromoTheRobot]

Just now, ArdmoreRyno said:

Is Pat McAfee available? 

Jake Schum is.

[The Wiz]

58 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

Wow 118 pages that 56 page estimate was a little off

Depends on how you look at it. 

 

It might be 118 pages but 103 of the pages are the same things over and over. 

[BarleyNY]

6 minutes ago, mannc said:

I agree that teams have extremely broad leeway with regard to releasing players, but the players still have protections under the CBA in that regard.

Like what? The only one I know of is if they have a football related injury. Other than that it’s just contractual obligations, which are not part of the CBA. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by BarleyNY

[mannc]

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I don’t doubt that he would say that.  I’m sure the witnesses are experts in that field.  (Yes, that was sarcastic.). A lot of this is posturing.  But I’ll say that Araiza better start fighting back because the alleged vic’s lawyer is killing him on the PR front. 

Absolutely true.  A lot of lawyers (especially defense lawyers) think it's always better to say nothing to the media...it's a common misconception and it could not be more wrong.

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, The Red King said:

Honestly, the lawyer's conduct has me questioning.  He's trying to win in the court of public opinion, which leads me to think he can't win in a legal court and is pushing for a settlement.  His behavior is utterly unprofessional.  I'm thinking when actually pressed on things, this guy will claim his witnesses will no longer come forward, they were intimidated but *trust me* they did see everything.

 

Again, the accusations might well be true, but the more this lawyer goes on, the more skeptical I'm getting.

 

Or he knows he is up against a university and police force that have actively worked to squelch this story for MONTHS and the only way to get traction is to get the public behind it. Unfortunate on all fronts right there.

[MWK]

4 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Jake Schum is.

Schum sucks and hasn’t been in the NFL for 6 years. Jordan Berry or the loser of Kern/Stonehouse in Tennessee please

Edited August 26, 2022 by MWK

[Mango]

3 minutes ago, Eastside Oasis said:

Wow, that journal.  Regardless of the facts of this situation, that may be the most heartbreaking thing I've ever started to read.  Could not get far.

 

Can you repost. Having difficulty finding a copy of the actual entry. 

 

[Matt_In_NH]

41 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Again, you’re assuming he was involved in the sexual assault. You are completely over looking the possibility they had a consensual encounter prior and separately from the assault by the other individuals later in the night.  
 

 

I am definitely making that assumption.  Given the transcript in the article, that seems valid.  I totally get we dont have all the facts.

[RunTheBall]

7 minutes ago, Awwufelloff said:

A lawyer wouldn't say there is a tape unless there was, 0% chance of that. 

You can’t seriously believe lawyers won’t lie for their client, and this guy seems like a bottom feeding ambulance chaser. Probably because no one else would take the case and he’s looking to cash in. Not saying she wasn’t assaulted, just that her lawyer absolutely would lie.

[YoloinOhio]

12 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I don’t doubt that he would say that.  I’m sure the witnesses are experts in that field.  (Yes, that was sarcastic.). A lot of this is posturing.  But I’ll say that Araiza better start fighting back because the alleged vic’s lawyer is killing him on the PR front. 

I see it as the opposite. The twitter lawyer is making his side look less credible with his approach. Araiza’s lawyer has gone on record on video and asserted his side. It’s an ongoing criminal investigation as well. How else would you like Matt to fight back at this point? All we have are the civil lawsuit, the twitter lawyer tweets, Matt’s side via his attorney, and the team statement. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by YoloinOhio

[Wayne Arnold]

17 minutes ago, gobills404 said:

So her attorney:

1)is going on an unprofessional twitter tirade

2) has posted peoples emails, phone numbers, text conversations, and now his clients personal diary

3) posted a text conversation where he withdrew and “offer” he previously made to Araizas attorney

4) waited until right after Araiza made the team to file the case

5) follows a bunch of pornstars on twitter

 

And yet somehow people are still taking their word at face value and calling for Araizas head

 

One thing about this is certain: Jane Doe's lawyer is a giant turd.

 

 

[CaliBills]

The Bills need to suspend/inactive Araiza until the DA either presses charges on him or clears his name.

 

Especially if they want to retain fans which = $$$ because we all know people read headlines or 1 article and come away assuming.  

 

 

  

 

 

[Aussie Joe]

Just now, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Or he knows he is up against a university and police force that have actively worked to squelch this story for MONTHS and the only way to get traction is to get the public behind it. Unfortunate on all fronts right there.

Appreciate things are a bit different on your side of the equator… but why would the police “actively work to squelch the story”?
 

Trying to understand how they benefit by keeping this quiet..

[The Red King]

2 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Or he knows he is up against a university and police force that have actively worked to squelch this story for MONTHS and the only way to get traction is to get the public behind it. Unfortunate on all fronts right there.

 

See my last line...

 

[quote]Again, the accusations might well be true, but the more this lawyer goes on, the more skeptical I'm getting.[/quote]

 

I am not saying things did not go exactly as described.  I just want to actually see/hear evidence before I pass judgement.  Some people here are ready to cut him on accusation alone.

[djp14150]

14 minutes ago, K-9 said:

This is an interesting thought as California law requires the consent of both parties when it comes to recording phone conversations. Unless California law excludes recordings made by law enforcement agencies and if Araiza did not consent, then it was illegally obtained. 

Police would have to obtain a warrant to record only if that is allowed under California law without others consent.  The police can not just record a phone call without your consent or warrant.  Doing so knowingly violates the law which could affect the police careers involved.  It’s the same as if police planted evidence on you like slipping drugs in your pocket then claiming the found it on you.

 

Obtaining evidence illegally is in inadmissible  in court including other evidence found directly from that illegal act.

Edited August 26, 2022 by djp14150

[JohnBonhamRocks]

1 minute ago, Wayne Arnold said:

 

One thing about this is certain: Jane Doe's lawyer is a giant turd.

 

 

 

Total D-Bag. I agree that this only makes his client look less credible.