NoSaint Posted August 27, 2022 Share Posted August 27, 2022 4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: Maybe. Or maybe this lawyer was intentionally coy and didn't show his full hand. (He had no obligation to do so and, if anything, may have served his client best by playing it this way.) Or maybe the Bills didn't have the sense to think the lawyer might have been holding card. (Asking for a preview of the complaint is a good way to get a handle on something like that.) I’m not sure what is best about dropping the story publicly 5 minutes after haack got cut but before his first paycheck rolls in. I don’t fault anyone for wanting to leverage timing to maximize both their own compensation and the pain for the person that (may have) wronged them. this is just a real strange week to drop the bomb. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted August 27, 2022 Share Posted August 27, 2022 13 minutes ago, mannc said: Well, the Bills were in direct communication with the plaintiff’s lawyer weeks ago, well before Haack was cut…so they had to have already known that the allegations were very serious…I don’t think the “Araiza misled the Bills” argument makes much sense. It appears to me that araiza and his representation - agent, lawyer, etc) were not forthcoming with all the details because the Bills went from feeling comfortable with their info to not comfortable once the civil suit dropped. They had been aware one was coming and reportedly used an investigator but McDermott said they learned new details in the prior 24 hours. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 27, 2022 Share Posted August 27, 2022 4 minutes ago, mannc said: It’s conceivable that the plaintiff’s lawyer only gave the Bills a hint of what was coming, but maybe Araiza didn’t know either, until the complaint was filed. Here’s what I don’t understand: Why was the plaintiff’s lawyer talking to the Bills? Was it as part of the Bills’ investigation or did plaintiff’s lawyer initiate those calls as part of his “settlement strategy”? Yet... The police find nothing criminally. Were they really on the fix? Or is plaintiff embellishing for a lower burden of proof civil case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted August 27, 2022 Share Posted August 27, 2022 3 minutes ago, mannc said: It’s conceivable that the plaintiff’s lawyer only gave the Bills a hint of what was coming, but maybe Araiza didn’t know either, until the complaint was filed. Here’s what I don’t understand: Why was the plaintiff’s lawyer talking to the Bills? Was it as part of the Bills’ investigation or did plaintiff’s lawyer initiate those calls as part of his “settlement strategy”? From what I understand P's lawyer called the Bills first. That's a pressure tactic. And before anyone starts with the money grab BS, if this was your kid I think you'd be fine with a nice, healthy, extremely large chunk of money to help in putting her back on the path to sound mental health. It's one way of achieving justice. And it avoids her having to testify in open court and go through all of the nonsense of a trial or trials. It also provides closure. Failing success in that respect, it's on to plan B, which appears to have been retribution. ("You hurt me, now I'm really going to hurt you.") Whatever was requested is a sum that Araiza surely wishes today that he had paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted August 27, 2022 Share Posted August 27, 2022 9 minutes ago, NoSaint said: as he can’t face league punishment, could he even go on the list? No, the exempt list is not an option for that reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted August 27, 2022 Share Posted August 27, 2022 3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: Maybe. Or maybe this lawyer was intentionally coy and didn't show his full hand. (He had no obligation to do so and, if anything, may have served his client best by playing it this way.) Or maybe the Bills didn't have the sense to think the lawyer might have been holding card. (Asking for a preview of the complaint is a good way to get a handle on something like that.) But if Araiza is innocent, how would he know the full details of what her lawyer would allege in the complaint? I just don’t buy the “Araiza wasn’t honest with the team” argument. The Bills were in direct contact with the lawyer before they decided to cut Haack. Seems like a way for the Bills to pass the buck for what might turn out to be a really serious organizational failure. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubba Gump Posted August 27, 2022 Share Posted August 27, 2022 What I don't get is that he is a good looking dude. And yes, I am secure in my masculinity, lol. He could land any girl he wanted too. Idk why these guys get so stupid. They could have anything they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 27, 2022 Share Posted August 27, 2022 They attached MA to complaint because he's the potential deep pocket. What are the going to get from others. Criminal side seems to be exhausted... Unless this reopens it? Maybe the rape kit. ??? Did the police finish up criminally? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorkScrewHill Posted August 27, 2022 Share Posted August 27, 2022 48 minutes ago, jkirchofer said: 1) He should have made better choices. 2) Her civil case isn't about the money. Whatever amount is decided upon is up to him to come up with. 3) The Bills should have practiced what they preached when it comes to culture. 1) if he is innocent wouldn’t that imply he made ok choices or are you asserting a 20 year old should skip all college parties? 2) A civil case is about money (and if he is guilty rightfully so). You can sue and win a million dollars against a homeless person .. but you will never see the money. I am quite certain if it were my daughter I would want her to get as much as possible. 3) So every time there is an accusation of impropriety they should cut the player? That seems heavy handed .. or should they wait till the Twitter jury decides the person’s fate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finn Posted August 27, 2022 Share Posted August 27, 2022 17 minutes ago, DrPJax said: Not true. He Denys gulit but the female judge / arbitrator stated he committed the acts. Sorry but his lack of contrition is not lack of guilt. If she didn’t find him guilty , how could she legally have dispensed any penalties despite how light they were and ended with heavier appeals. He was found guilty , he just continues to deny it in his own mind. She expressly said she found he committed the actions he was accused of. That, my friend is being convicted of guilty behavior or she would have had to dismiss any requirements for him to sit out ANY games. The NFLPA accepted that ruling. The nfl appealed for stiffer penalties surrounding his guilt, and he was found guilty, convicted , and will serve stiffer punishment. Non conviction or innocence and he would be playing without suspension and a 5 mil$ fine! I suspect this is what is really going on, much like the Watson case: They both did things they thought were ok and are shocked to hear them described in a context that makes them seem like rapists or harassers. Araiza is likely experiencing cognitive dissonance now: He can't conceive of himself as a rapist but he can't reconcile that view with the facts seen in an objective light. So, like Watson, he ends up in this weird place where he's basically saying, "Yeah, it happened, but I wasn't thinking of it as 'rape' at the time, so I'm innocent." If this is correct, he's making it ten times worse by letting his lawyer describe the girls as a "gold digger." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted August 27, 2022 Share Posted August 27, 2022 1 minute ago, ExiledInIllinois said: Yet... The police find nothing criminally. Were they really on the fix? Or is plaintiff embellishing for a lower burden of proof civil case It sounds me to like if Araiza/his attorney have something to improve his case it better come out like now. Otherwise he's getting cut. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake_My_Head Posted August 27, 2022 Share Posted August 27, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, GunnerBill said: Ford. With all due respect, what kind of "character misevaluations" on Ford approached even 0.000001% of the Araiza situation? GMs miss on high draft choices all the time and this is Beane's first major one in five years. It's a part of football as old as time. The Punt God situation is totally different and unique and, IMO, can't be lumped into "two misses this week" in any way, shape or form. Edited August 27, 2022 by Shake_My_Head 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 27, 2022 Share Posted August 27, 2022 2 minutes ago, Bubba Gump said: What I don't get is that he is a good looking dude. And yes, I am secure in my masculinity, lol. He could land any girl he wanted too. Idk why these guys get so stupid. They could have anything they want. It isn't about the sex. It's about power and control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beacon Posted August 27, 2022 Share Posted August 27, 2022 THE PUNT SATAN!👹 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted August 27, 2022 Share Posted August 27, 2022 2 minutes ago, NoSaint said: I’m not sure what is best about dropping the story publicly 5 minutes after haack got cut but before his first paycheck rolls in. I don’t fault anyone for wanting to leverage timing to maximize both their own compensation and the pain for the person that (may have) wronged them. this is just a real strange week to drop the bomb. Imagine that this guy hurt your daughter/cilent. Personally, I don't need the money and I'd move right to plan B. Either way, P's attorney couldn't get the money for his client to make her satisfied. So you know what my plan B would be? I'm going to hurt him. Bad. And for a long time. Do my best to have the ability to send him a housewarming card when he gets to prison. So the timing makes perfect sense. He took her dignity, and now we're going to take his. Hardball stuff, but that's what happens. 3 minutes ago, mannc said: But if Araiza is innocent, how would he know the full details of what her lawyer would allege in the complaint? I just don’t buy the “Araiza wasn’t honest with the team” argument. The Bills were in direct contact with the lawyer before they decided to cut Haack. Seems like a way for the Bills to pass the buck for what might turn out to be a really serious organizational failure. You ask. It happens all the time in settlement discussions. Gotta show the principal (he/she with the money) how this is going to look if we don't settle. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted August 27, 2022 Share Posted August 27, 2022 2 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said: It appears to me that araiza and his representation - agent, lawyer, etc) were not forthcoming with all the details because the Bills went from feeling comfortable with their info to not comfortable once the civil suit dropped. They had been aware one was coming and reportedly used an investigator but McDermott said they learned new details in the prior 24 hours. If the Bills learned new details in the past 24 hours, that’s their fault. They were in direct communication with the plaintiff’s lawyer and supposedly had a crack investigative team on the job. And if Araiza is innocent, he might not have known those “new details.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 27, 2022 Share Posted August 27, 2022 The Bills “thorough investigation” didn’t include interviewing the victim. Clown show 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrPJax Posted August 27, 2022 Share Posted August 27, 2022 2 minutes ago, finn said: I suspect this is what is really going on, much like the Watson case: They both did things they thought were ok and are shocked to hear them described in a context that makes them seem like rapists or harassers. Araiza is likely experiencing cognitive dissonance now: He can't conceive of himself as a rapist but he can't reconcile that view with the facts seen in an objective light. So, like Watson, he ends up in this weird place where he's basically saying, "Yeah, it happened, but I wasn't thinking of it as 'rape' at the time, so I'm innocent." If this is correct, he's making it ten times worse by letting his lawyer describe the girls as a "gold digger." Good post, thx for thoughtful input! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubba Gump Posted August 27, 2022 Share Posted August 27, 2022 2 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: It isn't about the sex. It's about power and control. And that's f'd up. If this comes to fruition and he is guilty, I really hope someone like Spencer Brown beats the ever loving ***** out of him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 27, 2022 Share Posted August 27, 2022 1 minute ago, D. L. Hot-Flamethrower said: It sounds me to like if Araiza/his attorney have something to improve his case it better come out like now. Otherwise he's getting cut. Just saying, stupid to get the yips now and cut him. IMO. He either has a career in BFLo or nothing. It would be something if he ended up in New England. We either use him or crush him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts