Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[LyndonvilleBill]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

I disagree with that.  They're the team that's actually behaving in a professional manner, mostly by not saying much of anything.

Yup. Sometimes less is more. I was always told, Two Ears, One Mouth.

 

[mannc]

1 minute ago, extrahammer said:

 

Please elaborate on what part you think is wrong. Right now Jane Doe's attorney cannot issue subpoenas based on California law because he's only filed a civil complaint. A court does have to review the civil complaint and make a decision first before he's able to issue subpoenas. There's no stamp on the filing complaint based on what I've seen, so if there is, let me know. 

I don’t believe that’s correct.  The court does not have to “review the complaint and make a decision” before he can issue subpoenas, and the court doesn’t review or issue the subpoenas themselves.

2 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:

 

Exactly. The law should be carried out in court; not on social media.

Generally true, but not in this case.  Araiza’s counsel was thoroughly unprepared and their client is now paying the price.

[SectionC3]

3 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

It's was a crap show all around. I don't know what Jane Doe's attorney's end game is. His behavior could jeopardize his client's ability to bring Araiza and his accomplices to justice, or even win a judgement.

 

Define justice.  Maybe he thought that nobody was listening to his client, and that her rapists were "getting away with it."  That's no longer the case.  And it is a form of justice. 

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I disagree with that.  They're the team that's actually behaving in a professional manner, mostly by not saying much of anything.

What's their goal?  If it was to keep the kid employed, they screwed up badly.  If it's to keep him out of prison, then staying mum is the best plan.  

3 minutes ago, mannc said:

I don’t believe that’s correct.  The court does not have to “review the complaint and make a decision” before he can issue subpoenas, and the court doesn’t review or issue the subpoenas themselves.

I don't know what Cali law is on the issue, but typically the subpoenas don't hit the mail until the action is commenced.  I suppose there could be a mechanism for pre-action discovery out there.  Whatever.  Point is, once the action is commenced and discovery proceeds Araiza will be deposed one way or another. 

[mannc]

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I disagree with that.  They're the team that's actually behaving in a professional manner, mostly by not saying much of anything.

I’d agree that they were more professional than Gilleon, but their failure to respond to the allegations more forcefully and convincingly cost their client his job. They were in a bare-knuckles brawl and were operating out of the wrong playbook.

[Tiberius]

26 minutes ago, SCBills said:

Nah. You’ve decided Matt Araiza is guilty before hearing all the facts/both sides and solely seek confirmation bias. 
 

You may be correct.  You may not be. 
 

However, the one thing you are not seeking is justice.  
 

You’re displaying bias and advocating for vengeance. 
 

He may not be guilty, but this is a criminal matter and he if he isn't talking or being completely forthcoming about what he knows then the law suit and publicity can be seen as justifiable pressure to get him to talk. Maybe he was just so drunk he doesn't remember anything. Who knows 

[BuffaloBud17]

Don't be surprised if the Bills are sued by the victim

[Tiberius]

Just now, BuffaloBud17 said:

Don't be surprised if the Bills are sued by the victim

For? 

[GunnerBill]

13 minutes ago, mannc said:

 

Generally true, but not in this case.  Araiza’s counsel was thoroughly unprepared and their client is now paying the price.

 

Nope. Guilt and liability are always for the courts. Based on what is out there I think Araiza is probably guilty. But that does not one ioate change my opinion that only a court can decide that and what I think is totally irrelevant. 

 

The social media induced court of public opinion is one of the most dangerous recent developments in our society. 

[BuffaloBud17]

Defamation maybe. The Bills knew about the allegations and kept him on the team. Her lawyer went after the Bills.

[aristocrat]

2 minutes ago, BuffaloBud17 said:

Don't be surprised if the Bills are sued by the victim

I’d love to hear why. Please elaborate here. 

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, BuffaloBud17 said:

Don't be surprised if the Bills are sued by the victim

 

On what grounds? 

Just now, BuffaloBud17 said:

Defamation maybe. The Bills knew about the allegations and kept him on the team. Her lawyer went after the Bills.

 

For her to sue the Bills for defamation the Bills would have had to say something publicly to diminish her character. Theh haven't.

[Draconator]

Just now, BuffaloBud17 said:

Defamation maybe. The Bills knew about the allegations and kept him on the team. Her lawyer went after the Bills.

No. He filed a lawsuit. One of the parties named in the lawsuit worked for the Bills, a private organization. The Bills as an organization let the party go. 

 

It's not that hard to understand.

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Nope. Guilt and liability are always for the courts. Based on what is out there I think Araiza is probably guilty. But that does not one ioate change my opinion that only a court can decide that and what I think is totally irrelevant. 

 

The social media induced court of public opinion is one of the most dangerous recent developments in our society. 

Of involvement in the gang rape? I'm not ready to say that. Something happened and others were involved. The attorney made it sound like he is not the target of the investigation but a person who knows a lot more than he is saying. 

[PromoTheRobot]

16 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Define justice.  Maybe he thought that nobody was listening to his client, and that her rapists were "getting away with it."  That's no longer the case.  And it is a form of justice. 

 

 

Getting a conviction, and if not that, a civil judgement. Her attorney's behavior has put both in question. If the goal was to get Araiza fired then congrats, they won.

 

But then what? Matt Araiza is not banned from the NFL. He has not violated any rule that would prevent another team from signing him. And what does Jane Doe get other than a lawyer bill?

[BullBuchanan]

26 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

And you believe the lawyer does not deserve it?

I believe it's a distraction from the subject at hand and irrelevant to the truth.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Of involvement in the gang rape? I'm not ready to say that. Something happened and others were involved. The attorney made it sound like he is not the target of the investigation but a person who knows a lot more than he is saying. 

 

Of the statutory rape.

[Draconator]

Just now, BullBuchanan said:

I believe it's a distraction from the subject at hand and irrelevant to the truth.

You really believe her lawyers actions isn't hurting her case? 

[Augie]

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

For? 

 

Oh, this should be good! 

[PromoTheRobot]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

On what grounds? 

 

For her to sue the Bills for defamation the Bills would have had to say something publicly to diminish her character. Theh haven't.

 

Not that some people didn't want the Bills or Terry Pegula to dive in.

[UKBillFan]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Of the statutory rape.

 

Seems to be a lot of confusion about the defence of statutory rape in Californian law. Some assume witnesses claiming she was saying she 18 will be enough to mean charges won't be made (if substantial), others think it won't be enough.