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.

[mannc]

5 minutes 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. 

I agree that trial by social media is awful, but it’s also a reality in some cases.  Team Araiza found themselves in a social media “trial” not of their own choosing, and they got crushed.  I’m not sure how you could dispute that.

12 minutes ago, BuffaloBud17 said:

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

Zero chance

[extrahammer]

28 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.

 

 

In California, it does have to reviewed and stamped before the plaintiff can issue subpoenas. I didn't see a case number stamped on the complaint documents, so again, if I'm missing that somewhere please let me know.

 

It is most common in CA for a third party to issue the subpoena, however not required in all cases. In any case, the plaintiff will have to submit a copy of every subpoena form to the court within a certain time frame, I believe it is 48 hours, can't remember. 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by extrahammer

[TheWeatherMan]

7 minutes ago, BuffaloBud17 said:

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

Please look up the definition of defamation and then go sit in the corner for 10 minutes and think about what you said.
 

Can an admin please ban this clown?  Every single one of his posts are face palmingly idiotic.  

[JDubya76]

24 minutes ago, BuffaloBud17 said:

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

Defamation? So the Bills in their actions, damaged the good reputation of Jane Doe using slander or libel?

 

I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

 

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by JDubya76

[mannc]

1 minute ago, UKBillFan said:

 

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.

Someone WAY down thread produced a link that appears reliable, stating that the prosecutor has to prove there was no reasonable mistake about the victim’s age. 

[Draconator]

This also needs to be set up in a few posters home computer stations before they hit "submit reply"

 

 

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, mannc said:

I agree that trial by social media is awful, but it’s also a reality in some cases.  Team Araiza found themselves in a social media “trial” not of their own choosing, and they got crushed.  I’m not sure how you could dispute that.

 

I don't dispute. I just ignore it. Trial by social media is as worthless as yesterday's chip paper. 

[BullBuchanan]

10 minutes ago, Draconator said:

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

Maybe, maybe not. Before her lawyer got involved this whole story was buried for nearly a year, so I'd say they've done a lot more good than bad.

 

Regardless, what you think about someone's lawyer shouldn't have any bearing on the case unless they are making seemingly false or provably false accusations or are acting in a defamatory manner - none of which I've seen so far.

Edited August 28, 2022 by BullBuchanan

[mannc]

1 minute ago, extrahammer said:

 

In California, it does have to reviewed and stamped before the plaintiff can issue subpoenas. It is most common in CA for a third party to issue the subpoena, however not required in all cases. In any case, the plaintiff will have to submit a copy of every subpoena form to the court within a certain time frame, I believe it is 48 hours, can't remember. 

 

 

Once the complaint has been filed, the lawyer can issue the subpoenas and there is no court approval process. The lawyer has to give reasonable notice to the other parties and the witness.

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't dispute. I just ignore it. Trial by social media is as worthless as yesterday's chip paper. 

It may be worthless, but it cost Araiza his job.

[Draconator]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

Maybe, maybe not. Before her lawyer got involved this whole story was buried for nearly a year, so I'd say they've done a lot more good than bad.

 

Regardless, what you think about someone's lawyer shouldn't have any bearing on the case unless they are making seemingly false or probably false accusations or are acting in a defamatory manner - none of which I've seen so far.

 

https://www.lenscrafters.com/

[extrahammer]

3 minutes ago, mannc said:

Once the complaint has been filed, the lawyer can issue the subpoenas and there is no court approval process. The lawyer has to give reasonable notice to the other parties and the witness.

 

Again, not until the complaint has been reviewed and assigned a case number. At this point all he has done is file a complaint. If I'm missing the case number somewhere, again, please let me know. But I'm not wrong. And he will have to file a copy of every subpoena to the court.

Edited August 28, 2022 by extrahammer

[UKBillFan]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

Maybe, maybe not. Before her lawyer got involved this whole story was buried for nearly a year, so I'd say they've done a lot more good than bad.

 

Regardless, what you think about someone's lawyer shouldn't have any bearing on the case unless they are making seemingly false or probably false accusations or are acting in a defamatory manner - none of which I've seen so far.

 

Except he's basically doing the defense's job for them by posting contradictory statements and texts. Think it was pointed out that the journal (horrific as it was to read) even countered some points made in the lawsuit. Now he's saying that an apology and a donation to a rape charity would make all of this go away???

 

He's harming the alleged victim's case, not helping it.

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Maybe, maybe not. Before her lawyer got involved this whole story was buried for nearly a year, so I'd say they've done a lot more good than bad.

 

Regardless, what you think about someone's lawyer shouldn't have any bearing on the case unless they are making seemingly false or provably false accusations or are acting in a defamatory manner - none of which I've seen so far.

I imagine if I saw a guy who did something this bad to me getting a job in the NFL I'd be screaming to high heaven too. I'd do everything in my power to bring the crime into the light of day 

[Doc]

27 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

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.  

 

Keeping him out of jail is the most important goal.  If he can clear his name, he can play in the NFL later.

 

22 minutes ago, mannc said:

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.

 

Responding publicly wasn't going to solve this quickly.  With the season rapidly approaching, that's what cost him his job.

 

10 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

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

 

His actions reflect on him and his client, and his case as a whole.

 

8 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

Of the statutory rape.

 

As I said, I fully believe she told people she was 18 and do not believe she told anyone she was 17, or at least told Araiza during their encounter.

[mannc]

Just now, extrahammer said:

 

Again, not until the complaint has been reviewed and assigned a case number. At this point all he has done is file a complaint. If I'm missing the case number somewhere, again, please let me know. But I'm not wrong. 

I agree that a case number has to be assigned but that happens almost instantaneously 

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, mannc said:

It may be worthless, but it cost Araiza his job.

 

I think the civil filing cost Araiza his job. 

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

As I said, I fully believe she told people she was 18 and do not believe she told anyone she was 17, or at least told Araiza during their encounter.

 

On what basis do you believe that?

[Tiberius]

Just now, Doc said:

 

Keeping him out of jail is the most important goal.  If he can clear his name, he can play in the NFL later.

 

 

Responding publicly wasn't going to solve this quickly.  With the season rapidly approaching, that's what cost him his job.

 

 

His actions reflect on him and his client, and his case as a whole.

 

 

As I said, I fully believe she told people she was 18 and do not believe she told anyone she was 17, or at least told Araiza during their encounter.

She said she told him she was in HS. She also accuses him of possibly slipping a mickey in her drink. Do they test for that during a rape kit investigation? 

[extrahammer]

Just now, mannc said:

I agree that a case number has to be assigned but that happens almost instantaneously 

 

I'm going off of California law. The reason no case number has been assigned is because it has not been reviewed. It was filed Thursday and nothing was assigned instantaneously. The court could throw it out at any point as well. 

[Doc]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

I imagine if I saw a guy who did something this bad to me getting a job in the NFL I'd be screaming to high heaven too. I'd do everything in my power to bring the crime into the light of day 

 

And there are ways to do it.  Filing the civil suit was the way.  But lying and making odd statements is not.

[mannc]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Keeping him out of jail is the most important goal.  If he can clear his name, he can play in the NFL later.

 

 

Responding publicly wasn't going to solve this quickly.  With the season rapidly approaching, that's what cost him his job.

 

 

His actions reflect on him and his client, and his case as a whole.

 

 

As I said, I fully believe she told people she was 18 and do not believe she told anyone she was 17, or at least told Araiza during their encounter.

If Araiza and his lawyer had put together a more coherent, convincing response, the Bills might have at least let this play out a little longer.  They failed.