Matt Araiza is Suing Woman who Falsely Accused him

[HOUSE]

It wasn't Araiza,  it was the other 2 Yutes

[Simon Says]

2 hours ago, wppete said:

Hope he gets millions for this. Life and career ruined. 
 

 

She doesn't have any money. If he wins a case against her, it will probably just be a moral victory. 

But if he DOES win,I think it gets him back to the NFL sooner.

1 hour ago, AuntieEm said:

Don't think  there's a wrongful termination suit available as no one is entitled to a spot on an NFL team.   Even the 1st overall pick every year is not a lock if anything like this were directed at them.

Right.  You dont know anything about labor/employment law. 

[SoTier]

32 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

She admitted it was a hoax.  Should have claimed she was drunk or someone drugged her.

 

The girl in the Araiza case or the young woman in the Alabama case?    I looked up the result of the Araiza investigation, and the criminal charges weren't brought against any of the defendents because there wasn't enough evidence to get convictions.  Apparently, after the DA declined to bring charges, the girl (who was 17 at the time) filed the civil suit, which made Araiza's name public.

[Doc]

4 minutes ago, Herb Nightly said:

She doesn't have any money. If he wins a case against her, it will probably just be a moral victory. 

But if he DOES win,I think it gets him back to the NFL sooner.

Right.  You dont know anything about labor/employment law. 

 

Are you saying that Araiza has a case against the Bills? 

 

1 minute ago, SoTier said:

The girl in the Araiza case or the young woman in the Alabama case?    I looked up the result of the Araiza investigation, and the criminal charges weren't brought against any of the defendents because there wasn't enough evidence to get convictions.  Apparently, after the DA declined to bring charges, the girl (who was 17 at the time) filed the civil suit, which made Araiza's name public.

 

The Alabama case.  She admitted it was a hoax.

 

And in Araiza's case, the DA hadn't made a decision when they brought the civil suit.  Which almost never happens.

[wppete]

16 minutes ago, HOUSE said:

It wasn't Araiza,  it was the other 2 Yutes

[UConn James]

1 hour ago, QCity said:

The woman’s attorney, Dan Gilleon, said he had not see the lawsuit yet “and we don’t litigate in the media.” 

 

This guy's a real piece of work 😂

 

 

 

A bit surprising / disappointing that Ariza is not suing this piece of 💩 lawyer who absolutely litigated in the media last year when he was the mouthpiece 📢 for his lying 🤬 of a client.

[GunnerBill]

I will say the same now as I said when she accused him: let the legal process play out  

 

The fact the DA considered there was no case to answer criminally does not mean he would win a civil action against the accuser. 

 

Look at my post history. I didn't bury Araiza then. I won't bury the accuer now.

[UConn James]

A bit surprising / disappointing that Araiza is not suing the piece of 💩 lawyer who absolutely “litigated in the media” last year when he was the mouthpiece 📢 for his lying 🤬 of a client.

Edited July 29, 2023 by UConn James

[Doc]

1 minute ago, UConn James said:

A bit surprising / disappointing that Ariza is not suing this piece of 💩 lawyer who absolutely litigated in the media last year when he was the mouthpiece 📢 for his lying 🤬 of a client.

 

A month ago he said he plans to do so.

[HurlyBurly51]

1 hour ago, QCity said:

The woman’s attorney, Dan Gilleon, said he had not see the lawsuit yet “and we don’t litigate in the media.” 

 

This guy's a real piece of work 😂

 

 

 

Yep.  He should be named in the suit as well.

[HOUSE]

5 minutes ago, wppete said:

I wore this completely ridiculous suit just for you

[wppete]

6 minutes ago, HOUSE said:

I wore this completely ridiculous suit just for you

this guy was my favourite 

 

[ChronicAndKnuckles]

The whole situation is messed up. Sucks because I was really intrigued by Araiza as a prospect. Could’ve been the next Brian Moorman and a legit weapon for field position battle. Hope he gets her for every cent 

[chongli]

1 hour ago, SoTier said:

 

I think the difference is that the woman in the Araiza case actually had a basis for her criminal complaint in that she felt that she had been raped by several men at a party.   I don't know if the criminal case against the other men went forward but the criminal investigation revealed that Araiza had left the party.   The woman in Alabama fabricated the entire incident ... there never was a toddler on the side of the interstate and she was never kidnapped.

 

Yep, in the Alabama case, the woman made an intentional and false diversion to aid her disappearance. It was an out-and-out pre-conceived ploy. meant to deceive and mislead.

[Flipnmi]

3 hours ago, T master said:

I wonder if the Bills FO meaning Beane, McD, & Pegs talked to him to get his story first or if they just cut bait ASAP ?

 

If he does win his suit against her in court would that look bad on the Bills for not looking into it before getting rid of him & not sticking up for one of their players  ?

 

I mean they drafted him & apparently had long conversations with him & they thought he was a upstanding young man the type that the Bills thought would be a good fit 🤔. 

 

I mean it could have been a real S**T show but even when Marshawn, & Marcel pulled their deals they waited to gather info before closing those doors .

 

Last thought again if he is completely cleared of all charges & wins the law suit against her could he file a wrongful termination suit against the Bills ? I don't know much about the law but Stranger things have happened . 

I realize this all went down almost a 11 months ago and people tend to have short memories, but my recollection was that the Bills were very supportive of him as the new broke. Unfortunately eventually it became clear that the time and energy he would need to spend on defending himself would also require him to put his NFL career on pause. I would not ne shocked that they supported him through the legal process as they seemed to believe his version of the story. Fortunately, the truth was revealed fairly quickly and he can start the journey to have a real life again. This is all despite the opinions and comments of idiots like Mike Schopp that were 110% convinced he was guilty because the LA Times would never report anything that was not accurate!  This thread is not about Schopp, but I clearly recall being sickened by his lack of professionalism and stupidity at the time. 

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, ChronicAndKnuckles said:

The whole situation is messed up. Sucks because I was really intrigued by Araiza as a prospect. Could’ve been the next Brian Moorman and a legit weapon for field position battle. Hope he gets her for every cent 

We still could sign him next season if we want to move on from Martin next season.  My biggest concern with Araiza was his control as he had a difficult time with pooch punts in college.

[Dr. Who]

7 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

We still could sign him next season if we want to move on from Martin next season.  My biggest concern with Araiza was his control as he had a difficult time with pooch punts in college.

So now that you surmise he is exonerated, you're worried that he's not good at kicking dogs?

 

[Doc Brown]

1 minute ago, Dr. Who said:

So now that you surmise he is exonerated, you're worried that he's not good at kicking dogs?

 

Pooch punts are usually shorter directional punts with the goal of pinning an opponent inside the 20.  Araiza in college struggled with this.  Nothing to do with kicking dogs and I'm sorry for the confusion.

[Dr. Who]

22 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Pooch punts are usually shorter directional punts with the goal of pinning an opponent inside the 20.  Araiza in college struggled with this.  Nothing to do with kicking dogs and I'm sorry for the confusion.

I guess my joke didn't come off. I know what they are, but thanks for the explanation. It's kind of you.

[aristocrat]

3 hours ago, chongli said:

 

She will probably declare bankruptcy, which eliminates that debt.

She was under 18 so her parents could be at fault and if they have a general liability insurance policy they could be losing everything. 

[aristocrat]

Looks like gilleon deleted his twitter

[chongli]

5 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

She was under 18 so her parents could be at fault and if they have a general liability insurance policy they could be losing everything. 

 

But I wonder if the parents were named in the lawsuit?

 

Also, I found this on the web. Interesting:

 

https://www.lawguys.com/legal-liability-for-the-acts-of-minors/

 

"Although some homeowner’s insurance policies may cover the costs of legal fees and pay for some claims of damage resulting from a minor child’s acts, such coverage is usually limited. Policies and exclusions vary by state, but typically, most homeowners insurance will cover the acts of children under a certain age (such as 11, 12 or 13) and only for acts of negligence, not intentional acts. In some cases, depending on the insurer, additional “policy riders” might be available for purchase after a child reaches a certain age in order to extend the coverage. Generally, however, polices often exclude illegal or willful and malicious acts and thus may, for example, exclude property damages caused by burglary committed by a minor. In such a case, the parents may be required to pay the entire amount or the statutory cap."

[Mark Vader]

2 hours ago, HOUSE said:

It wasn't Araiza,  it was the other 2 Yutes

You mean Aztecs?

[Southern_Bills]

3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

huh?

 

Seems I am wrong on that front, could have swore it was said they did. Because of your reaction I looked it up and it seems it was 3 months after they drafted him.

[boater]

1 hour ago, aristocrat said:

She was under 18 so her parents could be at fault and if they have a general liability insurance policy they could be losing everything. 

That's one of many reasons that I bought an umbrella policy for $1 mil. I had 4 kids under 18... who knows what kind of mishaps they may have gotten into.

 

Advice to all: get some quotes on umbrella policies, you won't be disappointed. My homeowners went down because I got my umbrella where I have my homeowners.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, aristocrat said:

She was under 18 so her parents could be at fault and if they have a general liability insurance policy they could be losing everything. 

lol 

[Airseven]

Should he also sue fan board posters who mindlessly piled on?

[Doc]

12 minutes ago, Airseven said:

Should he also sue fan board posters who mindlessly piled on?

 

If he could, he would never have to work again...

[LeGOATski]

I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up back on the Bills. There didn't seem to be any bad blood there.

[PrimeTime101]

7 hours ago, wppete said:

Hope he gets millions for this. Life and career ruined. 
 

 

shes 17... wondering if the parents are rich

[Your Brown Eye]

4 hours ago, Buffalo619 said:

He should sue the media and Bills, go for some real, generational money. 

 

Some posters here he can sue as well lol

[prissythecat]

What’s the point of the lawsuit. The girl has no money to go after . 

[BillsShredder83]

6 hours ago, HardyBoy said:

 

I mean she's a teenager who made a really really really bad choice that significantly impacted the life of someone else... there should absolutely be consequences, but my hope is she also gets the help she needs and one day is able to move past this.

Not me. I hope she lives a dreadful life. If he'd been found guilty people would've been calling for a bullet, (deservedly so).

 

To subject someone to thaaat, in the name of money or "fame" is equally as low as what he was accused of. All the same people calling for him to be put down in the street are gunna be the same ones praying she gets off easy, because of her sex. 

 

Hope she eats nothing but Ramen and wears lost and found clothes the rest of her life, and that's getting off pretty damn easyyyyyy

[JohnNord]

8 hours ago, Beast said:

Millions? I’m sure she’s no Ko Simpson.

Well played, Beast

[Augie]

3 hours ago, Mark Vader said:

You mean Aztecs?

 

Do they drive a green Pontiac? 

[Chaos]

3 hours ago, aristocrat said:

She was under 18 so her parents could be at fault and if they have a general liability insurance policy they could be losing everything. 

Not how that works 

[JohnNord]

8 hours ago, T master said:

I wonder if the Bills FO meaning Beane, McD, & Pegs talked to him to get his story first or if they just cut bait ASAP ?

 

If he does win his suit against her in court would that look bad on the Bills for not looking into it before getting rid of him & not sticking up for one of their players  ?

 

I mean they drafted him & apparently had long conversations with him & they thought he was a upstanding young man the type that the Bills thought would be a good fit 🤔. 

 

I mean it could have been a real S**T show but even when Marshawn, & Marcel pulled their deals they waited to gather info before closing those doors .

 

Last thought again if he is completely cleared of all charges & wins the law suit against her could he file a wrongful termination suit against the Bills ? I don't know much about the law but Stranger things have happened . 

I think there were a few factors for releasing Araiza when they did.  This has been reported by Tim Graham.

 

#1 Araiza’s camp initially mislead the Bills.  Beane alluded to this in the press conference by saying they didn’t have all the information.  My guess is that Araiza provided with evidence that he wasn’t involved with the horrific gang rape, but also failed to disclose that he had sex with a 17 year-old.  

#2 Araiza’s lawyers threw the Bills under the bus on SD by saying they knew all along.  According to Graham this infuriated the team.

 

So these factors coupled with the tremendous backlash, bad press, and uneasiness of having him in the building led to his release.  
 

 

 

[Doc Brown]

4 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

I guess my joke didn't come off. I know what they are, but thanks for the explanation. It's kind of you.

I got the joke but I didn't want to come across as a Michael Vick defender or something like that.

[iinii]

7 hours ago, PetermansRedemption said:

I think they are more pointing out how absolutely hypocritical this slime ball attorney is. When it was the lawsuit where he was the plaintiff, he tried to litigate the case in the media any chance he could. 

That’s why I said what I said. Slime ball ambulance chasing attorney is rather redundant 

[Sierra Foothills]

7 hours ago, SoTier said:

I think the difference is that the woman in the Araiza case actually had a basis for her criminal complaint in that she felt that she had been raped by several men at a party.   I don't know if the criminal case against the other men went forward but the criminal investigation revealed that Araiza had left the party.

 

19 minutes ago, JohnNord said:

I think there were a few factors for releasing Araiza when they did.  This has been reported by Tim Graham.

#1 Araiza’s camp initially mislead the Bills.  Beane alluded to this in the press conference by saying they didn’t have all the information.  My guess is that Araiza provided with evidence that he wasn’t involved with the horrific gang rape, but also failed to disclose that he had sex with a 17 year-old.  

 

Here is the point I'd like to understand before I morally exonerate Araiza and the others who had sex with the girl... she was 17 at the time of the incident and there's video of the sex acts.

 

The age of consent in CA is 18. Why isn't this statutory rape?

 

BTW nice to see all the message board vigilantes out here with their clubs and ropes. So much anger at a "false accuser" as if the men involved are blameless.