Maxwell Hairston named in civil lawsuit for sexual assault

[SoCal Deek]

10 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

Actually, No.

 

A civil suit is not "at its essence" a money grab.

 

noun. plural money grabs. : the greedy pursuit of an opportunity for making money especially when done without regard for ethics, concerns, or consequences : cash grab. If he had sold out and made a money grab, much of what he stands for would have been diminished.

 

The essence of a money grab is that it is an unscrupulous act.

 

Really? Go figure! 
The issue here is that the remedy being sought is money, when it’s unclear what monetary damages the plaintiff is seeking to recover. Do you know? 

[TBBills Fan]

17 hours ago, Sierra Foothills said:

I was given a choice and chance to file a lawsuit against the perpetrator, but money was never the solution.

 

Now that he is a millionaire it appears it is a solution.

 

 

[Sierra Foothills]

21 minutes ago, TBBills Fan said:

Now that he is a millionaire it appears it is a solution.

 

I'm not sure who you're quoting but I can assure you it's not me.

 

 

But if you think differently, you can copy the URL for each post or even simpler, just tell me what page number this quote is from.

 

32 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Really? Go figure! 
The issue here is that the remedy being sought is money, when it’s unclear what monetary damages the plaintiff is seeking to recover. Do you know? 

 

None of us know anything about this case. If you've been following this topic that's pretty clear.

 

It's my opinion that the filing of the civil suit is not a money grab but rather, an action by someone who is seeking justice.

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

I'm not sure who you're quoting but I can assure you it's not me.

 

 

But if you think differently, you can copy the URL for each post or even simpler, just tell me what page number this quote is from.

 

 

None of us know anything about this case. If you've been following this topic that's pretty clear.

 

It's my opinion that the filing of the civil suit is not a money grab but rather, an action by someone who is seeking justice.

 

 

Sierra

I’m trying to have a conceptual conversation here but you want to just keep stating things we all already know. I’m guessing I’m not going to make much progress and they’re closing the airplane doors so I have to sign off.

Mahalo! 

[Sierra Foothills]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

Sierra

I’m trying to have a conceptual conversation here but you want to just keep stating things we all already know. I’m guessing I’m not going to make much progress and they’re closing the airplane doors so I have to sign off.

Mahalo! 

 

Well if nothing else, I'm glad I was able to enlighten you as to the actual meaning of the phrase, "money grab."

 

I understand that many people these days couldn't care less about how they characterize things.

 

I'm not one of those people.

 

[TBBills Fan]

41 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

I'm not sure who you're quoting but I can assure you it's not me.

 

 

But if you think differently, you can copy the URL for each post or even simpler, just tell me what page number this quote is from.

 

 

None of us know anything about this case. If you've been following this topic that's pretty clear.

 

It's my opinion that the filing of the civil suit is not a money grab but rather, an action by someone who is seeking justice.

 

 

Sorry I took it out of her FB statement she posted. I just quoted that part of the text.  Sorry 

 

Those are her words back in 2022

[T master]

On 7/4/2025 at 8:38 AM, HappyDays said:

 

This is beyond parody. Really the perfect summation of discourse in the social media era. Brazen ignorance is not a badge of honor, contrary to now popular belief.

Well I'm sorry I don't live up to yalls standards seeing as the holes in my hands have grown closed I've just not been on top of my game I'll try to do better for all of y'all from this point forward .

[T master]

On 7/4/2025 at 9:11 AM, Doc Brown said:

Dude.  Beane talked about the incident at the press conference right after they drafted him.  I thought at that point everyone knew about the incident.  Even the casual fan.  LOL.  The whole league knew about it.

DUDE . I'm not on here all the time matter of fact I was in Canada for 3 weeks and I never went on this sight so how about y'all cutting me some freakin slack I don't love , eat, sleep on two Bills drive like apparently some here do .

 

But god forbid I should miss 1 press conference over a month ago and in a situation that usually is a gold digger looking to make money and even in this one isn't it convenient that this is being brought up again AFTER he signed his contract JUST SAYING ...

 

So please excuse me I'll try to engulf my being in the Bills so I don't make the same mistake again ...

[Augie]

50 minutes ago, T master said:

DUDE . I'm not on here all the time matter of fact I was in Canada for 3 weeks and I never went on this sight so how about y'all cutting me some freakin slack I don't love , eat, sleep on two Bills drive like apparently some here do .

 

But god forbid I should miss 1 press conference over a month ago and in a situation that usually is a gold digger looking to make money and even in this one isn't it convenient that this is being brought up again AFTER he signed his contract JUST SAYING ...

 

So please excuse me I'll try to engulf my being in the Bills so I don't make the same mistake again ...

 

May I suggest you stop digging, and step away from the shovel. 

 

It wasn’t just referenced in one obscure moment with the press, it has been a topic that has been discussed since the draft. But it’s just fine if you are not aware of it, there are no pop quizzes here. The problem is with sharing your accusatory views without bothering to become informed. Read/listen, then post tends to work better than posting negative stuff and then pleading ignorance, especially after being made aware that you are ill-informed. 

 

Of course the civil suit will wait until after he signs his contract. If you were her attorney, or even just a concerned uncle with a functioning brain, that’s what you would advise, right? 

 

.

Edited July 6 by Augie

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, T master said:

DUDE . I'm not on here all the time matter of fact I was in Canada for 3 weeks and I never went on this sight so how about y'all cutting me some freakin slack I don't love , eat, sleep on two Bills drive like apparently some here do .

 

But god forbid I should miss 1 press conference over a month ago and in a situation that usually is a gold digger looking to make money and even in this one isn't it convenient that this is being brought up again AFTER he signed his contract JUST SAYING ...

 

So please excuse me I'll try to engulf my being in the Bills so I don't make the same mistake again ...

It's like writing a book report without even reading the cliff notes though.  You caught enough grief though and that's usually the first conclusion people automatically jump too so I get it.

[SoCal Deek]

Aloha people

I’ve been trying to move this discussion away from the particulars of a he said, she said scenario because as I’ve posted a few times now, none of us knows what actually happened in this incident. The process will obviously play itself out. 
 

My conceptual question is whether people think that filing a civil suit is the appropriate remedy (‘justice’ as Sierra called it) for what allegedly happened here. I’m actually on the fence. On the one hand, a monetary settlement doesn’t seem particularly appropriate when the victim hasn’t been monetarily damaged. On the other hand I can understand the frustration of the alleged victim if all other avenues of redress have been (at least in her mind) exhausted. 
 

It’s on that point that the timing comes into play. Is it appropriate, as a victim, to simply wait in the weeds and pounce when the defendant comes into money? How does their financial status bring you justice? Are you promising to donate all proceeds to a women’s shelter? If the true intent is to get back at the defendant couldn’t you have done more actual damage to the defendant by bringing this into court BEFORE he even got to this point? 
 

I could go on, but I’m curious what people think. Believe me…I realize it’s hard to have such philosophical discussions on a message board. 

[Augie]

5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Aloha people

I’ve been trying to move this discussion away from the particulars of a he said, she said scenario because as I’ve posted a few times now, none of us knows what actually happened in this incident. The process will obviously play itself out. 
 

My conceptual question is whether people think that filing a civil suit is the appropriate remedy (‘justice’ as Sierra called it) for what allegedly happened here. I’m actually on the fence. On the one hand, a monetary settlement doesn’t seem particularly appropriate when the victim hasn’t been monetarily damaged. On the other hand I can understand the frustration of the alleged victim if all other avenues of redress have been (at least in her mind) exhausted. 
 

It’s on that point that the timing comes into play. Is it appropriate, as a victim, to simply wait in the weeds and pounce when the defendant comes into money? How does their financial status bring you justice? Are you promising to donate all proceeds to a women’s shelter? If the true intent is to get back at the defendant couldn’t you have done more actual damage to the defendant by bringing this into court BEFORE he even got to this point? 
 

I could go on, but I’m curious what people think. Believe me…I realize it’s hard to have such philosophical discussions on a message board. 

 

As for the bold, I think she is genuine in her beliefs (as is he, imo) and that she is pursuing the only remedy left available to her. Why do you care what she does with the money? That’s not the point here at all, imo. But it would be foolish to file a civil suit ahead of him signing his contract. 

[SoCal Deek]

11 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

As for the bold, I think she is genuine in her beliefs (as is he, imo) and that she is pursuing the only remedy left available to her. Why do you care what she does with the money? That’s not the point here at all, imo. But it would be foolish to file a civil suit ahead of him signing his contract. 

Thanks Augie

The reason I bring up the funds is because a civil trial is very different from a criminal one. In a criminal case, the convicted goes to prison. The victim gets essentially nothing other than the knowledge that the convicted is locked up and therefore can’t hurt anyone else for the term of their incarceration. However, in a civil case the remedy goes directly to the victim, not to society at large. It’s why, as I’m sure everyone can tell, I’m uncomfortable with these cases. I guess it’s why I’d be less uncomfortable if the plaintiff said they were going to donate the proceeds. 

[Augie]

5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Thanks Augie

The reason I bring up the funds is because a civil trial is very different from a criminal one. In a criminal case, the convicted goes to prison. The victim gets essentially nothing other than the knowledge that the convicted is locked up and therefore can’t hurt anyone else for the term of their incarceration. However, in a civil case the remedy goes directly to the victim, not to society at large. It’s why, as I’m sure everyone can tell, I’m uncomfortable with these cases. I guess it’s why I’d be less uncomfortable if the plaintiff said they were going to donate the proceeds. 

 

Yes, I think most of us know the difference between criminal and civil suits. That gesture might make some people feel better, but IF she was wronged I don’t see any reason to restrict what our expectations are for her use of any funds that come as a result. Maybe she wants to give it away, or pay for a graduate degree, or put a down payment on a house. She can give it to YOU for all I care. It should be entirely up to her, IF she was the person harmed. She can’t “un-do” that night. This is all she has by way of getting some “justice”, so I won’t tell her how to handle it if she were to win a verdict of some type. 

 

I don’t like this whole line of discussion, because it’s mostly speculation.

 

Have a nice Sunday! 

[Sierra Foothills]

21 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Thanks Augie

The reason I bring up the funds is because a civil trial is very different from a criminal one. In a criminal case, the convicted goes to prison. The victim gets essentially nothing other than the knowledge that the convicted is locked up and therefore can’t hurt anyone else for the term of their incarceration. However, in a civil case the remedy goes directly to the victim, not to society at large. It’s why, as I’m sure everyone can tell, I’m uncomfortable with these cases. I guess it’s why I’d be less uncomfortable if the plaintiff said they were going to donate the proceeds. 

 

Deek... imagine this happened to your daughter.

 

Now tell me what you would advise her to do... file suit or don't file suit?

 

[SoCal Deek]

9 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

Deek... imagine this happened to your daughter.

 

Now tell me what you would advise her to do... file suit or don't file suit?

 

Sierra, 

This is why we’re having an adult discussion about a complicated issue. If you actually read my post you’ll see I’ve been careful not to judge the validity of her claim. I’m simply asking whether this is the appropriate remedy for the damage she claims that she suffered. 
Make sense? 
 

And to add to your question about if it was my daughter, I’ve actually thought about that exact question. The answer I’ve come to is that I don’t think I could EVER sit in the new car she bought with the proceeds….but that’s just me. 

Edited July 6 by SoCal Deek

[WotAGuy]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Sierra, 

This is why we’re having an adult discussion about a complicated issue. If you actually read my post you’ll see I’ve been careful not to judge the validity of her claim. I’m simply asking whether this is the appropriate remedy for the damage she claims that she suffered. 
Make sense? 

You are just fishing for someone to agree with you. Anytime anyone disagrees, you plead innocent and are just trying to have a “conceptual conversation”. 

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, WotAGuy said:

You are just fishing for someone to agree with you. Anytime anyone disagrees, you plead innocent and are just trying to have a “conceptual conversation”. 

Wrong. I’ve not even come to a conclusion. We’re having a discussion here about a very complicated topic. 

[WotAGuy]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Wrong. I’ve not even come to a conclusion. We’re having a discussion here about a very complicated topic. 

“Punitive damages, also known as exemplary or vindictive damages, are awarded in civil lawsuits to punish the defendant for egregious misconduct and deter similar actions in the future. They are not meant to compensate the victim for their losses, which is the purpose of compensatory damages. Instead, punitive damages serve as a penalty for particularly harmful behavior.”

 

Is this really a foreign concept to you?

 

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

“Punitive damages, also known as exemplary or vindictive damages, are awarded in civil lawsuits to punish the defendant for egregious misconduct and deter similar actions in the future. They are not meant to compensate the victim for their losses, which is the purpose of compensatory damages. Instead, punitive damages serve as a penalty for particularly harmful behavior.”

 

Is this really a foreign concept to you?

 

Ugh. No …it’s not!  Think of this discussion like the deliberations we’d be having in the jury room. The question I’m asking you, my fellow jury member, is who should receive the proceeds from those damages?