Maxwell Hairston named in civil lawsuit for sexual assault

[Augie]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

With all due respect, that is NOT what I said Augie. But it’s clearly what you think I said. 

 

It was something like that, but I’m not going looking for it. For what it’s worth, multiple people got the same impression, so why might that be? 

 

EDIT: It was too easy. “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? ” 

 

Why should there be ANY question who should receive the funds? That was just one post from a 2 second search. 

 

.

Edited July 7 by Augie

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

It was something like that, but I’m not going looking for it. For what it’s worth, multiple people got the same impression, so why might that be? 

Probably because it’s really hard to have philosophical conversations on a football fans message board. 😂 I accept the heat for trying to go there. 

[Augie]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Probably because it’s really hard to have philosophical conversations on a football fans message board. 😂 I accept the heat for trying to go there. 

 

Philosophical? I see it as right and wrong, which is pretty simple. 

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Augie said:

 

Philosophical? I see it as right and wrong, which is pretty simple. 

I love you Augie….but you’re simply not getting it. That’s okay. 

[Augie]

7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I love you Augie….but you’re simply not getting it. That’s okay. 

 

I think I get it just fine, but I’m also ready to move on. 

[BringBackFergy]

24 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

According to the lawsuit, Hairston was enrolled at U of K and residing in the same dorm as the young woman who filed the lawsuit at the time the alleged acts occurred.  Was he actually not enrolled in 2020/2021?

Oh, I thought I heard the incident may have occurred when he was on college visit.  If he was an enrolled student and living in the same dorm, the insurance coverage would still be "Mom and Dad" and/or U of K for failure to supervise/safeguard females in the dorm.

 

 

[Doc Brown]

11 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Morning Doc

If you’re referring to my posts, I never once said that the prevailing party isn’t ’entitled’ to the punitive damages…not once. 

It was more that Penn State poster.  When you start to get bored on a topic you try and alter the conversation with a moral debate.  Can't throw stones on you for that. 

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

It was more that Penn State poster.  When you start to get bored on a topic you try and alter the conversation with a moral debate.  Can't throw stones on you for that. 

Penn State? Ya can’t trust anyone who roots for a team that can’t afford a logo on their helmet. 😂 

[Beck Water]

22 hours ago, BringBackFergy said:

Oh, I thought I heard the incident may have occurred when he was on college visit.  If he was an enrolled student and living in the same dorm, the insurance coverage would still be "Mom and Dad" and/or U of K for failure to supervise/safeguard females in the dorm.

 

Yeah, it's weird.  His college stats start in 2022.  But that doesn't seem like a detail an attorney would get wrong in a filing.  Maybe he red-shirted?

 

Speaking of weird, what young woman of college age and common sense faces a young man who previously made her uncomfortable in HIS dorm room, tells him she doesn't want to hang out, and then *turns around and walks away from the door leaving him free to enter*?  Whisky tango foxtrot?  You shut and lock the door before you turn and walk away.  And if the guy forces his way past you into the room, you leave and seek help. And then, having this (allegedly uninvited) young man in her room announcing he's "high as *****" and "trying to have sex", what sensible young woman of college age walks away from him *into her bedroom*.  Hell, no, faced with a strong athletic young man who makes that announcement why wouldn't a sensible chick grab her phone and beat it out of the room to find a friend or RA or call security, who could then go with her and get the guy out of there, rather than walking away from him into her bedroom?  *smdh*

Seriously, all this is verbatim from the lawsuit.  The one filed by her lawyer.

In the House by the Beck, the daughter of the house started having discussions with the 'rents about Power and Control and how you avoid putting yourself in positions where you hand those over to other people, starting in middle school and continuing into college.

 

On the other hand, no sane and sensible young woman files a police report and undergoes a SANE exam (they are horrible - painful and violating - often described by victims as "a second assault") if she doesn't seriously believe she's been sexually assaulted.  Nor does she change schools when no school discipline or charges result.

I don't know what to make of the whole thing.
 

 

Edited July 8 by Beck Water

[Mat68]

He was an early enrollee.  Hence the semester before his freshman season.  Also, why he was a minor at the time.  I would advise him to settle.  Doesn’t matter if he is guilty or not.  He put himself in the position regardless.  Its a PR issues that will cost more the longer it goes. 

Edited July 8 by Mat68

[jkeerie]

6 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

Yeah, it's weird.  His college stats start in 2022.  But that doesn't seem like a detail an attorney would get wrong in a filing.  Maybe he red-shirted?

 

Speaking of weird, what young woman of college age and common sense faces a young man who previously made her uncomfortable in HIS dorm room, tells him she doesn't want to hang out, and then *turns around and walks away from the door leaving him free to enter*?  Whisky tango foxtrot?  You shut and lock the door before you turn and walk away.  And if the guy forces his way past you into the room, you leave and seek help. And then, having this (allegedly uninvited) young man in her room announcing he's "high as *****" and "trying to have sex", what sensible young woman of college age walks away from him *into her bedroom*.  Hell, no, faced with a strong athletic young man who makes that announcement why wouldn't a sensible chick grab her phone and beat it out of the room to find a friend or RA or call security, who could then go with her and get the guy out of there, rather than walking away from him into her bedroom?  *smdh*

Seriously, all this is verbatim from the lawsuit.  The one filed by her lawyer.

In the House by the Beck, the daughter of the house started having discussions with the 'rents about Power and Control and how you avoid putting yourself in positions where you hand those over to other people, starting in middle school and continuing into college.

 

On the other hand, no sane and sensible young woman files a police report and undergoes a SANE exam (they are horrible - painful and violating - often described by victims as "a second assault") if she doesn't seriously believe she's been sexually assaulted.  Nor does she change schools when no school discipline or charges result.

I don't know what to make of the whole thing.
 

 

After I read the suit, I was thinking the exact same thing, regarding what a woman in that position would do (speaking as a woman).   It doesn't say anything about forcing entry etc.   She basically opened doors and turned her back on him, as she walked into her bedroom.  None of this account adds up.

 

As to your latter point, I could see that if someone is being "calculating."   I also might see it if, for example, she wanted to "save face" from a family standpoint (that she let something happen that is considered unacceptable behavior.)  It seems she took more "precautionary" behavior after the fact than beforehand.

 

Thanks, BTW, for pointing out that the suit was accessible to read in the original point.  It was very enlightening.

 

Edited July 8 by jkeerie

[BarleyNY]

On 7/6/2025 at 9:01 PM, WotAGuy said:

Well I’ll be damned; it’s called Sexual Misconduct and Molestation Liability Insurance. Good God Almighty. 

 

 

Organizations that work with children, the disabled, the elderly and other vulnerable persons almost always carry a Sexual Assault and Molestation (SAM/SML) rider to their general liability policy. But that’s for the organization. Even that would not cover damages the individual assailant would be liable for. Though the policy might cover some/all legal fees. 

 

Individual liability policies usually don’t cover intentional acts or damages. It’s doubtful Hairston would’ve had that policy while in college anyway. 

[Beck Water]

6 hours ago, Mat68 said:

He was an early enrollee.  Hence the semester before his freshman season.  Also, why he was a minor at the time.  I would advise him to settle.  Doesn’t matter if he is guilty or not.  He put himself in the position regardless.  Its a PR issues that will cost more the longer it goes. 

 

Oh heckin' no.  What he does is countersue for defamation.  Then the two parties dismiss both cases.

 

Here's how the game is played.  Opening move: Plaintiff finds lawyer willing to work for a percentage of the settlement and sues for $$$ damages due to sexual assault and infliction of emotional distress.  Plaintiff needs money to gather evidence and depose witnesses, but I think some lawyers will front that on spec as well and it's relatively small compared to legal fees.

 

Next move: Defendant counter-sues for defamation.  Now you see, one of two things will happen.  Defendant will win, in which case plaintiff's lawyer won't get paid.  Or, defendant will lose, but he doesn't owe money and plaintiff may not be awarded attorney fees.  So plaintiff needs $$$ up front to pay lawyer to defend her.

 

So plaintiff will typically and reluctantly offer to dismiss her lawsuit in exchange for dismissal of the other lawsuit.  Sometimes there's an offer of some kind of $$ "without admission of guilt" but not necessarily (Araiza case).

 

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

 

Oh heckin' no.  What he does is countersue for defamation.  Then the two parties dismiss both cases.

 

Here's how the game is played.  Opening move: Plaintiff finds lawyer willing to work for a percentage of the settlement and sues for $$$ damages due to sexual assault and infliction of emotional distress.  Plaintiff needs money to gather evidence and depose witnesses, but I think some lawyers will front that on spec as well and it's relatively small compared to legal fees.

 

Next move: Defendant counter-sues for defamation.  Now you see, one of two things will happen.  Defendant will win, in which case plaintiff's lawyer won't get paid.  Or, defendant will lose, but he doesn't owe money and plaintiff may not be awarded attorney fees.  So plaintiff needs $$$ up front to pay lawyer to defend her.

 

So plaintiff will typically and reluctantly offer to dismiss her lawsuit in exchange for dismissal of the other lawsuit.  Sometimes there's an offer of some kind of $$ "without admission of guilt" but not necessarily (Araiza case).

 

So, assuming you’re right, what’s all this about? Would you say she got suspect legal advice? Or is this just an attempt to inflict a quasi public bloody nose?