mannc

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

I don’t agree with much you’ve said on this matter, but I fully agree with your last sentence. Team Araiza did not distinguish itself over the last three days.

No tape was ever released; you are just taking Gilleon’s word for what was on the alleged tape. It And your statement as to the elements of statutory rape are incorrect. It definitely has not been established that Araiza committed statutory rape or admitted to it. It’s interesting that he said the Bills “botched their response to our claim”…almost as if he was shaking down the Bills like they were a defendant in the case. What a bizarre legal strategy…

Wrong

Only the bad ones. But I also have to say, based on the available information, it appears that Matt Araiza is paying the price of having some really awful legal representation as well.

Absolutely…

A civil lawsuit was filed only 48-hours ago and Ariza's had little or no opportunity to respond. (In the legal system, he's got 30 days to respond to the complaint.) Although the allegations are horrifying, the "evidence" against him that's been produced so far is not very convincing.

I don't disagree. Araiza's own interests are subordinate to those of the team. That's why he was released. But that doesn't mean it was fair to him...

That's true...but at this point, nothing has been proven and in fact he hasn't really even had a chance to respond. So at this point, you could easily argue that it's unfair to him.

Oh, it was definitely about money. Gilleon is a plaintiff's lawyer who gets paid on a contingent fee basis...he gets paid based on how much his client recovers from the defendant(s).

Well, Gilleon is hired to sue defendants for money; in fact, if he doesn't collect, he doesn't get paid...so yes, that is what matters in all this...now he and his client will have a very difficult time collecting any money.

It sucks for Araiza, and it's totally unfair, but it's probably the right thing for the Bills.

Well, looks like Dan Gilleon accomplished his goal...now his client gets to sue and try to collect from an unemployed 22-year old...

I hope you're right. I just think they'll act quickly to eliminate this distraction. As I said, it's not fair to Araiza, but if he comes out of this relatively clean, he'll have another opportunity.

It's pretty obvious that the lawsuit and ensuing sh*t-storm caught the Bills completely by surprise. They aren't handling it real well so far...

I have to believe they are going to release Araiza...it's just too much of a distraction and the difference between him and a guy they could sign off the street isn't great enough to continue to endure this, especially with so much at stake this season. They cut a sixth round pick; big deal. It's not fair to Araiza, but if he's at least somewhat exonerated, he'll get another chance to play in the league.

I'm coming around to that point of view...but on the other hand, they cut Haack well before they had to pick a punter...they could have kept both he and Araiza on the roster for another couple weeks as they sorted things out. Really tough to figure...

There is nowhere near enough information to conclude anything about the thoroughness of the Bills’ investigation. The only thing we know is that after communicating with the plaintiff’s lawyer, and having an opportunity to investigate further, they went ahead and cut Matt Haack. As some have pointed out, that might not mean much because talent like Haack’s isn’t exactly rare anyway…

Guaranteed

That’s pretty vague. It shows that the Bills did in fact speak to her lawyer. It’s safe to say her lawyer told them plenty about the allegations…he doesn’t say that he made his client available to them and he doesn’t say what he would have told the team if they called back that he didn’t tell them initially. I think you’re putting too much faith in the word of the esteemed Mr Gilleon.

Araiza, of course, didn't file the lawsuit so nothing in it would constitute an admission by him.

I agree, but it's not easy to find an attorney who's adept at this sort of case. Do you hire a criminal defense lawyer, a civil litigator, or both? Not many lawyers are experienced at defending this sort of high profile criminal/civil matter and even some of the most renowned and experienced attorneys screw it up (see Rusty Hardin and Deshaun Watson). Very few defense lawyers are media-savvy...they mostly live by the credo of "not trying the case in the media", which is exactly what has to be done right now, IMO.

Remember, the "recorded phone call" has not actually been released to the public...all we know about it is what Gilleon has told the public about what's on the tape, and I would not trust a word he says.

Yeah, I think if they cut him now, the problem pretty much goes away, and the dropoff from Araiza to whomever they sign off the street probably won't win or lose any ball games. The dilemma is that it would be unfair to Araiza, if he's in fact innocent. And of course, he could turn out to have a great career for another team, if he's exonerated.

Seeing the Wawrow report below, it's tough to fault the Bills for the decision to draft Araiza, especially with a 6th round pick...to me the toughest question for the Bills is what they knew at the time they decided to cut Haack. It seems they knew quite a lot, which suggests either that there was an organizational failure or that there are some important mitigating facts that have not been made public yet...