Zona Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Just because the Judge said there will be a trial, it doesn't mean Favre has to testify. The tattered Constitution still gives him the right to NOT testify... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepizzaking Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Just because the Judge said there will be a trial, it doesn't mean Favre has to testify. The tattered Constitution still gives him the right to NOT testify... Sort of, but as this is a civil suit, should Favre choose not to testify the plaintiffs can argue that this silence is evidence of his wrongdoing. In a criminal trial that wouldn't be the case. As for the question as to why the jets would be liable for Favre's indiscretions, aside from the wrongful termination aspect they can likely fashion a pretty legitimate argument that as a jets employee they are liable for his actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 but will the evidence "stand up" in court ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfanmiami(oh) Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Zing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepizzaking Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 (edited) but will the evidence "stand up" in court ? I'm not sure if you're asking me, but if you were, yes. I'll try to explain. In a criminal trial, a defendant can invoke his 5th amendment right to silence. If he does this, a prosecutor MAY NOT ask the jury to infer from his silence that he is guilty. The jury will be instructed that his silence has no bearing on the case, and they must come to a verdict based on any other evidence admitted into the trial. In a civil trial, the opposite is true. What that means is, Favre may choose not to testify, or if he does, invoke the 5th amendment to not answer questions that the plaintiff's attorney may ask. In this case however, the plaintiff's attorney IS allowed to ask the jury to infer wrongdoing based on that. Basically, in a criminal trial, if the prosecutor says "Did you shoot the victim", and the defendant invokes the 5th, then the jury is not allowed to consider that as evidence of whether or not he did. They must use other evidence brought into the trial (e.g., fingerprints, dna, bla bla). In a civil trial, if the plaintiff's attorney says "Did you send a picture of your penis to my client without her permission", and Favre invokes the 5th, then the jury IS allowed to take his silence as evidence that he may have done so. Even if he doesn't take the stand under the idea of the 5th amendment, the plaintiff's attorney can essentially say "look, he won't even get up here to dispute our facts personally, something's fishy here." Edited May 1, 2012 by thepizzaking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandemonium Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 I'm not sure if you're asking me, but if you were, yes. I'll try to explain. In a criminal trial, a defendant can invoke his 5th amendment right to silence. If he does this, a prosecutor MAY NOT ask the jury to infer from his silence that he is guilty. The jury will be instructed that his silence has no bearing on the case, and they must come to a verdict based on any other evidence admitted into the trial. In a civil trial, the opposite is true. What that means is, Favre may choose not to testify, or if he does, invoke the 5th amendment to not answer questions that the plaintiff's attorney may ask. In this case however, the plaintiff's attorney IS allowed to ask the jury to infer wrongdoing based on that. Basically, in a criminal trial, if the prosecutor says "Did you shoot the victim", and the defendant invokes the 5th, then the jury is not allowed to consider that as evidence of whether or not he did. They must use other evidence brought into the trial (e.g., fingerprints, dna, bla bla). In a civil trial, if the plaintiff's attorney says "Did you send a picture of your penis to my client without her permission", and Favre invokes the 5th, then the jury IS allowed to take his silence as evidence that he may have done so. Even if he doesn't take the stand under the idea of the 5th amendment, the plaintiff's attorney can essentially say "look, he won't even get up here to dispute our facts personally, something's fishy here." This is the longest response to a boner joke I've ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Lets assume Favre sent the pics. How are the Jets involved? Did these women get canned immediately after they complained about the pics. Could Jets management really be that stupid? Never mind. They traded for Tebow. Nuff said. That would be it, CD. Exactly. They were the organization whose S&C coach was lining players up on the sidelines to take out the gunner, and then said "oh, we knew nothing about it at all!", weren't they? Bunch of douches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepizzaking Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 This is the longest response to a boner joke I've ever seen. I'm in the middle of finals for law school and I 100% missed that obvious joke! Well, at least someone is better for it if they didn't know that difference before! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 This is the longest response to a boner joke I've ever seen. It must have been hard to write. He probably wrote it in spurts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsrcursed Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 It must have been hard to write. He probably wrote it in spurts. Gross. Funny, but gross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Sort of, but as this is a civil suit, should Favre choose not to testify the plaintiffs can argue that this silence is evidence of his wrongdoing. In a criminal trial that wouldn't be the case. As for the question as to why the jets would be liable for Favre's indiscretions, aside from the wrongful termination aspect they can likely fashion a pretty legitimate argument that as a jets employee they are liable for his actions. Good point. If what the plaintiffs are saying is true, the Jets deserve to be punished. Step 1: the Jets hire masseuses. Step 2: Favre sends pictures to masseuses--pictures to prove he's a "standup guy," so to speak Step 3: The women complain about the pictures. (As one would normally expect from a woman under these circumstances.) Step 4: The Jets fire the women for complaining! To me, step 4 is the worst part of this whole sequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv's Neighbor Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 This is the longest response to a boner joke I've ever seen. Size does matter with the LAW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 This thread is internets gold! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Good point. If what the plaintiffs are saying is true, the Jets deserve to be punished. Step 1: the Jets hire masseuses. Step 2: Favre sends pictures to masseuses--pictures to prove he's a "standup guy," so to speak Step 3: The women complain about the pictures. (As one would normally expect from a woman under these circumstances.) Step 4: The Jets fire the women for complaining! To me, step 4 is the worst part of this whole sequence. Yeah, but step 4 strikes me as WILDLY reprehensible, so much so that unless the Jets' FO is chock full of nincompoops (not an entirely unreasonable supposition), I can't imagine these former employees have a litigation team robust enough to indisputably PROVE the terms of termination match their clients' complaint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepizzaking Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Good point. If what the plaintiffs are saying is true, the Jets deserve to be punished. Step 1: the Jets hire masseuses. Step 2: Favre sends pictures to masseuses--pictures to prove he's a "standup guy," so to speak Step 3: The women complain about the pictures. (As one would normally expect from a woman under these circumstances.) Step 4: The Jets fire the women for complaining! To me, step 4 is the worst part of this whole sequence. It can go somewhat beyond that. As their employee, they might just be strictly liable for his actions if certain things can be shown. I'm not sure if they're going to make that argument but the jets could be on the hook even if they didn't terminate them wrongfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 UPDATE : Lawsuit settled... http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nyc-lawsuit-alleging-favre-sent-210933112--nfl.html NEW YORK (AP) -- A lawsuit filed by two massage therapists who sued retired NFL quarterback Brett Favre over claims he sent racy text messages has been settled, a lawyer for the women said Friday. Lawyer David Jaroslawicz wouldn't comment on the terms of the settlement, saying only that the case had been ''resolved and discontinued.'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swnybillsfan Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 It must have been hard to write. He probably wrote it in spurts. i imagine he took his time about it, after all, it was a bit of a sticky situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 It must have been hard to write. He probably wrote it in spurts. i imagine he took his time about it, after all, it was a bit of a sticky situation. Probably had to take a few cigarette breaks as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 Twitter and texting have become the athlete's hemlock recently. If I was an athlete I'd only use such medium for things like charities I wanted to support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 These girls must have really gotten the motherload of a payday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts