Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[ArdmoreRyno]

Is Pat McAfee available? 

[RiotAct]

Just now, ArdmoreRyno said:

Is Pat McAfee available? 

give me Tom Tupa or give me death!

[Mattymafia]

1 minute ago, SCBills said:

Imagine being sued by the king of the simps. 
 

This lawyer is the same kind of guy that incessantly comments on the pics of IG models. 

Yo, his ripoff report says he got fired from coaching his sons baseball team for sending bullying emails to the parents of a kid that wasnt very good. This guy is a buffoon. 

[The Red King]

Honestly, the lawyer's conduct has me questioning.  He's trying to win in the court of public opinion, which leads me to think he can't win in a legal court and is pushing for a settlement.  His behavior is utterly unprofessional.  I'm thinking when actually pressed on things, this guy will claim his witnesses will no longer come forward, they were intimidated but *trust me* they did see everything.

 

Again, the accusations might well be true, but the more this lawyer goes on, the more skeptical I'm getting.

[PromoTheRobot]

Just now, ArdmoreRyno said:

Is Pat McAfee available? 

Jake Schum is.

[The Wiz]

58 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

Wow 118 pages that 56 page estimate was a little off

Depends on how you look at it. 

 

It might be 118 pages but 103 of the pages are the same things over and over. 

[BarleyNY]

6 minutes ago, mannc said:

I agree that teams have extremely broad leeway with regard to releasing players, but the players still have protections under the CBA in that regard.

Like what? The only one I know of is if they have a football related injury. Other than that it’s just contractual obligations, which are not part of the CBA. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by BarleyNY

[mannc]

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I don’t doubt that he would say that.  I’m sure the witnesses are experts in that field.  (Yes, that was sarcastic.). A lot of this is posturing.  But I’ll say that Araiza better start fighting back because the alleged vic’s lawyer is killing him on the PR front. 

Absolutely true.  A lot of lawyers (especially defense lawyers) think it's always better to say nothing to the media...it's a common misconception and it could not be more wrong.

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, The Red King said:

Honestly, the lawyer's conduct has me questioning.  He's trying to win in the court of public opinion, which leads me to think he can't win in a legal court and is pushing for a settlement.  His behavior is utterly unprofessional.  I'm thinking when actually pressed on things, this guy will claim his witnesses will no longer come forward, they were intimidated but *trust me* they did see everything.

 

Again, the accusations might well be true, but the more this lawyer goes on, the more skeptical I'm getting.

 

Or he knows he is up against a university and police force that have actively worked to squelch this story for MONTHS and the only way to get traction is to get the public behind it. Unfortunate on all fronts right there.

[MWK]

4 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Jake Schum is.

Schum sucks and hasn’t been in the NFL for 6 years. Jordan Berry or the loser of Kern/Stonehouse in Tennessee please

Edited August 26, 2022 by MWK

[Mango]

3 minutes ago, Eastside Oasis said:

Wow, that journal.  Regardless of the facts of this situation, that may be the most heartbreaking thing I've ever started to read.  Could not get far.

 

Can you repost. Having difficulty finding a copy of the actual entry. 

 

[Matt_In_NH]

41 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Again, you’re assuming he was involved in the sexual assault. You are completely over looking the possibility they had a consensual encounter prior and separately from the assault by the other individuals later in the night.  
 

 

I am definitely making that assumption.  Given the transcript in the article, that seems valid.  I totally get we dont have all the facts.

[RunTheBall]

7 minutes ago, Awwufelloff said:

A lawyer wouldn't say there is a tape unless there was, 0% chance of that. 

You can’t seriously believe lawyers won’t lie for their client, and this guy seems like a bottom feeding ambulance chaser. Probably because no one else would take the case and he’s looking to cash in. Not saying she wasn’t assaulted, just that her lawyer absolutely would lie.

[YoloinOhio]

12 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I don’t doubt that he would say that.  I’m sure the witnesses are experts in that field.  (Yes, that was sarcastic.). A lot of this is posturing.  But I’ll say that Araiza better start fighting back because the alleged vic’s lawyer is killing him on the PR front. 

I see it as the opposite. The twitter lawyer is making his side look less credible with his approach. Araiza’s lawyer has gone on record on video and asserted his side. It’s an ongoing criminal investigation as well. How else would you like Matt to fight back at this point? All we have are the civil lawsuit, the twitter lawyer tweets, Matt’s side via his attorney, and the team statement. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by YoloinOhio

[Wayne Arnold]

17 minutes ago, gobills404 said:

So her attorney:

1)is going on an unprofessional twitter tirade

2) has posted peoples emails, phone numbers, text conversations, and now his clients personal diary

3) posted a text conversation where he withdrew and “offer” he previously made to Araizas attorney

4) waited until right after Araiza made the team to file the case

5) follows a bunch of pornstars on twitter

 

And yet somehow people are still taking their word at face value and calling for Araizas head

 

One thing about this is certain: Jane Doe's lawyer is a giant turd.

 

 

[CaliBills]

The Bills need to suspend/inactive Araiza until the DA either presses charges on him or clears his name.

 

Especially if they want to retain fans which = $$$ because we all know people read headlines or 1 article and come away assuming.  

 

 

  

 

 

[Aussie Joe]

Just now, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Or he knows he is up against a university and police force that have actively worked to squelch this story for MONTHS and the only way to get traction is to get the public behind it. Unfortunate on all fronts right there.

Appreciate things are a bit different on your side of the equator… but why would the police “actively work to squelch the story”?
 

Trying to understand how they benefit by keeping this quiet..

[The Red King]

2 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Or he knows he is up against a university and police force that have actively worked to squelch this story for MONTHS and the only way to get traction is to get the public behind it. Unfortunate on all fronts right there.

 

See my last line...

 

[quote]Again, the accusations might well be true, but the more this lawyer goes on, the more skeptical I'm getting.[/quote]

 

I am not saying things did not go exactly as described.  I just want to actually see/hear evidence before I pass judgement.  Some people here are ready to cut him on accusation alone.

[djp14150]

14 minutes ago, K-9 said:

This is an interesting thought as California law requires the consent of both parties when it comes to recording phone conversations. Unless California law excludes recordings made by law enforcement agencies and if Araiza did not consent, then it was illegally obtained. 

Police would have to obtain a warrant to record only if that is allowed under California law without others consent.  The police can not just record a phone call without your consent or warrant.  Doing so knowingly violates the law which could affect the police careers involved.  It’s the same as if police planted evidence on you like slipping drugs in your pocket then claiming the found it on you.

 

Obtaining evidence illegally is in inadmissible  in court including other evidence found directly from that illegal act.

Edited August 26, 2022 by djp14150

[JohnBonhamRocks]

1 minute ago, Wayne Arnold said:

 

One thing about this is certain: Jane Doe's lawyer is a giant turd.

 

 

 

Total D-Bag. I agree that this only makes his client look less credible.