2019 AB Watch: Legal & Exemption List Posts Only

Status
Not open for further replies.

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,009
Zappala is the DA for Allegheny County in PA, in which Pittsburgh resides.

View: https://twitter.com/andysheehankdka/status/1171829228465266688?s=21
Not a surprise. But the implication floating around that that this is somehow more serious because she filed in federal court is baseless.


In the law of the United States, diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction in civil procedure in which a United States district court in the federal judiciary has the power to hear a civil case when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and where the persons that are parties are "diverse" in citizenship or state of incorporation (for corporations being legal persons), which generally indicates that they differ in state and/or nationality. Diversity jurisdiction and federal-question jurisdiction (jurisdiction over issues arising under federal law) constitute the two primary categories of subject matter jurisdiction in U.S. federal courts.
The United States Constitution, in Article III, § 2, gives the Congress the power to permit federal courts to hear diversity cases through legislation authorizing such jurisdiction. The provision was included because the Framers of the Constitution were concerned that when a case is filed in one state, and it involves parties from that state and another state, the state court might be biased toward the party from that state.[1] Congress first exercised that power and granted federal trial circuit courts diversity jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act of 1789. Diversity jurisdiction is currently codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

EDIT--Sorry if this is the wrong thread.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
26,598
AZ
Zappala is the DA for Allegheny County in PA, in which Pittsburgh resides.

View: https://twitter.com/andysheehankdka/status/1171829228465266688?s=21
Not surprising. I think this development plus the report (if true) that the accuser is willing to meet with the NFL puts the exempt list far more in play.

The NFL has cover now and we're no longer in the place where the argument that anyone can file a civil complaint really matters.

The fact that an in-season exemption list for a player on a one-year deal is very harsh is not likely to be much of a discussion. Nobody cares about the Patriots.
 

mwonow

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
5,047
The week of your wedding seems like a really odd time to file a lawsuit that is going to be National news.
no kidding. Planning to spend her honeymoon in...the headlines?
 

Dernells Casket n Flagon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
3,732
I'm not sure this article has been posted yet, but this has the most detailed and best timeline of who the accuser is, her relationship with Brown and some of the events that took place that I've seen so far.


I'm really not in a position where I can cast judgement, but it seems like some really weird stuff on both sides.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
With all the discussion of the timing of the lawsuit, why is no one discussing AB’s decision to sign with the Patriots within a few hours of becoming a free agent? Assuming no violations of the tampering rules occurred, AB had only a few hours to speak with NFL teams. Why not let that process play out for a couple of days? Was there any reason to think an offer that was there on Saturday would be gone on Monday or Tuesday?

I’m not saying AB’s decision to move quickly was driven by concern that a lawsuit was imminent, but that seems a lot more plausible than the notion that the plaintiff purposely waited on bringing a lawsuit while the drama played out in Oakland on “Hard Knocks,” then pulled the trigger right after he signed with New England for less money.

Edit: To be clear, I think the most likely scenario is that the two timelines (the woman’s decision to sue, and AB’s contract drama coming to a climax and resolution) were independent of one another.
 
Last edited:

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
36,069
With all the discussion of the timing of the lawsuit, why is no one discussing AB’s decision to sign with the Patriots within a few hours of becoming a free agent? Assuming no violations of the tampering rules occurred, AB had only a few hours to speak with NFL teams. Why not let that process play out for a couple of days? Was there any reason to think an offer that was there on Saturday would be gone on Monday or Tuesday?

I’m not saying AB’s decision to move quickly was driven by concern that a lawsuit was imminent, but that seems a lot more plausible than the notion that the plaintiff purposely waited on bringing a lawsuit while the drama played out in Oakland on “Hard Knocks,” then pulled the trigger right after he signed with New England for less money.
Because NE was where he wanted to be. That was known when the Steelers were trading him. It's essentially the same reason LeSean McCoy signed with his old coach in KC within hours of being cut. If the player knows what he wants, why wait?
 

Gash Prex

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 18, 2002
1,764
AB's attorney seems like he is heavy in self marketing/promotion in the sports world, and light on actual litigation experience. He has probably been handling the "pre-suit" discussions with the Plaintiff - time to bring in a specialized litigation firm. A firm with 2 lawyers should not litigate a matter IMO like this given the resources of AB.

Frankly, AB has known about this for some time and his "legal team" should have been conducting its own investigation, gathering affidavits, witness statements, texts, emails etc.....to hit back immediately when they knew it was going to be filed.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,635
With all the discussion of the timing of the lawsuit, why is no one discussing AB’s decision to sign with the Patriots within a few hours of becoming a free agent? Assuming no violations of the tampering rules occurred, AB had only a few hours to speak with NFL teams. Why not let that process play out for a couple of days? Was there any reason to think an offer that was there on Saturday would be gone on Monday or Tuesday?

I’m not saying AB’s decision to move quickly was driven by concern that a lawsuit was imminent, but that seems a lot more plausible than the notion that the plaintiff purposely waited on bringing a lawsuit while the drama played out in Oakland on “Hard Knocks,” then pulled the trigger right after he signed with New England for less money.
The bolded is not necessarily a safe assumption during the regular season. Each weekend, some player somewhere gets hurt, and suddenly a team's priorities change. There was a reasonable chance that any deal, not just New England's, would contain NLTBE incentives, and missing a game in Week 2 would hurt his chances of earning those incentives. Couple that with the fact that he apparently really wanted to play for the Pats, it's reasonable to assume he wanted to get it done when he did.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
39,367
deep inside Guido territory
AB's attorney seems like he is heavy in self marketing/promotion in the sports world, and light on actual litigation experience. He has probably been handling the "pre-suit" discussions with the Plaintiff - time to bring in a specialized litigation firm. A firm with 2 lawyers should not litigate a matter IMO like this given the resources of AB.

Frankly, AB has known about this for some time and his "legal team" should have been conducting its own investigation, gathering affidavits, witness statements, texts, emails etc.....to hit back immediately when they knew it was going to be filed.
Let's get Harvey Spector and Louis Litt on the case.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
8,590
So, thoughts on the timing here? Yesterday, of all days, is the day this gets filed? Obviously it didn’t spring up overnight but it feels a bit like an attempt to take advantage of him being in the news and force him into a settlement.
If I were Britney Taylor's lawyer, and I felt like settlement negotiations were stalled and/or moribund, and we had decided to file, I would have chosen a moment like this to file. That's true whether, in the actual abstract truth, the accusations are all true or are exaggerated as a money-grab (or somewhere in between). So long as they're not fabricated to the extent I risk being sanctioned, filing right now seems like the right tactical choice to apply pressure.

(IANAL, just saying that I don't draw a negative inference simply from the timing of the suit - though I do draw negative inferences from the lack of contact with police and various other aspects of the case)
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
9,248
Waltham, MA
If I were Britney Taylor's lawyer, and I felt like settlement negotiations were stalled and/or moribund, and we had decided to file, I would have chosen a moment like this to file. That's true whether, in the actual abstract truth, the accusations are all true or are exaggerated as a money-grab (or somewhere in between). So long as they're not fabricated to the extent I risk being sanctioned, filing right now seems like the right tactical choice to apply pressure.

(IANAL, just saying that I don't draw a negative inference simply from the timing of the suit - though I do draw negative inferences from the lack of contact with police and various other aspects of the case)
I have similar feelings about the report that she intends to meet with the NFL. That could purely be a play to help force a financial settlement. Or it could be a true victim who wants to see her accuser punished in any way possible (and also force a settlement for damages).
 

jose melendez

Earl of Acie
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2003
19,404
Washington DC
Here's where I've landed--he's the subject of a civil suit, not a criminal investigation. We the public have literally no idea if the accusations have merit. Until that changes, suspending him is absurd, unless the NFL or the Pats know more.

If he did it I wish she'd filed criminal charges, because rapists should go to jail.

Whenever there's a civil suit filed against a celebrity but not a criminal suit, I get very uncomfortable. I know the burden of proof is way lower in a civil suit, and I DA may not want to move forward if the case is borderline, but the civil suit does undercut a lot of the normal arguments for not wanting a trial--having one's name exposed, being dragged through the mud, etc. If forced to guess, I'd bet he committed a crime based on thre specificity of her story.. If her story doesn't hold up, given the specificity of her accusations, I suspect this is going to fall apart fast.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,085
Mansfield MA
With all the discussion of the timing of the lawsuit, why is no one discussing AB’s decision to sign with the Patriots within a few hours of becoming a free agent? Assuming no violations of the tampering rules occurred, AB had only a few hours to speak with NFL teams. Why not let that process play out for a couple of days? Was there any reason to think an offer that was there on Saturday would be gone on Monday or Tuesday?

I’m not saying AB’s decision to move quickly was driven by concern that a lawsuit was imminent, but that seems a lot more plausible than the notion that the plaintiff purposely waited on bringing a lawsuit while the drama played out in Oakland on “Hard Knocks,” then pulled the trigger right after he signed with New England for less money.

Edit: To be clear, I think the most likely scenario is that the two timelines (the woman’s decision to sue, and AB’s contract drama coming to a climax and resolution) were independent of one another.
He's already behind since he wasn't in camp. He already couldn't play week 1. The sooner he signs, the sooner he can start doing all the things he needs to do to get ready. That includes football stuff - getting playbooks, meeting with people formally or informally (we know he's been staying with Brady) - and all the stuff that any person who is moving needs to do - find a place to live, figure out schooling options for the kids (not sure if Brown's are staying with him or not), figure out how to move stuff or get things furnished, etc. It makes total sense he'd want to get moving as soon as possible, as virtually all players do this time of year.

Well, the good news I guess is they couldn't move forward with the claim. Let's hope it was frivolous. This whole situation seems messy, so who knows - they could be interrelated somehow.
At this point it wouldn't surprise me if Goodell suspends Brown under the Zeke / Big Ben idea of "you are making things look ugly for the league." He's got the rape charge, the child endangerment (guessing this is the one where he threw stuff out a balcony and almost hit a kid), a domestic violence charge that was dropped, and then the whole situation in Oakland, which also included screaming at and threatening to hit the GM ... that's a lot of stuff over not that long a period of time, and none of it makes the NFL look good.
 

oldetowneteam

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
15
In my practice, I've had to deal with some of these issues before, including securing undisclosed settlements and dealing with clear attempts at extortion. Based on the usual playbook, there are a few things at play:

The accuser's entire leverage to negotiate an undisclosed settlement is to threaten to file a public complaint, with shocking and lurid allegations. Usually before the complaint is filed publicly, if you agree to entertain any real settlement discussions (cloaked with the settlement privilege), you receive a draft copy of the complaint (or selected "evidence") and therefore have a good idea of what could be alleged. That isn't always the case, and you also know that the accuser might be withholding back information that could be damaging. That forces the attorney to drill down on what can be known and do a deep dive of all available evidence (emails/text messages etc.) and make a credibility assessment of your client as quickly as possible so that you understand where the bodies are buried and how this might play out. The entire dynamic forces you to proceed with caution, but you usually have a strong sense of what might be said publicly before it happens. A competent attorney in this area will make sure he or she has a crisis management firm on speed-dial and a statement ready to go if a complaint is filed. I question whether that happened in this case because the statement from the attorney doesn't quite fit that mold. It is not totally off, but it isn't quite on. It makes me question whether this particular attorney knows how to handle these types of issues or has enough experience in this spot. I'm not trying to knock the guy, but some gray hair, so to speak, is really valuable for these situations. And it makes me question whether Rosenhaus steered Brown in the right direction for finding an attorney to deal with these issues, if Rosenhaus knew. I would not be surprised if Brown brought in someone with more gravitas here, because it is frankly needed.

The complaint, as already noted above, is written for the media and public and designed for maximum shock value. That means you should not assume it is true, but you certainly can't rule out the possibility that some or all of it contains truthful information. Celebrity/high profile clients may chose to settle so that the complaint doesn't see the light of day merely because the threat of such allegations is so damaging to their brand that it will costs them much more to fight the allegations publicly than it will to pay. Payouts for something like this can be very steep, particularly after the "MeToo" and "TimesUp" movement, but still a better deal than a public fight. Now that the complaint is public, that damage is done and thus makes this case one that likely will drag on for awhile, because, absent a smoking gun, this becomes a he said/she said dynamic. That means this is a case that likely works its way through discovery, potentially proceeds to summary judgment (which likely will be denied, absent a glaring legal defect), and either settles or goes to trial, like the Derek Rose case.

In cases of clear extortion, as in, there is strong evidence to show either consensual conduct or that such conduct did not happen, clients may involve law enforcement, or get the accuser to back off by confronting them with the evidence. When the evidence is not as clear, and it comes off as more of a he said/she said dynamic, that option is not on the table. That's true even when there is a strong sense that the conduct was consensual.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
In my practice, I've had to deal with some of these issues before, including securing undisclosed settlements and dealing with clear attempts at extortion. Based on the usual playbook, there are a few things at play:

The accuser's entire leverage to negotiate an undisclosed settlement is to threaten to file a public complaint, with shocking and lurid allegations. Usually before the complaint is filed publicly, if you agree to entertain any real settlement discussions (cloaked with the settlement privilege), you receive a draft copy of the complaint (or selected "evidence") and therefore have a good idea of what could be alleged. That isn't always the case, and you also know that the accuser might be withholding back information that could be damaging. That forces the attorney to drill down on what can be known and do a deep dive of all available evidence (emails/text messages etc.) and make a credibility assessment of your client as quickly as possible so that you understand where the bodies are buried and how this might play out. The entire dynamic forces you to proceed with caution, but you usually have a strong sense of what might be said publicly before it happens. A competent attorney in this area will make sure he or she has a crisis management firm on speed-dial and a statement ready to go if a complaint is filed. I question whether that happened in this case because the statement from the attorney doesn't quite fit that mold. It is not totally off, but it isn't quite on. It makes me question whether this particular attorney knows how to handle these types of issues or has enough experience in this spot. I'm not trying to knock the guy, but some gray hair, so to speak, is really valuable for these situations. And it makes me question whether Rosenhaus steered Brown in the right direction for finding an attorney to deal with these issues, if Rosenhaus knew. I would not be surprised if Brown brought in someone with more gravitas here, because it is frankly needed.

The complaint, as already noted above, is written for the media and public and designed for maximum shock value. That means you should not assume it is true, but you certainly can't rule out the possibility that some or all of it contains truthful information. Celebrity/high profile clients may chose to settle so that the complaint doesn't see the light of day merely because the threat of such allegations is so damaging to their brand that it will costs them much more to fight the allegations publicly than it will to pay. Payouts for something like this can be very steep, particularly after the "MeToo" and "TimesUp" movement, but still a better deal than a public fight. Now that the complaint is public, that damage is done and thus makes this case one that likely will drag on for awhile, because, absent a smoking gun, this becomes a he said/she said dynamic. That means this is a case that likely works its way through discovery, potentially proceeds to summary judgment (which likely will be denied, absent a glaring legal defect), and either settles or goes to trial, like the Derek Rose case.

In cases of clear extortion, as in, there is strong evidence to show either consensual conduct or that such conduct did not happen, clients may involve law enforcement, or get the accuser to back off by confronting them with the evidence. When the evidence is not as clear, and it comes off as more of a he said/she said dynamic, that option is not on the table. That's true even when there is a strong sense that the conduct was consensual.
Do you, or any other legal types, have any thoughts on AB responding with what appears to be a civil suit concerning extortion rather than trying to press criminal charges?

(Obviously, that would be up to a prosecutor, but it doesn’t appear he’s made any attempt to get that to happen.)
 

EvilEmpire

Dope
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Apr 9, 2007
9,984
Washington
Good post, OTT.

Does anyone know if Rosenhaus or other AB representation mentioned going to law enforcement about the extortion demands yet? I think that is something Porzingis did.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
26,598
AZ
Do you, or any other legal types, have any thoughts on AB responding with what appears to be a civil suit concerning extortion rather than trying to press criminal charges?

(Obviously, that would be up to a prosecutor, but it doesn’t appear he’s made any attempt to get that to happen.)
You really have to have the goods to make that work. Extortion as a crime is harder to prove than the extortion counterclaim which really is a defense dressed up as a counterclaim.

Unless he has a really strong recording or writing that establishes the elements of the crime, going the criminal route is difficult because if it doesn't work, at least in the court of public opinion, you have taken a hit on your defense to a rape charge. Yeah, you can always say, "the criminal standards are higher," but that's a tough slog.

Extortion is a felony and it's hard to prove intent. In this context it is especially hard because it is not a crime to offer to forebear from bringing a civil claim in exchange for money. In fact, it happens every day. Without the text or e-mail or phone call recording it is very hard to show that isn't what's going on. In the defense-of-rape context, that doesn't matter so much. Whether or not it is technically the felony of extortion the behavior can be cast as something that a rape victim who is genuine does not actually do.

It's probably best not to get too distracted here by the extortion "counter suit." It is really just a defense dressed up as a counterclaim.
 

oldetowneteam

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
15
Do you, or any other legal types, have any thoughts on AB responding with what appears to be a civil suit concerning extortion rather than trying to press criminal charges?

(Obviously, that would be up to a prosecutor, but it doesn’t appear he’s made any attempt to get that to happen.)
Once you make a criminal referral (or try to), you've opened Pandora's box by interjecting someone else's discretion into the decision-making process. For allegations of sexual assault, that can be particularly dangerous because a prosecutor could decide that your client's version of what happened is wrong (i.e. not extortion) and that a sexual assault actually occurred. Unless you have clear-cut evidence to establish extortion, you'd be unlikely to seek law enforcement help related to sexual assault allegations since they often are he said/she said disputes.

Based on my experience, you may seek criminal referrals/law enforcement assistance when you can also show that the extortion is the product of an underlying crime and bringing in law enforcement will likely solve the problem without exposing the client to public ridicule. For example, a PA steals a celebrity's diary/computer/phone/etc that contains embarrassing or sensitive information and offers to return the item for a fee. Those situations happen more frequently than you hear about, and, depending on the circumstance, bringing in law enforcement can be quite useful to getting the item back.
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
3,998
Do you, or any other legal types, have any thoughts on AB responding with what appears to be a civil suit concerning extortion rather than trying to press criminal charges?

(Obviously, that would be up to a prosecutor, but it doesn’t appear he’s made any attempt to get that to happen.)
One of our esteemed litigators can correct me, but my recollection is that the extortion counterclaim would be a compulsory counterclaim under FRCP 13(a) because it “arises from the same transaction or occurrence” as her original claims, which means he has to make the counterclaim now, as part of this litigation, or he can’t make it later. So to the extent that he ever wants to make this claim in any civil proceeding, even just as leverage, this is his only chance.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
21,781
Melrose, MA
With all the discussion of the timing of the lawsuit, why is no one discussing AB’s decision to sign with the Patriots within a few hours of becoming a free agent? Assuming no violations of the tampering rules occurred, AB had only a few hours to speak with NFL teams. Why not let that process play out for a couple of days? Was there any reason to think an offer that was there on Saturday would be gone on Monday or Tuesday?

I’m not saying AB’s decision to move quickly was driven by concern that a lawsuit was imminent, but that seems a lot more plausible than the notion that the plaintiff purposely waited on bringing a lawsuit while the drama played out in Oakland on “Hard Knocks,” then pulled the trigger right after he signed with New England for less money.

Edit: To be clear, I think the most likely scenario is that the two timelines (the woman’s decision to sue, and AB’s contract drama coming to a climax and resolution) were independent of one another.
I think you likely have a point here, with one caveat. If you are AB, and you have this stuff going on in the background, and it concerns you enough to grab at the first offer you get in order to get the contract in place... they why shoot your way out of town in the first place?
If I were Britney Taylor's lawyer, and I felt like settlement negotiations were stalled and/or moribund, and we had decided to file, I would have chosen a moment like this to file. That's true whether, in the actual abstract truth, the accusations are all true or are exaggerated as a money-grab (or somewhere in between). So long as they're not fabricated to the extent I risk being sanctioned, filing right now seems like the right tactical choice to apply pressure.

(IANAL, just saying that I don't draw a negative inference simply from the timing of the suit - though I do draw negative inferences from the lack of contact with police and various other aspects of the case)
This is also a good point. I thought the timing seemed fishy, but I think what you suggest here is the more plausible explanation.
 

lambeau

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 7, 2010
1,123
Connecticut
According to Incarcerated Bob, Britney Taylor's friend contacted him Friday claiming to have taped her talking about extorting AB. His disseminating this might explain the timing of the lawsuit , if her team worked over the weekend to get to court ahead of the extortion story becoming the established narrative.
 

NDBoston

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 22, 2003
765
According to Incarcerated Bob, Britney Taylor's friend contacted him Friday claiming to have taped her talking about extorting AB. His disseminating this might explain the timing of the lawsuit , if her team worked over the weekend to get to court ahead of the extortion story becoming the established narrative.
Why is Incarcerated Bob being mentioned on this site in 2019? He's literally some guy in a basement with no inside connections which has been proven through the years.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
36,069
Why is Incarcerated Bob being mentioned on this site in 2019? He's literally some guy in a basement with no inside connections which has been proven through the years.
Because he's the one that leaked the IG conversations with someone reaching out to AB talking about extortion?
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
21,765
Why is Incarcerated Bob being mentioned on this site in 2019? He's literally some guy in a basement with no inside connections which has been proven through the years.
Well, that's a fair criticism about Incarerated Bob.

However, it's interesting to ask oneself why we are thinking this claim overall has any more credibility than an Incarerated Bob post isn't it?

This is all why we need to separate claims from facts. Right now, we have almost none of the latter on any of this in any direction
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,256
Maine
Thanks to this thread and your expertise I understand that Civil Trials have a lower bar. Thus its easier to win and "Punish" someone you say (and perhaps has) wronged you.

My problem is, is a 5-10 million dollar settlement really a punishment to AB or any celeb really? Sure each case is different (10Mil from Edelman would hurt more then 10 mil from Brady or AB). And sure forking over 10 mil even if your Mark Cuban stings a little. But at the end of the day does it really punish these guys? I guess they only get 1 Vacation home. Or 1 set of Bentleys. Or only a Dozen Armani suits.

I would have hoped that to punish people who committed actual crimes against you, that you would try to put them in jail rather then inconvenience them a bit. And One really doesnt preclude the other. You could have dont both...

In the end nothing "good" will come of this. AB will either be guilty or assumed guilty by millions. A criminal (assuming he did it) will go free. Or An innocent man (assuming he didnt do anything) will be tainted. The Victim will either get millions (which not being a woman I can only assume is a slight consolation for this barbaric treatment), or not get anything an get dragged through the court of public opinion.

Had she gone to the police there could have been an best possible (Criminal off the streets) ending even if not a good one. Maybe even some 16 yo potential future rapist would see that ending and realize that women are not play things for mens enjoyment. That doing so means REAL punishment.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
9,248
Waltham, MA
Why is Incarcerated Bob being mentioned on this site in 2019? He's literally some guy in a basement with no inside connections which has been proven through the years.
He had thisnstory before the lawsuit and anyone else, including a leaked DM scrolled through by AB personally. Like it or not, he’s part of the story.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
39,367
deep inside Guido territory
Representatives for New England Patriots receiver Antonio Brown and Britney Taylor were in discussions over the past few months, but agreed their communication would remain confidential until the filing of Taylor's civil sexual assault lawsuit, sources told ESPN on Thursday.

This, the sources say, is why the Patriots and the Oakland Raiders, who released Brown last weekend, would not have known about the matter unless there was a breach in the confidentiality of those discussions.

Though the exact nature of the talks has not been confirmed, it is common practice for settlement talks to occur before a civil filing.

One high-ranking team source said players are not obligated to notify a team about a civil case before signing a free-agent contract. When it rises to a criminal case, he says, that dynamic obviously changes.

 

Bernie Carbohydrate

writes the Semi-Fin
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2001
2,580
South Carolina via Dorchestah
Not a lawyer, but my anecdote.

Three years ago I wouldn't have had much understanding of civil vs. criminal, and I might have thought, "AB's being sued, there must be something there." Not anymore.

I work in a state agency and an individual in my unit was fired. He was fired for cause, after a lengthy process. I did not decide to fire him (that decision was above my pay grade), but I was in the chain of command and figured in the investigation that got him fired.

Fellow sues, civil case, wrongful dismissal, defamation, conspiracy, and some other stuff. Not only was my employer sued, but a number of individuals were named, including me.

The filing got picked up the local media -- TV coverage, a couple of newspaper stories. The pleading was liberally quoted in the media, including sections that accused me of taking actions that I didn't take, and saying things I did not say. My side, of course, "Does not comment on pending litigation."

I am a boring guy. One speeding ticket is my only brush with the law in the past two decades. Never been sued before. But the case made me look dishonest and vindictive.

It happens that year -- unrelated to the case -- I was looking for another job. I got quite a few interviews, and once I got to the interview stage the potential employer would google me, and lawsuit stories would be the first things to come up.

After a few interviews that got derailed by discussing a case I was not allowed to discuss, I started warning interviewers--"Before I get on a plane to interview with you, please know that this case is out there..."

I can't prove that this lawsuit cost me a job, but when the case was settled a few months later, the headhunter I'd been working with called me and urged me to get back on the market, since now "the legal issue won't be around your neck."

So whatever I think of AB (who seems like a scumbag), you won't find me supporting any disciplinary action against anyone based on a civil complaint. Notwithstanding Rule 11 up above, I know firsthand that a civil pleading can contain falsehoods.Not just differences of opinion, or matters of interpretation, but flat-out, did-not-happen fabrications.
 
Last edited:

Bongorific

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
5,777
Balboa Towers
Not a lawyer, but my anecdote.

Three years ago I wouldn't have had much understanding of civil vs. criminal, and I might have thought, "AB's being sued, there must be something there." Not anymore.

I work in a state agency and an individual in my unit was fired. He was fired for cause, after a lengthy process. I did not decide to fire him (that decision was above my page grade), but I was in the chain of command and figured in the investigation that got him fired.

Fellow sues, civil case, wrongful dismissal, defamation, conspiracy, and some other stuff. Not only was my employer sued, but a number of individuals were named, including me.

The filing got picked up the local media -- TV coverage, a couple of newspaper stories. The pleading was liberally quoted in the media, including sections that accused me of taking actions that I didn't take, and saying things I did not say. My side, of course, "Does not comment on pending litigation."

I am a boring guy. One speeding ticket is my only brush with the law in the past two decades. Never been sued before. But the case made me look dishonest and vindictive.

It happens that year -- unrelated to the case -- I was looking for another job. I got quite a few interviews, and once I got to the interview stage the potential employer would google me, and lawsuit stories would be the first things to come up.

After a few interviews that got derailed by discussing a case I was not allowed to discuss, I started warning interviewers--"Before I get on a plane to interview with you, please know that this case is out there..."

I can't prove that this lawsuit cost me a job, but when the case was settled a few months later, the headhunter I'd been working with called me and urged me to get back on the market, since now "the legal issue won't be around your neck."

So whatever I think of AB (who seems like a scumbag), you won't find me supporting any disciplinary action against anyone based on a civil complaint. Notwithstanding Rule 11 up above, I know firsthand that a civil pleading can contain falsehoods.Not just differences of opinion, or matters of interpretation, but flat-out, did-not-happen fabrications.
Sadly, par for the course. Almost every media outlet that reports on pending legal matters does so in a very reckless manner. It happens in criminal and civil cases. “The district attorney’s office states the defendant intentionally preyed on vulnerable seniors.” Or, “The lawsuit notes Mr. X ignored state laws requiring employers to provide safety harnessss to its employees, demonstrating a willful disregard for his employees’ safety.” 95% of the public assume the defendant is guilty in those stories because of the accusations. And a lot of the time, the only story published is the first one describing the complaint.
 

SeoulSoxFan

Dope
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
18,982
Report says AB rejected a $2m settlement offer with Taylor.


Dear legal minds, does info like this have any impact on a civil case/jury?
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
26,598
AZ
Settlement discussions are usually not admissible.

It’s theoretically possible that her willingness to take $2 million could become relevant if she “opens the door” in the extortion part of the case. Like if her lawyers were to let her testify that “this isn’t about the money.”
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
30,651
Hartford, CT
Report says AB rejected a $2m settlement offer with Taylor.


Dear legal minds, does info like this have any impact on a civil case/jury?
Settlement discussions are generally inadmissible as evidence the jury can consider in a civil trial, but there are certain exceptions that the judge may rely on to admit certain information into evidence.

It’s a pretty ‘facts and circumstances’ issue, and who knows what any given judge may decide. E.g. not everything you say during a purported settlement discussion is necessarily entitled to protection from admission, such as statement that you’re trying to ‘destroy the reputation’ of the counterparty. That statement could be relevant in discrediting the other party so the judge could let it in, even if a settlement offer can’t be admitted.

Caveat: I’m not a practicing trial lawyer, so I definitely don’t have the on the ground feel for this that others on SoSh might.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,886
Whoop-de-doo. Polygraph is pseudo-science nonsense.
It tends to show that her team is aiming for a quick strike settlement. Otherwise, you would not reference the polygraph exam in the complaint. By doing so, you’re making it fair game in discovery.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
26,598
AZ
If AB simply says something like "we had multiple consensual encounters during that time - including a time i jacked on her back while she was laying on my bed watching porn (not church) videos. She's lying about what happened because I wouldn't give her $$$ and (I think) because she was feeling guilty about cheating on her fiance," what's the counter?
Are you asking what her counter is? You already know the answer. It is: "he ejaculated on my back without consent while I was doing bible study and then he raped me. He also sent me aggressive repulsive texts."

I'm guessing the fact that Patriots fans on a Red Sox message board are skeptical is not really keeping her lawyers up at night.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,877
Boston, NY
The notion that the NFL is going through the process so that in the end it can take no action and say "we investigated and did not reach firm enough conclusions to act" seems plausible to me.

Marcell Dareous is pretty good precedent and nothing was done there.

All that would make a lot of sense if we did not have a commissioner who suspended the Patriots' best player on truly flimsy evidence and on the basis of a poorly constructed report. In short, logic means little when dealing with the Sheriff. Whether it's a hard on for the Patriots or general dumbassery or a combo platter, we are dealing with a ninny and we are liable to get an outcome that reflects as much.
 

koufax32

He'll cry if he wants to...
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2006
6,932
Duval
I assume this was done at the request of her lawyers. I assume the specific questions that were asked would be part of discovery. Would the league office ask what the questions were before looking at the poly as evidence? I’d like to think so, but that usually means we can expect the opposite.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
26,598
AZ
I assume this was done at the request of her lawyers. I assume the specific questions that were asked would be part of discovery. Would the league office ask what the questions were before looking at the poly as evidence? I’d like to think so, but that usually means we can expect the opposite.
They might ask for the report. And show it to their own expert.

The fact that she cites a polygraph likely means she passed something since they wouldn't reference it if she didn't. Then again, she might have taken 10 and passed one. That's all fair game in discovery now.

The fact that it's in the complaint is not surprising. It's a very high profile defendant. No matter how many questions are asked in voir dire, you always hope that you're going to get someone on your jury who saw coverage of the case even if the polygraph never comes in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.