Brady's appeal decision could come next week

[theogt]

No, he was convicted on two counts. He then appealed, and she didn't show up (after he paid her off), and the case was dropped.

After the case was dropped because the prosecutors told the judge they didn't believe the woman's prior testimony. Key fact, there, you know.

 

[erod]

It was overruled, meaning the conviction doesnt stand. Ergo, he wasnt convicted

It wasn't overruled. It was dropped when she didn't show up. She got paid.

 

[Nightman]

So why doesn't anybody want him? Why didn't Dallas lock him up for multiple years? Why didn't the league just drop the whole thing?

Excuse me if I don't check my brain at the door. This is plain as day.

He wasn't signed because of ALL THIS.

Here it is 14 months later and it still hasn't been resolved.

If they went by the bench trial you are so fond of and gave him 2 games then it would have been over last September.

Instead he is still on the Commissioner's Exempt List and his appeal from May 2015 hasn't been ruled on.

Dallas had to get very creative to even get this far.

And stop saying there was a pay off. You cannot provide one ounce of proof.

 

[phildadon86]

So why doesn't anybody want him? Why didn't Dallas lock him up for multiple years? Why didn't the league just drop the whole thing?

Excuse me if I don't check my brain at the door. This is plain as day.

I can guarantee you if he went to the Giants we wouldnt be hearing about this.

 

[phildadon86]

It wasn't overruled. It was dropped when she didn't show up. She got paid.

Again, do you have proof she was paid? If you dont, legally you are slandering Greg Hardys name, for someone that seems to be fond of using legal precedents to shape your arguments you are blatantly breaking it by accusing him of something that wasnt proven, What do i know though, im Canadian

 

[gmoney112]

So why doesn't anybody want him? Why didn't Dallas lock him up for multiple years? Why didn't the league just drop the whole thing?

Excuse me if I don't check my brain at the door. This is plain as day.

Yes it is plain as day.

It's simple. It's business.

Every team knew Goodell was going to use this case as a "mulligan" for the Ray Rice fiasco. They knew the NFL's image was under scrutiny, and Gooddell, as Supreme Overlord Judge McAwesome of the NFL, was going to do everything in his power to give Hardy not only the max, but to delay proceedings as long as possible. They knew he'd delay, and he'd appoint a rubber stamping lackey as arbitrator to support the decision, and it'd eventually have to be settled in Federal Court, with an unknown timeline.

I'm sure plenty of teams "wanted" him, who doesn't want a potential All-Pro DE? They didn't want to pay for a guy who they knew was probably going to get a ridiculous suspension from Goodell to start the season, and that's exactly what happened. Queue all my previous points, and it's easy to see why he didn't have many suitors. Also, a smaller point, with the big "domestic violence in the NFL" image going on, some teams probably saw him as an image issue.

The League isn't "dropping the whole thing" because they have an image, and they see it as tarnished, and they think they *have* to pursue this to the bitter end to help shine that image of theirs that's been quite scuffed due to their own actions in precedent.

As far as the settlement, settlements never imply guilt or innocence, so if he did "pay her off" that means absolutely nothing. It simply means it was easier to hand someone a check than to keep going through the legal process because the only ones getting paid in that scenario are the lawyers. It's easier and less stressful to settle 90% of the time.

Additionally, since you're so concerned about settlements implying guilt or innocence. The party that receives the settlement never settles if they have an open and shut case, or even a case with a high probability of winning in court. So the action of settling is not nearly as conclusive as you would lead people to believe.

 

[erod]

Again, do you have proof she was paid? If you dont, legally you are slandering Greg Hardys name, for someone that seems to be fond of using legal precedents to shape your arguments you are blatantly breaking it by accusing him of something that wasnt proven, What do i know though, im Canadian

Legally, I'm doing no such thing. This is a message board. And I've only heard 10,000 people in the media say the same thing.

 

[phildadon86]

Legally, I'm doing no such thing. This is a message board. And I've only heard 10,000 people in the media say the same thing.

Ive heard 10000 people say that Tony Romo sucks, doesnt mean its true. So i dont repeat it and state it as fact.

 

[jrumann59]

He is not have the charge expunged because it does not exist but some states keep arrests and charges associated with that arrest on file. He is basically getting his arrest record expunged.

 

[erod]

Ive heard 10000 people say that Tony Romo sucks, doesnt mean its true. So i dont repeat it and state it as fact.

This is so patently obvious.

They settled out of court. He agreed to say nothing. She agreed to say nothing. They signed to that effect. She got paid.

This happens ALL the time, at least with people who can afford it. He can. He did. It's settled between them. And she disappeared from sight as agreed.

Again, I don't have to be "Captain Deductive Reasoning" to figure this out.

 

[gmoney112]

This is so patently obvious.

They settled out of court. He agreed to say nothing. She agreed to say nothing. They signed to that effect. She got paid.

This happens ALL the time, at least with people who can afford it. He can. He did. It's settled between them. And she disappeared from sight as agreed.

Again, I don't have to be "Captain Deductive Reasoning" to figure this out.

I love it when people post their own opinion as fact.

Where did you get your Law degree from?

 

[erod]

I love it when people post their own opinion as fact.

Where did you get your Law degree from?

Learned it the last thousand times this same thing played out.

The charges were dropped against Ray Rice, too, you know.

The NFL saw the pictures. They gave him 10 games. And you think he's innocent? Really?

 

[gmoney112]

Learned it the last thousand times this same thing played out.

The charges were dropped against Ray Rice, too, you know.

The NFL saw the pictures. They gave him 10 games. And you think he's innocent? Really?

Everyone and their mom saw the Ray Rice video.

And I already posted a reply that you conveniently chose to ignore because it was actually a lot closer to the truth than your opinion that is complete fiction.

Your "deductive reasoning" skills, as you so call it, fail to take into account any circumstance so it's hardly deductive, and it's hardly reason, it's 100% opinion.

The fact that you cannot ascertain why Goodell would have reason to suspend him 10 games, or even have the basic rudimentary understanding of the elements of a settlement offer, tells me and everyone else that you're not only completely unqualified to state such an "opinion" as certainty, and that you're too stubborn to even attempt to "reason deductively", as you so aptly put.

Stick to writing, you're good at that.

 

[Nightman]

Learned it the last thousand times this same thing played out.

The charges were dropped against Ray Rice, too, you know.

The NFL saw the pictures. They gave him 10 games. And you think he's innocent? Really?

Provide one quote, one document, one check, one shred of evidence............crickets

and most people settle before they go to court, not after

 

[DejectedFan1996]

Everyone and their mom saw the Ray Rice video.

And I already posted a reply that you conveniently chose to ignore because it was actually a lot closer to the truth than your opinion that is complete fiction.

Your "deductive reasoning" skills, as you so call it, fail to take into account any circumstance so it's hardly deductive, and it's hardly reason, it's 100% opinion.

The fact that you cannot ascertain why Goodell would have reason to suspend him 10 games, or even have the basic rudimentary understanding of the elements of a settlement offer, tells me and everyone else that you're not only completely unqualified to state such an "opinion" as certainty, and that you're too stubborn to even attempt to "reason deductively", as you so aptly put.

Stick to writing, you're good at that.

I'm guessing you made a quick edit but ouch at calling him an "internet lawyer

 

[Rogah]

This is so patently obvious.

They settled out of court. He agreed to say nothing. She agreed to say nothing. They signed to that effect. She got paid.

This happens ALL the time, at least with people who can afford it. He can. He did. It's settled between them. And she disappeared from sight as agreed.

Again, I don't have to be "Captain Deductive Reasoning" to figure this out.

+1. It is so obvious. In order to believe there was no settlement, you have to believe:

1) The DA prosecuting the case doesn't know what he is talking about, and more importantly...
2) Hardy was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in the bench trial, but the victim, who had a lawyer representing her (not something you typically see victims do), then completely disappeared (figuratively speaking) without so much as trying to seek a single dime in a civil court of law, which has a lower burden of proof than a criminal court.

Scenario #1 is unlikely. Scenario #2 is not even remotely plausible.

 

[Rogah]

Provide one quote, one document, one check, one shred of evidence............crickets

"I can tell you at this point that we are exploring all options the she has at this point including legal remedies up and to including a civil lawsuit." - Daniel Zamora (Nicole Holder's attorney), 7/16/2014

Then, after having Hardy by the short 'n curlies, she conveniently, completely disappeared (figuratively speaking).

Keeping in mind that Hardy had just made $13 million, and would have a lot more money at stake going forward, it is not even remotely plausible that she got the verdict she wanted in the bench trial, threatened to sue, then totally dropped the matter with nary a word of complaint or even a lawyer firing a warning shot across the bow without receiving any payoff.

 

[Jarv]

This is so patently obvious.

They settled out of court. He agreed to say nothing. She agreed to say nothing. They signed to that effect. She got paid.

This happens ALL the time, at least with people who can afford it. He can. He did. It's settled between them. And she disappeared from sight as agreed.

Again, I don't have to be "Captain Deductive Reasoning" to figure this out.

In a court of law that is known as speculation, but whatever dude some people think we never landed on the moon.

 

[Sage3030]

+1. It is so obvious. In order to believe there was no settlement, you have to believe:

1) The DA prosecuting the case doesn't know what he is talking about, and more importantly...
2) Hardy was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in the bench trial, but the victim, who had a lawyer representing her (not something you typically see victims do), then completely disappeared (figuratively speaking) without so much as trying to seek a single dime in a civil court of law, which has a lower burden of proof than a criminal court.

Scenario #1 is unlikely. Scenario #2 is not even remotely plausible.

If he paid her off to not show up, that would be illegal.

Where is the court case on record?

Where is he being charged with this crime?

The whole thought came from a butthurt DA that failed. He said one sentence with the word May in it and people go he did it! May does not equal did.

The witness was unreliable and that had nothing to do with Hardy. Conflicting stories, not showing up to things on her own(no speculation of a settlement then) having her lawyer quit. The DA had no case. He did the right thing by dropping it.

Edit: what her first lawyer said, where's the case on record?

 

[Rogah]

If he paid her off to not show up, that would be illegal.

Out of court settlements happen all the time. The very worst he could get hit with would be witness tampering, but even then you would still have an uncooperative, absentee "victim" so it would be just as difficult/impossible to sucessfully prosecute without Holder's cooperation as the original DV allegations.