Brady's appeal decision could come next week

[Plumfool]

Fact: She hired an attorney that specializes in civil litigation and negotiations
Fact: Hardy was found guilty in the bench trial
Fact: Her attorney said she was going to sue
Fact: Hardy made approx. $13 million from September to December
Fact: The DA, who is closer to this than any of us, stated there was a settlement
Fact: All of a sudden and from out of nowhere, she stopped pursuing the case, filed no lawsuit, and neither she nor her lawyer discusses it with anyone (media, lawyers, prosecutors, etc)

The logical deduction that there had to have been a settlement isn't just staring you right in the face, it is beating you mercilessly over the head with a baseball bat.

Which attorney said she was going to sue?

 

[Rogah]

Which attorney said she was going to sue?

Daniel Zamora. I provided the quote in the other thread. He was speaking legalese, making it quite clear she had every intention to sue Hardy.

 

[Rogah]

Oh really? Which of my above facts are wrong? Please tell me what I have stated as "Fact" in that post which is not true.

I look forward to you ignoring that question.

<crickets chirping>

 

[Kevinicus]

Daniel Zamora. I provided the quote in the other thread. He was speaking legalese, making it quite clear she had every intention to sue Hardy.

More proof you don't understand what a fact is.

 

[Kevinicus]

But 3,5, and 6 are factually inaccurate...as has been pointed out to you countless times. As have many other legitimate facts that you have chosen to ignore.

 

[Rogah]

But 3,5, and 6 are factually inaccurate...as has been pointed out to you countless times. As have many other legitimate facts that you have chosen to ignore.

There is absolutely nothing inaccurate about 3, 5 or 6. I have already provided the exact quotes proving so.

Seriously. It's ok to admit that not everyone who wears the star is a saint. Seriously. It won't hurt. You can still be a fan. Seriously.

 

[Nightman]

There is absolutely nothing inaccurate about 3, 5 or 6. I have already provided the exact quotes proving so.

Seriously. It's ok to admit that not everyone who wears the star is a saint. Seriously. It won't hurt. You can still be a fan. Seriously.

Isn't there a Brady appeal you need to be working on?

 

[Rogah]

Isn't there a Brady appeal you need to be working on?

No, they don't need me to show the fact that those footballs were inflated to within range of where science says they ought to have been given the weather conditions that night.

 

[Fizziksman]

he is getting 4 games because the 5th game back is against the Colts. The storyline writes itself tbh

 

[Nightman]

No, they don't need me to show the fact that those footballs were inflated to within range of where science says they ought to have been given the weather conditions that night.

And the Colts footballs and the all the balls the were re-inflated at halftime were miraculously immune to these laws of science

 

[JohnsKey19]

He will definitely be on the field for the Cowboys game. The ruling will be negotiated and worded in a way that basically will absolve Brady of any wrongdoing. He may get a fine for not being forthcoming during the investigation.

0 games....significant fine

 

[Rogah]

And the Colts footballs and the all the balls the were re-inflated at halftime were miraculously immune to these laws of science

No, those 4 Colts balls all had time to warm prior to being measured.

Really, it's all very high school level physics. Maybe that's why you're having such difficulty?

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/On-the-Wells-report.pdf

 

[Nightman]

No, those 4 Colts balls all had time to warm prior to being measured.

Really, it's all very high school level physics. Maybe that's why you're having such difficulty?

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/On-the-Wells-report.pdf

Just like the Patriot footballs were warmed up back in the locker room. They weren't remeasured outside.

If you think this is difficult physics it explains everything.

 

[Rogah]

Just like the Patriot footballs were warmed up back in the locker room. They weren't remeasured outside.

If you think this is difficult physics it explains everything.

I didn't say it was difficult physics, I said it was high school level physics.

Obviously your mind equates "high school level physics" with "difficult physics."

 

[Nightman]

I didn't say it was difficult physics, I said it was high school level physics.

Obviously your mind equates "high school level physics" with "difficult physics."

You said difficult not me

 

[Rogah]

You said difficult not me

I said "Really, it's all very high school level physics. Maybe that's why you're having such difficulty?"

You agreed that it was very difficult for you to understand. Here's the link to that report again. Let me know which parts you're having such difficulty with:

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/On-the-Wells-report.pdf

bknight's obsessive need to have the last word coming in 3... 2........... 1.....................

 

[Nightman]

I said "Really, it's all very high school level physics. Maybe that's why you're having such difficulty?"

You agreed that it was very difficult for you to understand. Here's the link to that report again. Let me know which parts you're having such difficulty with:

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/On-the-Wells-report.pdf

bknight's obsessive need to have the last word coming in 3... 2........... 1.....................

You can't even get my name right and it's on the page.......Pot meet Kettle

 

[Kaiser]

If Hardy did in fact pay her off for not testifying, then why won't she be charged with extortion? Two wrongs don't make it right.

There are two different issues, which Rogah has been willfully ignoring since the beginning. There is a criminal charge against Hardy and then the potential for a civil lawsuit against Hardy by Holder. They are two completely different things - i.e. OJ Simpson being acquitted in a Criminal Trial but losing the Civil Trial.

The DA claims he has evidence of Hardy reaching a settlement with Holder on the Civil Case and implies that this influences the Criminal case. There are a whole bunch of reasons why that isn't the case and there is every indication the DA was covering his butt in a high profile case that he should have sorted out much earlier in the process.

1 - Its common to settle civil cases if you are completely innocent. The trial will cost 500K or more and most nuisance accusers will settle for 25K or 50K.

2 - If the DA believes Holder is taking a payoff to avoid testifying in the criminal case, its a felony and he has a legal responsibility to prosecute everyone concerned for it. He didn't.

3 - Holder didn't cooperate even before the bench trial hearing and in fact, didn't want to talk to police the night of the incidence when Hardy called 911. She tried to leave without speaking to the police and only made the accusation of DV when the officer on the scene asked her "Don't you want to hear what they are saying about you inside?" At that point she came up with the story about Hardy beating her to the point that "she was covered head to toe in bruises". (She said at the bench trial that Hardy only choked her without leaving any bruises).

4 - There is no evidence whatsoever of the payoff, and Hardy's lawyers told the NFL there was no payoff. That kind of thing can be tracked and lying about it would blow up Hardy's defense so it seems unlikely that they would lie about it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There are two different issues, which Rogah has been willfully ignoring since the beginning. There is a criminal charge against Hardy and then the potential for a civil lawsuit against Hardy by Holder. They are two completely different things - i.e. OJ Simpson being acquitted in a Criminal Trial but losing the Civil Trial.

The DA claims he has evidence of Hardy reaching a settlement with Holder on the Civil Case and implies that this influences the Criminal case. There are a whole bunch of reasons why that isn't the case and there is every indication the DA was covering his butt in a high profile case that he should have sorted out much earlier in the process.

1 - Its common to settle civil cases if you are completely innocent. The trial will cost 500K or more and most nuisance accusers will settle for 25K or 50K.

2 - If the DA believes Holder is taking a payoff to avoid testifying in the criminal case, its a felony and he has a legal responsibility to prosecute everyone concerned for it. He didn't.

3 - Holder didn't cooperate even before the bench trial hearing and in fact, didn't want to talk to police the night of the incidence when Hardy called 911. She tried to leave without speaking to the police and only made the accusation of DV when the officer on the scene asked her "Don't you want to hear what they are saying about you inside?" At that point she came up with the story about Hardy beating her to the point that "she was covered head to toe in bruises". (She said at the bench trial that Hardy only choked her without leaving any bruises).

4 - There is no evidence whatsoever of the payoff, and Hardy's lawyers told the NFL there was no payoff. That kind of thing can be tracked and lying about it would blow up Hardy's defense so it seems unlikely that they would lie about it.

He's been told all of that. He is still going to just repeat what you were replying to. He has been doing it for months at this point. It is just how he rolls. I find it to be rank intellectual cowardice and dishonesty.

 

[Rogah]

2 - If the DA believes Holder is taking a payoff to avoid testifying in the criminal case, its a felony and he has a legal responsibility to prosecute everyone concerned for it. He didn't.

Yeah. Sure. He is going to prosecute the victim of a domestic violence assault.

That would be a great career move for the DA! The public loves seeing women who get beat up by professional athletes end up being the ones who get prosecuted!