DMN: Sporting News writer: Greg Hardy has rendered himself 'almost untouchable'

[JoeKing]

Just a word of caution. Before you go telling people "get their facts" straight maybe you need to get your own straight.

First, you provided no citation for your quote.

Second, the Internet is a world of information, meaning you can find facts from a number of sources. So why do I say the DA gave testimony to the payment/settlement?



There is no "I think" he (Hardy) had reached a settlement. He makes a definitive statement, and in this context, to a judge.

More evidence for my point:



Again, no "I think Hardy settled." Murray is telling A JUDGE that there was a settlement.

Your anger at anyone who would DARE speak against Hardy clouds your judgment and your ability to discern context.

I don't want to get into another long, drawn-out argument about Hardy's case. My point is understandable and comprehensible to people who don't have their head so far up Hardy's behind they can blink his eyes for him.

Get my facts straight?

What part of that contradicts what I said? We both agree, there was a settlement. You think it was financial but still have not provided a direct quote from DA Murray saying exactly that... saying other things, yes but not that the settlement was financial. Murray telling a judge there was a settlement is not the same as saying it was a financial settlement. Look, I don't give a crap about Hardy. So stop trying mischaracterize my posts in that slant. I have a theory about what happen. I don't need to "provide citations" for what I think. The problem here isn't that your point isn't being understood or comprehended, it is. If the DA said it was a financial settlement then you should be able to provide a citation proving he said just that, but you haven't done it. Why? If the DA did as you claim then where is money mentioned in his statement about the settlement? It's not there. He somehow forgot to be specific... or did he? Maybe it was his intention to be ambiguous. I'm not saying my theory is fact. I'm just saying until the DA says the settlement was of a financial nature, you should stop presenting your theory as fact.

 

[tyke1doe]

He was caught hiding exculpatory evidence during the bench trial and allowed Holder to perjure herself.

All the talk of a settlement is pure speculation and CYA. A civil suit was never even filed.

But you continue to beleive the one thing that makes him look bad and overlook everything that doesn't

Link or quotation that the DA was merely speculating?
Please?

 

[4lifecowboy]

Sigh.



You do understand that when the DA's office makes a statement, it's not to the JUDGE but to the press?
The phraseology that an attorney uses in making a statement to the press is not the same way he speaks to a judge.

Second, "reliable information" is the evidence upon which a DA would present to a judge to validate his claim that a settlement has been reached. What? You think a DA tells a judge that a settlement has been reached without "reliable information"?

Third, where does the link offer that the DA "thinks" a settlement has been made, which is what I asked you to produce? You give me a link that says he has "reliable information." Reliable information isn't merely what a person thinks.

Fourth, thank you for providing a link. You made the claim, I didn't. I'm not responsible for combing this gigantic thread to find your proof for you. Nevertheless, your link doesn't refute the fact that a settlement had been reached. Rather, it supports my argument.

Thank you.

Your article doesn't provide evidence a settlement has been reached. The whole premise of your argument rest on the statement that the DA made is in fact a fact, when in actuality that statement isn't a fact, it is an accusation because there is no evidence to back his claim. Provide a link that tells me the evidence the DA presented to the judge that backs his statement.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

An agreement to avoid testifying in a criminal proceeding is a felony in just about every municipality in the western world. Hardy would have been a fool to not get a civil settlement out of her. The DA could have subpoenaed her nonetheless and Hardy would have no grounds for complaint.

There was a running joke while all of this was unfolding how the Charlotte PD couldn't find Ms. Holder and people would forward her snapchat etc showing where she was. She was out skiing, eating, and all number of things.

Subpoenas are hard.

 

[tyke1doe]

The DA did state that the witness was paid off, but that doesn't make it a fact.

My word, people.
The DA told this to the judge. He didn't say this on a street corner or in a bar. He says this in open court.

 

[tyke1doe]

You miss my point, show me the DA's proof that there was a payoff other then him making a statement of it. All he did was make a statement about what he believes, he never offer evidence that this transaction actually took place, the rest of the article talks about why he believes it, can't find the witness, her lawyer isn't providing information ect. So what he said to a judge he isn't under oath, and it wasn't a trial. That statement you are citing as proof is no more then the DA's opinion on what HE BELIEVES happened. I say so what if he said it, he hasn't proved it so it still remains his opinion. I don't care how the reporter quotes it in his article.

Uh, testimony in court before a judge is not merely an opinion.
I've been in court. I've covered both civil and criminal cases. And I can tell you that attorneys don't routinely tell judges lies.

Ask any lawyer on this board if what I'm saying is true.

 

[Kaiser]

My word, people.
The DA told this to the judge. He didn't say this on a street corner or in a bar. He says this in open court.

The DA said it in the Document DISMISSING THE CASE. Was the Judge going to refuse to dismiss the case because he wanted more information?

 

[Nightman]

Link or quotation that the DA was merely speculating?
Please?

Proof of a settlement.....please

 

[Kaiser]

Ask any lawyer on this board if what I'm saying is true.

Every lawyer on this board, especially the ones that have practiced in NC, are on our side of the argument and not yours.

Its been posted repeatedly, for months on end, and its one of the many things you keep ignoring.

 

[Miller]

Uh, testimony in court before a judge is not merely an opinion.
I've been in court. I've covered both civil and criminal cases. And I can tell you that attorneys don't routinely tell judges lies.

Ask any lawyer on this board if what I'm saying is true.

True. You have 3 people on here right now who are ignoring real life facts and what goes on in court to fit their agenda because they didn't have the DA call them and personally tell them about it

 

[tyke1doe]

A Journalist who has never heard of NC DA Mike Nifong.

Here, let me do your work for you again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong

Did you actually read the case you cited? Did you actually read my comment?

First, Nifong wasn't disbarred because he directly lied to a judge. He was disbarred because of his handling of the case. He was so aggressive in his approach to the case that he didn't do the necessary work to determine whether charges should or shouldn't be brought against the Duke lacrosse players.

So tell me exactly how Nifong's situation - who tries to STRENGTHEN his case - relates to Murray who tells a judge a settlement has been reached which actually HURTS his case?

Second, so you're comparing Murray to Nifong. Well, if that's the case, then where are the charges being brought against Murray if he's lying?

See, this is what happens when you merely grab a Wikipedia link in an attempt to bolster your argument. You really don't know what it is being argued. You'll noticed that I first said that attorneys don't routinely lie to judges. And I said this because this isn't how the system generally works. You sought to invalidate everything I said and my knowledge of the system by finding a case that doesn't even apply.
But, again, my statement stands. Attorneys don't generally lie to judges. And if they do, they are disciplined, as Nifong was.
So where's Murray's discipline if he was lying?

I'll wait for another Wikipedia link.

 

[4lifecowboy]

Uh, testimony in court before a judge is not merely an opinion.
I've been in court. I've covered both civil and criminal cases. And I can tell you that attorneys don't routinely tell judges lies.

Ask any lawyer on this board if what I'm saying is true.

Well if that was the case after every trial an attorney would have to be arrested. When one looses his case ultimately he must have lied before a judge.

 

[tyke1doe]

The DA did state that the witness was paid off, but that doesn't make it a fact. He cites not being able to locate the witness nor get information from her attorney so how does he know she reached a civil agreement for sure? If he had proof of that along with evidence he could have proceeded to prosecute Hardy, but the truth is he didn't have enough evidence in either. One more note in a trial, prosecutors routinely lable defendants before convictions ie " The defendant ruthlessly carried out this crime with no remorse" yet that his hardly a fact until proven, all it really is is his opinion and until proven that is what it remains. So quotes from a DA that isn't backed with the proof of a payoff is no more valid than anyone elses opinion in my eyes.

Uh, in court it is. When you're in court, you're under sworn testimony. Again, it's not merely an opinion you're dealing with or meaningless words, not when you are giving information in a court proceeding.

Just out of curiosity. Have you ever been to court? Are you an attorney? Have you had to observe a court case? In person?

 

[tyke1doe]

What part of that contradicts what I said? We both agree, there was a settlement. You think it was financial but still have not provided a direct quote from DA Murray saying exactly that... saying other things, yes but not that the settlement was financial. Murray telling a judge there was a settlement is not the same as saying it was a financial settlement. Look, I don't give a crap about Hardy. So stop trying mischaracterize my posts in that slant. I have a theory about what happen. I don't need to "provide citations" for what I think. The problem here isn't that your point isn't being understood or comprehended, it is. If the DA said it was a financial settlement then you should be able to provide a citation proving he said just that, but you haven't done it. Why? If the DA did as you claim then where is money mentioned in his statement about the settlement? It's not there. He somehow forgot to be specific... or did he? Maybe it was his intention to be ambiguous. I'm not saying my theory is fact. I'm just saying until the DA says the settlement was of a financial nature, you should stop presenting your theory as fact.

Sigh.

What other settlement would there be than a financial settlement? This isn't a desegregation lawsuit where two parties agree to settle some institutional wrong that can't be compensated financially.

When I say it's a financial settlement, I say so on the basis of what is normal in these situations. And in many of these cases, especially ones of this nature, the settlement involves money.

Because this is the norm, it is REASONABLE to conclude that the settlement involves money.

If the settlement did not involve money, then it would necessary to clarify what settlement.

You're offering Internet theories that aren't connected to how the real world functions.

 

[Nightman]

Link or quotation that the DA was merely speculating?
Please?

The state claims it has "reliable knowledge" that Holder and Hardy reached a civil settlement out of court, per Jones. Sources close to the situation told Bleacher Report's Jason Cole that the state attempted to serve Holder with a subpoena but was unable to locate her in time for Monday's trial date.

Holder told prosecutors in October she would not participate in a second trial, per Joseph Pearson of The Charlotte Observer

Reliable knowledge sounds suspect to me.

She told them since October was done and they waited until the Monday before the trial to serve a subpoena.

 

[tyke1doe]

Proof of a settlement.....please

I've given you the citation of the main newspaper that covered the case and reported the outcome of the case. So at least I've given you something to validate my argument. And I've given you a reasonable observation based on my experience about what occurs in the court room and the attitude prosecutors generally have towards judges.

You haven't even given me that much with respect to your claim. Only wild opinions and theories.

But you want to play the "prove to me an angle isn't standing on the head of a needle" game.

 

[tyke1doe]

Every lawyer on this board, especially the ones that have practiced in NC, are on our side of the argument and not yours.

Every lawyer on this board says attorneys routinely lie to judges?

And who are these lawyers, particularly NC lawyers? Can you cite them by name/handle? I'd sure like to PM them and get an answer to my question about whether attorneys lie to judges. I'd be EXTREMELY shocked if they said this is the case.

Its been posted repeatedly, for months on end, and its one of the many things you keep ignoring.

Well, if you mean by ignoring failing to read a 30-plus page thread, guilty as charged.

But that's why I only comment on a certain aspect of this issue. And with respect to THAT issue, you don't seem to comprehend what I'm talking about. However, you want me to re-read an entire thread when I have asked very specific questions you have YET to answer, your Wikipedia attempt notwithstanding.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

Betting on this thread going over 50 pages....

 

[Miller]

Proof of a settlement.....please

This is specifically for you and your ilk who keep insisting no settlement was ever reached. I explained it as an attorney for pages but some people chose to turn their heads because they are too stubborn to admit they are wrong

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/f...-nfl-holder-sex-starved-fan-article-1.2432933

Additionally, Maister(Hardy attorney) told the quartet of NFL deputies — who were hearing Hardy’s request for reinstatement — that Holder’s decision to flee from the cops illustrates a “consciousness of guilt” while Hardy sat in his apartment and waited for the police to arrive. He went on to say that the judge who initially convicted Hardy — whose case was thrown out on appeal after reaching a civil settlement with Holder — could not have ruled fairly on the case because she was involved in a battered women’s advocacy project while attending Harvard Law School.

Also, settlements in civil crt, especially pre-trial are almost always monetary in nature.,,through them or with accidents..insurance carriers


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/settlement

In civil lawsuits, settlement is an alternative to pursuing litigation through trial. Typically, it occurs when the defendant agrees to some or all of the plaintiff's claims and decides not to fight the matter in court. Usually, a settlement requires the defendant to pay the plaintiff some monetary amount..........In fact, simple settlements regularly take place before a lawsuit is even filed.

Considering when Holder disappeared she was found boarding in Vail, shopping in NY, etc its safe to assume that she got paid...she was a club waitress.

It's the legal process and common sense. If you have to have someone straight out tell you details...which isn't done in many settlements....then you are going to be holding your breath.

If you want to bone up on why he would....read and you'll see a fit for Hardy

http://litigation.findlaw.com/filin...ore-trial-settlement-alternative-dispute.html

• Amount he or she thinks the case is worth in a range of dollar amounts.

• Verdicts and settlements in similar cases.

• Chances of winning at trial.

• Unfavorable publicity for either side (civil court trials are open to the public and media scrutiny).

• Amount of personal information that could be revealed at trial or through further discovery.

• Possible disclosure of business information or trade secrets.

• When the case is likely to be called for trial.

• Practical difficulties in trying the case.

- See more at: http://litigation.findlaw.com/filin...alternative-dispute.html#sthash.9oHgvFe8.dpuf

 

[tyke1doe]

Well if that was the case after every trial an attorney would have to be arrested. When one looses his case ultimately he must have lied before a judge.

You really don't know how the system works do you?

Just because an attorney loses his case, it doesn't mean he's lying. I don't even know what you're talking about now.