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

[tyke1doe]

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.

Sigh.

Prosecutors are like police. They hardly ever tell the press all the information they have about a case. However, they will tell legal authorities.

Just because you get a part of the case doesn't mean you get the entire case.

Whether Murray had enough evidence to carry forth this case is a separate issue than whether Hardy paid Holder.

You don't know what the "reliable information" is, so how can you say it's suspect?

 

[tyke1doe]

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

 

[Nightman]

Sigh.

Prosecutors are like police. They hardly ever tell the press all the information they have about a case. However, they will tell legal authorities.

Just because you get a part of the case doesn't mean you get the entire case.

Whether Murray had enough evidence to carry forth this case is a separate issue than whether Hardy paid Holder.

You don't know what the "reliable information" is, so how can you say it's suspect?

It is meaningless and you know it. It is so open-ended it is laughable. A snitch could be reliable.

A settlement for money that requires she doesn't testify is a crime, period.
A settlement for a civil case that was never filed is illogical.
A settlement with no paper trail is toothless.

There is no proof because that would be evidence of crime. No proof = speculation.

 

[Kevinicus]

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

You keep quoting articles that are not evidence of anything and acting like they are facts. These "journalist" have nothing to go on, and are wrong. Even if there was a settlement, it's clear to anyone with thinking skills that it was not the reason for the dismissal of the case. If you believe every line of every article that you read, then please avoid places like infowars.com. Your head might explode.

And you still don't seem to understand that a civil settlement (which was never filed) which was used to avoid testimony in a CRIMINAL case would be illegal, right? Hardy could pay her off to be silent, then she could go right into court and testify against him and he could do NOTHING to her.

 

[Nightman]

You keep quoting articles that are not evidence of anything and acting like they are facts. These "journalist" have nothing to go on, and are wrong. Even if there was a settlement, it's clear to anyone with thinking skills that it was not the reason for the dismissal of the case. If you believe every line of every article that you read, then please avoid places like infowars.com. Your head might explode.

And you still don't seem to understand that a civil settlement (which was never filed) which was used to avoid testimony in a CRIMINAL case would be illegal, right? Hardy could pay her off to be silent, then she could go right into court and testify against him and he could do NOTHING to her.

There was no reason to settle.

He was going to embarrass Holder and the DA at the jury trial. His team had transcripts from the bench trial that almost amounted to evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and perjury.

Beating the charges in court would have been much better than a settlement or dismissal. He was robbed of his vindication and that is why the NFL was still able to suspend him. They could rely on the bs bench trial decision and DA's bs cover-ups.

 

[tyke1doe]

It is meaningless and you know it. It is so open-ended it is laughable. A snitch could be reliable.

A settlement for money that requires she doesn't testify is a crime, period.
A settlement for a civil case that was never filed is illogical.
A settlement with no paper trail is toothless.

There is no proof because that would be evidence of crime. No proof = speculation.

Sigh.

There's a reason we have systems and processes in our society.
Testimony in court isn't the same as testimony on the street.
Testimony in a trial isn't the same as testimony in a bar.
Telling something to a judge in court is different than telling something to the drunk at the corner liquor store.
You're trying to make an equivalency argument that denies how we define credibility and truthfulness in our society.
And, typically, you see this on the Internet where opinion reigns supreme.

So, no, bknight, it's NOT open-ended. You want it to be because you want your argument to have credibility. But you're merely offering your opinion with no facts to support your claim.
I, however, have explained to you how the process works and why my argument is at least credible and reasonable.
But you don't like it so you throw out theories and try to relegate my response to theory.

For the record, a settlement/agreement doesn't have to necessarily be filed in court. It can be merely a legal transaction or a written transaction that can be used for legal purposes. For example, I was let go from my reporting job. I signed a severance agreement which states I would receive a certain sum of money in exchange for certain conditions. One of those conditions was that I not criticize my former employer.
I signed the document.
I doubt that document was filed in court (because then it could be accessed by the public). However, it's probably in the newspaper's lawyer's office ready to be used if a fired newspaper employee ever violates it.

I don't know if the agreement in Hardy's case is such an agreement. But that's neither here nor there. We have reports that Andrew Murray said a settlement between Hardy and Holder exists. Hardy has not refuted the existence of such a settlement/agreement.
I have no reason to believe Murray would lie to a judge. And I've not been presented with any "evidence" not to believe Hardy and Holder reached such an agreement.

 

[4lifecowboy]

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.

Now you are following my argument, just because he makes a statement to a judge don't make it true. You can't admit what I'm saying because it collapse your position. Which is quoting a statement made by the DA as evidence when it isn't, it is really just his opinion.

 

[Miller]

You keep quoting articles that are not evidence of anything and acting like they are facts. These "journalist" have nothing to go on, and are wrong. Even if there was a settlement, it's clear to anyone with thinking skills that it was not the reason for the dismissal of the case. If you believe every line of every article that you read, then please avoid places like infowars.com. Your head might explode.

And you still don't seem to understand that a civil settlement (which was never filed) which was used to avoid testimony in a CRIMINAL case would be illegal, right? Hardy could pay her off to be silent, then she could go right into court and testify against him and he could do NOTHING to her.

There is nothing else to say but you are WRONG. Plain and simple. You have no clue what you are saying and you are including facts and scenarios into the legal process that never happened.

1) There WAS a settlement. The article I posted, along with 100s of others have mentioned the settlement. In the quote above, it was included when speaking to Hardy's attorney and in others it has been mentioned on good sources which in legal-ese is "yes."No one has denied it and no one in the legal process has refuted it. You doin't think Hardy's atty would fight the fact that he paid someone off or that there was a settlement?

2) Read my quote...which you seem to have a tough time doing or you aren't attending RIF.....many civil suits are settled before they are even filed

In fact, simple settlements regularly take place before a lawsuit is even filed.

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

And for the 5th time...please concentrate....the DA had nothing to do with the settlement. But once a civil settlement is reached the accuser, etc can do as they please. She ran afterward which made the DAs case hard to go to the next phase. So it was dismissed. The settlement wasn't of the criminal case!!!!!!!!!!!!! It was of a unfiled civil suit where she decided "enough."After that the dominos fell.

If you can't read or keep up or don't know the legal system its probably best to move on.

 

[Miller]

There was no reason to settle.

He was going to embarrass Holder and the DA at the jury trial. His team had transcripts from the bench trial that almost amounted to evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and perjury.

Beating the charges in court would have been much better than a settlement or dismissal. He was robbed of his vindication and that is why the NFL was still able to suspend him. They could rely on the bs bench trial decision and DA's bs cover-ups.

You are talking out your rear because there are no transcripts of the bench trial. I really would think that you and others would stop embarrassing yourselves with your conspiracies. And by the way it's almost a no-brainer that any settlement would not involve her settling because she was under pressure from the law

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/15/transcript-doesnt-exist-for-hardys-first-trial-yet/

the trial before the judge, the court doesn’t even generate a transcript of the trial before the judge.

Boom goes the dynamite

 

[tyke1doe]

Now you are following my argument, just because he makes a statement to a judge don't make it true. You can't admit what I'm saying because it collapse your position. Which is quoting a statement made by the DA as evidence when it isn't, it is really just his opinion.

Huh? I'm following your argument?

Okay, I have to get off this crazy rollercoaster ride. I've said what I've said.

If you feel I'm following your argument - whatever that means - so be it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sigh.

Prosecutors are like police. They hardly ever tell the press all the information they have about a case. However, they will tell legal authorities.

Just because you get a part of the case doesn't mean you get the entire case.

Whether Murray had enough evidence to carry forth this case is a separate issue than whether Hardy paid Holder.

You don't know what the "reliable information" is, so how can you say it's suspect?

you don't think the charlotte press asked him about? he played coy when questioned about it. ultimately, a premise without basis is to be dismissed. It's the central theme of skepticism.

the fact that he didn't have adequate evidence for a case is pretty central to the whole ball of wax. what is irrelevant to a criminal proceeding is a civil agreement over the issue. I would describe the comment in his dismissal paperwork to be gratuitous precisely for that reason.

This conversation has not moved forward in a year. If anything ti has deteriorated.

 

[Miller]

you don't think the charlotte press asked him about? he played coy when questioned about it. ultimately, a premise without basis is to be dismissed. It's the central theme of skepticism.

the fact that he didn't have adequate evidence for a case is pretty central to the whole ball of wax. what is irrelevant to a criminal proceeding is a civil agreement over the issue. I would describe the comment in his dismissal paperwork to be gratuitous precisely for that reason.

This conversation has not moved forward in a year. If anything ti has deteriorated.

Again the civil settlement isn't directly involved but once she settled she decided not to testify. It's basics. As I said countless settlements are made daily in this country and many have no information regarding them...amount of cash, consideration, etc. It has been mentioned in connection with articles quoting his attorney and not one person has said no way! So Hardy and his team would let an issue that could make him look worse slide?

A year ago this was posted...don't you think there would be a lawsuit against the Times?Look at the title

http://nypost.com/2015/02/09/greg-hardy-case-dismissed-after-paid-off-accuser-disappears/

The dismissal happened just as Hardy’s appeal in the case was set to begin. Mecklenburg County district attorney Andrew Murray told the judge that officials attempted many times to contact the woman, but failed. Murray said the woman had reached a civil suit agreement with Hardy.

 

[Miller]

Sigh.

There's a reason we have systems and processes in our society.
Testimony in court isn't the same as testimony on the street.
Testimony in a trial isn't the same as testimony in a bar.
Telling something to a judge in court is different than telling something to the drunk at the corner liquor store.
You're trying to make an equivalency argument that denies how we define credibility and truthfulness in our society.
And, typically, you see this on the Internet where opinion reigns supreme.

So, no, bknight, it's NOT open-ended. You want it to be because you want your argument to have credibility. But you're merely offering your opinion with no facts to support your claim.
I, however, have explained to you how the process works and why my argument is at least credible and reasonable.
But you don't like it so you throw out theories and try to relegate my response to theory.

For the record, a settlement/agreement doesn't have to necessarily be filed in court. It can be merely a legal transaction or a written transaction that can be used for legal purposes. For example, I was let go from my reporting job. I signed a severance agreement which states I would receive a certain sum of money in exchange for certain conditions. One of those conditions was that I not criticize my former employer.
I signed the document.
I doubt that document was filed in court (because then it could be accessed by the public). However, it's probably in the newspaper's lawyer's office ready to be used if a fired newspaper employee ever violates it.

I don't know if the agreement in Hardy's case is such an agreement. But that's neither here nor there. We have reports that Andrew Murray said a settlement between Hardy and Holder exists. Hardy has not refuted the existence of such a settlement/agreement.
I have no reason to believe Murray would lie to a judge. And I've not been presented with any "evidence" not to believe Hardy and Holder reached such an agreement.

This is all I said above and add to it that bknights argument is based on transcripts that don't exist in the bench trial. It comes down to people who know the system and have common sense vs those ignoring all of it and making up things that keep getting busted here.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't get the emphasis on DV. I don't think it actually comes from women. When you poll women they talk about how much they are being paid, family leave, and health care. The NFL and CEO's in general are run by 90% men. The sports journalism landscape is little better.

If he got in a bar fight and really did hit a guy we wouldn't care near as much. Now we have sports nation still trying to save Ms. Holder when she doesn't want and never has wanted to be saved. Did you see those pictures!

 

[4lifecowboy]

Again the civil settlement isn't directly involved but once she settled she decided not to testify. It's basics. As I said countless settlements are made daily in this country and many have no information regarding them...amount of cash, consideration, etc. It has been mentioned in connection with articles quoting his attorney and not one person has said no way! So Hardy and his team would let an issue that could make him look worse slide?

A year ago this was posted...don't you think there would be a lawsuit against the Times?Look at the title

http://nypost.com/2015/02/09/greg-hardy-case-dismissed-after-paid-off-accuser-disappears/

Where is the record of a civil suit other than this DA's claims of one. So what he said it, has he proved it?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Again the civil settlement isn't directly involved but once she settled she decided not to testify. It's basics. As I said countless settlements are made daily in this country and many have no information regarding them...amount of cash, consideration, etc. It has been mentioned in connection with articles quoting his attorney and not one person has said no way! So Hardy and his team would let an issue that could make him look worse slide?

A year ago this was posted...don't you think there would be a lawsuit against the Times?Look at the title

http://nypost.com/2015/02/09/greg-hardy-case-dismissed-after-paid-off-accuser-disappears/

You're going to cite me a NYPost headline based on his comment in the dismissal paperwork as evidence that the paperwork itself exists?

Do you know what a circular argument is? Again. The Charlotte press asked him about it repeatedly and he would never own much less qualify any of it.

 

[SultanOfSix]

The DA's office has said it, and Hardy has never refuted it. I wouldn't think the prosecutor's office would tell a bold-faced lie like that.

What I implied in my statement was hard evidence. A suggestive statement by the DA's office is not such. Most civil suit agreements are confidential, but I believe this is with respect to their content, not with respect to the notion that one has been settled.

 

[Miller]

Where is the record of a civil suit other than this DA's claims of one. So what he said it, has he proved it?

Seriously can y'all not read? There was no civil suit. I'm attorney and quoted from two legal sources what happens in a settlement and that one can happen BEFORE it's even filed. I'm going on real facts and sense. You have a made up conspiracy!! The paperwork can be between the two parties. Sexual harassment suits, etc are settled all the time and they aren't filed or open to the public.

 

[Kevinicus]

There is nothing else to say but you are WRONG. Plain and simple. You have no clue what you are saying and you are including facts and scenarios into the legal process that never happened.

1) There WAS a settlement. The article I posted, along with 100s of others have mentioned the settlement. In the quote above, it was included when speaking to Hardy's attorney and in others it has been mentioned on good sources which in legal-ese is "yes."No one has denied it and no one in the legal process has refuted it. You doin't think Hardy's atty would fight the fact that he paid someone off or that there was a settlement?

2) Read my quote...which you seem to have a tough time doing or you aren't attending RIF.....many civil suits are settled before they are even filed



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

And for the 5th time...please concentrate....the DA had nothing to do with the settlement. But once a civil settlement is reached the accuser, etc can do as they please. She ran afterward which made the DAs case hard to go to the next phase. So it was dismissed. The settlement wasn't of the criminal case!!!!!!!!!!!!! It was of a unfiled civil suit where she decided "enough."After that the dominos fell.

If you can't read or keep up or don't know the legal system its probably best to move on.

Wow, how can you be so off on this. I'm including facts and scenarios that never happened? Okay. I didn't even say anything DID happen. You have a trouble with understanding what is a fact and what is not.

1. The article you posted, and 100s of others ARE NOT EVIDENCE. That is a fact. Lots of articles said there was a video of Dez too. Lots of articles have said a lot of things that were not true. It doesn't matter if you have 1 or 1,000,000 articles, they aren't evidence of facts. Furthermore, ALL of those articles all tie back to ONE SINGLE SOURCE. The statement by the DA that they had reliable information of a settlement. That itself is not a statement of fact of a settlement, it is a statement that implies the DA has information that leads them to BELIEVE there was a settlement. It is not an indisputable charge that it absolutely did happen.

2. I never stated there wasn't a settlement. You're just believing what you want to believe about that without any evidence, just like you do about everything it seems. I honestly don't care if there is one as it's irrelevant to anything as far as Hardy's guilt is concerned.

3. When did I, or anyone, claim the DA was involved in the settlement? Who said the settlement was of the criminal case? You seem to be imagining a lot of things, you might want to take a break from all of this until you can collect your thoughts and read a bit better.

4. Once a civil settlement is reach it doesn't give her the right to do as she pleases. If subpoenaed for the criminal case, she still has to show up! The DAs case was not hard to go forward with because she was not there, but because of her conflicting statements/testimony.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Seriously can y'all not read? There was no civil suit. I'm attorney and quoted from two legal sources what happens in a settlement and that one can happen BEFORE it's even filed. I'm going on real facts and sense. You have a made up conspiracy!! The paperwork can be between the two parties. Sexual harassment suits, etc are settled all the time and they aren't filed or open to the public.

Uh, the link you posted and quoted said so. You even made it bold like this: "Murray said the woman had reached a civil suit agreement with Hardy".