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

[JoeKing]

Just to be clear, are you saying the DA "settled" the case with Holder?

Officially, no... I think that would be illegal. Officially the DA dropped the charges using the excuse of Holder's disappearance... even though her whereabouts was no secret on social media. As was alluded to in the article I previously linked to,"Victims and witnesses routinely stop cooperating in domestic-abuse cases and prosecutors still take the cases to court." I think some underhandedness happened that caused Holder to silently go away in exchanges for the charges to be dropped. I actually do think the DA communicated to her attorney that she could be facing charges if she did not take this under table deal. If she got a payoff to go away why did she show up to the bench trial? She was already saying then that she did not want to cooperate. Did she already know then that if she testified that the injuries in the pictures were caused by Hardy it would contradict here statements the night of the incident. Threating to kill her was the other charge... no third party confirmed that happen so it was her word against his. That doesn't meet the threshold to convict on that charge. The DA should have never allowed the bench trial conviction. He had to cover his behind by encouraging Holder to quietly go away and dropping all charges against Hardy. Remember, Hardy never wanted to cut a deal, no plea bargain, nothing.. He requested the appeal and was ready to submit the only transcript of the bench trial that existed as evidence of what a miscarriage of justice his original bench trial was. The man wanted his day in court before a jury of his peers . The DA took that away from him.

 

[Kaiser]

I see insufficiently answered questions in these said events. I think the state knew they didn't have a case because the reliability of Holder was suspect and if they forced the witness to appear in trial they would have eventually looked stupid by the defense team. So, they simply let it go and then threw some thinly disguised aspersions on their way out onto the party already perceived as guilty (by suggesting a payoff) while wrapping it in an air of professionalism to make it seem like there was nothing they could really do when that simply wasn't true. On Hardy's end, the case was thrown out and he had nothing more to worry about.

Two things, I think you are exactly right in that the "reliable information" part of the document was written for public consumption and not for any legal proceedings. The DA had a perfectly valid reason to go to the bench trial because he had a police report making the accusation of DV. But at the point he puts the police report and the Bench Trial transcript side by side, he knows the accusation has zero credibility and he has zero chance of getting a conviction.

Its a high profile case so instead of saying that politely in dropping the case, he spins the story that is the best PR for his office. He did everything he could, yatta yatta, he would like to put this bad guy behind bars but gosh darnit, the witness won't cooperate. That sounds a lot better in his reelection campaign than saying he wasted taxpayer dollars on something that could have been avoided with more investigation upfront.

Second point - I thought the settlement story was completely untrue but if you read the transcript of Hardy's hearing at the NFL HQ in NY, Hardy's attorney keeps ducking the question instead of flatly saying it isn't true. That makes me think something happened, be it a small civil payoff or the idea others have said that they agreed not to sue her for perjury in exchange for something.

 

[Kaiser]

It's a quote. He is a public official. So in crazy/inane Cowboyzone world, all common sense and law leaves and everyone from the DA to Hardy's attorney are lying? I've put out 3 quotes today mentioned from his attorney and the DA regarding a settlement.

Still waiting for HoustonFrog to say where Hardy's attorney made this statement. Its completely false.

 

[Kaiser]

The 'conviction' is set aside and a jury trial is automatically scheduled because by itself the process does not mean the standard of due process. trial by jury is right there in the bill of rights.

They are both right, BKnight is saying its not a real trial in the sense that Traffic Court isn't a real trial. Mountaineerfan is saying it is a valid process and serves the interest of Justice.

 

[Nightman]

The 'conviction' is set aside and a jury trial is automatically scheduled because by itself the process does not meet the standard of due process. trial by jury is right there in the bill of rights.

Thank you.

A jury of ones peers is one the biggies. I never thought relying on the constitution would be considered being obtuse.

 

[Nightman]

They are both right, BKnight is saying its not a real trial in the sense that Traffic Court isn't a real trial. Mountaineerfan is saying it is a valid process and serves the interest of Justice.

What everyone forgets is that after the bench trial verdict he was sentenced to no jail time and 2 years probation on a misdemeanor.

That would be a very good outcome for a guilty man. Yet he still chose to fight it and pay his attorneys. I bet he paid them more than a settlement would cost. He wanted to to clear his name and win outright after he saw their ''case".

A settlement didn't further his cause in any way.

 

[Kaiser]

What everyone forgets is that after the bench trial verdict he was sentenced to no jail time and 2 years probation on a misdemeanor.

That would be a very good outcome for a guilty man. Yet he still chose to fight it and pay his attorneys. I bet he paid them more than a settlement would cost. He wanted to to clear his name and win outright after he saw their ''case".

A settlement didn't further his cause in any way.

Agree but would nitpick the settlement. Crazy stuff can happen in a civil trial and it will cost you a ton of money, potentially a million dollars. And the NFL was already railroading him, if you get a nutjob jury and lose the NFL bans you for life. For a De minimis amount (for Hardy, its the price of an 8 Ball and some plane tickets to Holder) you avoid the possibility of that ever happening.

 

[Nightman]

Agree but would nitpick the settlement. Crazy stuff can happen in a civil trial and it will cost you a ton of money, potentially a million dollars. And the NFL was already railroading him, if you get a nutjob jury and lose the NFL bans you for life. For a De minimis amount (for Hardy, its the price of an 8 Ball and some plane tickets to Holder) you avoid the possibility of that ever happening.

It is possible as a nuisance suit just to insure she stays away.

I just hate how everyone acts like he bought justice when in fact it would end up hurting him by implying guilt. Her testimony was a key to getting him off. His team welcomed the thought in the criminal case.

Worst case scenario he was facing probation, no jail time.

 

[Miller]

It is possible as a nuisance suit just to insure she stays away.

I just hate how everyone acts like he bought justice when in fact it would end up hurting him by implying guilt. Her testimony was a key to getting him off. His team welcomed the thought in the criminal case.

Worst case scenario he was facing probation, no jail time.

Right just like OJ got off but had a verdict of guilty in the civil trial where the Goldmans were awarded a ton. Watching the 3 of you ignore the legal process to make up these scenarios is the funniest thing on this board in awhile.

She already had a "guilty." Even with testimony she had upper hand in public opinion. The civil settlement has nothing to do with him forcing her hand. It's quid pro quo, here is cash, now you can never file a civil suit again and this is closed. Real law, real life.

 

[Miller]

Still waiting for HoustonFrog to say where Hardy's attorney made this statement. Its completely false.

Not false at all. There was an article quoted in regards to his attorney talking to the NFL. During a quote the settlement in mentioned as an aside and it's implied that this is what happened. Considering you just mentioned the transcript and the same thing makes this comical. It's a much more objective reverence that was never denied than your made up posts that arent grounded in law. You've been corrected on civil settlements an the law all day and yet you keep moving on and making up new scenarios. My last post explained the process in courts in real life.

Answered done. Enjoy spinning again where nothing is based in law or fact

 

[Kaiser]

Not false at all. There was an article quoted in regards to his attorney talking to the NFL. During a quote the settlement in mentioned as an aside and it's implied that this is what happened. Considering you just mentioned the transcript and the same thing makes this comical. It's a much more objective reverence that was never denied than your made up posts that arent grounded in law. You've been corrected on civil settlements an the law all day and yet you keep moving on and making up new scenarios. My last post explained the process in courts in real life.

Answered done. Enjoy spinning again where nothing is based in law or fact

That's gibberish. You made the statement that Hardy's attorneys had said publicly a settlement was made and that what you posted included the quotes.

Both of those statements are completely false, but you can't track truth or fiction from one moment to the next.

 

[Miller]

That's gibberish. You made the statement that Hardy's attorneys had said publicly a settlement was made and that what you posted included the quotes.

Both of those statements are completely false, but you can't track truth or fiction from one moment to the next.

False. Look at the quote. It is directly from his attorney and includes the settlement inference. Never challenged either. It is much more logical than anything you've ever posted. You've been shot down for pages regarding the law and your theories and yet you keep making up crap. It's pure ignorance on your part. Honestly I've never seen people ignore basic logic or law when you have attorneys from all over telling you what happens. You are trying to bust my chops on a statement yet your basing all your theories on made up things that have never been stated or even inferred. How rich is that ? How do you answer that when you are making up scenarios vs living in reality. Here is The article and quote


http://m.nydailynews.com/sports/foo...-nfl-holder-sex-starved-fan-article-1.2432933

Additionally, Maister 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.

As I said earlier. It's no use debating with those who have no reality. You are trying to derail logic so people ignore your follies this whole thread. Pure ignorance

 

[Kaiser]

False. Look at the quote. It is directly from his attorney and includes the settlement inference.

The words "— whose case was thrown out on appeal after reaching a civil settlement with Holder " are the words of the reporter writing the story and not a direct quote from the attorney.

A ten year old could see that. The fact you can't explains a lot.

 

[Miller]

The words "— whose case was thrown out on appeal after reaching a civil settlement with Holder " are the words of the reporter writing the story and not a direct quote from the attorney.

A ten year old could see that. The fact you can't explains a lot.

The fact that you have no clue what an inference is and that I explained that and that he had no response is par for the course for you. Again, you can't fix dumb and your statements throughout the thread show that. Move along and stop trying to throw shade in order to cover for the fact that nothing, I mean nothing you've said in this thread is supported by the law, the judicial process or facts from any source. It's your fantasy that you've yet to address. In fact you just admitted to one of your Hardy Truthers buddies that you inferred there was probably a settlement from Hardys atty ignoring settlement talk in NFL transcript. You can't have it both ways

 

[iceberg]

out of my own morbid curiosity - is it even remotely possible to have a new thought on the hardy situation or is everyone flinging their polished up powerpoints back and forth at each other now hoping THIS TIME the explanation will enlighten the other party?

 

[Stash]

out of my own morbid curiosity - is it even remotely possible to have a new thought on the hardy situation or is everyone flinging their polished up powerpoints back and forth at each other now hoping THIS TIME the explanation will enlighten the other party?

I think those lines are clearly marked my friend and I don't see anyone crossing over any of them any time soon.

It's why I've personally avoided the threads to this point.

I've said my own piece as I'm sure everyone has and I'm satisfied to just let the whole thing play out, knowing that I can't change any of it.

 

[tyke1doe]

Officially, no... I think that would be illegal. Officially the DA dropped the charges using the excuse of Holder's disappearance... even though her whereabouts was no secret on social media. As was alluded to in the article I previously linked to,"Victims and witnesses routinely stop cooperating in domestic-abuse cases and prosecutors still take the cases to court." I think some underhandedness happened that caused Holder to silently go away in exchanges for the charges to be dropped. I actually do think the DA communicated to her attorney that she could be facing charges if she did not take this under table deal. If she got a payoff to go away why did she show up to the bench trial? She was already saying then that she did not want to cooperate. Did she already know then that if she testified that the injuries in the pictures were caused by Hardy it would contradict here statements the night of the incident. Threating to kill her was the other charge... no third party confirmed that happen so it was her word against his. That doesn't meet the threshold to convict on that charge. The DA should have never allowed the bench trial conviction. He had to cover his behind by encouraging Holder to quietly go away and dropping all charges against Hardy. Remember, Hardy never wanted to cut a deal, no plea bargain, nothing.. He requested the appeal and was ready to submit the only transcript of the bench trial that existed as evidence of what a miscarriage of justice his original bench trial was. The man wanted his day in court before a jury of his peers . The DA took that away from him.

So basically you're saying that the DA "settled" the case with Holder. And if that's the case, why would the DA then tell the judge she settled the case with Holder?

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

Even so, you can't place your theory of that which is unknown with one that is known. As I've said on this forum repeatedly actual information trumps theoretical/hypothetical information all the time.

 

[iceberg]

I think those lines are clearly marked my friend and I don't see anyone crossing over any of them any time soon.

It's why I've personally avoided the threads to this point.

I've said my own piece as I'm sure everyone has and I'm satisfied to just let the whole thing play out, knowing that I can't change any of it.

in the immortal words of sam malone -

ditto.

 

[tyke1doe]

The words "— whose case was thrown out on appeal after reaching a civil settlement with Holder " are the words of the reporter writing the story and not a direct quote from the attorney.

A ten year old could see that. The fact you can't explains a lot.

And a 10-year-old also understands the difference between a direct quote and summarization of an event.

And as a former court reporter who has made a mistake in misinterpreting what happened in a case, I can tell you that when that happens, there is a quick correction and apology.

There was no correction of the information the newspaper gave about the settlement, not that I know of.

So unless you can provide information to the contrary, you're just revealing your utter cluelessness as to how systems and processes work.

 

[DogFace]

And a 10-year-old also understands the difference between a direct quote and summarization of an event.

And as a former court reporter who has made a mistake in misinterpreting what happened in a case, I can tell you that when that happens, there is a quick correction and apology.

There was no correction of the information the newspaper gave about the settlement, not that I know of.

So unless you can provide information to the contrary, you're just revealing your utter cluelessness as to how systems and processes work.

Tell him how you umpire child baseball too!!!!