Your post history says otherwise. The term “evidentiary hearing” wouldn’t have been such an extensive topic. I referenced a phrase found in your 1 page link and spent the next two days trying to convince you it was there. The PCP doesn’t directly mention non criminal activities yet somehow they were able to deal with Ridley. The PCP mentions criminal convictions are not necessary. Criminal charges are not mentioned as a requirement. Watson has been accused of sexual harassment. He hasn’t been convicted. How you don’t see a way for the PCP to apply to Watson is mind numbing. I’m happy to dive into “the point” or rather “the next point”. Pleas explain to me the difference between a court of law and a labor dispute as it applies to my misunderstanding: my only claim so far (correct me if I’m wrong) is that witness testimony will be gathered and evaluated. It’s laughable that you think no victims gave sworn testimony at the Watson grand jury.
"Yes or know" questions? Seriously? I never believed Watson's actions have anything to do with soliciting a prostitute and never implied such a thing, . My comments regarding Kraft were directed at the NFL's treatment of Kraft's discipline when he had been charged with an actual criminal violation while in Watson's case prosecutors declined to even charge him Once again it appears you are confusing the NFL discipline protocol with a court of law. The NFL discipline action is not "a legal court proceeding.". I don't know if anyone is under oath in an NFL hearing and I do know that anyone involved can make statements without being cross-examined; that does not happen in a real court. I fully believe that statements made in such a hearing are self-serving. And yes, I believe that if you wanted to show how the term "evidentiary hearing" was used by the NFL you would have shown by paragraph or page exactly where it was; certainly you would have correctly identified the document in which it appeared. And, no, I never said, implied or believed that the PCP does not apply to Watson because he is not facing criminal charges. What I said is right there in the link you show - "The policy states that a conviction is not necessary to punish infractions. It does not directly address non-criminal claims. The language in that policy will be parsed and examined as closely as that in the second amendment." did you not read it?
My post history is what it is. Make all the accusations you want but why not try to support what you claim? "Evidentiary hearing" would not be a big topic at all if you had not used a definition regarding a court of law in a non-court setting and if you really wanted to point me to its use by the NFL, why not just supply the name of the document and page number? The NFL disciplined Ridley based on the "integrity" clause in the PCP and referenced integrity again when it passed judgement. I repeat again that I am well aware that the PCP does not require a criminal conviction or even a criminal charge to discipline a player but also maintain that there cannot be an open book for the league to write as it sees fit. If they are going to discipline an individual it must be for something addressed in the PCP, at least indirectly. Sexual harassment is not specified at all in the PCP, the closest thing being "or other sex offenses" in the section regarding assault and battery. Neither is it clear if sexual harassment is a term used by the NFL against Watson, or really by anyone other than you in discussing it. It is for all of these reasons that I have said many times that the verbiage in the PCP will be challenged. I have never addressed the issue of witnesses giving testimony of any kind at the grand jury - why would you say I think none have? I believe that grand jury proceedings are sealed and that regardless of what any witness said there without being cross-examined that testimony will not be available to the NFL. The NFL system also will not provide the accused the opportunity to cross examine any witness or interviewee, making it nothing more than a venue for self-serving commentary.
Please find me a different definition for the term evidentiary hearing. It’s not my phrase, it’s a phrase the people writing out the agreements used. One can assume those people were lawyers. I didn’t simply point to a page etc bc I’m usually posting from my phone and it’s a pain in the ass. But As repeatedly mentioned, my very next post in this chain had this text: Edit: Here’s a post with a better link to the section of the CBA which mentions the evidentiary hearing. That text refers to the document correctly and contains a link…. It was my very next post. You even read it bc you mentioned me calling you a douche in the next sentence. Every instance of you denying I posted a link, referred to it correctly or denied it’s existence is pure gaslighting.
I’ve posted numerous times your quotes and quotes of your quotes. Of course I brought the receipts. Or better yet, im goin bird hunting, of course I brought the birdshot.
sry Joe . It just seemed relevant to the topic of sexual abuse and the privileges rich folks enjoy with our justice system
They have no standards. Roethlisberger raped a girl, he’s a beloved figure in the league. There are lots of others like that @joe am I allowed to “emotionally” bring up Ben Roethlisberger? I just can’t get him out of my mind
So, just checked back into the thread. New information pertaining to Watson? Nope. A few guys pissing about semantics? Yup.
I'm just going to put this here as a refresher. It's from a NYT article. Twenty-four women have accused Watson of assault in civil lawsuits filed in Harris County, Texas. The lawyer representing them, Tony Buzbee, said the women had largely echoed one another’s claims of sexual misconduct and coercive behavior against Watson. Although the suits filed to date share many similarities, only two include claims of sexual assault: Watson was said in both cases to have pressured women to perform oral sex during massages and was accused in one of also having grabbed a woman’s buttocks and vagina. The civil suits allege that Watson engaged in a pattern of lewd behavior with women hired to provide personal services, coercing them to touch him in a sexual manner, exposing himself to women he had hired for massages, or moving his body in ways that forced them to touch his penis. The incidents cited in the suits were said to have occurred from March 2020 to March 2021. Two of Watson’s accusers publicly identified themselves in April 2021, giving statements that described their alleged encounters. Ashley Solis, the first of the women to file suit, read from a statement at a news conference held at Buzbee’s office. Another woman, Lauren Baxley, provided a letter she addressed to Watson that was read by one of Buzbee’s associates. The Cleveland Browns quarterback has been accused of harassment and assault by a growing list of female massage therapists. The star player is the subject of 24 suits that accuse him of coercive and lewd sexual behavior, with two that allege assault. He denies the accusations. A Times investigation suggests that Watson might have engaged in more questionable behavior than previously known. Meredith J. Duncan, who teaches tort law and criminal law at the University of Houston Law Center, defined civil assault as intentionally or knowingly touching someone in a way that a reasonable person would regard as offensive. “It just so happens in this case, the civil assault involves his genitals,” Duncan said. “But forcing another person to perform a sexual act, that’s a more aggravated form of sexual assault.” A New York Times investigation published this month revealed that Watson had booked massage appointments with at least 66 different women from fall 2019 through spring 2021, far more than previously known. Some of these additional women, including several who have not sued, said Watson requested sexual acts. The league opened an investigation into Watson’s conduct in March 2021. In a letter addressed to Buzbee, Lisa Friel, a special counsel for investigations at the league, requested the cooperation of the accusers. A league spokesman said the matter was under review in relation to the N.F.L.’s personal conduct policy. That policy governs off-field behavior involving players and coaches.
Jimmy Smith was suspended four games back in 2018. "The NFL found evidence of threatening and emotionally abusive behaviors by Jimmy toward his former girlfriend that showed a pattern of improper conduct. Our player's behavior was inappropriate and wrong." Did they ever release what the found evidence was? What constitutes emotionally abusive behavior? Did Smith sue the NFL? How about Jameis Winston? He was suspended for 3 games because he was accused of groping a female Uber driver, a charge he denied. The NFL "concluded that Winston violated the personal conduct policy by touching the driver in an inappropriate and sexual manner without her consent and that disciplinary action was necessary and appropriate." As part of of his discipline, Winston is required to obtain a clinical evaluation and fully cooperate in any recommended program of therapeutic intervention. I would be completely shocked if the NFL doesn't suspend Watson. They have 24 women to speak to and it only takes one to convince them. Based on the Jimmy Smith and Jameis Winston suspensions, there certainly is precedent to suspend him.
This could get very interesting. I read yesterday that the NFLPA is planning to go to the wall to fight any disciplinary action against Watson. The focus will on the disproportionality between the punishment imposed on players vs. the punishment (if any) imposed on owners. The way owners are disciplined (or not) is Goddell's Achilles heel.
Yeah I mean Robert Kraft was doing the same shit as Watson. What was his punishment from Lord Goodell?
Yes and I conferred upon your post the TGG-coveted 'like' : ) And yes, trump's entitled 'grab 'em by the pussy' mindset enrolled him squarely in the school of personal abuse, however (dollar to a stale doughnut fwiw), it still fell short of 'another former president' who graduated cum loudly from the 'R-Word' Univ. of paula jones and juanita broderick et al et al...and I don't care how much of a turn off Hildabeast's fat ankles, pantsuits and perpetual smugness might've been.... Kraft forced himself into the spa worker's hand? Seems to me the old coot probably paid extra for a happy ending HJ.
What did they charge Kraft with? Assault with a dead weapon? Kraft was pretty confident the evidence would never stand up in court. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.
