Rumor Deshaun Watson wants out of Houston?

Everyone knows what this is about


Have to make them public since they can get drug through the mud

 

I think that’s part of why some of these women went the civil route instead of criminal route so they could remain nameless.

However, there’s no way Watson lawyer can defend him if he doesn’t know who exactly is making the claims. But I’ll say this as well his defense attorney isn’t doing a very good job thus far. He’s only made the situation look worse.

However some of you still saying that this is all a money grab... There is no way 20+ different women are all lying for money. Name a single time in there has been this many accusations against one person and they haven’t been guilty of at least one of the accusations? This doesn’t mean there’s enough evidence to convict, but just using some common sense it’s pretty obvious what’s going on here.

 

Texas has an open courts provision in our State Constitution. See Texas Constitution Article 1, Section 13. (" Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted. All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47(a) states: "An original pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original petition, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim, shall contain (a) :a short statement of the cause of action sufficient to give fair notice of the claim involved;" Rule 79 states: "[t]he petition shall state the names of the parties and their residence, if known, together with the contents prescribed in Rule 47 above."

Hardin is allowed to challenge the defects in the petition by filing a special exception, which is more or less what he is doing. The argument that Watson should know whom they all are carries little to no weight under the law as Hardin correctly notes in his motion. I think Hardin has some very legitimate concerns, and to be honest, while I can sympathize with Buzbee not wanting to publicly name the Plaintiffs, he should at the least (as he will be required to do so under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194.2(b)) tell Hardin whom each of them are at this time instead of playing these types of b.s. games. Hardin has the right to know who they are in order to prepare a defense.

Regarding having the names disclosed for the public (i.e. instead of Jane Doe v. Watson, it would be their real name v. Watson),generally the names have to be disclosed in the public filings. See Ware v. Crystal City Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 S.W.2d 190, 192 (Tex. Civ. App.--San Antonio 1972 writ dism'd) (finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining special exceptions and requiring repleader to state the names and addresses of voters in an election contest because it would not allow the attorney to prepare for trial). Even initials aren't generally enough, unless it's a child.

However, Buzbee can make an argument that the nature of these cases (i.e. potential sexual assault) allows him to keep the names confidential. See Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471, 474 (Tex. 1995) (allowing a sexual assault victim to proceed anonymously, but ultimately holding newspaper's summary judgment motion was properly granted. This was the case, even though the article did not state sexual assault victim's name, telephone number, or address, as information in article did not disclose embarrassing private facts which were not of legitimate public concern) and Wynne & Jaffe, 599 F.2d 707, 712 (5th Cir. 1979) (factors to consider in allowing plaintiff to proceed under a factitious name under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). The issue for Buzbee is that, presumably, all of the plaintiffs are adults, so he doesnt get the benefit of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provision as it is directed towards children. In criminal cases, nothing prohibits the indictment from naming the adult sexual assault victim. However, most times, out of respect, the State writes their initials, but you better believe they tell the defense attorney whom the Complainant is.

At the same time, Buzbee could ask that the court documents be sealed pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a (providing the limited circumstances and onerous procedures required for sealing court records). However, if that were to happen it would prevent the media and public from having access to court documents and the case information. I would imagine that it would also make Hardin obtaining a gag order in the case (to stop Buzbee and his press conferences) easier.

The benefit for Hardin is simple, he gets to use the law to put some pressure on Buzbee as he will have quite a bit of law to support his positions. Buzbee not even giving the names only to Hardin is a bad look and he may start off with an unhappy judge in that respect. In addition, should the judge rule against Hardin's request, it gives Hardin an issue for appeal.

Sometimes it's not all about trying the case in public, the case still has to be litigated in a court of law. Theatrics don't help in front of a judge. With his motion, Hardin gets to move the case back into the courtroom, at least for the time being. Oh, and keep in mind, Hardin has to file this motion in each of the 22 cases, and argue the cases in separate courtrooms (the cases have not been consolidated).

 

Pretty simple. If he’s guilty, then he owes them money plus the judicial system time (or money, that’s a rich person thing).
If he’s not, then he wasn’t proven to have done anything to them and shouldn’t owe them anything.

I really don’t see how this is hard to understand.

And yes, with criminal activity such as what has been accused, then civil court shouldn’t exist.
As someone mentioned way back in the thread, there is a lesser reason for the civil case regarding the stepping stone of civil case to criminal case. Just not sure why that’s really necessary.

I recognize there are plenty of court cases that have no criminal activity or accusations involved, so there still is clearly a reason for the civil justice system to exist.

 

I’d guess the effort to make the names public is in hopes that the public opinion smears their names just like plenty of other highly public cases that we’ve seen.

 

No one has suggested this is ALL a money grab. It was suggested that of the 19 accusers, some may be money grabbers or scamming in on the case. Don’t see that as a far fetched idea either.

I absolutely think it’s ridiculous to think ALL of them are trying to play the system.

Common sense cannot apply to a court case. That’s what evidence is all about. It’s a very common saying that common sense isn’t so common, so another way to say “use common sense” is to say assume. Cannot do that even if your common sense ended up being correct, it’s just not how the court system works.

Fully believe Watson is guilty of something, just not entirely sure what or how many.

 

I would think that setting a pattern (which is clearly set and proven), the amount of women accusing him of essentially the same thing, the fact that he has sent apology messages about his behavior after several of the incidents, and that he has admitted to consensual sex to several, all put him in a very very bad position, both criminally and civil, if it comes to it.

Then toss on top of the pile... one of the 18 who came to his defense stopped working with him because she was hearing he was acting inappropriately with other women. Why would you pick her to speak on his behalf?

 

Did you read what I wrote? Lol “this definitely doesn’t mean there’s enough evidence to convict”.

Fully recognize that common sense and proving someone is guilty of crime are different. Hence why I separated those 2 things in my sentence.

There have definitely been people in here suggesting this is all a money grab. Not going to go back and find the posts but you’re more than welcome to do so.

 

Yeah Buzbee is definitely being an A hole and lying about the whole HPD thing was shady too.

I agree that Hardin probably has some real concerns about what the truth is here but what he’s done so far hasn’t really helped paint his client in a better light or remove any doubt.

I also agree Hardin should know who the women are. The public doesn’t need to know the names though.

 

Thank you. So it’s basically all a chess match going on. Do you think Hardin wins his motion?