DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Watson.... The Infection That Never seems To End

j/c...

Deshaun Watson attorney fires back at new lawsuit, says it may be 'unrequited love'
Brent Schrotenboer
USA TODAY
Published 7:41pm ET Oct 25th, 2022

The attorney for Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson has fired back at the latest lawsuit against his client by filing several exhibits in court that appear to undermine the lawsuit’s claims, including that Watson pressured the plaintiff into oral sex at a hotel in Houston in December 2020.

Rusty Hardin, the attorney, also is asking the court in Harris County, Texas, for monetary sanctions against the attorneys who filed it to punish them for filing this “sham lawsuit,” as he describes it. The suit was the 26th overall by a woman who has accused Watson of sexual misconduct during massage sessions.

Of those 26 lawsuits, 23 were settled out of court this year and one was dropped shortly after being filed in March 2021. Only two remain, including this new one that was filed Oct. 13, the only lawsuit to come after Watson was given an 11-game suspension by the NFL stemming from these allegations.

Hardin already has mounted an aggressive defense against it. In one filing, his law firm showed screen shots of text messages from the woman to Watson that came after she claimed he pressured her into oral sex during the massage session at the Houstonian Hotel.

“The documents (the woman) provided reflect that for nearly a year after their massage session together, (the woman) sent more than 35 messages to Mr. Watson—none of which were answered by Mr. Watson,” Hardin states.

Some of the text messages show the woman asking to meet him again at the same hotel. Others appear to be sexually suggestive.

“I have the best head in all of Houston,” she wrote in September 2021, according to the filings.

“Let me know when your ready to make big deposits,” another text stated.

Hardin said the woman’s lawsuit was filed in bad faith.

“This obviously does not sound like a person who was pressured into performing oral sex,” said the document he filed Monday evening.

Hardin already won a court order forcing the woman to reveal her name in court documents after initially filing it under the pseudonym Jane Doe. USA TODAY's policy is not to reveal the names of alleged sexual assault victims unless they decide to speak about it publicly.

“This evidence undeniably establishes that while this may be a case of unrequited love, under no stretch of the imagination is this a case of assault,” Hardin stated. “Had (the woman’s law firm) performed even the most cursory investigation, it would have confirmed that fact.”

An attorney for the plaintiff at Universal Law Group in Houston didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment.

Hardin’s filing also states that the plaintiff in the newest lawsuit appeared at his office on Nov. 4, 2021, in response to a discovery subpoena in the other litigation. That’s where the woman agreed to be interviewed by Watson’s counsel and provided text messages and direct messages to them, according to the filings.

During this conversation, the woman said, “I wasn’t scared, I wasn’t intimidated. I didn’t do anything I didn’t want to do. I didn’t do anything where I didn’t feel like it was safe,” according to an affidavit filed by a witness to the conversation.

According to the affidavit, the woman also said, “I would love to love him. Oh, my God. I would love to be in love, and to love him… I don’t want to put criminal charges on him. It wasn’t criminal. We were in there playing around and that was it.”

Watson was never arrested or charged in these cases, and he has denied any misconduct. Hardin’s filing says the Houston police also interviewed this woman and rejected them.

“Likewise, NFL investigators were fully aware of (the woman's) allegations and chose not to base their findings on any of her uncredible contentions,” Hardin’s filing states.

The incidents described in all the lawsuits allegedly came when Watson was a member of the Houston Texans. The Texans also reached confidential settlements with 30 women with claims related to Watson after being accused of enabling his behavior and failing to prevent it. The Texans traded him to the Browns in March.

This new lawsuit is the only one of the 26 not filed by the law firm of Houston attorney Tony Buzbee. After it was filed this month by another firm, the NFL said Watson's disciplinary status remained unchanged but that the league would monitor developments from it.

"Any conduct that warrants further investigation or possible additional sanctions would be addressed within the Personal Conduct Policy" of the league, spokesman Brian McCarthy said then.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...it-evidence-against-accuser/10601426002/

Yeah, I remember all the BS he and his lawyer were saying before too. The Boy Who Cried Wolf rings a bell.

ALL the accusers want justice....it isn't about the money, they were all assaulted and mentally abused....ugh, except for those who just wanted a payoff---money corrupts, lawyers/massuesses/commentators/politicians - if you got it, they ALL want some of it. It is the world.
Please make sure you sent a few dollars to every politician you support, they are only trying to do what is right.

If I had sexually assaulted politicians I'm sure there would have been a price to pay. I didn't. Therein lies the difference.

It looks like this one is one of the ones Buzzbee wouldn't touch.

That's quite possible. On the other hand the Texans paid 26 settlement claims and watson paid off I think it was 24. So it seems this may be one of the women that the Texans did settle with. I really have no details on this case with which to say one way or the other.

The article on PD article indicated that. Just an observation.

I do know that The women's lawyer, Buzzbee had a very high bar for which cases he would accept and that he turned some of them. The PD is probably right about this one.

jc:

Hunting Valley.....a charming place to live in Northeast Ohio!

Pics here:

https://homesoftherich.net/2015/11/...ish-country-mansion-in-chagrin-falls-oh/

He's not gonna try living in that shotgun shack is he?

Castle McRapey.

Rich man rewarded for predatory behavior buys mansion. Details at 11:00.

Deshaun moving in some furniture...

Seems appropriate for what appears to be the dining room/hall, right?

DW has money because he's a great football player, not because he likes sex and massages. Don't get the constant bombardment against DW- he has paid millions, he's lost millions, he's been crucified by many over and over and over again. Kipling's six honest men- who, what, where, when, why, how- some posters can't let it go. Why beat on folks. DW is still getting massages, just not like before- he's changed or NFL wouldn't let him play.

DW made mistakes- pick up the stone and throw it if you're without sin. The 25/ 30 or 50 who sued him are NOT blameless- MONEY has been, is still a HUGE issue. DW had over 2,400 massage therapists he could have used in Houston- registered- AND the word was out about DW- he had issues. They CHOSE MONEY vs just saying no. Sort of like the failed drug problem solution- just say no. They chose to be with him- they wanted the big name and MONEY.

Wonder how many years need to be spent before folks move on.....Peace.

I love how people think you should just not mention all of this. Like it's going to go away if they yell loud enough.

It's not. He's a sexual predator yet some people think football is more important.

Only in respect to the terms of his employement.

Where's he supposed to hang the tiny towel?

Yet the Chiefs cut Kareem Hunt. I guess it all boils down to a teams priorities.

There's video of what Watson was accused of? He was charged?

Or are you trying one of your tired straw arguments again?

The only thing was found to have done was violate his terms of employment.

I thought you were big on the ruling of judges? I guess that's a pick and choose thing for you. Once again you follow me around like a petulant child starting fights. Please remember that people can read.

This is an honest question as I am not siding with or against Watson, but what judges ruling are we talking about?

Judge Sue Robinson.

He's talking about former Judge Sue Robinson who did NOT rule on a criminal or civil case in a real court of law. She made a ruling on whether or not Watson violated the NFL's Personal Conduct Policy.

And you stated plainly that you would respect her ruling. Right up to the point that you didn't. She found that he committed sexual assault. She found that he acted in a predatory manner and she also found that he acted egregiously. But now you're trying to downplay all of that by calling those things as "violations of NFL policy".

She was not acting as a judge. She was acting as an arbitrator and she is a RETIRED judge. Don't little details get in the way of a gaslight though.

The worst that anyone has found Watson did was violate his terms of employment.

Sex offenders go on lists, can't be in certian places etc. Can you find him registered anywhere? No? Employment terms.

Can you read that?

The NFl didn't respect her ruling.

Just a little truth to Pit's ongoing lies and deception. I did accept Sue Robinson's decision and said so several times. She gave him a 6 game suspension. I clearly said I thought it should have been less, but I respected her decision. But make no mistake..........posters trying to say that her decision was a legal decision are lying. It was all about the Personal Conduct Policy. It was not a court of law.

Pays to be a sexual abuser I guess.

On his tiny knob. That came out in court.

Not all sex offenders go on a list. DW should be on some kind of list, but I don't think he should be on that particular list. But he should have a big blinking neon sign that warns women not to offer him a massage at any price.

I need one of those that warns people not to pull my finger.

Her ruling was spelled out in a written statement. It included that he was a predator, acted egregiously and committed sexual assault.


Than you accept it in its entirety or you don't.


Who was it that said that?


It was to gather findings on whether he broke the NFL conduct policy or not. And it gave the reasons as to what he did to break that policy which included sexual assault. You do realize that breaks more than the NFL conduct policy, right?

Obviously you are trying to dismiss what her ruling said. It said he acted in a predatory manner. That he acted egregiously and committed sexual assault. You do realize those things do much more "violate the terms of his employment", correct?

But when you prioritize football over the sexual abuse of women we see posts such as yours and Vers to try and minimize such behavior and put players inexcusable behavior over what happened to those women.

No I am clearly tying to put what she wrote into the context it was written with instead of the dramatic hyperbole you had been shilling.

He broke terms of employment, arbitrary terms of employment. And the highly touted "judge" you cling to wasn't listened to by the league. So much for what she wrote eh?

But you aren't a lawyer, you wouldn't understand any of it.

I know exactly what her findings were because they were written plainly. Her findings on what transpired went well beyond violations of NFL policy. And unlike the things you try and point out elsewhere on this board, her finding were actually specific to this case and this case only. Of course when someone tries to apply the decision of one case to cases that aren't related to the one being discussed I can understand their need to deflect.