Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

Sexual Assault Suits Against Watson

Corrosion said:
It's so you don't incriminate yourself ....

Pleading the 5th doesn't work to protect someone else.
Click to expand...

Well, absolutely. The reason this witness is taking the 5th is so he/she doesn't incriminate THEMSELVES. I'm assuming this has nothing to do with Watson since more than likely this person has their own lawyer who has nothing to do with Rusty.

If you think they're taking the 5th to protect Watson, I think you're wrong.
 
paycheck71 said:
Well, absolutely. The reason this witness is taking the 5th is so he/she doesn't incriminate THEMSELVES. I'm assuming this has nothing to do with Watson since more than likely this person has their own lawyer who has nothing to do with Rusty.

If you think they're taking the 5th to protect Watson, I think you're wrong.
Click to expand...
Look at the line of questioning. There’s direct questions that this person (Jasmine Brooks) was setting up these meetings with women who didn’t even work for her and she was getting paid to do it. And that she even went to Watson to talk about his behavior
 
djohn2oo8 said:
Look at the line of questioning. There’s direct questions that this person (Jasmine Brooks) was setting up these meetings with women who didn’t even work for her and she was getting paid to do it. And that she even went to Watson to talk about his behavior
Click to expand...

What's your point? That she's trying to protect Watson? I still disagree.
 
paycheck71 said:
Well, absolutely. The reason this witness is taking the 5th is so he/she doesn't incriminate THEMSELVES. I'm assuming this has nothing to do with Watson since more than likely this person has their own lawyer who has nothing to do with Rusty.

If you think they're taking the 5th to protect Watson, I think you're wrong.
Click to expand...


I was just clarifying .... It's fairly obvious who this person is and that she could be proven culpable.
 
Corrosion said:
She's protecting herself - In setting up these "massages" and being paid to do so, she's liable - especially since she knew that there were complaints.
Click to expand...


Half her clientele are probably pro athletes. She's not just trying to protect herself legally, she's trying to protect her business. As for liability, you have to prove he's actually guilty. Then you have to prove she knew that.

The longer this drags on, the more I think the Texans get nothing for DW. Will this all be settled before free agency or the draft? I'm seriously doubting it at this point.

It's amazing how poorly managed the judicial system really is. Not my branch.
 
powda said:
Half her clientele are probably pro athletes. She's not just trying to protect herself legally, she's trying to protect her business. As for liability, you have to prove he's actually guilty. Then you have to prove she knew that.

The longer this drags on, the more I think the Texans get nothing for DW. Will this all be settled before free agency or the draft? I'm seriously doubting it at this point.

It's amazing how poorly managed the judicial system really is. Not my branch.
Click to expand...
Civil wise she may already be liable. In her text message she admits she heard about Watson messing with other people. Second, she admitted to talking to Watson because his name was getting around. Third, by Buzbee’s questioning he indicates he has proof Brooks sent the pictures of women and what they looked like so Watson would approve. She had knowledge of what was happening allegedly and fourth, Buzbee all edges Watson paid through Brooks and she took a 30 percent cut and gave the masseuse 70 percent. Oh yes she is liable civilly at least.
 
djohn2oo8 said:
Civil wise she may already be liable. In her text message she admits she heard about Watson messing with other people. Second, she admitted to talking to Watson because his name was getting around. Third, by Buzbee’s questioning he indicates he has proof Brooks sent the pictures of women and what they looked like so Watson would approve. She had knowledge of what was happening allegedly and fourth, Buzbee all edges Watson paid through Brooks and she took a 30 percent cut and gave the masseuse 70 percent. Oh yes she is liable civilly at least.
Click to expand...

It may work out that way but it's a lot to prove.
 
You can deduce 2 things from Brooks' pleading the 5th. The 5th can only be used to protect from criminal liability, not civil liability. And if she is criminally liable in the context of this particular case, then Watson must be involved in criminal activity with which she is closely associated.
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
You can deduce 2 things from Brooks' pleading the 5th. The 5th can only be used to protect from criminal liability, not civil liability. And if she is criminally liable in the context of this particular case, then Watson must be involved in criminal activity with which she is closely associated.
Click to expand...

Likely facts that some choose to ignore.
 
djohn2oo8 said:
Look at the line of questioning. There’s direct questions that this person (Jasmine Brooks) was setting up these meetings with women who didn’t even work for her and she was getting paid to do it. And that she even went to Watson to talk about his behavior
Click to expand...

Ghislane Maxwellian.
 
djohn2oo8 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1486895114416963590

Check out the full questioning from Buzbee. He’s already got answers to many of those questions and text messages to prove it
Click to expand...

Again, just curious as to why Buzbee’s office wanted to release this information to the media while Hardin has stayed quiet.

Buzbee wants something now and appears to have little patience in waiting. He seems to want a guilty verdict by the public instead of waiting for the actual court dates.

This will be an interesting watch.
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
You can deduce 2 things from Brooks' pleading the 5th. The 5th can only be used to protect from criminal liability, not civil liability. And if she is criminally liable in the context of this particular case, then Watson must be involved in criminal activity with which she is closely associated.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It looks like by her allegedly taking a cut, this was a trafficking operation. Next up, Quincy Avery.
 
also, if all of these things are true, this is one thing Brooks could be looking at if she doesn’t get a deal for immunity:


Sec. 43.03. PROMOTION OF PROSTITUTION. (a) A person commits an offense if, acting other than as a prostitute receiving compensation for personally rendered prostitution services, he or she knowingly:

(1) receives money or other property pursuant to an agreement to participate in the proceeds of prostitution; or

(2) solicits another to engage in sexual conduct with another person for compensation.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree, except that the offense is:

(1) a felony of the second degree if the actor has been previously convicted of an offense under this section; or

(2) a felony of the first degree if the actor engages in conduct described by Subsection (a)(1) or (2) involving a person younger than 18 years of age engaging in prostitution, regardless of whether the actor knows the age of the person at the time of the offense.
 
Ktexan68 said:
At what point can we cut him for conduct unbecoming?
Click to expand...
Lucky said:
At any point.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they could cut him at any time but that doesn't void the contract, they'd still be on the hook for the guaranteed money and the associated cap hit .... There will have to be some legal finding of guilt for the contract to be voided.

We're far from that at this point .... I could see this dragging deep into the coming season and maybe beyond it before we see closure on either civil or criminal cases.

From a legal perspective, this s#!+ show is just getting started.
 
djohn2oo8 said:
also, if all of these things are true, this is one thing Brooks could be looking at if she doesn’t get a deal for immunity:


Sec. 43.03. PROMOTION OF PROSTITUTION. (a) A person commits an offense if, acting other than as a prostitute receiving compensation for personally rendered prostitution services, he or she knowingly:

(1) receives money or other property pursuant to an agreement to participate in the proceeds of prostitution; or

(2) solicits another to engage in sexual conduct with another person for compensation.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree, except that the offense is:

(1) a felony of the second degree if the actor has been previously convicted of an offense under this section; or

(2) a felony of the first degree if the actor engages in conduct described by Subsection (a)(1) or (2) involving a person younger than 18 years of age engaging in prostitution, regardless of whether the actor knows the age of the person at the time of the offense.
Click to expand...

In other words they've made life tough on a pimp these days.
 
Corrosion said:
Yeah, they could cut him at any time but that doesn't void the contract, they'd still be on the hook for the guaranteed money and the associated cap hit .... There will have to be some legal finding of guilt for the contract to be voided.

We're far from that at this point .... I could see this dragging deep into the coming season and maybe beyond it before we see closure on either civil or criminal cases.

From a legal perspective, this s#!+ show is just getting started.
Click to expand...

And it's highly unlikely that things will be settled before the last weekend in April. I know this doesn't fit Caserio/Fans timeline but the justice system doesn't move on the NFL/Fans timelines.
 
Corrosion said:
Yeah, they could cut him at any time but that doesn't void the contract, they'd still be on the hook for the guaranteed money and the associated cap hit .... There will have to be some legal finding of guilt for the contract to be voided.

We're far from that at this point .... I could see this dragging deep into the coming season and maybe beyond it before we see closure on either civil or criminal cases.

From a legal perspective, this s#!+ show is just getting started.
Click to expand...
If Rusty and Watson decide they want to go to trial on criminal charges specifically any felonies it will absolutely take years with the way the courts are backed up.
 
OptimisticTexan said:
Again, just curious as to why Buzbee’s office wanted to release this information to the media while Hardin has stayed quiet.

Buzbee wants something now and appears to have little patience in waiting. He seems to want a guilty verdict by the public instead of waiting for the actual court dates.

This will be an interesting watch.
Click to expand...


How does being guilty in the court of public opinion help him win his civil cases??

I think that's fairly clear ....
 
It's looking more like Derrick will be playing for the Mean Machine tham the Bucs after the latest of Ms. Brooks pleading the 5th. Even in the Texans best case scenario it's doubtful the legal issues will be cleared up by the last weekend in April.
 
djohn2oo8 said:
Also Buzbee going public has caused Rusty to make serious errors in response. First being calling ALL of the women liars. The second, putting a specific number on women who could defend Watson’s character
Click to expand...
I also pointed these things out right after Hardin made his statements..............rookie mistakes from someone who is considered a seasoned defense attorney.
 
thunderkyss said:
I’m sure it’s the same source you’re using. It was provided in a link on one of these threads.

It’s going to count against the Texans the year he is on it. It’s usually for an undetermined time. But whether he’s on it for 6 months or 9 months, the team will be credited for the current year & rolled over to the following year.

that’s really the only way it can work, regardless who is paying, so the team is never over the cap.
Click to expand...
I saw the post you're referring to but it was just an opinion of that poster or IIRC link to someone else but not CBA. I'm not trying to be cantankerous but wouldn't that be something we want to know? Everyone is asking for proof of every source but we just accept this as what someone says but no proof?
 
steelbtexan said:
It's looking more like Derrick will be playing for the Mean Machine tham the Bucs after the latest of Ms. Brooks pleading the 5th. Even in the Texans best case scenario it's doubtful the legal issues will be cleared up by the last weekend in April.
Click to expand...
None of that really means anything.

Buzbee is deposing for the civil cases. Brooks involvement is irrelevant.

The law has already done their depositions, the grand jury has been conveened, I believe. Watson is skiing in Switzerland.

Buzbee is just trying to stir the public trying to squeeze more settlement money for his clients.
 
djohn2oo8 said:
Look at the line of questioning. There’s direct questions that this person (Jasmine Brooks) was setting up these meetings with women who didn’t even work for her and she was getting paid to do it. And that she even went to Watson to talk about his behavior
Click to expand...
perhaps it is just me but seems that her comments should be enough to present her to GJ for possible indictment for her possible role as she/her attorney thinks she may have committed crimes.
 
thunderkyss said:
None of that really means anything.

Buzbee is deposing for the civil cases. Brooks involvement is irrelevant.

The law has already done their depositions, the grand jury has been conveened, I believe. Watson is skiing in Switzerland.

Buzbee is just trying to stir the public trying to squeeze more settlement money for his clients.
Click to expand...

Would it be to much of a stretch that Hardin may have coached Brooks to plead the fifth after each question since engaging in answering could easily lead to questions that are meant to corner and paint a different picture seeking only yes and no answers…..no elaboration?
 
paycheck71 said:
There's no way Hardin is representing her. Her own lawyer told her what to do.
Click to expand...

There's a reason Brooks took the 5th.

She didn't want to incriminate herself.

From what? I think we know what, she/Avery were the persons who setup up the massages, knowing what Derrick was expecting from his therapist. That's called a pimp on the streets.
 
steelbtexan said:
There's a reason Brooks took the 5th.

She didn't want to incriminate herself.

From what? I think we know what, she/Avery were the persons who setup up the massages, knowing what Derrick was expecting from his therapist. That's called a pimp on the streets.
Click to expand...
Allegedly.

She probably just got caught in the middle of Buzbee’s fishing expedition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top