Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, Drew said:

His skits still hit...the "Kobe" at the end and shooting a used condom kills me.

its ridiculous how much of the Chapelle Show still hits as hard as when it was released. Its a shame he had his meltdown or whatever caused him to break his contract after two seasons. He came roaring out of the gates with that Clayton Bigsby skit in that first show. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Quote

Lawyers for NFL draft prospect Isaiah Bond filed a lawsuit in United States District Court in Northern Texas on Tuesday against a woman who they say made false statements to the Frisco (Texas) Police Department.

Bond turned himself in last week on an outstanding sexual assault warrant. He was released after posting a $25,000 bond.

Bond's lawyers say a sexual encounter with the woman, who is unnamed in the lawsuit, was consensual. The lawsuit, which includes a defamation claim, asks for economic damages and a civil trial.

Damien Butler, Bond's agent, sent an email to all 32 NFL teams with the first page of the lawsuit attached, writing that Bond "is completely innocent of the allegations levied against him and will fight to clear his name."

After being released from jail, Bond went on social media and said the accusation against him was "patently false."

"Regarding the accusation made against me, I would appreciate the time and opportunity to defend myself and prove the claims made, patently false. I am in full cooperation with the authorities and will remain a willing and active participant in the investigation," he said in the statement. "Unfortunately, claims like these prove to be harmful to all involved, absent full review. I kindly request that all reserve judgement until the authorities provide a complete report based on truth and evidence." 

Posted

Miltenberg is legit and this isn't his first rodeo. I don't know the guy but I attended a CLE several years back where he was one of the speakers and chatted with him for a while during the break between sessions. I got the sense that he doesn't represent persons who are guilty, but only he or his clients would know for sure.

Posted
51 minutes ago, AnotherLawyer said:

Miltenberg is legit and this isn't his first rodeo. I don't know the guy but I attended a CLE several years back where he was one of the speakers and chatted with him for a while during the break between sessions. I got the sense that he doesn't represent persons who are guilty, but only he or his clients would know for sure.

Well, given their experience, it would seem that they certainly know how to approach these things.

I note that the suit is for defamation, not for malicious prosecution, which usually can't be pursued until termination of proceedings entirely in the defendant's favor, but is something you see from time to time from certain types of assholes.

  • 3 months later...
Posted
Quote

The defamation lawsuit filed by NFL draft prospect Isaiah Bond and his lawyers against a woman who they say made false statements to the Frisco (Texas) Police Department has been dismissed with prejudice by the United States District Court in Northern Texas.

Bond's lawyers filed the lawsuit back in April, one week after he turned himself in to police on an outstanding sexual assault warrant. He was later released after posting a $25,000 bond.

Bond's lawyers say a sexual encounter with the woman, who was unnamed in the lawsuit, was consensual. The lawsuit asked for economic damages and a civil trial. The dismissal with prejudice ends the case and prevents Bond from refiling the claim again.

In his lone season at Texas in 2024, Bond caught 34 passes for 540 yards and five touchdowns. He spent his first two seasons at Alabama, catching 65 passes for 888 yards and five touchdowns for the Crimson Tide.

Bond was a highly-touted prospect entering the draft but proceeded to go undrafted following his arrest. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 4/16/2025 at 8:54 PM, AnotherLawyer said:

Miltenberg is legit and this isn't his first rodeo. I don't know the guy but I attended a CLE several years back where he was one of the speakers and chatted with him for a while during the break between sessions. I got the sense that he doesn't represent persons who are guilty, but only he or his clients would know for sure.

I guess I’m naive about lawyers.  There’s lawyers who don’t represent guilty clients?  In my experience any lawyer out there will defend anyone who can pay.  Huh…

  • Haha 1
Posted
10 hours ago, shadow_operative2.0 said:
Quote

The defamation lawsuit filed by NFL draft prospect Isaiah Bond and his lawyers against a woman who they say made false statements to the Frisco (Texas) Police Department has been dismissed with prejudice by the United States District Court in Northern Texas.

Bond's lawyers filed the lawsuit back in April, one week after he turned himself in to police on an outstanding sexual assault warrant. He was later released after posting a $25,000 bond.

Bond's lawyers say a sexual encounter with the woman, who was unnamed in the lawsuit, was consensual. The lawsuit asked for economic damages and a civil trial. The dismissal with prejudice ends the case and prevents Bond from refiling the claim again.

In his lone season at Texas in 2024, Bond caught 34 passes for 540 yards and five touchdowns. He spent his first two seasons at Alabama, catching 65 passes for 888 yards and five touchdowns for the Crimson Tide.

Bond was a highly-touted prospect entering the draft but proceeded to go undrafted following his arrest. 

Expand  

 The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss stipulating the with prejudice portion. Which means, the parties entered into a settlement of the underlying case. The press releases on this matter implicitly give the appearance that the case was dismissed because of a motion to dismiss or otherwise against the plaintiff's wishes.

A lot more here than meets the eye.

Posted
On 4/14/2025 at 2:31 PM, Blotto said:

its ridiculous how much of the Chapelle Show still hits as hard as when it was released. Its a shame he had his meltdown or whatever caused him to break his contract after two seasons. He came roaring out of the gates with that Clayton Bigsby skit in that first show. 

You might want to take some time and do some research. In short, the producers wanted to truly get their hands in content and make it appealing to a "broader" audience. Chapelle has spoken pretty openly about it and it's worth understanding that it was less of a Dave lost his mind and more Dave wanted to continue his creative endeavors without censorship or heavy handed moderation of his comedy. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, markstanco said:

With a quick google, I dont see him on any NFL squads after going undrafted. 

assuming he does get picked up how long of a suspension is he looking at from the NFL?  and without scrolling back through the thread is this a civil or criminal matter?

Posted
3 hours ago, Lidig8r said:

 The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss stipulating the with prejudice portion. Which means, the parties entered into a settlement of the underlying case. The press releases on this matter implicitly give the appearance that the case was dismissed because of a motion to dismiss or otherwise against the plaintiff's wishes.

A lot more here than meets the eye.

username checks out 

Posted
13 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I guess I’m naive about lawyers.  There’s lawyers who don’t represent guilty clients?  In my experience any lawyer out there will defend anyone who can pay.  Huh…

Sounds like you haven't had to go shopping for an attorney, especially on a complex matter that maybe they don't quite grasp and takes a lot of time to explain. And that's a good thing for you. My experience is that it's as hard to find one to give you the time of day as it is to get a plumber or electrician when you need one. The good ones are already plenty busy, and so are the lesser practitioners.

3 hours ago, Lidig8r said:

 The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss stipulating the with prejudice portion. Which means, the parties entered into a settlement of the underlying case. The press releases on this matter implicitly give the appearance that the case was dismissed because of a motion to dismiss or otherwise against the plaintiff's wishes.

A lot more here than meets the eye.

With "against the plaintiff's wishes" meaning "not looking to be in Bond's favor," I take it?

What are some of the possibilities you see here, @Lidig8r?

Posted
13 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I guess I’m naive about lawyers.  There’s lawyers who don’t represent guilty clients?  In my experience any lawyer out there will defend anyone who can pay.  Huh…

Yeah. Believe it or not, there are lawyers who refuse to defend someone who's guilty and will refer them to someone else. Then there are lawyers who also will defend the guilty, but for plea-minimizing purposes. Then there are lawyers who defend the guilty trying to get a not-guilty or innocent verdict, and don't care if they're guilty. The ones who won't defend guilty clients are usually ones with a high profile who don't want to risk it being tarnished. That doesn't mean their clients won't be found guilty. It's a risk no matter what.

Posted
13 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I guess I’m naive about lawyers.  There’s lawyers who don’t represent guilty clients?  In my experience any lawyer out there will defend anyone who can pay.  Huh…

Couple of points of order.  This is a civil defamation suit, so there isn't a guilty client, and if anyone in this ends up "guilty," it will be the defendant, ie the chick.

Of course, Bond might be guilty in the criminal case, but that's not the matter in question here.

I'm not a big fan of using the term "guilty" in connection with civil suits.  Given that the burden of proof in most of them is more likely than not, and the plaintiff is a private party rather than the government, the term "guilty" or "guilt" carries an implication that doesn't really belong in a civil suit.

And, although you jest, it's probably worth remembering that even the guilty deserve and are entitled to a defense.  The current regime should be a stark reminder that the government is not always a benign entity and it is at its most powerful against the individual in the context of a criminal proceeding.

 

Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Hayduke said:

Sounds like you haven't had to go shopping for an attorney, especially on a complex matter that maybe they don't quite grasp and takes a lot of time to explain. And that's a good thing for you. My experience is that it's as hard to find one to give you the time of day as it is to get a plumber or electrician when you need one. The good ones are already plenty busy, and so are the lesser practitioners.

With "against the plaintiff's wishes" meaning "not looking to be in Bond's favor," I take it?

What are some of the possibilities you see here, @Lidig8r?

According to this docket sheet, which should be accurate, there was no motion to dismiss, and Bond moved, alone (not jointly), to dismiss with prejudice. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/57676123/Bond_v_Roe

The one motion was that Bond asked that the returned summons be sealed.  The suit is styled Bond v. Roe to protect her identity.  But a summons would have to have her actual name and address on it and the executed or returned summons would state where, how, and who was served with the suit.

So that was for her benefit, not his.  Curiously, however, the docket states that the motion to seal was opposed.  That don't make no sense.

The parties had agreed a couple of times to push off the joint scheduling conference and the defendant had not answered.  That tends to mean they're actively talking.

A settlement is most likely because he dismissed it with prejudice, meaning he can't bring it again if circumstances change.

Before a defendant answers, the plaintiff has the unilateral right to dismiss a suit and to choose whether to do it with or without prejudice.  By doing it with prejudice, the high likelihood is that some form of accommodation was reached.  Even if the lawsuit had been shown to be a frivolous, sanctionable, flaming piece of shit, you'd still dismiss it without prejudice absent a settlement.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
26 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

According to this docket sheet, which should be accurate, there was no motion to dismiss, and Bond moved, alone (not jointly), to dismiss with prejudice. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/57676123/Bond_v_Roe

The one motion was that Bond asked that the returned summons be sealed.  The suit is styled Bond v. Roe to protect her identity.  But a summons would have to have her actual name and address on it and the executed or returned summons would state where, how, and who was served with the suit.

So that was for her benefit, not his.  Curiously, however, the docket states that the motion to seal was opposed.  That don't make no sense.

The parties had agreed a couple of times to push off the joint scheduling conference and the defendant had not answered.  That tends to mean they're actively talking.

A settlement is most likely because he dismissed it with prejudice, meaning he can't bring it again if circumstances change.

Before a defendant answers, the plaintiff has the unilateral right to dismiss a suit and to choose whether to do it with or without prejudice.  By doing it with prejudice, the high likelihood is that some form of accommodation was reached.  Even if the lawsuit had been shown to be a frivolous, sanctionable, flaming piece of shit, you'd still dismiss it without prejudice absent a settlement.

Well, yes and no. Although the Motion to Dismiss was filed by the plaintiff, the substance of the one page motion had both mouthpieces agreeing and e/signing.

Plaintiff's attorney is based in NY. Defendant's attorney is James Bell. I've worked with Bell on a case before. A bit quirky but knows his stuff pretty well.  If the criminal case goes forward, the terms of the civil settlement will inevitably come to light in the criminal case.

With Bond's playing future in the air, there inevitably is a lot of maneuvering going on.  For example, there may be structured terms in the settlement such as ... "should Bond sign a free agent contract, the alleged victim would receive X amount... with further stipulations as Bond makes more $. 

Keep your eyes open as to whether the criminal case is dropped in the near future.

stip.pdf

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

According to this docket sheet, which should be accurate, there was no motion to dismiss, and Bond moved, alone (not jointly), to dismiss with prejudice. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/57676123/Bond_v_Roe

The one motion was that Bond asked that the returned summons be sealed.  The suit is styled Bond v. Roe to protect her identity.  But a summons would have to have her actual name and address on it and the executed or returned summons would state where, how, and who was served with the suit.

So that was for her benefit, not his.  Curiously, however, the docket states that the motion to seal was opposed.  That don't make no sense.

The parties had agreed a couple of times to push off the joint scheduling conference and the defendant had not answered.  That tends to mean they're actively talking.

A settlement is most likely because he dismissed it with prejudice, meaning he can't bring it again if circumstances change.

Before a defendant answers, the plaintiff has the unilateral right to dismiss a suit and to choose whether to do it with or without prejudice.  By doing it with prejudice, the high likelihood is that some form of accommodation was reached.  Even if the lawsuit had been shown to be a frivolous, sanctionable, flaming piece of shit, you'd still dismiss it without prejudice absent a settlement.

Interesting. If I'm interpreting all this correctly, it means Bond could be feeling the accommodation would go in his favor -- meaning Roe perhaps drops her complaint? Or, alternatively, he knows this is a failed gambit, a frivolous and flaming piece of shit, on his part?

And I'm guessing the opposition to sealing the summons could only come from the defendant? Can it come from a third party?

I'm obviously not an attorney, but I have been spending too much time figuring out how the law works, especially in context of your observation that government is "at its most powerful against the individual." 

Also glad that site you linked is pay. Would have gone down the rabbit hole of reading those PDFs.

Edited by Hayduke
Lidig8r has answered most of this, I think, but all Surly attorneys should feel free to opine as they wish. Even fake ones.
  • Hook 'Em 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...