Disagreements In Jameis Winston Settlement Talks

Submitted by TooFratToFail on

TMZ (and now other outlets) is reporting that Jameis Winston's accuser sought $7 million dollars in exchange for never hearing from her or her attorney again.  This comes from a recent  letter from Winston's legal advisor, David Cronwell (BIG time sports attorney), regarding Winston's agreeing to participate in the Title IX investigation.  Cronwell states in the letter that four days after he received the letter, the accuser's attorney went to the media.  The accuser's attorney insinuated that the encounter had to be rape because she would never sleep with a "black boy."   

Take into account the attorneys in play and their respective careers.  Cronwell is a highly respected and successful national attorney.  Saying something like this without proof is very iffy, especially under Florida's pretty strict Prof. Conduct rules.  Interesting to say the least.  Also, the use of the word "settle" is questionable in this context, if it pertained to a criminal action.  Dropping criminal charges in exchange for payment is a no-no.  In civil cases, fine. The word extortion has been tossed around and might be more appropriate.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/24/report-winstons-acc…

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2014-09-24/jameis-winst…

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/according-to-lawyer-for…

MOD EDIT - I saw MGlobules comments, and admittedly I didn't really think about the title of this thread as it came into being while I was in a meeting and then rather distracted by other things for much of the evening. On more thoughtful examination, yeah, the title needs some changing. Hopefully, this works - LSA

DonAZ

September 24th, 2014 at 2:34 PM ^

The WIP thing was during the Ford admnistration.

I'm old enough to remember it.

My first mortgage was for 13%.  That was in 1985 ... the inflation during the Ford administration was bad, but got really bad during Carter's administration.  It wasn't brought under control until mid-80's.  Still, that first mortgage carried a 13% interest rate.  Ouch.

sadeto

September 24th, 2014 at 2:53 PM ^

If one was lucky enough to purchase a home in the late 60's, as my parents did, not only were rates reasonable (7-8%), the inflation of the Ford and Carter years would wipe out much of the relative value of the principal. Leaving one with a mortgage payment that was an afterthought, not a worry. 

DonAZ

September 24th, 2014 at 3:24 PM ^

Yes ... provided earnings kept up with inflation.  Back then they did (more or less), nowadays not so much.

But yeah, they probably bought a house for $20K or less.  Back in 1969 my parents bought a  farmhouse and 70 acres in Howell for $50K.  At that time my father was only earning $13K a year, so it was a stretch.  We survived.

I realize my "It was in the Ford administration, not Carter" comment above may have appeared dickish ... refuting a minor point and being contrarian.  I didn't mean it to come across like that.  I was more recalling a rather vivid memory from my early years.  The whole "Whip Inflation Now" thing by Ford was a pathetic response to a real problem and was mocked mercilessly on Saturday Night Live.  Carter's handling of inflation was no better.

RB's Mustache

September 24th, 2014 at 2:48 PM ^

So I'm supposed to accept this Cronwell guy's version because he is a "BIG time sports attorney"? Uh-huh. Yeah because they don't speak in hyperbole and fight cases in the media. And citing Florida law as some sort of panacea to blathering attorneys is not any more persuasive.

LSAClassOf2000

September 24th, 2014 at 2:55 PM ^

Mike Florio apparently obtained a copy of that letter as well - mentioned HERE - but actually ties this into something that he believes may very well starting happening a lot in the pros:

While indeed labeled as extortion by Cornwell, it’s common for potential plaintiffs in civil lawsuits to demand cash in exchange for a waiver of potential legal claims and silence. Typically, the first number requested is ridiculously high. The defendant often responds with a number that is ridiculously low, and the two sides chip away at the divide until a deal is either reached, or not.

Florio believes that you'll start seeing similar situations in some of the cases of domestic violence facing various NFL players and there might be checks written in some instances. It's something I didn't think about in light of all that has gone on recently, but I wonder if some players would indeed try to "make it go away". 

Yeoman

September 24th, 2014 at 3:42 PM ^

But as I understand it she'd already gone to the police, who had dissuaded her from pressing charges and didn't pursue the case themselves. These negotiations were about the civil suit she was threatening and the possibility she might take her allegations to the press.

GoBLUinTX

September 24th, 2014 at 5:31 PM ^

But nothing implied that there was a monetary discussion before the DA dropped the charges.  In fact, had the offer been made to make a criminal trial go away, no lawyer I, but I believe that would be something along the lines of a witness tampering crime.

TooFratToFail

September 24th, 2014 at 3:05 PM ^

Perhaps the issue is timing.  This was, according to Cronwell's account, four days before she went to the media.  Proposing a settlement during civil proceedings is one thing, another is to say that, "Unless we get $7 Million, we're going to tell our story to the media and launch of civil action against you."  Moreso if her cooperation/lackthereof with the police was contingent on the payment.  Since, I believe, she stopped talking to the police pretty soon after the incident (by her choice or whatever reasons you might want to infer) it could very easily look to the outsider pretty suspicious that the accuser's participation in a criminal action was contingent on whether she received payment. 

a2_electricboogaloo

September 24th, 2014 at 3:42 PM ^

According to the Accusers lawyer (her Title IX lawyer, not Patricia Carroll):

“The facts that Mr. Cornwell chose not to disclose are that it was he himself who reached out to our client’s former counsel Patricia Carroll to discuss paying off our client,” said John Clune, a Title IX attorney representing the accuser. “Patricia Carroll didn’t’ even know who David Cornwell was until he called. Mr. Cornwell then himself flew down from Atlanta to negotiate with Ms. Carroll.”

[Souce]

So according to this, Winston's attorney approached the accusers attorney about payment first, rather than the accuser's attorney approaching Winston's camp.

Yeoman

September 24th, 2014 at 4:06 PM ^

Which would still leave Cronwell's statements technically true.

That may seem flippant but it isn't. Attorneys are prohibited from lying but they're certainly free to omit inconvenient facts. What they say has to be true, but it's dangerous to make inferences beyond the bare facts stipulated.

a2_electricboogaloo

September 24th, 2014 at 3:48 PM ^

Found the full letter from the attorney [source]:

“Atlanta NFL lawyer, David Cornwell, has apparently leaked to TMZ a self-serving letter to Florida State University that is full of dishonest and distorted statements at a time when Mr. Winston is suffering from the negative attention of his own continuing misconduct of last week. Mr. Cornwell appears to know that Mr. Winston is about to be charged by Florida State with sexual assault and this letter seems to be his final attempt to prevent FSU from complying with federal law.

“The facts that Mr. Cornwell chose not to disclose are that it was he, himself, who reached out to our client’s former counsel Patricia Carroll to discuss paying off our client. Patricia Carroll didn’t even know who David Cornwell was until he called. Mr. Cornwell then himself flew down from Atlanta to negotiate with Ms. Carroll.

“Settlement discussions were immediately unproductive as Cornwell was crude and insulting going so far as to say ‘your client likes to [expletive] football players.’ When told that the client’s main concern was not money but that Winston be held accountable for his actions, Cornwell threatened to sue our client and her parents for civil racketeering in an effort to intimidate them into staying quiet. After learning about Mr. Cornwell’s unprofessional conduct at that meeting from Ms. Carroll, our office has decidedly not engaged with Mr. Cornwell at all or anyone else on Mr. Winston’s behalf. Although it our understanding that settlement was discussed, no authorized demands were made of Mr. Winston.

“Mr. Cornwell additionally and inaccurately portrays that our client chose to file a complaint ‘two years later.’ The truth is that the University approached our client in October of 2013 and asked her for the first time whether she would cooperate with disciplinary charges against Mr. Winston after the school received a second report of sexual misconduct by another woman. Our client responded that she would certainly cooperate. Since that time our client through counsel has repeatedly agreed to cooperate and meet with the University. All of these communications, including the October 2013 discussion with FSU officials, is documented. Mr. Cornwell may wish the truth were otherwise, but FSU’s own records proves him false.

“To the extent that Mr. Cornwell references statements about Mr. Winston’s race, we would doubt that Ms. Carroll made such remarks. The suggested remarks are certainly not beliefs held by our client and she would never authorize anyone to say such things.”

enlightenedbum

September 24th, 2014 at 4:24 PM ^

On the one hand, anonymous sources leaking to TMZ, on the other hand an official statement which points to actual documentation (not that we can see it, but it'd be an easy lie to prove if FSU wanted to).  HMMMMM I cannot decide which seems more credible.

There's a subtle bombshell in that statement though, which is that there's a second woman accusing Winston of sexual misconduct.  I don't think we had known that previously?

Yeoman

September 24th, 2014 at 4:56 PM ^

There's no reason to see either one as not-credible; I don't think there's a single contradiction between the two accounts if you confine yourself to the precise text.

Cronwell initiates settlement talks. He flies down for a meeting, his side asks for a number, her side throws out an absurdly big one, he says "you're nuts", she says "you asked, and anyway I don't want your money I want him to get what's coming to him", he threatens to sue her for extortion, things get heated and they exchange some barbs about who she would or wouldn't have sex with. Title IX attorney says it's unlikely she said it because it would be out of character, but he wasn't actually in the room so he doesn't know.

Did I leave anything out? Two completely different accounts, on their face, but not a lie in it on either side.

Yeoman

September 24th, 2014 at 5:50 PM ^

I guess it's a difference between reading these letters to determine moral culpability of the writers, vs. reading them to try to figure out what happened.

There may be an ethical sense in which he's a "liar" but what he can't do as an attorney is lie explicitly. Knowing that what he says is very likely to be the literal truth, however misleading it might seem, is a big help in figuring out what's really going on.

a2_electricboogaloo

September 24th, 2014 at 8:51 PM ^

I heard it mentioned in a couple other places too, but I can't find a source on it, which is weird.

EDIT: Found a NYT Article that talks about it [source]:

A month before the rape accusation became public, the university’s victim advocate learned that a second woman had sought counseling after a sexual encounter with Mr. Winston, according to the prosecutor’s office. The woman did not call it rape — she did not say “no.” But the encounter, not previously reported, “was of such a nature that she felt violated or felt that she needed to seek some type of counseling for her emotions about the experience,” according to Georgia Cappleman, the chief assistant state attorney, who said she had spoken with the advocate but not with the woman.

The victim advocate was concerned enough about the episode to have alerted Mr. Winston’s first accuser.

Ms. Cappleman said that based on what she was told, a crime had not been committed. Nonetheless, Ms. Cappleman said she found the encounter troubling, because it “sheds some light on the way Mr. Winston operates” and on what may be “a recurring problem rather than some type of misunderstanding that occurred in an isolated situation.”

Yeoman

September 24th, 2014 at 4:10 PM ^

Given the circumstances, it would probably come out of his future earnings in some sort of deferred payment arrangement, or somebody'd make him a loan based on those future earnings. That would surely be an NCAA violation, but with the payee sworn to silence who would ever find out?

This sort of negotiation is S.O.P. when a civil suit is threatened and I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

---

Ed.: I misread your "is coming" as "would come". It isn't coming from anywhere, since they didn't actually settle.

LordGrantham

September 24th, 2014 at 8:17 PM ^

It's amazing to me that so many people are buying the "extortion" angle considering that it came directly from Winston's lawyer, and he didn't even mention extortion.

Yeoman

September 24th, 2014 at 8:48 PM ^

...but he seems to have mentioned it to the alleged victim's lawyer. From the Title IX attorney's statement:

 

When told that the client’s main concern was not money but that Winston be held accountable for his actions, Cornwell threatened to sue our client and her parents for civil racketeering in an effort to intimidate them into staying quiet.

 

D.C. Dave

September 24th, 2014 at 5:13 PM ^

Not only did the accuser's attorney never ask for $7 million, they did not even want to participate in settlement talks.

They did so at Cornwell's request, then he put the $7 million figure on the table, they rejected it -- and he then goes out and says in a letter that he knows has to be made public on request that they "demanded" $7 million.

Shame on those who didn't see through this, one of the oldest scheister lawyer tricks in the books, before they just quoted his bogus letter.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/09/24/jameis-winston-fl…

 

Jon06

September 26th, 2014 at 11:36 AM ^

The real thing that letter from C[orn]well's doing is setting up FSU to be sued by Winston after he gets expelled. There are a bunch of cases in the courts, which have been linked to here before by a banned-but-now-reincarnated poster, of male students suing universities who dismissed them as a result of Title IX sexual assault proceedings. That's what all the mumbo jumbo about the legality of the investigation and JW's due process rights is really about. In my view he's totally cooked.

jblaze

September 25th, 2014 at 10:09 AM ^

Didn't want to start a new thread on Winston, but there may be some new information. From Wetzel:

"Or an attorney advising Winston actually started the process by flying down to Tampa and offering that sum, or some sum, to the victim/accuser as a way to buy her off…"

"Winston's advising attorney went over the top and tried to be a bully. The woman's attorney said in a statement he, "threatened to sue our client and her parents for civil racketeering in an effort to intimidate them into staying quiet" and acted, "crude and insulting going so far as to say 'your client likes to [expletive] football players' "…"

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/jameis-winston-s-attorney-adds-extra-layer…