Jack De Belin - Takes NRL to Court over ban.

[TABOO]

@Deathspell Your thoughts?

The only winner here will be his lawyers. Soon to be jumping into coins Scrooge McDuck style.

NRL/ARLC's legal team will blow this one out of the water with one very easy swipe. Jack De Belin agreed to terms of contract when signing a binding agreement with the NRL as a contracted player. Part of that contract would be abiding by (and being subjected to) the rules of the game.

One of those rules of the game (now) is that if a player is charged by police and the charge carries a 5+ year custodial sentence OR is against woman, that player is stood down until matter is heard in court.

Why the fuck would you have your legal team focussing (and distracted) with this shit, when your facing charges that could see you locked up for half a decade.!!!

Yeah, its a strange path to take BEFORE you have had your actual case decided.
If I were him, I would be focusing on the very serious charges first and then if that is decided, THEN pursue the NRL on the basis that he was proven innocent.

 

[TABOO]

Ask yourself this though, if you knew you were innocent of such a horrific charge against you, wouldn't you come out straight away and vehemently deny it?

I know I would. I wouldn't be silent about it for months no matter what my lawyers told me.

I'm sure most people would do the same. So why hasn't he said anything this whole time?

Even if his lawyers advised him to do so, that's bad advice IF you're innocent. You'd need to get out in front of this thing to defend your name.

The only reason his lawyers would tell him to say nothing is if there was some truth to the claims.

So the whole Bulldog team was guilty in the Coffs Harbour incident then if you follow that logic?
They were told not to say a word the entire time.

 

[B-Train]

So the whole Bulldog team was guilty in the Coffs Harbour incident then if you follow that logic?
They were told not to say a word the entire time.

Good point. But that was different as a whole squad of players were charged so it was a much more complex situation.

And look at the damage those claims did! Lots of people still assume they were guilty and I think if they were on the front foot more from the beginning then it would have helped their cause.

My point is, if you were falsely charged of rape, wouldn't you deny it straight away?

You don't have to go into specifics which may impact the case, just come out and say

"I'm shocked by these claims against me, that's not the type of person I am, I have the utmost respect for women and will be fighting this in court to prove my innocence.. that's all I can say at this time...."

How hard is that? Staying completely silent doesn't help your cause in the court of public opinion.

 

[Flanagun]

What is he saying he is not guilty of?

The actual sex or the fact that it was non-consensual?

With DNA evidence and medical reports (and probably eyewitnesses who saw him with the woman on the night), you'd think it would be pretty easy to prove or disprove he slept with her.

 

[TABOO]

Good point. But that was different as a whole squad of players were charged so it was a much more complex situation.

And look at the damage those claims did! Lots of people still assume they were guilty and I think if they were on the front foot more from the beginning then it would have helped their cause.

My point is, if you were falsely charged of rape, wouldn't you deny it straight away?

You don't have to go into specifics which may impact the case, just come out and say

"I'm shocked by these claims against me, that's not the type of person I am, I have the utmost respect for women and will be fighting this in court to prove my innocence.. that's all I can say at this time...."

How hard is that? Staying completely silent doesn't help your cause in the court of public opinion.

No, I know, I actually do agree with what you're saying but also the public should TRY to reserve their assumption of guilt until the verdict is handed down regardless of his public comments or lack there of (Easier said than done I am afraid).

The dogs got absolutely tarnished from this and many people I speak to today still don't even know that the media had to publish an apology and notice that they were wrong.

 

[B-Train]

No, I know, I actually do agree with what you're saying but also the public should TRY to reserve their assumption of guilt until the verdict is handed down regardless of his public comments or lack there of (Easier said than done I am afraid).

The dogs got absolutely tarnished from this and many people I speak to today still don't even know that the media had to publish an apology and notice that they were wrong.

Yeah I completely agree. But that's not the world we live in unfortunately and it's human nature to judge people when they are alleged of such a serious crime.

People should be presumed innocent til proven guilty but most of the time it's presumed guilty of such crimes til proven innocent. And even then if proven innocent, doubts still linger and the damage to one's reputation is irreparable.

Either way, people will always form their own opinion on such serious matters rightly or wrongly. Which is why I'd be out there defending myself publicly as much as possible if I were innocent and charged with such a crime.

 

[K E]

Honestly, De Belin brought this whole situation on himself. This is the result of him having a man bun. Nothing good can ever come of having a man bun.

 

[Howard Moon]

Brent Read‏
Jack De Belin case in Federal Court likely to take from 4-6 weeks but he is expected to seek interlocutory injunction tomorrow. Would be heard in court next week and if successful, would mean he is able to play in round one.

 

[TABOO]

Brent Read‏
Jack De Belin case in Federal Court likely to take from 4-6 weeks but he is expected to seek interlocutory injunction tomorrow. Would be heard in court next week and if successful, would mean he is able to play in round one.

I think that would be a positive outcome for everyone to bring it forward to next week.
Matters with such high publicity and ramifications for many people outside just the accused and accuser need to be addressed quickly.

 

[GrogDog]

Ask yourself this though, if you knew you were innocent of such a horrific charge against you, wouldn't you come out straight away and vehemently deny it?

I know I would. I wouldn't be silent about it for months no matter what my lawyers told me.

I'm sure most people would do the same. So why hasn't he said anything this whole time?

Even if his lawyers advised him to do so, that's bad advice IF you're innocent. You'd need to get out in front of this thing to defend your name.

The only reason his lawyers would tell him to say nothing is if there was some truth to the claims.

There's been an excellent show on Fox lately that I have been watching, "The good Cop". It's about a homicide detective (retired now) Ron Iddles from Victoria and his 99% solve rate for investigations etc. Crims and everyone alike called him the "Great man". I don't usually bother with such shows but he sounds like a good honest bloke who did his best.

Anyways to my point. He said that he never came across an innocent person who when told they are being charged for something stayed quiet. He said the only ones who don't plead there innocence is the guilty ones. He went by this rule so much that he had a bloke in front of him and every bit of evidence suggested he did the crime BUT because of his reaction upon being charged it made Ron re-look at the case. Sure enough the evidence when looked at further started to unravel and saved an innocent man from most likely life in prison had it gone to court. No-one when innocent of something stays quiet!

 

[Lov_Dog]

There's been an excellent show on Fox lately that I have been watching, "The good Cop". It's about a homicide detective (retired now) Ron Iddles from Victoria and his 99% solve rate for investigations etc. Crims and everyone alike called him the "Great man". I don't usually bother with such shows but he sounds like a good honest bloke who did his best.

Anyways to my point. He said that he never came across an innocent person who when told they are being charged for something stayed quiet. He said the only ones who don't plead there innocence is the guilty ones. He went by this rule so much that he had a bloke in front of him and every bit of evidence suggested he did the crime BUT because of his reaction upon being charged it made Ron re-look at the case. Sure enough the evidence when looked at further started to unravel and saved an innocent man from most likely life in prison had it gone to court. No-one when innocent of something stays quiet!

Going to check this show out, thanks @GrogDog !

~c.

 

[Scorpio]

With DNA evidence and medical reports (and probably eyewitnesses who saw him with the woman on the night), you'd think it would be pretty easy to prove or disprove he slept with her.

i don't think he is denying sleeping with her....
I think he is denying raping her....
That is why these court cases are hard to prove guilt or innocence...

 

[bulldog]

I think that would be a positive outcome for everyone to bring it forward to next week.
Matters with such high publicity and ramifications for many people outside just the accused and accuser need to be addressed quickly.

I think that it's not referring to the assault case, it's his attempt to be cleared to play that will be heard next week.

Meanwhile at NRLHQ, the chook raffle has been cancelled, the cheque for the hookers bounced and the new "No Fault" rule hasn't even been officially introduced.

St George Illawarra star Jack de Belin has not yet been suspended by the NRL despite widespread public statements to the contrary, a judge has been told.

Alan Sullivan QC, for the NRL and the Australian Rugby League Commission, said the proposed new rule and policy to stand down players charged with a serious criminal offence had not yet been enacted.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/j...s/news-story/2434464ca3e904d71416c4d3f1babec2

 

[Dawgfather]

that news.com.au article is confusing. It says De Belin is free to play but nothing in the article quotes the judge or the court case specifically?

 

[Bull Terrier]

that news.com.au article is confusing. It says De Belin is free to play but nothing in the article quotes the judge or the court case specifically?

De Bellin can play because the great nrl administration didnt put the rule in place before the court hearing. They announced it ok but thats it. Clowns for an administration their a joke. Think de bellin solicitors will be all over the nrl

 

[K E]

Yeah, I'm kinda confused by the ruling. From what I understood (which I probably got wrong) is that because there's no rule currently in place that allows the nrl to suspend de ballsack they (nrl) can't suspend him but if they introduce a rule now they can?

 

[berries1935]

Very embarrassing for the NRL honestly

 

[Bull Terrier]

Yeah, I'm kinda confused by the ruling. From what I understood (which I probably got wrong) is that because there's no rule currently in place that allows the nrl to suspend de ballsack they (nrl) can't suspend him but if they introduce a rule now they can?

Yes they say by next week it will be in place but as i mentioned i think de bellin's solicitors are too smart for the nrl round 2 next week

 

[Heckler]

that news.com.au article is confusing. It says De Belin is free to play but nothing in the article quotes the judge or the court case specifically?

It was yesterday's article.

 

[Shanked]

Honestly, De Belin brought this whole situation on himself. This is the result of him having a man bun. Nothing good can ever come of having a man bun.

well he got rid of it, and instantly became a nsw rep