Twelvepole
|
posted on October 7, 2004 05:46:00 PM
Should kate faber drop her civil suit against kobe bryant?
she lost her bid to have her name be anonymous(which is BS) and now will have to face the same scrutiny that bryant will.
from my stnad point it is nothing but after the fact prostitution... couldn't take him in criminal court and now trying to extort money...
|
rustygumbo
|
posted on October 7, 2004 09:13:35 PM
Not that this is an excuse, but perhaps Kobe should have kept his magic weenie in his pants. These things don't happen when remain faithful in your marriage. He was married, and cheated on his wife. Last I checked twelve, you didn't like it when Clinton did it, so why should you like it when Kobe did too?
|
rustygumbo
|
posted on October 7, 2004 09:15:40 PM
By the way, how much money did the Republicans waste on Clinton? This should have been between Bill, Hillary, Chelsea and Monica. Let them duke it out and pay for it too.
|
fenix03
|
posted on October 7, 2004 09:37:02 PM
I think if she goes forward he should counter sue on the ground of slander and defamation of charachter resulting in millions of losses in endorsement contracts. Her unwillingness to testify in the criminal trial but to do so in a civil trial blows her credibility out the window. Who the hell is going to believe her when the only time she is willing to tell her story is when it is for monetary gain. She and her lawyers are just fishing for the pay-off.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on October 8, 2004 05:16:57 AM
I am not saying what kobe did was right, however it seems that going to criminal court and it being dismissed should be the end of it.
What transpired was wrong in my opinion also... he was married....
Why his wife stays with him is simple... M.O.N.E.Y.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND... 
Re-Elect President Bush... the only true choice.
|
Reamond
|
posted on October 8, 2004 07:51:48 AM
I think if she goes forward he should counter sue on the ground of slander and defamation of charachter resulting in millions of losses in endorsement contracts.
You can't sue for slander and defamation., arising from accusations in a law suit.
|
Reamond
|
posted on October 8, 2004 07:52:45 AM
BTW, I heard she said it wasn't rape until after the first 6 inches.
|
fenix03
|
posted on October 8, 2004 08:44:05 AM
Reamond - There is large verifiable loss of income resulting directly from the accusations that she made LONG BEFORE she filed a civil suit.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
twig125silver
|
posted on October 8, 2004 09:15:20 AM
reamond!.........snicker
|
Reamond
|
posted on October 8, 2004 10:08:36 AM
Reamond - There is large verifiable loss of income resulting directly from the accusations that she made LONG BEFORE she filed a civil suit.
Accusations made in the criminal suit are also exempt from slander and libel as a matter of law.
If the law allowed suits for slander and libel for accusations in civil or criminal suits, every suit would result in slander, libel, etc. suits.
You simply can not sue for personality torts arising from accusations in law suits, including criminal and civil.
[ edited by Reamond on Oct 8, 2004 10:11 AM ]
|
fenix03
|
posted on October 8, 2004 10:13:36 AM
Criminal charges were dropped by the DA. There is no criminal suit.
Interesting that you feel that Kobe cannot follow that course of action but every other legal expert in broiadcast range is saying that he can.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Oct 8, 2004 10:14 AM ]
|
profe51
|
posted on October 8, 2004 10:19:52 AM
After the fact "prostitution"???
I'd say that's exactly what it is 
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
|
Reamond
|
posted on October 8, 2004 10:31:01 AM
Criminal charges were dropped by the DA. There is no criminal suit.
It doesn't make any difference if the criminal suit was dropped. You can not sue for personality torts over accusations in a law suit. He could sue for malicious prosecution, but not personality torts.
Interesting that you feel that Kobe cannot follow that course of action but every other legal expert in broiadcast range is saying that he can.
Exactly what course of action did they say ? I'll bet it was not defamation they were talking about.
Absolute Priveleges: The following are a complete defence to any action for publication of a defamation and are not effected even with a showing of malice, excessive publication, or abuse:
1. Judicial. Witnesses, attorneys, judges, jurors, and the parties in an action are priveleged to utter defamations which have some relevancy to the matter at hand.
|
fenix03
|
posted on October 8, 2004 11:09:11 AM
::1. Judicial. Witnesses, attorneys, judges, jurors, and the parties in an action are priveleged to utter defamations which have some relevancy to the matter at hand. ::
There was no coutrt action Reamond. All of the talking heads have stated that he has the right to sue her as a result of the financial losses caused by her accusations. The only thing they are sying would keep him from doing so is the fact that she actually has no finacial worth so collection of any damages would be difficult at best.
According to your theory - it would be perfectly legal and protected to say anything you want about an individual and to any outlet you wish as long as one of those outlets is the police. counter suits on the grounds of defamation are not all that uncommon but if your reasoning was correct, they would be absolutely unheard of as they could not be filed.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Oct 8, 2004 11:10 AM ]
|
Reamond
|
posted on October 8, 2004 01:04:22 PM
There was no coutrt action Reamond.
Then what were all of those lawyers and motions about ? The indictment was a court action as was the grand jury. And if there was no court action, then what was actually dropped by the prosecution on motion ?
According to your theory
It is not my theory;it is first year Torts by Prosser.
it would be perfectly legal and protected to say anything you want about an individual and to any outlet you wish as long as one of those outlets is the police.
That is not what I said. Talking to the police is not and does not make you a party to a suit nor a witness. There is in fact an obligation to tell the police the truth, and lying to the police can give rise to any number of possible civil suits.
counter suits on the grounds of defamation are not all that uncommon but if your reasoning was correct, they would be absolutely unheard of as they could not be filed.
They would not be unheard of, they would just be thrown out, which if the suit arises as a result of utterances related to the law suit, they could not be successful.
Don't confuse utterances said before the suit ripens with utterances relevant to the suit itself, there is a difference.
Also, truth is an affirmative defence to defamation.
[ edited by Reamond on Oct 8, 2004 01:10 PM ]
|
fenix03
|
posted on October 8, 2004 05:50:32 PM
Reamond - there was no grand jury indictment. There wa no grand jury. The DA brought charges. The DA dropped charges.
The complaintant did not file charges, she made accusations that she then refused to follow up on unless it was for financial gain.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
Reamond
|
posted on October 8, 2004 08:03:27 PM
Reamond - there was no grand jury indictment. There wa no grand jury. The DA brought charges. The DA dropped charges.
You're right about the grand jury, I was thinking of the Michael Jacksons case. But there was still an indictment. That the case was later dropped does not remove the priveleges for defamatory utterences stated relevant to the case.
The complaintant did not file charges, she made accusations that she then refused to follow up on unless it was for financial gain.
It makes no difference that the case was dropped the protection for defamation still applies.
It would be next to impossible to investigate any case, civil or criminal, without the defamation privelege.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on October 8, 2004 08:16:27 PM
anybody that would listen to reamond on legalese, just go flush your money down the toilet...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Re-Elect President Bush... the only true choice.
|
rustygumbo
|
posted on October 8, 2004 09:37:58 PM
Twelve- just curious, but OJ got off on criminal charges, but was sued and had to pay. What was your take on that? Do you feel that OJ was guilty or not?
I guess I have a hard time with your assumption that someone shouldn't necessarily be accountable for something that they weren't prosecuted on in a criminal court. I used to think that way, until I realized that criminal court simply prosecutes based on whether or not an individual committed a crime. Even though a jury may not find someone guilty of a crime, doesn't necessarily mean that the prosecution doesn't have a case for damages. In a civil court, someone can be found guilty of negligence or wrongdoing without being guilty of a crime. There is a clear distinction between the two court systems, and there are no protections for an individual not to be tried in both.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on October 9, 2004 04:41:39 AM
I believe OJ was guilty and should of received prison time.
Accountable for two people who had consentual sex and now one is being asked to pay the other?
That is what I don't understand, she dropped her criminal case because she knew that she would probably lose... she is just now trying to get "paid" for the act.
OJ commited murder...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Re-Elect President Bush... the only true choice.
|
Reamond
|
posted on October 9, 2004 09:21:42 AM
anybody that would listen to reamond on legalese, just go flush your money down the toilet
12 is just smarting because he is wrong about every legal issue his low horse power mind attempts to comprehend, and I have always been right.
The bottom line is that Bryant has no defamation case for anything she said relevant to he criminal or civil case.
Every defendant in a criminal case that was dropped or found not guilty could sue for defamation if I was wrong.
No one can successfully sue for defamation for utterances which have some relevancy to the matter at hand in the suit.
These priveleges are "true defences" to defamation and must be pleaded and proven by the defendant.
Anyone can file a suit for anything. But Bryant can not successfully prosecute a defamation suit for priveleged utterances by his accuser.
[ edited by Reamond on Oct 9, 2004 09:31 AM ]
|
bigpeepa
|
posted on October 10, 2004 07:11:12 AM
My reaction to this post. America needs to stop self-serving DA's looking for fame and fortune by bringing frivolous criminal charges. America also needs to stop purely political investigations by people like Ken Star that waste millions of dollars that could be used for a much better cause like doing something for the American tax payer.
I praise defense and trial Lawyers. Without them the political and big business would run over the American people.
|
