If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WPTV)   Bad: Woman was molested by a cousin when she was 13. Good: She has gone through therapy and now helps others who are in the same situation. FARK: The molester is now suing the woman for defamation and stalking   (wptv.com) divider line 133
    More: Asinine, defamations, stalks, cousins, therapy, sex crimes  
•       •       •

9470 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 May 2014 at 8:35 AM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-04 10:34:09 AM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: It's not defamation if it's true. The burden of proof will be on the rapist to prove what the victim said is false. Not being arrested/convicted for it doesn't count as proof.


Agreed.

Give me your real name, address, and a few photographs.  I want to put up a few webpages detailing how you molested babies 20 years ago.
 
2014-05-04 10:49:08 AM  

jso2897: Bertuccio: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: It's not defamation if it's true. The burden of proof will be on the rapist to prove what the victim said is false. Not being arrested/convicted for it doesn't count as proof.

I would expect the burden would be for the victim to prove she was raped. Otherwise I could say you stole from me and if you couldn't prove otherwise you'd have to pay up.

In no event will he have to "pay up" - he isn't being sued. And she does not have to convince a judge or jury that he is guilty by the standard of the criminal courts - she need only show that a preponderance of the evidence shows that she is telling the truth the burden of proof falls equally on both parties to a civil suit - and it is he who is alleging that she is lying.
A criminal conviction is not even peripherally necessary to a finding in civil law.


As can be seen in this thread, unfortunately the basics of the American justice system are a mystery to a large percentage of people. Hell, we've had threads where dozens of people couldn't understand why civil and criminal cases on the same subject matter aren't an example of double jeopardy. Or who has the burden of proof in certain situations. Or that the legal standard is different in civil and criminal cases. Civics fails us.
 
2014-05-04 10:50:08 AM  

Moopy Mac: jso2897: Bertuccio: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: It's not defamation if it's true. The burden of proof will be on the rapist to prove what the victim said is false. Not being arrested/convicted for it doesn't count as proof.

I would expect the burden would be for the victim to prove she was raped. Otherwise I could say you stole from me and if you couldn't prove otherwise you'd have to pay up.

In no event will he have to "pay up" - he isn't being sued. And she does not have to convince a judge or jury that he is guilty by the standard of the criminal courts - she need only show that a preponderance of the evidence shows that she is telling the truth the burden of proof falls equally on both parties to a civil suit - and it is he who is alleging that she is lying.
A criminal conviction is not even peripherally necessary to a finding in civil law.

As can be seen in this thread, unfortunately the basics of the American justice system are a mystery to a large percentage of people. Hell, we've had threads where dozens of people couldn't understand why civil and criminal cases on the same subject matter aren't an example of double jeopardy. Or who has the burden of proof in certain situations. Or that the legal standard is different in civil and criminal cases. Civics fails us.


*isn't.
 
2014-05-04 10:53:35 AM  
This could work in the woman's favor. From her account, the accusation was never tested in a criminal court because the statute of limitations had expired - not because her story was unbelievable. Now she gets a chance to face her cousin in a civil court where the burden of proof is not so heavy. This could blow up in his face since she now only has to prove that her story is true on a balance of probabilities rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. If the cops believed her story, then she probably has enough to defend herself in court.

As for everyone whining about the lack of criminal charges/conviction, I think that's relatively meaningless in a case like this. Every charge is preceded by an accusation. Someone has to go to the cops and say "John Doe raped me." The accusation will be repeated and published and tested in a court of law. That's not slanderous unless the accuser is lying. If I get raped by someone and tell my friends, go to the police, etc. the rapist would have a very difficult time of it trying to prove slander, even if the prosecutors don't proceed with a criminal trial. Failure to proceed to trial doesn't mean a rape didn't happen. It only means the prosecutors don't think they have enough evidence to secure a conviction.
 
2014-05-04 10:54:30 AM  

Moopy Mac: jso2897: Bertuccio: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: It's not defamation if it's true. The burden of proof will be on the rapist to prove what the victim said is false. Not being arrested/convicted for it doesn't count as proof.

I would expect the burden would be for the victim to prove she was raped. Otherwise I could say you stole from me and if you couldn't prove otherwise you'd have to pay up.

In no event will he have to "pay up" - he isn't being sued. And she does not have to convince a judge or jury that he is guilty by the standard of the criminal courts - she need only show that a preponderance of the evidence shows that she is telling the truth the burden of proof falls equally on both parties to a civil suit - and it is he who is alleging that she is lying.
A criminal conviction is not even peripherally necessary to a finding in civil law.

As can be seen in this thread, unfortunately the basics of the American justice system are a mystery to a large percentage of people. Hell, we've had threads where dozens of people couldn't understand why civil and criminal cases on the same subject matter aren't an example of double jeopardy. Or who has the burden of proof in certain situations. Or that the legal standard is different in civil and criminal cases. Civics fails us.


Take my advice - drop a couple of comments, and then let it go. attempting to educate or inform the Fark GEDs is an exercise in futility that will drive you out of your mind long before it accomplishes anything.
 
2014-05-04 10:58:43 AM  
Sigh.

Since there is no conviction the 'raper' just needs to prove damages from the woman's statements in court.

The 'rapee' can defend herself by arguing that she was just telling the truth, but she will have to prove to the jury that what she SAID did in fact happen. Easy to do with a conviction - perhaps not so easy when there is no evidence and it amounts to he said/she said.
 
2014-05-04 11:00:05 AM  

Bertuccio: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: It's not defamation if it's true. The burden of proof will be on the rapist to prove what the victim said is false. Not being arrested/convicted for it doesn't count as proof.

I would expect the burden would be for the victim to prove she was raped. Otherwise I could say you stole from me and if you couldn't prove otherwise you'd have to pay up.


In a civil case, the burden is on the plaintiff. To prove it was not defamation, the woman has to prove the rape; but since he can't be criminally prosecuted, he only has to prove he was never charged or tried.

She's pretty much legally in the wrong here.
 
2014-05-04 11:05:27 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Bertuccio: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: It's not defamation if it's true. The burden of proof will be on the rapist to prove what the victim said is false. Not being arrested/convicted for it doesn't count as proof.

I would expect the burden would be for the victim to prove she was raped. Otherwise I could say you stole from me and if you couldn't prove otherwise you'd have to pay up.

In a civil case, the burden is on the plaintiff. To prove it was not defamation, the woman has to prove the rape; but since he can't be criminally prosecuted, he only has to prove he was never charged or tried.

She's pretty much legally in the wrong here.


She just has to prove her statements are true. He has to prove that he was damaged. Neither is probably going to bring actual evidence or 3rd party witnesses to the trial. It will be a stupid he said / she said duel and the goal will be to gain sympathy from the judge/jury - not prove a case.
 
2014-05-04 11:17:37 AM  

Gunboat: skinink: even though the only reason he was never bought to court is due to the Statute of Limitation? Finding it hard to sympathise with someone who escaped a trial on a technicality.


So says Ashley.  If she really had a good case, she why didn't she bring it earlier?
And it's not like she's some unsophisticated rube, either.  She's got a Facebook page, she's lobbied the Legislature, she's gotten media attention.  She can do all that, but she can't get it together to have charges filed within five years?

What's happening to alleged molester is really unfair.  What if he's innocent and Ashley's just some batshiat crazy biatch. How's alleged molester supposed to defend himself?  I guess he could ask her specifics of when and where and then disprove them by showing phone records or social calendars that he wasn't there?  Oh, no, he can't.  More than five years have passed, and nobody remembers now when alleged molester arrived at the event, or if he even showed at all, and the phone company deleted those records four years ago.

When something happened that long ago, it always devolves into a "did too," "did not" situation, and the defendant is in a bad position, because he can't get the proof he'd need to clear his name.


If she was 13 when it happened I can think of a variety of reasons a traumatized child might not have come forward sooner. Can't you?
 
2014-05-04 11:29:34 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Bertuccio: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: It's not defamation if it's true. The burden of proof will be on the rapist to prove what the victim said is false. Not being arrested/convicted for it doesn't count as proof.

I would expect the burden would be for the victim to prove she was raped. Otherwise I could say you stole from me and if you couldn't prove otherwise you'd have to pay up.

In a civil case, the burden is on the plaintiff. To prove it was not defamation, the woman has to prove the rape; but since he can't be criminally prosecuted, he only has to prove he was never charged or tried.

She's pretty much legally in the wrong here.


jso2897 is a much better man/woman than me, but holy shiat this comment is wrong.
 
2014-05-04 11:53:06 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Bertuccio: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: It's not defamation if it's true. The burden of proof will be on the rapist to prove what the victim said is false. Not being arrested/convicted for it doesn't count as proof.

I would expect the burden would be for the victim to prove she was raped. Otherwise I could say you stole from me and if you couldn't prove otherwise you'd have to pay up.

In a civil case, the burden is on the plaintiff.



No. In a civil case, the burden of producing a preponderance of evidence to support your case falls equally on both litigants. The one who succeeds in convincing the court that the evidence supports his case more than the other's, wins.
There is no "burden of proof" in civil law.

There now, Moopy - feel better about yourself.
 
2014-05-04 12:00:50 PM  
This cousin suing the rape victim better have a strong case, because discovery process will hang him otherwise

Many rape cases that are not prosecuted end up resulting in a judgment in favor of rape victims because the defendant cannot use criminal rules of evidence to hide their past. In a civil trial a rapists past sexual history can be used as evidence....note that Kobe Bryant immediately settled his rape lawsuit against vs the Colorado woman when the Federal court allowed his sexual history to be used against him in the civil trial.

I bet rapist cousin has his case tossed after discovery phase
 
2014-05-04 12:01:37 PM  
"His name has to be put in it so that people to know that it's real," she said.

Um...No, his name doesn't have to be part of your presentation.  Saying "my cousin molested me" is just as real as saying "my cousin Fred Jones molested me".  Using his name doesn't make it more real.
 
2014-05-04 12:04:22 PM  
If he hasn't been convicted of anything, then I wish him the best of luck in suing her farking ass off.
 
2014-05-04 12:07:35 PM  

jso2897: Bertuccio: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: It's not defamation if it's true. The burden of proof will be on the rapist to prove what the victim said is false. Not being arrested/convicted for it doesn't count as proof.

I would expect the burden would be for the victim to prove she was raped. Otherwise I could say you stole from me and if you couldn't prove otherwise you'd have to pay up.

In no event will he have to "pay up" - he isn't being sued. And she does not have to convince a judge or jury that he is guilty by the standard of the criminal courts - she need only show that a preponderance of the evidence shows that she is telling the truth the burden of proof falls equally on both parties to a civil suit - and it is he who is alleging that she is lying.
A criminal conviction is not even peripherally necessary to a finding in civil law.


I didn't say the rapist would have to pay up. I said TBWCUMI would have to pay up in my hypothetical situation of accusing him of stealing. According to his own logic he would have to prove he did not steal. It does not make sense that this man would have to prove he didn't rape her. She has to prove he did. And if she can she can continue to call him a rapist.
You don't disagree with me.

/I think
 
2014-05-04 12:12:28 PM  

Bertuccio: jso2897: Bertuccio: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: It's not defamation if it's true. The burden of proof will be on the rapist to prove what the victim said is false. Not being arrested/convicted for it doesn't count as proof.

I would expect the burden would be for the victim to prove she was raped. Otherwise I could say you stole from me and if you couldn't prove otherwise you'd have to pay up.

In no event will he have to "pay up" - he isn't being sued. And she does not have to convince a judge or jury that he is guilty by the standard of the criminal courts - she need only show that a preponderance of the evidence shows that she is telling the truth the burden of proof falls equally on both parties to a civil suit - and it is he who is alleging that she is lying.
A criminal conviction is not even peripherally necessary to a finding in civil law.

I didn't say the rapist would have to pay up. I said TBWCUMI would have to pay up in my hypothetical situation of accusing him of stealing. According to his own logic he would have to prove he did not steal. It does not make sense that this man would have to prove he didn't rape her. She has to prove he did. And if she can she can continue to call him a rapist.
You don't disagree with me.

/I think


No. Neither of them has to "prove" anything. All either of them has to do is convince a judge or jury that it is more likely that they are telling the truth than that the other party is. The burden of preponderance falls equally upon both parties. This is not a criminal court.
 
2014-05-04 12:22:38 PM  
This could backfire spectacularly. All the evidence she couldn't use in criminal court, will now become public record in civil court.
 
2014-05-04 12:23:45 PM  

CruJones: BeerBear: rebelyell2006: EvilEgg: He was never convicted of anything. He might have done it, he might not have. Since just the accusation will destroy his life there needs to be some protection.

Yup. Sounds like she needs to learn how to use the word "allegedly".

Not really:

Foster had a strong case against her cousin with help from investigators at the Boynton Beach Police Department. But they could never prosecuted because the statute of limitations had run out.

So she says. It's likely she's right, but it's not certain. The ruling will have to apply to all people in this situation, whether the cops think they had a strong case or not, and I know Fark thinks the police are wrong 99% of the time.

/I think that's how it works


I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the case law in their jurisdiction is well established on whether or not accusations of sex crims can be considered defamatory. The only issue this ruling will need to resolve is whether or not she can prove her allegations to the jury's satisfaction.

I can tell you that statutes of limitations on sexual assaults involving minors in this country tend to be long. Her story about how the statute of limitations precluded prosecution of her "strong case" doesn't seem very likely to me (though I can't categorically say it's false).

There's a risky aspect of this case for the plaintiff though. When a plaintiff loses a defamation case, people generally take the defamatory statements as true. If he loses, he'll be considered a proven child molester for the rest of his life.

And if theirs is a jurisdiction where to prevail in a defamation suit, defendants have to prove their allegations true, she'll have already proven the case she needs to sue his socks off for his acts of molestation.

In fact, if I were her attorney, I'd go ahead and file that suit. Get it all resolved in one trial.
 
2014-05-04 12:30:53 PM  
Just as an aside:
"My picture appeared on Facebook as 'a predator', which I have never been arrested, prosecuted, or convicted of," Foster's cousin writes In Broward County court documents."

Anybody notice anything conspicuously absent from his statement?
 
2014-05-04 12:33:00 PM  

jso2897: Just as an aside:
"My picture appeared on Facebook as 'a predator', which I have never been arrested, prosecuted, or convicted of," Foster's cousin writes In Broward County court documents."

Anybody notice anything conspicuously absent from his statement?


I notice you haven't commented on your innocence, either.  Shall we speculate on your guilt, as well?
 
2014-05-04 12:41:02 PM  

jso2897: Just as an aside:
"My picture appeared on Facebook as 'a predator', which I have never been arrested, prosecuted, or convicted of," Foster's cousin writes In Broward County court documents."

Anybody notice anything conspicuously absent from his statement?

www.morethings.com
Recruiter: Have you ever been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor? That's robbery, rape, car theft, that sort of thing.
John Winger: Convicted? No.
Russell Ziskey: Never convicted.
 
2014-05-04 12:54:09 PM  
"You the guy who **cked over our friend Ashley?"

i.kinja-img.com
 
2014-05-04 12:58:23 PM  

jso2897: Bertuccio: jso2897: Bertuccio: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: It's not defamation if it's true. The burden of proof will be on the rapist to prove what the victim said is false. Not being arrested/convicted for it doesn't count as proof.

I would expect the burden would be for the victim to prove she was raped. Otherwise I could say you stole from me and if you couldn't prove otherwise you'd have to pay up.

In no event will he have to "pay up" - he isn't being sued. And she does not have to convince a judge or jury that he is guilty by the standard of the criminal courts - she need only show that a preponderance of the evidence shows that she is telling the truth the burden of proof falls equally on both parties to a civil suit - and it is he who is alleging that she is lying.
A criminal conviction is not even peripherally necessary to a finding in civil law.

I didn't say the rapist would have to pay up. I said TBWCUMI would have to pay up in my hypothetical situation of accusing him of stealing. According to his own logic he would have to prove he did not steal. It does not make sense that this man would have to prove he didn't rape her. She has to prove he did. And if she can she can continue to call him a rapist.
You don't disagree with me.

/I think

No. Neither of them has to "prove" anything. All either of them has to do is convince a judge or jury that it is more likely that they are telling the truth than that the other party is. The burden of preponderance falls equally upon both parties. This is not a criminal court.


So again, IANAL. I get that the burden is on both and I am not using 'prove' in any legal sense -- because IANAL.
I'm not the one saying this is criminal court, that she would be held to that standard of evidence, or that this would result in his conviction -- I'm not sure that anyone here has.

All I said was that TBWCUMI's notion that the accused would have to disprove the accuser is bizarre and gave an example where that's obvious.  I'll give you that the example I gave would probably be one for criminal court (IANAL) but the basic logic I think applies to most anything.

Since you apparently you are a lawyer here are some possibly more interesting questions.
Some comments have said that he only needs to prove he wasn't tried or convicted to prove his case. Is that true? It doesn't make sense to me; he can still be a rapist regardless of whether he was convicted or not.

Suing for defamation usually requires demonstrating that the plaintiff has been damaged. In some states claiming someone has committed a crime is always considered damaging - is that true in Florida?
 
2014-05-04 12:58:53 PM  
I guess he stopped because she got

img.fark.net

forum.cheatengine.org
 
2014-05-04 01:07:20 PM  

Bertuccio: jso2897: Bertuccio: jso2897: Bertuccio: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: It's not defamation if it's true. The burden of proof will be on the rapist to prove what the victim said is false. Not being arrested/convicted for it doesn't count as proof.

I would expect the burden would be for the victim to prove she was raped. Otherwise I could say you stole from me and if you couldn't prove otherwise you'd have to pay up.

In no event will he have to "pay up" - he isn't being sued. And she does not have to convince a judge or jury that he is guilty by the standard of the criminal courts - she need only show that a preponderance of the evidence shows that she is telling the truth the burden of proof falls equally on both parties to a civil suit - and it is he who is alleging that she is lying.
A criminal conviction is not even peripherally necessary to a finding in civil law.

I didn't say the rapist would have to pay up. I said TBWCUMI would have to pay up in my hypothetical situation of accusing him of stealing. According to his own logic he would have to prove he did not steal. It does not make sense that this man would have to prove he didn't rape her. She has to prove he did. And if she can she can continue to call him a rapist.
You don't disagree with me.

/I think

No. Neither of them has to "prove" anything. All either of them has to do is convince a judge or jury that it is more likely that they are telling the truth than that the other party is. The burden of preponderance falls equally upon both parties. This is not a criminal court.

So again, IANAL. I get that the burden is on both and I am not using 'prove' in any legal sense -- because IANAL.
I'm not the one saying this is criminal court, that she would be held to that standard of evidence, or that this would result in his conviction -- I'm not sure that anyone here has.

All I said was that TBWCUMI's notion that the accused would have to disprove the accuser is bizarre and gave an example ...


I am not a lawyer. I just paid attention in Civics class. I don't think that there is any state that requires a criminal convictions to either bring a suit for a wrongful action or defend oneself from a libel suit. Would kind of defeat the purpose of civil law.
As to the second question - I honestly don't know. As a practical matter, it's unlikely to be difficult to convince a jury or judge that somebody actually did something they were criminally convicted of - but i don't know if it would be automatic.
I kind of doubt it.
 
2014-05-04 01:08:16 PM  

Infernalist: jso2897: Just as an aside:
"My picture appeared on Facebook as 'a predator', which I have never been arrested, prosecuted, or convicted of," Foster's cousin writes In Broward County court documents."

Anybody notice anything conspicuously absent from his statement?

I notice you haven't commented on your innocence, either.  Shall we speculate on your guilt, as well?


Are you a Scientologist?
 
2014-05-04 01:09:25 PM  

jso2897: Infernalist: jso2897: Just as an aside:
"My picture appeared on Facebook as 'a predator', which I have never been arrested, prosecuted, or convicted of," Foster's cousin writes In Broward County court documents."

Anybody notice anything conspicuously absent from his statement?

I notice you haven't commented on your innocence, either.  Shall we speculate on your guilt, as well?

Are you a Scientologist?


Are you hitting on me?
 
2014-05-04 01:14:57 PM  

Infernalist: jso2897: Infernalist: jso2897: Just as an aside:
"My picture appeared on Facebook as 'a predator', which I have never been arrested, prosecuted, or convicted of," Foster's cousin writes In Broward County court documents."

Anybody notice anything conspicuously absent from his statement?

I notice you haven't commented on your innocence, either.  Shall we speculate on your guilt, as well?

Are you a Scientologist?

Are you hitting on me?


/keyboard
//owe
///knock it off, you two.
 
2014-05-04 01:26:10 PM  

Gunboat: skinink: even though the only reason he was never bought to court is due to the Statute of Limitation? Finding it hard to sympathise with someone who escaped a trial on a technicality.


So says Ashley.  If she really had a good case, she why didn't she bring it earlier?



Oh hell no.  There are so many variables that make rape a unique crime, that it is just ridiculous to ask that question.  Since it's a family member, she might of been under all sorts of pressure to "keep it in the family."  She might have consented  to sex act A but objected to sex act B and not understood for years that yes to one thing does not mean yes to everything else.

There's also the usual shame, avoidance, denial, etc.  Really I don't understand the concept of a statue of limitations at all.  Either you can prove your case or you can't.  Giving a potential felon a freebie because it was too long ago does not compute with me.
 
2014-05-04 01:37:17 PM  

edmo: Countersue his ass for the cash. If the prosecutors had enough to go on but ran out of time, that evidence is just as good to nail him in this proceeding.


It's unlikely that if the statute has run for criminal charges that it has not also run for a civil suit.  Appropriate law seems to be § 95.11 (7), Fla. Stat. (2013) - it's either 7 years or 4 years.  TFA doesn't have dates of the alleged abuse or the specific nature of the alleged abuse, so it's impossible to determine if it's actually run from what we've got in TFA.

Her alleged defamatory conduct is ongoing, therefore he can bring a suit.  His alleged conduct has, presumably, stopped as the criminal statute has run, if the civil statute has run as well, she's time barred from a suit.

If that's the case, she can still present a defense of truth to the defamation allegations.
 
2014-05-04 01:44:55 PM  

DarkVader: edmo: Countersue his ass for the cash. If the prosecutors had enough to go on but ran out of time, that evidence is just as good to nail him in this proceeding.

It's unlikely that if the statute has run for criminal charges that it has not also run for a civil suit.  Appropriate law seems to be § 95.11 (7), Fla. Stat. (2013) - it's either 7 years or 4 years.  TFA doesn't have dates of the alleged abuse or the specific nature of the alleged abuse, so it's impossible to determine if it's actually run from what we've got in TFA.

Her alleged defamatory conduct is ongoing, therefore he can bring a suit.  His alleged conduct has, presumably, stopped as the criminal statute has run, if the civil statute has run as well, she's time barred from a suit.

If that's the case, she can still present a defense of truth to the defamation allegations.


Ok, looks like she likely can bring a suit.  I found an article where she is apparently 22, limit is 7 years from age of majority.
 
2014-05-04 01:58:55 PM  

EvilEgg: He was never convicted of anything. He might have done it, he might not have. Since just the accusation will destroy his life there needs to be some protection.


TRUE
And the AWESOME NEWS is that during this trial she will be able to put on an affirmative defense.
Strangely ENOUGH the truth is pretty much her only defense.

So buy suing her, she is now allowed to testify in open court about what he did to her.
THANKS ASSHOLE for opening the door and letting her let her story in court.

The jury will be left to determine the facts of the case.
If they believe her, he will lose in court.
Not as good as his going to prison for abuse, but it's a start.
 
2014-05-04 02:07:01 PM  

inglixthemad: EvilEgg:

He was never convicted of anything. He might have done it, he might not have. Since just the accusation will destroy his life there needs to be some protection.

Yes. Don't get me wrong, if he did it: a$$hole.

The problem being he was never convicted so being tagged like this isn't right either.


This.


/On the other hand it looks like I never will get due credit for being on that grassy knoll.
 
2014-05-04 02:12:59 PM  

jso2897: Just as an aside:
"My picture appeared on Facebook as 'a predator', which I have never been arrested, prosecuted, or convicted of," Foster's cousin writes In Broward County court documents."

Anybody notice anything conspicuously absent from his statement?


that he is innocent and didnt do it?!
HAH

at least he will get to testify in court, right?
OH WAIT, his lawyer will not let him take the stand!
Otherwise he will have to answer questions from the defense!!

Did you abuse her on this day? or this day? or this day?
were you ever alone with her? and did this? or this? or this?

so many opportunities
want to bet that he drops the case before trial?
 
2014-05-04 02:16:36 PM  

Loren: I wouldn't take it as a given that she was molested in the first place.


But don't you know you have to BELIEVE THE VICTIM? Or it's like you're raping her yourself! And don't forget about The Courage To Heal: I'll bet she has even worse cellular memories that hypnosis can bring out.


/ Yes I'm being facetious.
 
2014-05-04 02:23:22 PM  

DarkVader: edmo: Countersue his ass for the cash. If the prosecutors had enough to go on but ran out of time, that evidence is just as good to nail him in this proceeding.

It's unlikely that if the statute has run for criminal charges that it has not also run for a civil suit.  Appropriate law seems to be § 95.11 (7), Fla. Stat. (2013) - it's either 7 years or 4 years.  TFA doesn't have dates of the alleged abuse or the specific nature of the alleged abuse, so it's impossible to determine if it's actually run from what we've got in TFA.

Her alleged defamatory conduct is ongoing, therefore he can bring a suit.  His alleged conduct has, presumably, stopped as the criminal statute has run, if the civil statute has run as well, she's time barred from a suit.

If that's the case, she can still present a defense of truth to the defamation allegations.


yes no sort of ....
example:
criminal charges run out on friday
she starts accusing him today ...
her act of defamation statute of limitations counter starts when she commits the act of defamation, not when he committed the act of abuse.
 
2014-05-04 02:27:09 PM  
"Ashley Foster had a strong case against her cousin with help from investigators at the Boynton Beach Police Department. But they could never prosecute because the statute of limitations had run out. "

If this went to trial, which it probably wont, those investigators would be able to testify about the case.
They would be able to present all the testimony and evidence that they discovered.
That evidence and their investigation doesnt evaporate because the criminal statute ran out.

The truth is allowed as a defense in defamation case.
LOL
 
2014-05-04 02:27:29 PM  
Burden of proof is different from standard of proof.  Standard of proof is, for example, preponderance versus beyond reasonable doubt.  Burden is who needs to show what to survive a motion to dismiss or prevail on the merits.

How the burden works depends on the claims. Although defamation is a common law claim in every state, some have statutory overlay relating to defamation, and how the burden works may vary by state.  Also, multiple claims may be based on the same alleged facts.  Here you would expect to see a claim for invasion of privacy by placing the cousin in a false light, in addition to libel.

In defamation, the burden typically is initially on the plaintiff to plead and then prove each element of the claim (such as that def made a defamatory statement, possibly with malice if required, of and concerning the plaintiff that caused damages).  If the plaintiff meets the initial burden and the def raises an affirmative defense, such as that the statements were true, then the burden shift to the def to prove the truth of the statements.
 
2014-05-04 02:29:13 PM  

HighlanderRPI: 60 days past the statute of limitations when she finally went to police? Ouch...


they really need to extend the limits on abuse ... 
And dont get me started on rape. 
WHY is there a statute of limitation on rape? FFS

csb
Some counties are making charges against the DNA, stopping the clock from running out.
Once they discover the owner of the DNA, the case can move forward.
/csb
 
2014-05-04 02:30:38 PM  

gerbilpox: Reminds me of the O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake cases. Both got acquitted of the crime, but civilly liable for huge judgements. Either they were innocents robbed by the system, or murderers who got away with nothing but a fine. No justice either way.


This argument always bothers me. It is quite reasonable to have two different outcomes with the same evidence in civil and criminal proceedings. As a society we have determined that freedom is more valuable than money and should be commensurately more difficult to take from an individual. As such we have set the bar much higher for criminal proceedings than for civil ones.

"I think it's more likely that the accused is guilty than innocent but I'm not certain" wins a lawsuit but loses a prosecution. It's not a difficult concept.
 
2014-05-04 02:31:27 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: Burden of proof is different from standard of proof.  Standard of proof is, for example, preponderance versus beyond reasonable doubt.  Burden is who needs to show what to survive a motion to dismiss or prevail on the merits.

How the burden works depends on the claims. Although defamation is a common law claim in every state, some have statutory overlay relating to defamation, and how the burden works may vary by state.  Also, multiple claims may be based on the same alleged facts.  Here you would expect to see a claim for invasion of privacy by placing the cousin in a false light, in addition to libel.

In defamation, the burden typically is initially on the plaintiff to plead and then prove each element of the claim (such as that def made a defamatory statement, possibly with malice if required, of and concerning the plaintiff that caused damages).  If the plaintiff meets the initial burden and the def raises an affirmative defense, such as that the statements were true, then the burden shift to the def to prove the truth of the statements.


^^
 
2014-05-04 02:31:45 PM  

notatrollorami: "I think it's more likely that the accused is guilty than innocent but I'm not certain" wins a lawsuit but loses a prosecution. It's not a difficult concept.


It's not difficult, it's just not logical.
 
2014-05-04 02:33:33 PM  

notatrollorami: gerbilpox: Reminds me of the O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake cases. Both got acquitted of the crime, but civilly liable for huge judgements. Either they were innocents robbed by the system, or murderers who got away with nothing but a fine. No justice either way.

This argument always bothers me. It is quite reasonable to have two different outcomes with the same evidence in civil and criminal proceedings. As a society we have determined that freedom is more valuable than money and should be commensurately more difficult to take from an individual. As such we have set the bar much higher for criminal proceedings than for civil ones.

"I think it's more likely that the accused is guilty than innocent but I'm not certain" wins a lawsuit but loses a prosecution. It's not a difficult concept.


OJ was perfect example of this.
EVERYONE ON THE PLANET KNOWS THAT OJ IS A MURDERER.
But they couldnt prove it in a criminal court because of show boating and the judge being a moron letting the cameras in the court room.

But civil claims against OJ? MEH
I have no problem with the family suing for damages and be required to meet lesser standards.
 
2014-05-04 02:34:52 PM  
The number of people in this thread who are saying, on one hand, that he wasn't convicted and the burden of proof is on the accuser and therefore he's innocent and having his name smeared in the mud wrongly, and then on the other hand are cheering on his civil suit and demanding that the burden of proof is on the accused to prove that she was raped, is absurd.

Since that number is greater than zero, and the above logic is ridiculously dumb.
 
2014-05-04 03:19:48 PM  
Two comments:

1.  The police either were not asked for comment, or declined to comment.  So 'strong case' is Ashley's assessment.

2.  The article says the cousin is seeking an injunction.  Nowhere does the article say he is suing for defamation.
 
2014-05-04 03:36:56 PM  

namatad: jso2897: Just as an aside:
"My picture appeared on Facebook as 'a predator', which I have never been arrested, prosecuted, or convicted of," Foster's cousin writes In Broward County court documents."

Anybody notice anything conspicuously absent from his statement?

that he is innocent and didnt do it?!
HAH

at least he will get to testify in court, right?
OH WAIT, his lawyer will not let him take the stand!
Otherwise he will have to answer questions from the defense!!

Did you abuse her on this day? or this day? or this day?
were you ever alone with her? and did this? or this? or this?

so many opportunities
want to bet that he drops the case before trial?


Actually in civil court there is no option for a party to refuse to testify. She can subpoena him and he is required to take the stand.
 
2014-05-04 05:06:24 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: Burden of proof is different from standard of proof.  Standard of proof is, for example, preponderance versus beyond reasonable doubt.  Burden is who needs to show what to survive a motion to dismiss or prevail on the merits.

How the burden works depends on the claims. Although defamation is a common law claim in every state, some have statutory overlay relating to defamation, and how the burden works may vary by state.  Also, multiple claims may be based on the same alleged facts.  Here you would expect to see a claim for invasion of privacy by placing the cousin in a false light, in addition to libel.

In defamation, the burden typically is initially on the plaintiff to plead and then prove each element of the claim (such as that def made a defamatory statement, possibly with malice if required, of and concerning the plaintiff that caused damages).  If the plaintiff meets the initial burden and the def raises an affirmative defense, such as that the statements were true, then the burden shift to the def to prove the truth of the statements.


Is an accusation of rape always damaging?
And is the fact that he wasn't convicted any defense for him?
 
2014-05-04 05:07:54 PM  

BizarreMan: namatad: jso2897: Just as an aside:
"My picture appeared on Facebook as 'a predator', which I have never been arrested, prosecuted, or convicted of," Foster's cousin writes In Broward County court documents."

Anybody notice anything conspicuously absent from his statement?

that he is innocent and didnt do it?!
HAH

at least he will get to testify in court, right?
OH WAIT, his lawyer will not let him take the stand!
Otherwise he will have to answer questions from the defense!!

Did you abuse her on this day? or this day? or this day?
were you ever alone with her? and did this? or this? or this?

so many opportunities
want to bet that he drops the case before trial?

Actually in civil court there is no option for a party to refuse to testify. She can subpoena him and he is required to take the stand.


the more you know ... and since he can no longer be charged with her abuse, he can not plead the 5th.
nice
 
2014-05-04 05:24:52 PM  

namatad: BizarreMan: namatad: jso2897: Just as an aside:
"My picture appeared on Facebook as 'a predator', which I have never been arrested, prosecuted, or convicted of," Foster's cousin writes In Broward County court documents."

Anybody notice anything conspicuously absent from his statement?

that he is innocent and didnt do it?!
HAH

at least he will get to testify in court, right?
OH WAIT, his lawyer will not let him take the stand!
Otherwise he will have to answer questions from the defense!!

Did you abuse her on this day? or this day? or this day?
were you ever alone with her? and did this? or this? or this?

so many opportunities
want to bet that he drops the case before trial?

Actually in civil court there is no option for a party to refuse to testify. She can subpoena him and he is required to take the stand.

the more you know ... and since he can no longer be charged with her abuse, he can not plead the 5th.
nice


Yep.

The more I think about it, for him to make his case, he has to take the stand.  He is the only one who can testify to the damage her statements have made.
 
2014-05-04 05:33:47 PM  

BizarreMan: Actually in civil court there is no option for a party to refuse to testify. She can subpoena him and he is required to take the stand.the more you know ... and since he can no longer be charged with her abuse, he can not plead the 5th.niceYep.The more I think about it, for him to make his case, he has to take the stand. He is the only one who can testify to the damage her statements have made.


Clearly he did not think his cunning plan all the way through, and his lawyer sucks for not discouraging him from doing this.
 
Displayed 50 of 133 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report