|
|
|
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~28682~2379653,00.html
Kobe Bryant's accuser may have to reimburse the crime-victim's compensation
fund as much as $20,000 if she receives a cash settlement or judgment in her
civil suit against the basketball star, officials said Friday.
The 20-year-old from Eagle, who scuttled the criminal sex-assault case
against Bryant on Wednesday by refusing to go to trial, would be expected to
pay back any state money she received for counseling, said Krista Flannigan,
spokeswoman for the Eagle County district attorney's office.
"If you receive any reimbursement - restitution or a civil settlement or
let's say insurance pays more than was anticipated - then that needs to be
reimbursed to the crime-victim's comp fund," she said.
Although accusers may receive victim's compensation only if they agree to
cooperate with authorities, the woman will not immediately be held liable
for the money she received, Flannigan said.
If she wins money from Bryant, however, she would be expected to reimburse
the fund.
In many cases, compensation-fund administrators never learn about subsequent
civil settlements, and reimbursements are very rare, Flannigan said. When
they do hear about a settlement, however, they will seek reimbursement if
the amount is significant, even resorting to the court system for
enforcement on rare occasion.
"We'd probably be able to monitor this one pretty easily," Flannigan said,
acknowledging the intense publicity surrounding the case against Bryant.
The woman's attorney, John Clune, declined to comment on the subject Friday.
He did reiterate statements from last week that the civil case is proceeding
and that there has been no talk of settlement with Bryant.
"At this point, we are planning on going to trial," Clune said. "We never
have engaged in a single discussion about resolving the civil case."
Pamela Mackey, who headed Bryant's defense, told The Denver Post that she
first learned about the prosecution's decision to drop the case about 3 p.m.
Wednesday, after Bryant had flown back to Los Angeles for an overnight stay.
"I sent my client home," Mackey said. "I said, 'See you tomorrow."'
Late that night, Bryant returned to Eagle to join a party with his defense
team that lasted into the early morning hours, she said.
Asked what Bryant's reaction was to the dismissal, Mackey said early
Thursday, "He is very thankful it has come to an end."
"The point that probably should be made is that this girl is not afraid to
testify," Clune said. "But her faith in the criminal-justice system was
systematically broken down over the course of the last 14 months."
|
| |
| |
In article <chebf8$1ol@dispatch.concentric.net>,
s_knight8 <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~28682~2379653,00.html
Kobe Bryant's accuser may have to reimburse the crime-victim's compensation
fund as much as $20,000 if she receives a cash settlement or judgment in her
civil suit against the basketball star, officials said Friday.
The 20-year-old from Eagle, who scuttled the criminal sex-assault case
against Bryant on Wednesday by refusing to go to trial, would be expected to
pay back any state money she received for counseling, said Krista Flannigan,
spokeswoman for the Eagle County district attorney's office.
"If you receive any reimbursement - restitution or a civil settlement or
let's say insurance pays more than was anticipated - then that needs to be
reimbursed to the crime-victim's comp fund," she said.
Sounds fair to me. What's your point?
|
| |
| |
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<chf2rd$4lv@rac1.wam.umd.edu>...
In article <chebf8$1ol@dispatch.concentric.net>,
s_knight8 <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
Sounds fair to me. What's your point?
How is it fair?
Why should she reimburse the crime-victim ONLY if she receive civil
settlement?
And according to your early stance, why should she pay them back in
cash? She never got any payment from the fund. Wasn't that your
logic?
|
| |
| |
In article <4b8fa98.0409051737.4676465a@posting.google.com>,
Huang Gang <kongwong_no_sp_am@hotmail.com> wrote:
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<chf2rd$4lv@rac1.wam.umd.edu>...
How is it fair?
Why should she reimburse the crime-victim ONLY if she receive civil
settlement?
Why are you asking me to defend a statement that I didn't make?
And according to your early stance, why should she pay them back in
cash? She never got any payment from the fund. Wasn't that your
logic?
If the damages Bryant is found liable for include her mental health
treatment, then that part of the damages should repay the crime victims'
compensation fund. Is that so hard for you to figure out?
|
| |
| |
well I didn't see the whole thread, but it seems to me she should have to
pay the fund back anyway because officially no "crime" was committed. The
case was dropped, therefore she was not a victim of a crime. Even if she
wins in a civil case, it's a tort, not a crime, so she shouldn't get the
money.
In article <4b8fa98.0409051737.4676465a@posting.google.com>,
Huang Gang <kongwong_no_sp_am@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why are you asking me to defend a statement that I didn't make?
If the damages Bryant is found liable for include her mental health
treatment, then that part of the damages should repay the crime victims'
compensation fund. Is that so hard for you to figure out?
|
| |
| |
In article <ASP_c.16206$wV2.6814@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
"Falky foo" <falkyfoo@bonksbcglobal.net> wrote:
|
| |
| |
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<chgfs1$i9r@rac1.wam.umd.edu>...
In article <4b8fa98.0409051737.4676465a@posting.google.com>,
Huang Gang <kongwong_no_sp_am@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why are you asking me to defend a statement that I didn't make?
You didn't say "SOUNDS FAIR TO ME"? You think that is fair?
If the damages Bryant is found liable for include her mental health
treatment, then that part of the damages should repay the crime victims'
compensation fund. Is that so hard for you to figure out?
When did your legal system begin to determine whether a crime has
occured with a civil court?
The criminal justice system surely didn't find Kobe Bryant guilty of
anything.
KEYWORD, CRIME VICTIM.
Now why is it so hard for you to figure that out? Didn't you go to
civil class?
|
| |
| |
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<chgfs1$i9r@rac1.wam.umd.edu>...
In article <4b8fa98.0409051737.4676465a@posting.google.com>,
If the damages Bryant is found liable for include her mental health
treatment, then that part of the damages should repay the crime victims'
compensation fund. Is that so hard for you to figure out?
And if he is found not liable?
Should she be made to repay the compensation fund?
Draco
|
| |
| |
In article <4b8fa98.0409060049.5e610860@posting.google.com>,
Huang Gang <kongwong_no_sp_am@hotmail.com> wrote:
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<chgfs1$i9r@rac1.wam.umd.edu>...
You didn't say "SOUNDS FAIR TO ME"? You think that is fair?
Yes. I think it is fair that if Kobe is found responsible he should
repay the crime victims' fund.
And according to your early stance, why should she pay them back in
cash? She never got any payment from the fund. Wasn't that your
logic?
If the damages Bryant is found liable for include her mental health
treatment, then that part of the damages should repay the crime victims'
compensation fund. Is that so hard for you to figure out?
When did your legal system begin to determine whether a crime has
occured with a civil court?
The criminal justice system surely didn't find Kobe Bryant guilty of
anything.
KEYWORD, CRIME VICTIM.
Now why is it so hard for you to figure that out? Didn't you go to
civil class?
The purpose of a criminal trial is not to determine whether a crime
has occurred. But maybe you think Nicole Brown Simpson wasn't really
stabbed to death.
|
| |
| |
In article <1b7a502c.0409060316.3e757a18@posting.google.com>,
Draco <draco664@hotmail.com> wrote:
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<chgfs1$i9r@rac1.wam.umd.edu>...
And if he is found not liable?
Should she be made to repay the compensation fund?
In my opinion, yes. But I also think she has a case against the
state, and they may not want to open that can of worms.
|
| |
| |
On 6 Sep 2004 10:14:31 -0400, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
In article <1b7a502c.0409060316.3e757a18@posting.google.com>,
Draco <draco664@hotmail.com> wrote:
In my opinion, yes. But I also think she has a case against the
state, and they may not want to open that can of worms.
what case does she have against the state?
|
| |
| |
In article <tf0qj092dudtpr0b6ighieckka787a80s1@4ax.com>,
agakhan <agakhan@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 6 Sep 2004 10:14:31 -0400, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
what case does she have against the state?
Releasing information about her that was not supposed to be released,
on multiple occasions. Can she win that case? I don't know. But I
suspect they'd rather not have it come up at all.
|
| |
| |
On 6 Sep 2004 22:16:48 -0400, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
In article <tf0qj092dudtpr0b6ighieckka787a80s1@4ax.com>, agakhan <agakhan@yahoo.com> wrote: Releasing information about her that was not supposed to be released, on multiple occasions. Can she win that case? I don't know. But I suspect they'd rather not have it come up at all.
statutues are involved?
|
| |
| |
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<chhr5n$8cf@rac1.wam.umd.edu>...
In article <4b8fa98.0409060049.5e610860@posting.google.com>,
Huang Gang <kongwong_no_sp_am@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes. I think it is fair that if Kobe is found responsible he should
repay the crime victims' fund.
And according to your early stance, why should she pay them back in
cash? She never got any payment from the fund. Wasn't that your
logic?
If the damages Bryant is found liable for include her mental health
treatment, then that part of the damages should repay the crime victims'
compensation fund. Is that so hard for you to figure out?
The purpose of a criminal trial is not to determine whether a crime
has occurred. But maybe you think Nicole Brown Simpson wasn't really
stabbed to death.
Actually, it was determined in a court of law that Nicole Brown
Simpson was murdered, which is a crime.
Don't you know someone has to sign off that death certificate?
That court didn't determine who committed that murder.
However, no court has determined if there was a rape.
|
| |
| |
With her own money. She lost the criminal case and should be charged
with extortion, filing a false report and fraud.
Kobe should sue the little slut and her family, the prosecutor, the
county, cops,sheriff for everything they have. He is the victim.
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<chj5mg$9ad@rac1.wam.umd.edu>...
In article <tf0qj092dudtpr0b6ighieckka787a80s1@4ax.com>, agakhan <agakhan@yahoo.com> wrote: Releasing information about her that was not supposed to be released, on multiple occasions. Can she win that case? I don't know. But I suspect they'd rather not have it come up at all. |
| |
| |
In article <4b8fa98.0409061930.514dc478@posting.google.com>,
Huang Gang <kongwong_no_sp_am@hotmail.com> wrote:
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<chhr5n$8cf@rac1.wam.umd.edu>...
Actually, it was determined in a court of law that Nicole Brown
Simpson was murdered, which is a crime.
Don't you know someone has to sign off that death certificate?
That court didn't determine who committed that murder.
However, no court has determined if there was a rape.
Is a court decision a requirement under Colorado law for payment to be made from
the crime victims' fund? As I understand it, by law, an administrative decision
is sufficient. You may not like that, but unless I'm mistaken, the Colorado
state legislature has overruled you.
|
| |
| |
In article <fb8d65d.0409062346.1a146a61@posting.google.com>,
Tim Alciere <talciere@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
With her own money. She lost the criminal case and should be charged
with extortion, filing a false report and fraud.
Kobe should sue the little slut and her family, the prosecutor, the
county, cops,sheriff for everything they have. He is the victim.
*Alleged* victim.
|
| |
| |
On 7 Sep 2004 08:43:46 -0400, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
In article <fb8d65d.0409062346.1a146a61@posting.google.com>,
Tim Alciere <talciere@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
*Alleged* victim.
well, tjab, you haven't answered my question: specifically what case
does she have against the state?
|
| |
| |
talciere@yahoo.co.uk (Tim Alciere) wrote in message news:<fb8d65d.0409062346.1a146a61@posting.google.com>...
With her own money. She lost the criminal case and should be charged
with extortion, filing a false report and fraud.
Kobe should sue the little slut and her family, the prosecutor, the
county, cops,sheriff for everything they have. He is the victim.
(1) Accuser was over the age of 18 when she filed her complaint.
There is therefore no viable claim against her family.
(2) She did not "lose" the criminal case because it was not her case
to pursue. In the USA it is the state of Colorado represented by its
prosecutors that decide whether a case has merit, not an accuser,
i.e., "The People of the state of Colordaro v. Bryant, Kobe."
Furthermore, since the case was not decided by a jury no one won or
lost it.
(3) In order to have a prayer of alleging extortion Bryant would have
had to have proof of her threatening to claim he raped her BEFORE she
made her police report. If you have some evidence of such a threat
with such a timeline I think the Bryant camp would be very interested
in hearing from you.
(4) "Fraud." Easy to allege, hard to prove. Why is it that Kobe had
spent millions on this case, but it takes you to come up with the
allegation of fraud?
(5) Anyone can sue for anything they like. Its winning thats a
#@&@
. Even if everyone on the hypothetical jury felt the same as you
did about Kobe Bryant, do you think they'd award him anything at the
expense of a bunch of wage slaves? Not likely.
(6) Suing the accuser: Again, filing suit and winning are two
different things. And if he sued and won? So what? This young woman
owns nothing. She is what is called in the legal business "judgement
proof."
(7) What will actually happen is that Kobe Bryant will at some point
give this woman a chunk of money. He will never, ever sue her or
anyone else else involved in this case. I'm sorry if that makes you
feel bad, but thats the way its going to play out.
Mez
|
| |
| |
(1) Accuser was over the age of 18 when she filed her complaint.
There is therefore no viable claim against her family.
True.
(2) She did not "lose" the criminal case because it was not her case
to pursue. In the USA it is the state of Colorado represented by its
prosecutors that decide whether a case has merit, not an accuser,
i.e., "The People of the state of Colordaro v. Bryant, Kobe."
Furthermore, since the case was not decided by a jury no one won or
lost it.
True. But she did lose the right (IMO) to be compensated as a
crime victim when she refused to testify for the criminal case.
(3) In order to have a prayer of alleging extortion Bryant would have
had to have proof of her threatening to claim he raped her BEFORE she
made her police report. If you have some evidence of such a threat
with such a timeline I think the Bryant camp would be very interested
in hearing from you.
False. It's not the claim of rape that constitutes extortion, it's
the civil suit. Bryant would have to show that she talked about
getting money from him before she filed the suit (which I believe
we have heard from a number of witnesses).
|
| |
| |
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<chk9vo$7m0@rac3.wam.umd.edu>...
In article <4b8fa98.0409061930.514dc478@posting.google.com>,
Huang Gang <kongwong_no_sp_am@hotmail.com> wrote:
Is a court decision a requirement under Colorado law for payment to be made from
the crime victims' fund? As I understand it, by law, an administrative decision
is sufficient. You may not like that, but unless I'm mistaken, the Colorado
state legislature has overruled you.
That law also said 2000, not 17000. So actually, the Colorado State
Legislature didn't overruled me, it just turned a blind eye to the
misconduct of administration. I guess you aren't surprise by this
since you turn a blind eye whenever you are caught dead wrong in the
water.
|
| |
| |
On 7 Sep 2004 22:08:39 -0700, messalinana@yahoo.com (Messalina) wrote,
in part:
(2) She did not "lose" the criminal case because it was not her case
to pursue. In the USA it is the state of Colorado represented by its
prosecutors that decide whether a case has merit, not an accuser,
But she did make an accusation.
But there is a big gap between failing to prove that Kobe Bryant raped
her - and succeding in proving that she lied when she made that
accusation.
If the latter could be _proven_, then, of course, it would be entirely
appropriate for both Kobe Bryant and the state of Colorado to be
attempting to recover damages from her.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 05:59:17 GMT, "Michael Snyder"
<msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
True.
True. But she did lose the right (IMO) to be compensated as a
crime victim when she refused to testify for the criminal case.
False. It's not the claim of rape that constitutes extortion, it's
the civil suit. Bryant would have to show that she talked about
getting money from him before she filed the suit (which I believe
we have heard from a number of witnesses).
So he should go ahead and sue her, have his day in court. I bet that
any lawyer would like to get him on the stand and belt him up, @$#* I
wouldn't mind having a crack myself.
The next legal action between Kobe and the girl will be one that is
confidential and sealed.
Greg
|
| |
| |
In article <Vcx%c.12598$54.178080@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
True.
True. But she did lose the right (IMO) to be compensated as a
crime victim when she refused to testify for the criminal case.
False. It's not the claim of rape that constitutes extortion, it's
the civil suit. Bryant would have to show that she talked about
getting money from him before she filed the suit (which I believe
we have heard from a number of witnesses).
Talking about getting money before you file a civil suit constitutes
extortion?
rotfl
|
| |
| |
In article <4b8fa98.0409072207.5149e8@posting.google.com>,
Huang Gang <kongwong_no_sp_am@hotmail.com> wrote:
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<chk9vo$7m0@rac3.wam.umd.edu>...
That law also said 2000, not 17000.
Wrong.
So actually, the Colorado State
Legislature didn't overruled me, it just turned a blind eye to the
misconduct of administration. I guess you aren't surprise by this
since you turn a blind eye whenever you are caught dead wrong in the
water.
|
| |
| |
greg <gregnospam @ellenbrook.net> wrote in message news:<lomtj0t1ti9k5bpm5hset8ep8p510nts3b@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 05:59:17 GMT, "Michael Snyder"
<msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
So he should go ahead and sue her, have his day in court. I bet that
any lawyer would like to get him on the stand and belt him up, @$#* I
wouldn't mind having a crack myself.
The next legal action between Kobe and the girl will be one that is
confidential and sealed.
Greg
You're right. What the Kobe supporters continue to close their eyes
to is that the man does not want the details of this encounter made
public. I doubt there's anything new that can be produced about his
accuser, but I'm thinking there's plenty we haven't heard about Kobe
that he doesn't want the public to hear. Even if every moment of the
encounter was unambiguously consensual it would still be highly
embarrassing to him.
I'd like to hear that recording of his account of what happened in his
own words but I bet I never will.
Mez
|
| |
| |
in article f00c23df.0409072108.3fc04342@posting.google.com, Messalina at
messalinana@yahoo.com wrote on 9/7/04 10:08 PM:
(1) Accuser was over the age of 18 when she filed her complaint.
There is therefore no viable claim against her family.
(2) She did not "lose" the criminal case because it was not her case
to pursue. In the USA it is the state of Colorado represented by its
prosecutors that decide whether a case has merit, not an accuser,
i.e., "The People of the state of Colordaro v. Bryant, Kobe."
Furthermore, since the case was not decided by a jury no one won or
lost it.
in Canadian Law, a complainant cannot voluntarily withdraw a criminal claim,
the reasoning being that a crime by Law MUST be reported (it is the Duty of
a Citizen), and that Crown does NOT represent the "victim" (theoretically),
but of Society as a whole (also theoretically, creating an 'impartial'
Proceeding); therefore if the complainant withdrew her complaint, she would
risk charges herself (i know of a few women who were threatened by Crown
when they announced they wished to drop theis claims).
(3) In order to have a prayer of alleging extortion Bryant would have
had to have proof of her threatening to claim he raped her BEFORE she
made her police report. If you have some evidence of such a threat
with such a timeline I think the Bryant camp would be very interested
in hearing from you.
Actually, if she at ANY time ever mentioned he pay her money OR she'd
sue.....
(4) "Fraud." Easy to allege, hard to prove. Why is it that Kobe had
spent millions on this case, but it takes you to come up with the
allegation of fraud?
(5) Anyone can sue for anything they like. Its winning thats a
#@&@
. Even if everyone on the hypothetical jury felt the same as you
did about Kobe Bryant, do you think they'd award him anything at the
expense of a bunch of wage slaves? Not likely.
(6) Suing the accuser: Again, filing suit and winning are two
different things. And if he sued and won? So what? This young woman
owns nothing. She is what is called in the legal business "judgement
proof."
(7) What will actually happen is that Kobe Bryant will at some point
give this woman a chunk of money. He will never, ever sue her or
anyone else else involved in this case. I'm sorry if that makes you
feel bad, but thats the way its going to play out.
Mez
Suing is a waste of time and money; the only persons who receive the benefit
of civil suits, are lawyers and IRS (US)/ Revenue Canada, who receives a
stake in the settlement ("income", you know....)
|
| |
| |
in article 4b94af8a.0409080923.1f41e7e5@posting.google.com, messalina at
messalina@gmail.com wrote on 9/8/04 10:23 AM:
You're right. What the Kobe supporters continue to close their eyes
to is that the man does not want the details of this encounter made
public. I doubt there's anything new that can be produced about his
accuser, but I'm thinking there's plenty we haven't heard about Kobe
that he doesn't want the public to hear. Even if every moment of the
encounter was unambiguously consensual it would still be highly
embarrassing to him.
I'd like to hear that recording of his account of what happened in his
own words but I bet I never will.
Mez
she may sue for publishing rights to the video they created- and if it gets
lost, arrange for a date to re-enact their love scene. ;-)
|
| |
| |
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<chn3c6$gdh@rac3.wam.umd.edu>...
-snip-
(3) In order to have a prayer of alleging extortion Bryant would have
had to have proof of her threatening to claim he raped her BEFORE she
made her police report. If you have some evidence of such a threat
with such a timeline I think the Bryant camp would be very interested
in hearing from you.
False. It's not the claim of rape that constitutes extortion, it's
the civil suit. Bryant would have to show that she talked about
getting money from him before she filed the suit (which I believe
we have heard from a number of witnesses).
Talking about getting money before you file a civil suit constitutes
extortion?
rotfl
No kidding! I can't complain, though. If the average schmo knew a
damned thing about the sorry legalities of life I probably wouldn't
have a job.
Mez
|
| |
| |
You're right. What the Kobe supporters continue to close their eyes
to is that the man does not want the details of this encounter made
public.
Funny -- I thought it was Katelyn Faber who backed down from taking the
stand.
|
| |
| |
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<chn3c6$gdh@rac3.wam.umd.edu>...
In article <Vcx%c.12598$54.178080@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Talking about getting money before you file a civil suit constitutes
extortion?
In this case, yes...there's already the precedent of her trying to talk
her roomies into driving her 100 miles to "run into" Eminem so that she
accuse him of rape and run up a set of imaginary "damages"
and.....I think Eminem is a complete jackass
rotfl
|
| |
| |
akulkis@gmail.com (Sylvester & Tweety) wrote in message
-snip-
Talking about getting money before you file a civil suit constitutes
extortion?
In this case, yes...there's already the precedent of her trying to talk
her roomies into driving her 100 miles to "run into" Eminem so that she
accuse him of rape and run up a set of imaginary "damages"
1. No. Not so. This is coming from a person who has actually known
someone convicted and imprisoned for extortion.
2. You're pulling the extortion plan out of your ass. Weatherwax
never claimed the accuser wanted to accuse Eminem of rape and set him
up for damages.
The quote is as follows:
"He was a big celebrity to us," Weatherwax said of the rapper. "We had
his
CDs, knew his songs by heart, talked about how his wife did not
deserve him
and about nailing [having sex with] him.
"In December of 2002, the accuser discovered Eminem was to be in Vail
over
New Year's. She wanted me to drive her up there. I said no. To me it
seemed
out of whack to drive six hours to get with a guy who has women
falling all
over him. But she really wanted to go.
"She called a friend at his hotel, found out what room he was in and
where
he'd sing. There was a plan to seduce him to his room, the pool or hot
tub;
to be in position to score one."
I won't bother to go into the reasons why even this story is
completely full of holes.
3. There are those that claim its Weatherwax and not the accuser that
was the one who wanted to score with Eminem.
and.....I think Eminem is a complete jackass
I've never met him, have no opinion of him.
Mez
|
| |
| |
In article <ZLO%c.12768$54.179555@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Funny -- I thought it was Katelyn Faber who backed down from taking the
stand.
Funny -- who's now begging for a court order to seal the evidence?
|
| |
| |
In article <a7c0ffe5.0409081830.75bc1a62@posting.google.com>,
Sylvester & Tweety <akulkis@gmail.com> wrote:
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<chn3c6$gdh@rac3.wam.umd.edu>...
In this case, yes...there's already the precedent of her trying to talk
her roomies into driving her 100 miles to "run into" Eminem so that she
accuse him of rape and run up a set of imaginary "damages"
Actually, no one has ever claimed that.
and.....I think Eminem is a complete jackass
|
| |
| |
On 9 Sep 2004 21:48:07 -0400, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
In article <ZLO%c.12768$54.179555@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Funny -- who's now begging for a court order to seal the evidence?
If you want to talk about begging, then talk about prosecutors in the
CRIMINAL case who were begging the judge to seal her sexual life, and
her parent and attorneys begging the judge to set a trial date, ....etc.
|
| |
