https://www.latimes.com/world-nation...79-sues-estate
Printable View
$50 million ??? lol
Here we go again!!!
Wonder what would be the defense. So far, it's just her side being aired, what will be the response from Rick's family about this? Was he known to go into group homes at the time? Looks like he was visiting people he knew there.
Holding my opinions on this until we know more details. We know Rick wasn't a totally innocent person though. He was high all his life and drugs can make you do some disgusting sh*t [[just read his book).
Here's my opinion.....he didn't do it! Where's the rape kit? Aren't group homes and other child protection agencies required by law to get treatment for the children in their care immediately? I don't believe her. If it were about justice, why is she asking for so much money with no proof?
Maybe she was just[17 and sexy]!!!
She says she was 15 in 1979. Rick James was a brand new superstar then and could had any grown woman he wanted just about.Quote:
Originally Posted by arr&bee
I think in this case, he definitely could be innocent. Usually I don't go on about money but someone who demands $50 million? Yeah, I'm gonna probably put this in the "I don't believe you" aisle. This case might not even go through.
I thought that lawsuits had to be timely? James died in 2004, why file a lawsuit 16 years after his passing and 40 years after the alleged incident?
Maybe her name is...mary jane!!
If you read the article, some of the questions posters have raised are answered - like an exemption to the limitation.
This sounds like a money grab, lashing out in the dark for money - worse than what is done in the Aretha Franklin, Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson and Marvin Gaye estates
Yikes guys, careful about the jokes...some might take offense.
I have to say this really strains credibility to believe that she has a legitimate claim. 40 years later, what kind of proof could possibly exist? Even in a civil action, which this is, the preponderance of evidence standard means it's more likely to be true than untrue. Physical evidence isn't necessary because in many such cases it's "he said, she said." However, in this case, there's no "he said," only "she said," so I can't imagine how any court could find her credible with no one to cross-examine or question on the other side.
The Child Victims Act was apparently passed in New York to allow child victims of sexual abuse to file much after the [[then) usual five year statute of limitations from the date of the event.
I know nothing about this lady or her claims, but from a legal point of view this would seem to be a pretty rough road to proving her case even in a civil vs. a criminal court.
That law was passed primarily to assist those abused by priests as children. This woman is crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenneth
Mary jane!!!!!!
Actually, I stated the law incorrectly. The Statute of Limitations would start running once the child turned 18, so if it's a 5-year statute the former child abuse victim would have till they were 23 regardless of how old they were when the assault took place. Minors aren't considered capable of filing a lawsuit on their own until they turn 18. Of course, their parents or other responsible adults such as a Guardian can sue on their behalf when they're still underage.Quote:
Originally Posted by marv2
Ah so this does benefit her... hmmm... I do wonder if drugs make you do things you never do sober. Remember that this guy and his wife got convicted of beating someone to a bloody pulp. All while on crack.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenneth
Well the woman in this case is 56 going on 57 years old!Quote:
Originally Posted by kenneth
We didn't have Crack in 1979 which is when the rape was supposed to have occurred.Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightman
It is something in that new law, the Child Victims Act, that has opened up a window for filings like these, even if under the old system they would have been barred. And in the write up about this lawsuit, it also mentioned the passage of the CVA allowed this lady to file.Quote:
Originally Posted by marv2
I think the original intent of the new law was to make it possible for people that were abused by Priests decades ago to seek some form of justice now. Not people out there that are possibly making up stories in order to get a bag.......Quote:
Originally Posted by kenneth
I think it extended to non priest cases. Could be wrong. I'll google it.Quote:
Originally Posted by marv2
Oh I am pretty sure that it did. I just believe that with all the stories of adults that were children in the 50s,60s, 70s, etc that have come forward in recent years to tell their stories of sexual abuse in the church, that those were on the minds of lawmakers most.Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightman
These people are getting ridiculous.
Yeah that was the true catalyst.Quote:
Originally Posted by marv2
It's not just the Catholic Church either! It happens across religious denominations.Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightman