On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Bob in Jersey <[email protected]>wrote:
> The threesome who complained in NY crashed into the statute of > limitations, but strangely can appeal... > TheWrap<http://www.thewrap.com/tv/article/kevin-clash-accusers-attorney-sex-abuse-charges-dismissal-first-battle-100791> I don't think there is anything strange about their being able to appeal the ruling. Statue of limitations (SOL) in sexual abuse cases have been extremely controversial over the last 15 to 20 years, and judgements about it should be subject to review. I think the court has ruled correctly here (and in saying that I take no position on the likelihood of the charges of abuse being true or false). We have gone through a period relatively recently where the argument was made that the clock should not start on the SOL in such cases until the alleged victim has recovered their repressed memories of abuse - the effect of that argument is basically to gut the whole idea of SOL. Discovery really can not apply in these cases, at least not unless it is explicit in the law. The fact that the three unrelated plaintiffs gave almost exactly identical arguments and even language for extending the SOL suggests that their lawyer was trying to construct an excuse for the court to go beyond the law, and the court recognized it, called them on it, and refused. It seems so unlikely that this strategy could ever have worked that it makes me think the real point here is to provide a foundation for asking congress to add some kind of explicit discovery provision. One thing I do not understand about this case - the suit was brought in a federal district court, which I always assume means that the case is decided under federal law (or the Constitution). And the opinion seems to cite federal laws and the congressional record. But The Wrap story quotes one of the plaintiff lawyers as saying: "We believe that the victims in this case are within the statute of limitations, but this ruling highlights the need for a window in New York to allow victims to have their day in court." Why do they want a window in New York - it seems like they would want a window in US law, not NY state law? It also mentions that a case is pending in PA, where the SOL is longer. So this implies that the case was filed under NY state law, not federal law - but then why is it in a federal court? The Wrap also refers to a "New York Judge", which might seem to imply a state court, but the AP story refers to "U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl" as the one who issued the ruling, and the opinion itself, linked by The Wrap, clearly labels this as a US District Court, Southern District of New York, and the opinion makes it clear that the plaintiffs are claiming the use of interstate means to commit the crime, which would only be relevant to explain why it is a federal case. Finally the opinion clearly cites the U.S.C., which I believe refers to US Law. Maybe I am confused on the nomenclature here - I know New York state is odd in that what we would call Superior Court in California seems to be referred to as the Supreme Court in New York (which in California only refers to the highest court of appeal). -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
