Bill Cosby faces new sexual assault lawsuits after states extend statutes of limitations

[DoggyDaddy]

Bill Cosby faces new sexual assault lawsuits after states extend statutes of limitations​

Bill Cosby faces new sexual assault lawsuits after states extend statutes of limitations

Former Playboy model Victoria Valentino has publicly accused Cosby of drugging and raping her in 1969, and accusers in Nevada plan legal action thanks to "look back window" laws.

www.nbcnews.com

Okay INGO lawyers @HoughMade and @Kirk Freeman how is this not ex post facto and therefore unconstitutional?

"Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws)."

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I'm guessing it's because it's going to be a civil suit (aka money-grab). Freakin' 80 year old gold digger is what I think she is.

 

[rob63]

Setting aside the things he did, the legal implications, etc. It is genuinely difficult for me to imagine being that age and either wanting money that bad or so full of rage about something from the past to be willing to bother with any of this. I'm only about to turn 60, and fooling with lawsuits isn't something I care to do with my remaining time.

 

[radar8756]

Bill Cosby faces new sexual assault lawsuits after states extend statutes of limitations​

how is this not ex post facto and therefore unconstitutional?

It was illegal when crime was committed - change is to Statute of Limitations to file charges

Under international law, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide have no statute of limitations.

Which Federal Crimes Have No Statute of Limitations?

• Capital murder.
• Murder of a federal employee.
• Treason.
• Espionage.
• Sexual offenses against minors.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It was illegal when crime was committed - change is to Statute of Limitations to file charges

Under international law, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide have no statute of limitations.

Which Federal Crimes Have No Statute of Limitations?

• Capital murder.
• Murder of a federal employee.
• Treason.
• Espionage.
• Sexual offenses against minors.

It was illegal when (if) it occurred, but she wasn't a minor at the time. The statute of limitations (10 years) had long since lapsed until "California legislators have temporarily allowed sexual abuse lawsuits in cases that exceed the 10-year statute of limitations."

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Bill Cosby faces new sexual assault lawsuits after states extend statutes of limitations​

Bill Cosby faces new sexual assault lawsuits after states extend statutes of limitations

Former Playboy model Victoria Valentino has publicly accused Cosby of drugging and raping her in 1969, and accusers in Nevada plan legal action thanks to "look back window" laws.

www.nbcnews.com

Okay INGO lawyers @HoughMade and @Kirk Freeman how is this not ex post facto and therefore unconstitutional?

"Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws)."

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1) Civil vs criminal. Civil trials are between two people, not the person and a gov't entity. Which leads to:

2) The act was illegal when it occurred. Statue of limitations don't make things legal, they just make it so the gov't pretends you are on home base and can't be tagged any longer. State of limitations can be for criminal or civil or both and don't have to match.

3) Ex post facto means you can't be charged for an act that you did before it became illegal. If eating carrots is made a misdemeanor on July 1, you can't be charged for eating one on June 30th. If possessing carrots becomes illegal, as long you ditch them prior to July 1, you can't be tried for them but if you continue to possess them on July 1 then es post facto no longer applies.


Recap: He (per her) did an illegal thing. Gov't said you're on home base and can't be tagged after X date. Gov't changed that rule. Nothing that was legal became illegal or vice versa.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

1) Civil vs criminal. Civil trials are between two people, not the person and a gov't entity. Which leads to:

2) The act was illegal when it occurred. Statue of limitations don't make things legal, they just make it so the gov't pretends you are on home base and can't be tagged any longer. State of limitations can be for criminal or civil or both and don't have to match.

3) Ex post facto means you can't be charged for an act that you did before it became illegal. If eating carrots is made a misdemeanor on July 1, you can't be charged for eating one on June 30th. If possessing carrots becomes illegal, as long you ditch them prior to July 1, you can't be tried for them but if you continue to possess them on July 1 then es post facto no longer applies.


Recap: He (per her) did an illegal thing. Gov't said you're on home base and can't be tagged after X date. Gov't changed that rule. Nothing that was legal became illegal or vice versa.

Well, except he's getting tagged not only after he left home base, but after he left the dugout and the ballpark. But I understand the ex post facto, and I didn't use that term properly. It was the closest thing I could come up with for the situation.

 

[Lpherr]

If someone doesn't like being sued and/or prison time, don't break the law.
It seems too simple.
If someone doesn't like Commiefornia laws, and the way the state is ran, just stay out of the state.
It seems too simple.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

If someone doesn't like being sued and/or prison time, don't break the law.
It seems too simple.
If someone doesn't like Commiefornia laws, and the way the state is ran, just stay out of the state.
It seems too simple.

I have no problem with it happening when the crime happens. I have a problem with it taking place 54 years later, when the statute of limitations had run out 40+ years prior.

 

[BigRed]

I guess she didn't make as much from Playboy as she hoped.

 

[Hkindiana]

I guess she didn't make as much from Playboy as she hoped.

Maybe she could pose AGAIN

 

[BigRed]

Maybe she could pose AGAIN

My guess is the stock hasn't increased.

 

[KLB]

I have no problem with it happening when the crime happens. I have a problem with it taking place 54 years later, when the statute of limitations had run out 40+ years prior.

No kidding. What kind of evidence can there be now? Is this going to be one of those "believe all women" cases?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

No kidding. What kind of evidence can there be now? Is this going to be one of those "believe all women" cases?

That would be my guess.

 

[KLB]

That would be my guess.

It's also a joke that they are changing the law to target a specific person.

 

[BigRed]

Pound Me Too
-Victoria Valentino

 

[Ingomike]

Wasn’t he a regular at the playboy mansion?

 

[edporch]

I don't know about the particulars of this case, but I do know that Bill Cosby had a reputation for this kind of thing going back into the 1960's.

I know a woman who told me that back in the 1960's when she lived in Chicago, she went to a party and was told that Bill Cosby would be there.

She was an attractive woman in those days, and was excited at the idea of meeting him.

Some women in the know warned her to not under ANY circumstances allow herself to be alone with him.
As even in those days his MO was to drug women and rape them.

 

[HoughMade]

It was illegal when crime was committed - change is to Statute of Limitations to file charges

This is correct. Ex Post Facto refers to being held liable for an act that was not illegal when committed.

...and leave international anything out of this. It's irrelevant. Also, it is true that some crimes do not have statutes if limitations....that is also irrelevant.

(cue people complaining that continuing acts should not be able to be made illegal under the ex post facto clause because they started before the law was made).

 

[HoughMade]

It's also a joke that they are changing the law to target a specific person.

It's a horrific precedent. Statutes of limitations exist for very good reasons. However, state law (in this case) created statutes of limitations and state law can alter them. I'm sure a lawyer paid more than me will make a state and federal constitutional argument....and I doubt that will be successful.