Posted on 07/02/2013 5:45:20 AM PDT by massmike
Three lawsuits brought by men who said a former Elmo puppeteer sexually abused them when they were underage were tossed out by a judge who said in a decision published Monday that the men waited too long to sue.
U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl said the claims must be barred because they came more than six years after each man reasonably should have realized that the physical and emotional injuries they're suing over were caused by alleged encounters with Kevin Clash. The judge also noted that each man had been over the age of 18 for more than three years before they filed their lawsuits.
In the ruling, the judge said that the time in which someone must bring a lawsuit accumulates after the victimization rather than when the individual realizes subsequent psychological harm. Otherwise, he said, plaintiffs could make claims decades later.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
Looks like someone might have intervened...
GLAAD intervened to protect him?
Dear judge,
The age of the victims has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not a crime was committed, nor does the time elapsed between the occurrence of the crime and their taking action on it.
There should be no time limit on pervert crimes.
To execute this creep.
some animals are more equal than others
NAMBLA Judge said WHAT?
Ping for later
Didn’t they go after priests from years ago??
Yes they did......
Huh? Where/are the lawsuits against Catholic Priests held to the same standard?
Loop holes are for the few.
“In 1994, President Bill Clinton nominated Koeltl as a U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, a position he still holds today.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Koeltl
Elections have consequences.
What is the law on the statute of limitations for molestation/sexual abuse?
Got that right. I personally know of Catholic parishes that were sued THREE DECADES after alleged abuse by a
Priest occurred. This does not pass the smell test.
Bingo.
In fact, California changed the statute of limitations in 2003 to reopen cases going back 30 years or more against the Catholic Church, and against the Catholic Church only.
They are doing it again. See SB 131. Because trial lawyers haven’t finished off the Church yet.
I agree with this ruling and think the principle should be applied to all cases of this type. Including those against the clergy. Once a “victim” reaches 18 they should have two years (or whatever the statute of limitations is for an intentional tort) to bring suit or it is barred by the statute of limitations.
It pays to be a black Pedophile.
The concept of a statute of limitations has been around for hundreds of years. Without any further info that is in this article, the judge appears to have done the only thing he could do: dismiss under the law of the state. We have to be careful about picking and choosing when we want activist judges, the very thing we rail against the liberals about.
The acts alleged are heinous and shocking. They waited too long.
The age of the victims has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not a crime was committed, nor does the time elapsed between the occurrence of the crime and their taking action on it.
There should be no time limit on pervert crimes.
The problem is, there is a time limit on (most) "pervert crimes." The judge correctly followed the law of the State of New York here. The issue is with the law, not the judge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.