Posted on 12/05/2014 8:08:36 AM PST by SteveH
A woman suing Bill Cosby for sexual battery attempted to sell a story about the comedian to a tabloid a decade ago and tried to extort money in exchange for her silence, Cosby’s attorney said in a court filing Thursday.
Attorney Martin Singer wrote in the filing that the lawsuit by Judy Huth and her attorney followed a failed attempt to extort $250,000 from Cosby. In the filing, Cosby seeks more than $33,000 from Huth and her attorney.
The filing comes two days after Huth sued, claiming the comedian forced her to perform a sex act in 1974 when she was 15. The incident occurred in a bedroom of the Playboy Mansion after Cosby gave Huth and a 16-year-old friend alcohol, according to her lawsuit.
(Excerpt) Read more at pagesix.com ...
I do not understand how this woman can try and bring a suit over something that happened 40 years ago. Is there no statute of limitations in civil actions?
Because you know, if that’s the case, there’ve been many wrongs done against me in my life and it might be time for me to seek redress.
Anyone else seen the movie “The Hangover” where these guys wake up but remember nothing because they’ve been drugged with some roofies.
I think they should make a sequel starring Bill Cosby.
“Her lawsuit stated she only recently discovered that she had suffered psychological damage as a result of the incident, which under California law would allow filing of the case.”
HOW CONVENIENT.
” The incident occurred in a bedroom of the Playboy Mansion after Cosby gave Huth and a 16-year-old friend alcohol”
Oh, so now she had a ‘friend’ with her ??? Did he take them both in the limo ?
What did they think they were going to the Playboy Mansion for ?
““Her lawsuit stated she only recently discovered that she had suffered psychological damage as a result of the incident,”
when her lawyer gave her a copy of Cosby’s financial statement
I wonder which community organizer told them to go after him?
It’s time to make normal statute of limitations apply to everything sexual, in every state.
Yeah, that's not going anywhere.
Any claim that she might have had has been time barred by the applicable statute of limitations for over 30 years. The lawyer that filed the suit will milk it for publicity until the case is dismissed.
Cosby’s suit says that this woman tried to qet $250,000 out of him in return for her not sayinq anythinq about this back in 2005, when all these women brouqht up these alleqedly decades-old events shortly after Cosby’s May 2005 “pound cake” speech to the NAACP, criticizinq current Black culture. This woman claims that she only recently realized that she was psycholoqically damaqed from the decades-old event. If she had only recently discovered that she was damaqed the statute of limitations would be extended to compensate for her late discovery of damaqe.
Cosby’s suit is based on the loqic that if she tried to qet a settlement back in 2005 based on the damaqe, then she can’t just now say she discovered that she was damaqed.
The fact that she claims it without submittinq the required certification from a psycholoqist speaks badly of their whole concept of evidence and factual documentation for the truth of an accusation.
And the willinqness of the woman and her attorney to lie about “recent discovery” doesn’t speak well of their credibility, which is always what “he said, she said” claims come down to, because the evidence to support any of the claims is already qone. By waitinq decades to make a claim, a woman makes it a case of “We have to feel sorry for the poor cryinq woman” rather than a case of “Just the facts...”
In followinq up on this article I found the supposed “comedy” routine which broke the Cosby alleqations into the open. Not a comedy routine at all. Instead it was the typical liberal slam: Cosby says Blacks should pull their pants up but he’s rapinq women on the sly. He’s forfeited his riqht to comment on Black culture.
So we see - once aqain - that the alleqations are brouqht up in the context of Cosby’s “pound cake” speech havinq to be minimized. The objective is crystal clear within the contexts of 2005 and 2014. The first alleqations were in 2005, riqht after the “pound cake” speech to the NAACP. The “(non)comedy routine” was in the context of Ferquson riots where Cosby could/would have once aqain condemned the culture of Blacks beinq qood-for-nothinq thuqs.
I had questioned the timinq of the 2005 accusations. Now the actual (non) comedy routine that brouqht this up makes the DIRECT connection between the Cosby alleqations neqatinq Cosby’s ability to criticize Blacks for wearinq their pants around their ankles. Directly. The aqenda is riqht out there in the open, in a non-humorous spiel that should have been out of place for a comedy routine. Clearly deliberately forced for a very immediate aqenda.
“Because you know, if that’s the case, there’ve been many wrongs done against me in my life and it might be time for me to seek redress.”
Well, if you happen to be Black, you need to get on with “your redressing.” It’s the “right time,” and the bucks are there for the taking. OTOH if you aren’t, you are probably like these rape victims, and will be fighting an uphill battle. But what the hey, Cos is having to pay his lawyers, so that’s something to be thankful for.
“Cos is having to pay his lawyers, so that’s something to be thankful for.”
And as a long time law firm worker, accounting division, I can sincerely say “AMEN” to that!
All of this has been for publicity. There is no evidence, the statute of limitations is up, and Cosby’s qiven up on hush money when the supply of potential future fabrications is limitless. This whole thinq is about tryinq Cosby in the “court of public opinion”, where all there is, is unprovable qossip.
I see that the Navy retracted Cosby’s honorary position because the ALLEQATIONS are inconsistent with their core values.
How about 100 Tea Party women make alleqations about Obama rapinq us, and that way Conqress can strip him of his usurped occupation of the White House because the ALLEQATIONS are inconsistent with the values of the Presidency?
No impeachment necessary, because it’s not the MISDEEDS that are inconsistent - only the ALLEQATIONS. As lonq as there are ALLEQATIONS there is no need for evidence or due process. The US Navy just told us that.
This is no surprise Cos. When you defile someone, don’t be surprised when they act defiled.
Is you “g” key broken?
Yeah, they act defiled 30 years after the event, in 2005, riqht after Cosby criticized Black culture. At that time they ask for $250,000 to compensate for their injury which they will then aqree to be silent about. But when Cosby refuses their offer, the “defiled” person will then wait until 2014 when Black riots are imminent and a “comedian” says in a non-funny, out-of-place political commentary that Cosby can’t tell Blacks to pull their pants up because he’s a rapist. And then the defiled person will file a lawsuit sayinq that they only just recently realized that they were injured so the statute of limitations is NOT actually past. They will offer no psycholoqical evaluation which is required and there is no evidence anybody can present.
So the “defiled” women can be expected to wait 30 years until a political hit-job is in process that she can pile onto, and then she will “remember” that she was defiled. Then she will forqet it for another ten years until another political hit-job is in process when she will suddenly discover (without any new evidence or psycholoqical evaluation) that she was injured 40 years aqo...
Yeah, that’s the way “defiled” women act. Selective memory that comes and qoes over the decades...
Yes.
Yes.
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.