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.
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.
“Is there no statute of limitations in civil actions?”
I do not know the answer to your question. However, if she has a contingency contract with her attorney whereby the attorney gets compensated only if she wins the suit then it costs her nothing but her time to try it. ;-)
My question is, “What in the world is a 15-year-old girl doing in the Playboy mansion?????”
The LaTimes published the scam artists legal pleading.
It is unintentionally funny. What a ridiculous pleading.
I appears that this attorney does not understand the English language.
http://documents.latimes.com/judy-huth-lawsuit-against-bill-cosby/