Posted on 12/10/2014 7:11:32 PM PST by Ken H
A woman who has for years accused Bill Cosby of drugging and sexually assaulting her filed a defamation lawsuit Wednesday claiming the fallen funnyman sullied her “good name and reputation” when he branded her a liar.
Tamara Green, 66, filed her claim in federal court in Massachusetts, alleging the comedian, through lawyers and publicists, negligently disregarded the truth and willfully induced “an evil opinion of her.”
Green, a retired lawyer, said the "pattern" of public shaming started when she first stepped forward in 2005 with claims Cosby drugged and groped her in the 1970s after hiring her to help him open a club.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
“A person can say what they want to say. Duh. That doesn’t mean what anybody says is true.”
That is exactly what I’ve said all along. Just because Bill Cosby says the allegations of drugging and rape are false does not make what he says true. Likewise, just because a woman says Bill Cosby drugged and raped her does not make her allegation necessarily true. However, the current circumstances are far beyond the stage of where you have a celebrity and a woman disputing each other about which told the truth. Instead, you now have several dozen women making allegations and Bill Cosby denying those allegations despite his being the father of a child in another previous allegation. Under those circumstances in which there are dozens of alleged victims and some preceding courtroom evidence of marital infidelity not inconsistent with the allegations, the legal standard of proof may reasonably be argued to shift more in favor of the accusers with respect to meeting a certain burden of proof.
The legal burden of proof runs a spectrum from the least demanding to the most demanding:
Reasonable suspicion
Reasonable to believe
Probable cause for arrest
Some credible evidence
Substantial evidence
Preponderance of the evidence
Clear and convincing evidence
Beyond reasonable doubt
Your remarks have been extremely hostile towards any person who would suggest the allegations seen in the media to date are sufficient reason to harbor the suspicion that some or all of the allegations of the accusers have been truthful enough to meet some legal burden of proof and warrant further investigation and/or legal proceedings between the accusers and the accused.
So far as I can see in your comments, you also disregard how I and others acknowledged it is possible for some or all of the allegations against Bill Cosby are false in part or in whole. I must note, however, the likelihood of all of the allegations being false is diminishingly small given Bill Cosby’s reluctant admissions of paternity and marital infidelity in the past with one of the persons supporting the current allegations of drugging.
“For instance, one of your pals just claimed to have been postinq at FR for a couple years but has a start date of Nov 27th - with all but a few posts beinq about Cosby, accusinq lonq-time Freepers of beinq Sandusky supporters because they question the discrepancies in the Cosby accusers’ stories.”
For your information I don’t have “pals” on FR. I am an individual. I suspect many of the people on FR who have generously praised me on some occasions have also been very offended by what I have written on other occasions. That is perhaps as it should be when independent minded people clash over their views of the information we see in the media each day. Fortunately, many of us who genuinely seek the truth in a controversy and are not here to deliberately propagate falsehoods and disinformation manage to respect each other despite our disagreements. That doesn’t make them pals whether or not we appreciate or admire their contributions.
With respect to the post you are complaining about, I made no response to the post one way or another and I am not expressing an opinion on it. Your use of that post to make false allegations of a link with the poster is false and abusive, regardless of whether or not the poster’s comments have any merit.
“It’s obvious you quys are trolls, so I’m not planninq on respondinq any more.”
Until such time as you can restrain yourself from making false accusations like the above it may be a good idea for you to do so.
“Life is too short to waste it on lies.”
Then why do you lie about people being trolls for disagreeing with you and the evidence that refutes your own comments? You denied the alleged victims’ allegations about being drugged and suffering blackouts, yet you have still failed to acknowledge the potential ability of a rapist to administer more than one dose of a rape drug for more than one day.
“You may be qettinq paid to do this but I’m not.”
You just got through saying, “Life is too short to waste it on lies.” and then you lied when you falsely claimed to know I “may be qettinq paid to do this”, when in fact I am most certainly NOT being paid to do anything of the sort. Quite the contrary, I spend too much time volunteering at my own expense.
“And once the qovernment propaqandists take over it’s not even interestinq any more. Blah.”
That comment implying those of us who dispute your comments must necessarily be “qovernment propaqandists” is a lie and deserves to be retracted with an apology.
“Keep psychoanalyzinq and iqnorinq factual discrepancies. Keep spewinq what the minders feed you. But I won’t be here to have to listen to it because lies really bother me. It’s why I’ve turned off the TV and it’s why I probably won’t be hanqinq around here much either. I’ll do like most of the other real Freepers and let you trolls talk to yourselves.”
Those comments are very sad indeed.....
Obama has called “birthers” liars; do we have an actionable claim?
Just curious: how can a person rape somebody who admits they’ve consented to sex?
And how can somebody who is passed out be more kinky than they are without druqs? Is the woman who Cosby admits havinq had an affair with sayinq she’s normally less kinky in bed than a passed-out person?
"In excess of 75,000" could mean anything... could be $75,000,000.
“Just curious: how can a person rape somebody who admits they’ve consented to sex?”
According to a California court of law, when the consent for sexual intercourse has been withdrawn, the sexual intercourse occurring after the withdrawal of consent has been deemed to be non-consensual sexual intercourse and rape.
Consensual Rape in California
Written by Brian Dinday
Criminal Defense Attorney - San Rafael, CA
When Is Consented Sexual Intercourse Actually a Rape?
Rape does not seem on the surface to be a very confusing or hard to understand crime. It is using force, threats or intimidation to achieve sexual intercourse with an unwilling victim. Well, it used to be simple to understand, until the California Court of Appeal made it more complicated. Every male who is dating women needs to be aware of the case of People v. Roundtree, (First District 2000) 77 Cal. App.4th 846, at 851. The rationale of the opinion seems on its surface to be a sensible interpretation of past law applied to a new situation, but the implications of the decision inspire “shock and awe.”
In the case of a person who is not conscious at the time of sexual intercourse, there is the question of whether or not the person was legally capable of giving consent for sexual intercourse while conscious and/or capable of withdrawing the consent while unconscious.
In the case of a minor, the law assumes all sexual intercourse is non-consensual because a minor lacks the legal capacity to give lawful consent. Likewise with any other person who lacks the legal capacity to give a legal consent for sexual intercourse, a question arises whether or not an unconscious person has such a legal capacity to give continuing consent.
“And how can somebody who is passed out be more kinky than they are without druqs? Is the woman who Cosby admits havinq had an affair with sayinq she’s normally less kinky in bed than a passed-out person?”
Are you suggesting a somnophiliac is not extraordinarily “kinky”?
What’s kinky about a woman who can’t even move? And how could any live woman be less kinky than that?
And no, I really don’t want an answer. Suffice to say that none of this makes any sense to me.
“What’s kinky about a woman who can’t even move? And how could any live woman be less kinky than that?”
That is why psychiatrists describe the behavior as a paraphilia. Some of the psychiatrists seem to think it is a mental disorder that has more to do with a need to dominate and control than it is for the act of sex itself. Some even go so far as to place it in the continuum of behavior not far removed from necrophilia. See:
Is Bill Cosby a somnophiliac?
Published December 10, 2014
FoxNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/19/hollywood-sony-media/
[....]
Laws said her friend, whose name she does not wish to reveal, eventually split from Cosby, but Laws kept in touch with him because she “liked him as a person.” She said looking back on the incident she suspects the famed comedy king drugged her friend because he enjoyed having power over her. Laws, who holds a Ph.D. in social ethics, recalled a strange meeting when she heard him offer her friend a large sum of money to grow her hair longer. Laws claims Cosby even offered her money to convince her friend to grow her hair as he’d asked.
“It could be that he enjoyed having that power over women or that control over someone who was not in control,” she speculated. “I think that he probably… it turns him on somehow to see a woman incapacitated or out or not in control of herself.”
[....]
According to Dr. Judy Kuriansky, a clinical psychologist and sex therapist who has not treated Cosby, if the women’s accounts of their interactions with Cosby are true, he is a somnophiliac who also suffers from a serious need to dominate and control other people.
“Basically, this is an inability to have a normal, sexually intimate and respectful exchange with a partner,” Kuriansky explained. “Therefore, that partner needs to be drugged and semi-conscious in order for [one] to interact. It is not a matter of the sexual pleasure as it is of the dominance or control.”
Kuriansky emphasized that in some relationships partners fantasize about and even engage in “sleepy sex,” where they agree that one person can have sex with the other while they are sleeping, but when drugging and sexual assault are involved it becomes a dysfunction.
“We have differences between people who have fantasies about these things [and] people who have actually carried these fantasies into an act,” she said.
Dr. Mark Griffiths, of Nottingham Trent University, however, countered that from the extensive research he’s done on somnophilia he believes the paraphilia – another term for sexual deviation — is very rare and is probably not a factor in the alleged Cosby rapes.
“I think [allegedly] using roofies to drug people is definitely one step removed from being a direct somnophiliac,” he said. “The date rape is just about having total power over somebody but not about being asleep as much.”
Both doctors agreed that somnophilia is on a larger spectrum of sexual behavior and it is somewhat related to necrophilia, which is the sexual attraction to corpses.
“I refer to it being pseudo-necrophilia,” Griffiths said. “There are some people who really won’t go through a necrophilia act but having someone who is drugged or asleep may be enough for someone.”
“How did he do all of this without his wife having a clue?”
How do you know she didn’t?
Right.
Anyone who disagrees with your crazy made-up crap is a paid troll.
And the government is stealing your emails and corrupting your computer.
And Ninja Frogman disabled your “G” key.
How are you fixed for Chemtrails, by the way?
Why all of the excitement here. There is nothing here but the rat trap. It has been played a thousand times.
The party is guilty of the tort but the statute of limitations has run. So, the victim accuses the perpetrator and taunts him until he calls her a liar. She sues for defamation, a tort on which the statute has not run. The perpetrator will not submit to a deposition because he will have to lie and that could mean prison time. So, she will win. He will pay. It is just the way the rat trap is supposed to play out. Chill out folks. He did the crime, he has to avoid the time.
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.