Apologies, I read the WRONG PORTION OF AB 2777 that applied to Danny Masterson’s victims. The right portion reads in part: “Separately, the new legislation has also created a one-year revival window which allows victims to bring sexual assault claims (including claims arising out of sexual assault) involving cover-ups that would otherwise be barred, before January 1, 2023, because the statute of limitations expired. Survivors may bring these claims between January 1, 2023 and December 31, 2023. A cover-up is defined as: "A concerted effort to hide evidence relating to a sexual assault that incentivizes individuals to remain silent or prevents information relating to a sexual assault from becoming public or being disclosed to the plaintiff, including, but not limited to, the use of nondisclosure agreements or confidentiality agreements."
0:00 - Danny Masterson's appeal team done messed up 2:26 - Rolling Stone reports 7:55 - Danny's appeal brief: The Big Lie 10:42 - CA Bill 2777 14:07 - Appeals court rejected many of these complaints already 15:31 - The NDA Danny's team doesn't want you to know about
How disgusting, that evil criminal that KNOWS WHAT HE DID, continues to pretend he isn’t GUILTY of those rapes and many more. Gross and I think the WOODCHIPPER would be too good for him.
What was weird to me was they all but admit that Jane Doe 3 was SA’ed in the filing and giving witnesses to her abuse that the state never brought up during the trials. That one broke my heart for her. If it weren’t for Jane Doe 3 none of this would’ve ever happened.
Danny is going to rot in prison and I love it!!!! The judge will laugh at his appeal and use it for toilet paper. His lawyer will take a huge paycheck and laugh. His ex wife will party in Tahiti with her new boyfriend and laugh. I love it!!!! Merry Christmas!!!!
Danny is trying to weasel out of it. LAPD took it and made sure it would never be found. It's disgusting as they are supposed to help the victims, not the criminal 😤
I live near Lafayette OR where Masterson’s guns turned up in a gun store. We’ve not heard anything since the first report. I would love to hear an update about what law enforcement has done with this.
An NDA can't be used if it's to crover up a crime... but not being a lawyer you might have to win the case for the NDA to be invaded (I'm not sure) but I do know that NDA cannot cover up any crime.
I love how they mention the Menendez bros as clients -as if to influence the reader to believe “here’s these people who committed a heinous crime but are going to be resentenced because their sentence was unjust and Danny’s atty is representing these people who society has a lot of sympathy and compassion for” and therein implying that Danny’s sentencing was unjust and that he too deserves sympathy and compassion from the public.
@ not in a court of law. I call that appeal a “Word Salad” why? Because it may sound plausible to some, not to me, because I understand the law. Those who believe that it might be plausible do not understand the law. I followed this case just like the Jonny Deep case. I have followed A-Aron since before he ran for City Council. So don’t worry we are paying attention to the law and how it’s applied. 🙏🏼
@@MirnaEJiron I’m not a lawyer but I read it and came to the same conclusion. When I got to the part they appealed during the trial I laughed out loud! 😂 I guess they’re hoping that when the appeal is denied, and they appeal it again that the higher court will overturn it. However, that court of appeal quoted quite a bit of established law in their refusal. So that’s not looking good either. I saw absolutely nothing new in there.
How convenient the PVEPD (right by the LAPD) but the PVEPD can’t ever seem to find the flash drive of the crime scene photos and body of Chester Bennington 🤔🤫 and they’ve also seemed to leave out VERY important details out of the police report SMFH
When I read their big argument that these brave survivors were going through the tortuous criminal justice system because they were motivated by money made me roll my eyes so hard! That mess wreaked of desperation! 😂 first of all, I understand that some of these Jane Does have more money than the convicted serialrapist. He hadn’t really worked since the early 00s. Also let me just spit some facts. 1 in 6 women have been SA’ed in their lifetime. Less than 10% of these victims ever file police reports. Less that 20% ever seek justice in civil courts which is much easier than going through the criminal justice process which is vicious and revictiminzing and retraumatizing for any victim. Look at Cassie Ventura and all Diddy’s victims. They went the civil route. Most do and there is nothing wrong with that. Paul Haggis’ victims never went to police. They went civil. To say SA victims are motivated by money is sad but laughable. These particular Jane Does went to police. They fought tooth and nail for criminal justice because he’s a serialrapist who would have continued victimizing women because this is a next level sickness in the head and his cult enabled him all the way. This appeal filing was pathetic and victim shamed these brave women and as soon as I read it I knew it was BS because I knew about the look back window HELLO Trump anyone???? These women could have sued at anytime. They didn’t. They went to police and it was years after they went to police that they filed a lawsuit to help end the fair game harassment by the criminal cult. And thanks to the protesters who documented what fair game harassment looks like in real time.
I'm confused -- the text for the Assembly Bill CA 2777 that you showed stated that the one-year filing window established by the Bill only applied to incidents that occurred between January 1, 2009 and January 1, 2019. Didn't the incidents that Danny was convicted for happen before 2009? Am I remembering the dates wrong?
You have 10 years to file a civil lawsuit for SA so please tell me how 2009-2019 is longer than 10 years. To “look back” meant opening the statute of limitations. An example I will give is Donald Trump’s lawsuit by E Jean Carrol that allegedly happened in the 1980’s? California adopted the same look back law as New York.
@EndScientologyTaxExemptStatus the text says it only applies to assaults on or after January 2009; This bill would, until December 31, 2026, revive claims seeking to recover damages suffered as a result of a sexual assault that occurred on or after January 1, 2009, that would otherwise be barred solely because the statute of limitations has or had expired.
@@jonchowe (e) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, any claim seeking to recover damages suffered as a result of a sexual assault that occurred on or after the plaintiff’s 18th birthday that would otherwise be barred before January 1, 2023, solely because the applicable statute of limitations has or had expired, is hereby revived, and a cause of action may proceed if already pending in court on January 1, 2023, or, if not filed by that date, may be commenced between January 1, 2023, and December 31, 2023. (2) This subdivision revives claims brought by a plaintiff who alleges all of the following: (A) The plaintiff was sexually assaulted. (B) One or more entities are legally responsible for damages arising out of the sexual assault. (C) The entity or entities, including, but not limited to, their officers, directors, representatives, employees, or agents, engaged in a cover up or attempted a cover up of a previous instance or allegations of sexual assault by an alleged perpetrator of such abuse.
(e) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, any claim seeking to recover damages suffered as a result of a sexual assault that occurred on or after the plaintiff’s 18th birthday that would otherwise be barred before January 1, 2023, solely because the applicable statute of limitations has or had expired, is hereby revived, and a cause of action may proceed if already pending in court on January 1, 2023, or, if not filed by that date, may be commenced between January 1, 2023, and December 31, 2023. (2) This subdivision revives claims brought by a plaintiff who alleges all of the following: (A) The plaintiff was sexually assaulted. (B) One or more entities are legally responsible for damages arising out of the sexual assault. (C) The entity or entities, including, but not limited to, their officers, directors, representatives, employees, or agents, engaged in a cover up or attempted a cover up of a previous instance or allegations of sexual assault by an alleged perpetrator of such abuse.
Random thought-I thought that an episode of you and a Bl--A-Kkkee that you know or wanted to meet; maybe you interviewing a Blake would be a hilarious idea for a potential episode…Happy Days and Blessings to you and yours with this awesome endeavour! Hugs H
Your argument about the defense's appeal in Danny Masterson's case being misleading because of California Assembly Bill 2777 (AB 2777) is itself somewhat misleading. While you are correct that AB 2777 allows accusers to file civil lawsuits regardless of the outcome of a criminal trial, the defense’s argument is not about the technical ability to file under AB 2777. Instead, it highlights how a criminal conviction strengthens civil claims by making it easier to prove liability under the lower civil standard of "preponderance of the evidence." The defense's point is that the accusers were motivated to pursue a conviction to bolster their chances of "dramatically greater" financial compensation, which could be seen as a potential bias affecting their credibility. Furthermore, the appeal argues that the trial court excluded evidence of this financial motive, depriving the jury of critical context to assess the accusers' testimonies. Misrepresenting this nuanced legal argument oversimplifies the defense’s position and creates confusion about the role AB 2777 plays in the case. Are you implying that the defense team, the appeal judges and the accusers are all unaware of the California Assembly Bill 2777 (AB 2777) bill, and you found this new information and enlightening everybody? To put in other words, the judge allowed the accusers to openly say they were given drugs although there was no evidence in that .. however, the defense was not allowed to suggest that there was financial motivation for the plaintiffs although there is plenty of evidence of that. Point is, the trial was not fair. And it is commentary like this that fuels the unfairness. And the big problem overall is - if Danny is so obviously 'guilty' then why do you, and so many others, need to stretch the truth to prove it? And why does the 2nd trial need to be unbalanced in order to get a guilty verdict. You always claim that he was found unanimously guilty. But actually, he wasn't really, was he?
The trial was deeply flawed and lacked fairness. Key evidence and testimony that could have supported Danny Masterson's defense were excluded, while other elements, which arguably should not have been allowed, were permitted. The judge appeared biased, giving the impression that Danny was assumed guilty from the outset, undermining the presumption of innocence that is fundamental to a fair trial. Additionally, the accusers had clear financial incentives, raising questions about their objectivity and the motivations behind their allegations. Their accounts appeared coordinated, with timing that seemed suspiciously calculated rather than organic. Furthermore, the case leaned heavily on Scientology as a focal point, which may have served more as a distraction than a relevant factor in determining guilt or innocence. While it may be difficult to ascertain with certainty whether Danny engaged in any wrongdoing, the evidence presented does not seem to fully substantiate the claims against him. On the contrary, there are significant reasons to question the trial's integrity. This lack of fairness and objectivity undermines confidence in the outcome, suggesting that Danny Masterson deserves a successful appeal to ensure justice is properly served.
I know reading comprehension can challenge some folks, but let me help you, the “look back” window quite literally means to look back to the time period before all statutes of limitations ended for SA survivors due to the fact that 1 in 6 women have been SA’ed in their lifetime and 90% typically do not and cannot come forward in those small time frames because dealing with the lifelong trauma of SA is something I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. So your statement “but the assaults didn’t occur during the lookback period” doesn’t make sense. It was to reopen the statute so that SA victims could get civil justice AFTER the statute of limitations ended.
@@EndScientologyTaxExemptStatus the bill text reads: "This bill would, until December 31, 2026, revive claims seeking to recover damages suffered as a result of a sexual assault that occurred on or after January 1, 2009, that would otherwise be barred solely because the statute of limitations has or had expired." The assaults in this case did not occur on or after January 2009. What am I missing?
@@jonchowe (e) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, any claim seeking to recover damages suffered as a result of a sexual assault that occurred on or after the plaintiff’s 18th birthday that would otherwise be barred before January 1, 2023, solely because the applicable statute of limitations has or had expired, is hereby revived, and a cause of action may proceed if already pending in court on January 1, 2023, or, if not filed by that date, may be commenced between January 1, 2023, and December 31, 2023. (2) This subdivision revives claims brought by a plaintiff who alleges all of the following: (A) The plaintiff was sexually assaulted. (B) One or more entities are legally responsible for damages arising out of the sexual assault. (C) The entity or entities, including, but not limited to, their officers, directors, representatives, employees, or agents, engaged in a cover up or attempted a cover up of a previous instance or allegations of sexual assault by an alleged perpetrator of such abuse.
@@imacmill it’s a very long bill that has many layers. In the subdivision I posted above gave these women a one year look back to file. Another thing to note is that these women are signed with the largest firm in the country and I must assume their team of attorneys know the law more than any of us and they filed SA for DM’s victims that didn’t get charges or convictions. Certainly the powerful attorneys at David Boies firm know what they’re doing.
I dont think the majority of 'ndas' are legally binding. Thats why you rarely hear about consequences for breaking them. Its just like writing up a contract for sexual favors.... it wouldnt legally hold up in court.
Apologies, I read the WRONG PORTION OF AB 2777 that applied to Danny Masterson’s victims. The right portion reads in part:
“Separately, the new legislation has also created a one-year revival window which allows victims to bring sexual assault claims (including claims arising out of sexual assault) involving cover-ups that would otherwise be barred, before January 1, 2023, because the statute of limitations expired.
Survivors may bring these claims between January 1, 2023 and December 31, 2023. A cover-up is defined as: "A concerted effort to hide evidence relating to a sexual assault that incentivizes individuals to remain silent or prevents information relating to a sexual assault from becoming public or being disclosed to the plaintiff, including, but not limited to, the use of nondisclosure agreements or confidentiality agreements."
They’re just trying to “WORD SALAD” the court 🤭🤣😂🤣…Oh please!😂😂😂😂😂
Yeah, the mainstream media sucks.. thanks for sharing! ❤
It’s time for us to realize that “corporate for stockholder profit,” isn’t interested in telling the truth. It’s all about the money.
0:00 - Danny Masterson's appeal team done messed up
2:26 - Rolling Stone reports
7:55 - Danny's appeal brief: The Big Lie
10:42 - CA Bill 2777
14:07 - Appeals court rejected many of these complaints already
15:31 - The NDA Danny's team doesn't want you to know about
How disgusting, that evil criminal that KNOWS WHAT HE DID, continues to pretend he isn’t GUILTY of those rapes and many more. Gross and I think the WOODCHIPPER would be too good for him.
What was weird to me was they all but admit that Jane Doe 3 was SA’ed in the filing and giving witnesses to her abuse that the state never brought up during the trials. That one broke my heart for her. If it weren’t for Jane Doe 3 none of this would’ve ever happened.
Danny is going to rot in prison and I love it!!!! The judge will laugh at his appeal and use it for toilet paper. His lawyer will take a huge paycheck and laugh. His ex wife will party in Tahiti with her new boyfriend and laugh. I love it!!!! Merry Christmas!!!!
At this point it's just the lawyers trying to milk out every last dime they can from Danny Masterson Before they tell him sorry you have no chance.
Thanks for the update A-Aron 🤭😂🙏🏼😎👍🏼love ya man hope you’re having a happy holiday?
somebody needs to give you an honorary law degree. just with one case you did more good than fifty lawyers bundled together. easily.
Hi Aaron was just about to watch this when up popped an add for Scientology I had to watch b4 this lol. How ironic
I’ve NEVER seen a Scientology ad. Except in a really creepy Sea Org magazine. And it was surreptitious, sneaky and creepy.
I recorded about 10 seconds of it lol @@jeanneganrude8549
I have been switching jobs so has to take a break from TH-cam…missed A-Aaron!! Time to catch up!
Welcome back and good luck with the new adventure.
Danny is trying to weasel out of it. LAPD took it and made sure it would never be found. It's disgusting as they are supposed to help the victims, not the criminal 😤
LAPD is known for bad apples. why are you surprised.
No day should be a good day for Danny Masterson
FFS are DMs lawyers trying to get disbarred?
Danny's lawyer said he would be out a month ago.
What ever happened with his missing gun?
@Violet-uh9fj oh that makes sense
I live near Lafayette OR where Masterson’s guns turned up in a gun store. We’ve not heard anything since the first report. I would love to hear an update about what law enforcement has done with this.
Wtf happened to Violet's reply?
She implied that Ashton and Mila are hiding it for him so her comment got erased? Wtf youtube?
@@mattneil1449I think Aston has other things on his mind . Sorry Danny, but Dshity goes first.
Thank u
good thing he's gonna waste his money on defense & not leaving it to his family. Sarcasm
An NDA can't be used if it's to crover up a crime... but not being a lawyer you might have to win the case for the NDA to be invaded (I'm not sure) but I do know that NDA cannot cover up any crime.
❓️❓️ Aaron, is there any evidence tying dm to diddy? Through ashton, maybe?
Umm yeah there are tons of photos of DM with Diddy back in the early 00s during DM’s gRape-spree
17:00 That's the same agreement that Danny reportedly signed with a fake name, and the Jane Doe scientologist wasn't given a signed copy of, right?
He doesn’t need an appeal. All he has to do is drop his bodysuit right
I don't understand why he is appealing over a year after being convicted and sentenced.
I love how they mention the Menendez bros as clients -as if to influence the reader to believe “here’s these people who committed a heinous crime but are going to be resentenced because their sentence was unjust and Danny’s atty is representing these people who society has a lot of sympathy and compassion for” and therein implying that Danny’s sentencing was unjust and that he too deserves sympathy and compassion from the public.
I saw that Tony Ortega published the appeal without comment. If he knew the case, why was he not able to refute it? Or at least comment in summary?
Somethings don’t warrant a comment 🤷🏻♀️
Well this case did. Without the context provided by Aaron, the alleged financial motive was very plausible
@ not in a court of law. I call that appeal a “Word Salad” why? Because it may sound plausible to some, not to me, because I understand the law. Those who believe that it might be plausible do not understand the law. I followed this case just like the Jonny Deep case. I have followed A-Aron since before he ran for City Council. So don’t worry we are paying attention to the law and how it’s applied. 🙏🏼
@@MirnaEJiron I’m not a lawyer but I read it and came to the same conclusion. When I got to the part they appealed during the trial I laughed out loud! 😂 I guess they’re hoping that when the appeal is denied, and they appeal it again that the higher court will overturn it. However, that court of appeal quoted quite a bit of established law in their refusal. So that’s not looking good either. I saw absolutely nothing new in there.
Danny M hat den selben sympathischen Charakter wie Tom C, meiner Meinung nach.
Ashton done messed up too
How convenient the PVEPD (right by the LAPD) but the PVEPD can’t ever seem to find the flash drive of the crime scene photos and body of Chester Bennington 🤔🤫 and they’ve also seemed to leave out VERY important details out of the police report SMFH
When I read their big argument that these brave survivors were going through the tortuous criminal justice system because they were motivated by money made me roll my eyes so hard! That mess wreaked of desperation! 😂 first of all, I understand that some of these Jane Does have more money than the convicted serialrapist. He hadn’t really worked since the early 00s. Also let me just spit some facts. 1 in 6 women have been SA’ed in their lifetime. Less than 10% of these victims ever file police reports. Less that 20% ever seek justice in civil courts which is much easier than going through the criminal justice process which is vicious and revictiminzing and retraumatizing for any victim. Look at Cassie Ventura and all Diddy’s victims. They went the civil route. Most do and there is nothing wrong with that. Paul Haggis’ victims never went to police. They went civil. To say SA victims are motivated by money is sad but laughable. These particular Jane Does went to police. They fought tooth and nail for criminal justice because he’s a serialrapist who would have continued victimizing women because this is a next level sickness in the head and his cult enabled him all the way. This appeal filing was pathetic and victim shamed these brave women and as soon as I read it I knew it was BS because I knew about the look back window HELLO Trump anyone???? These women could have sued at anytime. They didn’t. They went to police and it was years after they went to police that they filed a lawsuit to help end the fair game harassment by the criminal cult. And thanks to the protesters who documented what fair game harassment looks like in real time.
In my opinion, the appeal isn't aimed at the court. They are angling for public opinion, commutation, or even a pardon.
Danny is really wasting his money on his lawyers 😂
@@CarolineSPKC don’t blame him at this point. His money is worth nothing in Prison for life.
Danny is worth half a snickers bar.
I'm confused -- the text for the Assembly Bill CA 2777 that you showed stated that the one-year filing window established by the Bill only applied to incidents that occurred between January 1, 2009 and January 1, 2019. Didn't the incidents that Danny was convicted for happen before 2009? Am I remembering the dates wrong?
Correct. Aaron is mistaken.
You have 10 years to file a civil lawsuit for SA so please tell me how 2009-2019 is longer than 10 years. To “look back” meant opening the statute of limitations. An example I will give is Donald Trump’s lawsuit by E Jean Carrol that allegedly happened in the 1980’s? California adopted the same look back law as New York.
@@jonchowenope
@EndScientologyTaxExemptStatus the text says it only applies to assaults on or after January 2009;
This bill would, until December 31, 2026, revive claims seeking to recover damages suffered as a result of a sexual assault that occurred on or after January 1, 2009, that would otherwise be barred solely because the statute of limitations has or had expired.
@@jonchowe (e) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, any claim seeking to recover damages suffered as a result of a sexual assault that occurred on or after the plaintiff’s 18th birthday that would otherwise be barred before January 1, 2023, solely because the applicable statute of limitations has or had expired, is hereby revived, and a cause of action may proceed if already pending in court on January 1, 2023, or, if not filed by that date, may be commenced between January 1, 2023, and December 31, 2023.
(2) This subdivision revives claims brought by a plaintiff who alleges all of the following:
(A) The plaintiff was sexually assaulted.
(B) One or more entities are legally responsible for damages arising out of the sexual assault.
(C) The entity or entities, including, but not limited to, their officers, directors, representatives, employees, or agents, engaged in a cover up or attempted a cover up of a previous instance or allegations of sexual assault by an alleged perpetrator of such abuse.
Since Kuchar was involved with P Diddy. I wonder if he showed Danny how to take a vantage of women?
🥳🏴🥳
Daniel will be in the CDCR for the next 29 years, whether he likes it or not
(e) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, any claim seeking to recover damages suffered as a result of a sexual assault that occurred on or after the plaintiff’s 18th birthday that would otherwise be barred before January 1, 2023, solely because the applicable statute of limitations has or had expired, is hereby revived, and a cause of action may proceed if already pending in court on January 1, 2023, or, if not filed by that date, may be commenced between January 1, 2023, and December 31, 2023.
(2) This subdivision revives claims brought by a plaintiff who alleges all of the following:
(A) The plaintiff was sexually assaulted.
(B) One or more entities are legally responsible for damages arising out of the sexual assault.
(C) The entity or entities, including, but not limited to, their officers, directors, representatives, employees, or agents, engaged in a cover up or attempted a cover up of a previous instance or allegations of sexual assault by an alleged perpetrator of such abuse.
Nice
Random thought-I thought that an episode of you and a Bl--A-Kkkee that you know or wanted to meet; maybe you interviewing a Blake would be a hilarious idea for a potential episode…Happy Days and Blessings to you and yours with this awesome endeavour! Hugs H
Your argument about the defense's appeal in Danny Masterson's case being misleading because of California Assembly Bill 2777 (AB 2777) is itself somewhat misleading. While you are correct that AB 2777 allows accusers to file civil lawsuits regardless of the outcome of a criminal trial, the defense’s argument is not about the technical ability to file under AB 2777. Instead, it highlights how a criminal conviction strengthens civil claims by making it easier to prove liability under the lower civil standard of "preponderance of the evidence." The defense's point is that the accusers were motivated to pursue a conviction to bolster their chances of "dramatically greater" financial compensation, which could be seen as a potential bias affecting their credibility. Furthermore, the appeal argues that the trial court excluded evidence of this financial motive, depriving the jury of critical context to assess the accusers' testimonies. Misrepresenting this nuanced legal argument oversimplifies the defense’s position and creates confusion about the role AB 2777 plays in the case.
Are you implying that the defense team, the appeal judges and the accusers are all unaware of the California Assembly Bill 2777 (AB 2777) bill, and you found this new information and enlightening everybody?
To put in other words, the judge allowed the accusers to openly say they were given drugs although there was no evidence in that .. however, the defense was not allowed to suggest that there was financial motivation for the plaintiffs although there is plenty of evidence of that. Point is, the trial was not fair. And it is commentary like this that fuels the unfairness.
And the big problem overall is - if Danny is so obviously 'guilty' then why do you, and so many others, need to stretch the truth to prove it? And why does the 2nd trial need to be unbalanced in order to get a guilty verdict. You always claim that he was found unanimously guilty. But actually, he wasn't really, was he?
The trial was deeply flawed and lacked fairness. Key evidence and testimony that could have supported Danny Masterson's defense were excluded, while other elements, which arguably should not have been allowed, were permitted. The judge appeared biased, giving the impression that Danny was assumed guilty from the outset, undermining the presumption of innocence that is fundamental to a fair trial.
Additionally, the accusers had clear financial incentives, raising questions about their objectivity and the motivations behind their allegations. Their accounts appeared coordinated, with timing that seemed suspiciously calculated rather than organic. Furthermore, the case leaned heavily on Scientology as a focal point, which may have served more as a distraction than a relevant factor in determining guilt or innocence.
While it may be difficult to ascertain with certainty whether Danny engaged in any wrongdoing, the evidence presented does not seem to fully substantiate the claims against him. On the contrary, there are significant reasons to question the trial's integrity. This lack of fairness and objectivity undermines confidence in the outcome, suggesting that Danny Masterson deserves a successful appeal to ensure justice is properly served.
But the assaults didnt occur during the lookback period in the bill...
I know reading comprehension can challenge some folks, but let me help you, the “look back” window quite literally means to look back to the time period before all statutes of limitations ended for SA survivors due to the fact that 1 in 6 women have been SA’ed in their lifetime and 90% typically do not and cannot come forward in those small time frames because dealing with the lifelong trauma of SA is something I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. So your statement “but the assaults didn’t occur during the lookback period” doesn’t make sense. It was to reopen the statute so that SA victims could get civil justice AFTER the statute of limitations ended.
@@EndScientologyTaxExemptStatus the bill text reads:
"This bill would, until December 31, 2026, revive claims seeking to recover damages suffered as a result of a sexual assault that occurred on or after January 1, 2009, that would otherwise be barred solely because the statute of limitations has or had expired."
The assaults in this case did not occur on or after January 2009. What am I missing?
@@EndScientologyTaxExemptStatus Your move.
@@jonchowe (e) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, any claim seeking to recover damages suffered as a result of a sexual assault that occurred on or after the plaintiff’s 18th birthday that would otherwise be barred before January 1, 2023, solely because the applicable statute of limitations has or had expired, is hereby revived, and a cause of action may proceed if already pending in court on January 1, 2023, or, if not filed by that date, may be commenced between January 1, 2023, and December 31, 2023.
(2) This subdivision revives claims brought by a plaintiff who alleges all of the following:
(A) The plaintiff was sexually assaulted.
(B) One or more entities are legally responsible for damages arising out of the sexual assault.
(C) The entity or entities, including, but not limited to, their officers, directors, representatives, employees, or agents, engaged in a cover up or attempted a cover up of a previous instance or allegations of sexual assault by an alleged perpetrator of such abuse.
@@imacmill it’s a very long bill that has many layers. In the subdivision I posted above gave these women a one year look back to file. Another thing to note is that these women are signed with the largest firm in the country and I must assume their team of attorneys know the law more than any of us and they filed SA for DM’s victims that didn’t get charges or convictions. Certainly the powerful attorneys at David Boies firm know what they’re doing.
I dont think the majority of 'ndas' are legally binding. Thats why you rarely hear about consequences for breaking them.
Its just like writing up a contract for sexual favors.... it wouldnt legally hold up in court.
This appeal has about as much chance of succeeding to Kamela winning the Presidential Election.😊
Or of you growing a brain cell.
@ one better than you. Have an excellent Winter Solstice.
So your reply is “I know you are but what am I”
I hope the 3rd grade is working out for you.
Hä?
I saw that Tony Ortega published the appeal without comment. If he knew the case, why was he not able to refute it? Or at least comment in summary?
Sorry it’s been posted twice by mistake
Since Kuchar was involved with P Diddy. I wonder if he showed Danny how to take a vantage of women?