A group of women accusing Bill Cosby of sexual abuse have called on the comedian to put up $100 million to pay potential damages.
Gloria Allred, a high profile Los Angeles-based lawyer representing at least three alleged victims, called on Cosby to enter a mediation process in which money would be paid to anyone who could prove their claim in front of a panel of retired judges.
She said: “If Mr Cosby is not willing to subject himself to scrutiny in a court of law he should agree to place $100 million into a fund, and invite those who claim they are victims to appear before a panel to decide the merits of each claim.
No, let’s not get into a discussion about whether these allegations are true or not. Instead look at the amazing nature of that offer.
We’ve no legal case whatsoever so damn the law and gives us $100 million anyway.
Difficult to resist such an attractive offer really….
And purely as a matter of entirely personal opinion my take is that anyone who hires Alred as their lawyer has no case to begin with.
Who knows what he did.
It’s definitely tough, or tougher, to get justice against entertainers in the US, so I can understand why victims may not have said much about it at the time (though apparently some people have been saying stuff about Cosby since the 1980s and have been shuit down… the internet and the growth of social media is maybe why they can have another go).
But other than that, this looks like a bad shakedown attempt.
I guess extortion isn’t against the law in the US..?
The Yanks exported the Satanic Panic over here and it seems as if the Savile caper may be up to become a UK export.
I don’t know what went on. There are few slebs however who don’t have some sort of “allegations” floating about. It would suit radfems right down to the ground if a series of American show trials could be kicked off tho’.
This brazen extortion should probably help Cosby. At the moment he seems to be dealing with the gold-digging psychopath end of the false accusation crew. If American cops also use UK style “trawls” that could add hundreds of attention and sleb-connection seeking nutters to the ranks of the accusers. The problem is not truth and evidence. The show trials have failed to convict anybody on the grounds of solid evidence. He said/she said + legal theatre is how it has been done. However Cosby is still alive and has a fortune to spend on lawyers. Although expensive lawyers aren’t always good ones as poor Rolf found out. Cosby would be better to spend every penny he has on his defence and win. If he loses his life’s earning will be handed over anyway. He also has the race card to play esp if any his accusers are white. Getting the various gangs of leftists at each others throats will help as well.
Now it could be he is guilty. But the more I see of the radfem attack, the more people are sitched up by bullshit accusations that not only have no support but have much within them to indicate that they are a pack of lies, the more inclined I am to give the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty and no-one convicted on unsupported testimony alone.
There’s a neat idea over at Marginal Revolution, of creating an escrow system for reporting sexual assualts. The allegation is only made public if a sufficient number of people make similar allegations.
Mr Ecks – “Cosby would be better to spend every penny he has on his defence and win. If he loses his life’s earning will be handed over anyway.”
At his age, I would think he would be better off delaying the trial as long as possible. He may well die first.
America needs a British-style cost-shifting rule. At the moment these women don’t have to put up any cash, especially if they hire a joke like Allred, and if they win, they get to keep a lot of it. But Cosby has to pay.
Allred? The dictatorship of the feminariat has arrived!
@SMFS, but there are ways around that too. No-win-no-fee arrangements are illegal in Germany, for example in an effort to stop abuse of legal process. But legal insurance is widespread. As a result we have some of the busiest civil courts in Europe, since you can sue someone without risking a penny of your own money.
Neighbour of mine went to court over €90 a couple of years ago. And managed to persuade some lawyer to represent as well (he’ll have got paid about €50 for the trouble). There was a hearing, three witnesses were heard, and the judgment ran to 10 pages.
> There’s a neat idea over at Marginal Revolution, of creating an escrow system for reporting sexual assualts. The allegation is only made public if a sufficient number of people make similar allegations.
It’s not that good an idea. Part of what persuades victims to come forward is when they see there are other victims. Yes, that’s a double-edged sword, and it brings out nutters as well as genuine victims. The key phrase there being “as well as”, not “instead of”.
That aside, I don’t really see how the idea would work in the US. Arrests are supposed to be made public, which is a safeguard against being denied due process by the police. Allegations can be made by anyone any time any place, so what mechanism prevents them going public?
At least she’s not been accused of being a “human rights lawyer”.
If you look at the Sasviule example… bloggers like Anna Raccoon have “proved” that vast tracts of the accusations are complete bollocks..
Yet JS’s £3M legacy will end up in the pockets of the lawyers.
So do you think its the lawyers putting some patsy psycho’s up to it?
Statutes of limitations: do they apply to civil cases (in the US)?
Squander Two:
Increasingly, public arrest records here in the States are being used as part of the punishment. Watch local TV news, and a shocking amount of it is, “Joe Blow was arrested [not convicted or even indicted] for XYZ crime”, with many of the trials never showing up in the news. And then there’s the horrid “perp walk” that prosecutors use. Combine it with elected prosecutors and we get wicked monsters like Eliot Spitzer.
(Note to self: never let my under-age daughters go to the Playboy Mansion)
Ted,
Yes, I know, it’s awful. My point wasn’t that the law is still fulfilling its intended purpose; it was that any attempt to change it would be near impossible because of what its intended purpose was.
@ SQ2
“It’s not that good an idea. Part of what persuades victims to come forward is when they see there are other victims.”
Without doing the reading (I will later, it sounds interesting) I’d assume that the theory is that this idea would deal with the more-common problem of those who don’t come forward.
People don’t come forward because they are fearful for how they will be treated or because they don’t think they will be believed or taken seriously, or because they partially blame themselves etc. The reason why publicising accuseds draws such victims out is that they see that they’re not the only one, and can step out and tell their story without the trauma that they think would come if they were ‘victim number 1’.
So if people who’ve been attacked, but don’t want to press charges (i.e. don’t want to be ‘victim number 1’) get, instead, the chance to register an allegation against an individual ‘quietly’, they may be inclined to do so. So all the people that previously would only come forward after someone else had stepped up to be ‘victim number 1’ can register their allegation against the same guy, and something can be done about it.
Ian B –
Statutes of limitations: do they apply to civil cases (in the US)?
Yes, they do. It was reported elsewhere that Ms Allred had called for Cosby either to set up the above compensation pot or to voluntarily wave his statute of limitations rights and face the charges in a court of law.
this looks like a bad shakedown attempt
No, she’s just trying to bring Cosby to battle by pointing out that if he successfully defends himself it’ll cost him over $100 million. That’s plausible: successfully defending a US class action of only one claim cost my insurers $14 million.
He won’t accept her offer, because if he handed over the $100 mil she’d bring up some new claims & ask for much more based on his admission of guilt.
He has no option but to fight.
Tough world.
I find the whole process being the punishment aspect of both civil and criminal law in the US to be absolutely disgusting.
Look at what happened to Conrad Black – they even froze his assets so he couldn’t defend himself with his A-team of lawyers.
“People don’t come forward because they are fearful for how they will be treated or because they don’t think they will be believed or taken seriously, or because they partially blame themselves etc. The reason why publicising accuseds draws such victims out is that they see that they’re not the only one, and can step out and tell their story without the trauma that they think would come if they were ‘victim number 1′.”
These are what is put forward as the reasons that large numbers of women supposedly suffered all manner of rape and abuse and kept silent. Of course the message that the “reasons” for silence above is really attempting to convey is that women dare not speak out in a wicked patriarchal “rape culture”. The same line radfems are still peddling as being true even today.
There may be a few women who did not want to come forward for the above reasons. But that pre-supposes that something actually happened that would give them a reason to come forward. What is never even considered by the trial- by -media crew is that other reasons exist for coming forward years and indeed decades after, not an alleged event ,but in fact a non- event.
1- A time for witch-hunting has been brought about by social manipulation. This sends signals to all females who may benefit from denunciations.
2–An bandwagon has been established on course to run over a particular individual. This wagon will be aimed at a famous and wealthy man. There don’t seem to be any mass denunciations of non-famous nobodies. Esp interesting as a nobody would have far more time to abuse than a busy sleb and would not be in the public eye for years on end.
3- The numbers game comes to the false accusers aid. Numbers seem to be accepted by many people as some kind of absolute proof of guilt. After all why and how could so many women come forward if something wasn’t going on. This would be a valid point in a small town Mr Nobody scenario. If 300 women in a limited geographical area say Mr Nobody fiddled them then that would be a strong case against the man because a small area does not have that many female psychopaths/nutters who are going to come forward to denounce a nobody when there is neither money nor fame(ie public sleb-connection) in it as a reward.
In the case of national celebs who have been famous for decades and are the subject of nationwide police trawls asking for victims it is obvious that hundreds of troubled and indeed covertly criminal women are going to come forward.
( By criminal women I mean women willing to bear false witness regardless of damage done in order to get cash compo.The nuts get their compo in the form of their name being eternally linked with the downfall of a famous man)
Indeed all the reasons given in TTGs first paragraph above (except blaming themselves) apply to both types of false accusers. Until a head of steam has developed their claims will be given proper scrutiny not mob endorsement. After the media-stoked snowball is rolling almost anything can be said and be accepted as gospel.
The perp walk and public trials do have a purpose, you know.
And many accused might prefer it to the Argentinian or Russian version of simply disappearing the accused.
Just publishing a list in the London Gazette doesn’t cut it. The whole process should be visible.
Indeed, this (IIRC) was a demand of the original American rebels. Also of the Irish: “You leave this court a free man, with no other stain on your character than that you have been acquitted of a crime by your peers in the County of Connemara.”
@ bif
Yeah, to humiliate an innocent man (it always seems to be a man, despite a significant minority of convicted criminals being female) and to terrorise anyone approached by a publicity-seeking elected prosecutor into a plea bargain unless they have photographic evidence that they were 1000 miles away at the time with no access to a mobile ‘phone.
Bloke back in Germany – “But legal insurance is widespread. As a result we have some of the busiest civil courts in Europe, since you can sue someone without risking a penny of your own money.”
Well I would trust insurance companies to do something about trigger happy litigants in a way I would not trust Courts or judges – all of whom have a vested interest in a lot of legal cases.
dearieme – “At least she’s not been accused of being a “human rights lawyer”.”
Actually that would be an improvement.
Ted S. – “Increasingly, public arrest records here in the States are being used as part of the punishment.”
Not even an arrest. Increasingly an accusation is enough to trigger a punishment. The Social Justice Warriors are demanding NFL players should be punished on accusation – although with some pretty good evidence lately. Cosby is being punished without being charged. Even the Navy is cutting ties with him. Bizarre.
“And then there’s the horrid “perp walk” that prosecutors use. Combine it with elected prosecutors and we get wicked monsters like Eliot Spitzer.”
I don’t mind the perp walk all that much. Justice should be seen to be done and at least people do vote people like Spitzer ought from time to time. Unlike in the UK where ordinary people don’t ever get a look in.
Ben S – “(Note to self: never let my under-age daughters go to the Playboy Mansion)”
Or swim at a Angelica Houston’s place. The things you learn from the media.
JeremyT – “He has no option but to fight. Tough world.”
He should leave. Brazil has an extradition treaty yet? I am sure that Whoopy Goldberg would defend him by saying it wasn’t rape-rape. Drugging a girl, sure, that is not far from Polansky although none of them have been 12.
But no doubt all the media will be out defending him once he is forced to flee to France.
SMFS:
The Social Justice Warriors are demanding NFL players should be punished on accusation – although with some pretty good evidence lately.
Roger Goodell’s original two-game suspension of Ray Rice was more severe than what he got from the legal system, although the ****s in the press would never admit this, because Goodell is a convenient target for a Two Minutes’ Hate.
Justice should be seen to be done and at least people do vote people like Spitzer ought from time to time.
Spitzer was never voted out of office. He resigned in some disgrace (although CNN I think tried to rehabilitate him with a TV show much more quickly than any mal pensant politician would get) and was never charged with anything. And this is the guy who had the legislative leaders’ protective details spy on them. And the stupid people of this state voted another Attorney General into the governor’s mansion.
Ted S. – “Goodell is a convenient target for a Two Minutes’ Hate.”
Better to beat up on the WASP than on the African American who actually did something wrong. I don’t see why domestic violence is any of the NFL’s business.
“Spitzer was never voted out of office.”
Like Spitzer.
“And the stupid people of this state voted another Attorney General into the governor’s mansion.”
They want someone who will be tough on crime. And by crime I mean violent crime. That is to say, African Americans. It is not irrational on the part of the voters. Especially those who are moving into places like Harlem.
@ SMFS
“They want someone who will be tough on crime. And by crime I mean violent crime. That is to say, African Americans. It is not irrational on the part of the voters. Especially those who are moving into places like Harlem.”
In that case they should not move into Harlem.
And what about violent crime by white policemen?
john77 – “In that case they should not move into Harlem.”
That is an utter vile suggestion. People ought to be free to live where they like, and if they are not, it ought to be about property rights, not racially-based violence. The solution to such violence is not to tell people to behave in case they get lynched, it is to enforce the law.
“And what about violent crime by white policemen?”
Any violent crimes by White policemen ought to be punished too. Except there hasn’t been any recently. At least none reported in the media. The policeman who shot the 12 year old ought to answer some serious questions, but the Grand Juries got it right elsewhere.
@ SMFS
People can move whgere they like BUT if they have a Godzilla-size complex about how dangerous every African-American must be then it is an unreasonable imposition on the psychiatric profession for them to move to Harlem. Tim talks about the liberty to move your fist ends at the tip of his nose. The liberty to be bigoted ends when you impose your bigoted views on other poeople. [You aren’t imposing your bigoted views on me, you’re just irritating me with them].
“Any violent crimes … there haven’t been any” who do you think you are kidding? Putting an illegal choke hold on a man suspected of *selling cigarettes* was unreasonable force, hence criminal assault, and when he died it was culpable homicide, if only because it was, on the most favourable, culpable negligence.
john77 – “People can move whgere they like BUT if they have a Godzilla-size complex about how dangerous every African-American must be then it is an unreasonable imposition on the psychiatric profession for them to move to Harlem.”
Well in general, perhaps. Except that it is not an irrational Godzilla-sized complex about how dangerous places like Harlem are, or were. Before, you know, they put one third of all young Black males in prison. It was perfectly rational to be afraid of crime in New York. It still is perfectly rational to be afraid of what crime might return to if New York police go back to the relaxed pro-criminal policies of the 70s.
“The liberty to be bigoted ends when you impose your bigoted views on other poeople. [You aren’t imposing your bigoted views on me, you’re just irritating me with them].”
Alas, that doesn’t work with modern voters. They feel perfectly justified using the power of the state to impose all sorts of things. But again, a fear of crime is not bigotry. It is a rational understanding of the real world.
““Any violent crimes … there haven’t been any” who do you think you are kidding? Putting an illegal choke hold on a man suspected of *selling cigarettes* was unreasonable force, hence criminal assault, and when he died it was culpable homicide, if only because it was, on the most favourable, culpable negligence.”
There is no evidence that the chokehold was illegal. Nor did they physically manhandle him because he was selling cigarettes. He was manhandled because he was resisting arrest. The idiocy of making the selling of cigarettes is not the policeman’s fault. His job is to enforce the law. Yes, he probably should have helped the very large, obese, but violent felon to sit upright after they had put him down and cuffed him. But his two Black superiors did not think it was necessary – nor did any of the four paramedics on site. The problem remains the suspects resisted arrest. Police must use reasonable force to make that arrest. They did so. There are no grounds for charges.
“No evidence”?!?
Check NYPD regulations
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/nypd-commissioner-bill-bratton-defends-de-blasio-article-1.2034559
“violent felon” – nonsense: guy suspected of a misdemenour, selling cigarettes is not a felony, and if the big guy was violent how come the cop wasn’t hurt?
“Well in general, perhaps.”
NO not even in general – your psychiatrist is not your slave. Whether or not your fear of crime is rational you do not make a rational decision to move to an area that you think will expose to a high risk of violent crime unless you have psychiatric problems. When I was a kid, my home town had a pair of police houses at the entrance to a small council estate where the (Labour, so not class-biased) council hads dumped the known criminals re-housed from slum clearance. A few years after Jenkins abolished capital punishment and attacks on police and their families ceased to attract retribution, the council re-housed the police. You missed the point about Daniel – he (and Darius) expected Daniel to be killed and eaten but Daniel was willing to face death rather than deny his faith. Your caricature of a rich American white wants to walk into the lions’ den and be protected. Bad theology.
john77 – “Check NYPD regulations”
For what? Two sergeants were on the scene. They did not see anything wrong. The officer maintains that his hold was legal. I see no reason to dispute it. Why do you?
“nonsense: guy suspected of a misdemenour, selling cigarettes is not a felony, and if the big guy was violent how come the cop wasn’t hurt?”
The guy had over 30 convictions going back to 1980 for a whole variety of crimes. You can’t judge him by this one arrest.
“Whether or not your fear of crime is rational you do not make a rational decision to move to an area that you think will expose to a high risk of violent crime unless you have psychiatric problems.”
But that is not what we are talking about. New York is now safer than London for most types of violent crime. Except murder in fact. Which is mostly intra-racial. So *following* the jailing of one in three young Black men, first Gays and then Dinks and now normal families have moved into places like Harlem. That is not irrational as they are great places to live. Apart from the crime. They would become war zones again, and housing prices would collapse, if the voters voted for a liberal prosecutor. So they don’t. That is not irrational. That is sensible.
“Your caricature of a rich American white wants to walk into the lions’ den and be protected. Bad theology.”
Nothing to do with theology. You seem to be having a separate argument with yourself. You really need me to take part in this?
Way off base SMFS. The ever-increasing thuggery of US coppers is a trend and your attempts to rationalise it don’t cut it. That doesn’t excuse cases such as Ferguson–where, as one US blog put it, Asshole met Asshole.
NY is only safer if you are white. American cities are dangerous if you are black. The main source of that danger is not white people tho’. Apart possibly from white cops but cops are increasingly dangerous to everybody regardless of race on either side of the encounter..