|
Post by moderndaycoach on Apr 28, 2022 15:19:55 GMT -5
Them citing all the clubs that pulled teams doesn't really mean much to me, welcome to the new age - you did unthinkable stuff years ago and were barley punished so now social media worked to cancel you for being so arrogant about what you did. To say people used the me too movement as an opportunity to lie is disgusting, Danielle is a horrible person for even advertising that as a main selling point on her website. There's a reason there's a 1-lawyer firm pursuing this lawsuit. Almost as if she literally sold her sole to the devil to fund a career that will go nowhere once the butlers decide they don't need her anymore, or they fund her until they die.
|
|
|
Post by beba on Apr 28, 2022 18:40:08 GMT -5
Them citing all the clubs that pulled teams doesn't really mean much to me, welcome to the new age - you did unthinkable stuff years ago and were barley punished so now social media worked to cancel you for being so arrogant about what you did. To say people used the me too movement as an opportunity to lie is disgusting, Danielle is a horrible person for even advertising that as a main selling point on her website. There's a reason there's a 1-lawyer firm pursuing this lawsuit. A well-written complaint, alleging very specific facts. It may be a sole practitioner, but knows how to draft a complaint. Much of what people have commented about here constitutes inadmissible evidence. Just on the basis of the complaint, there is enough to get the case to trial, if that's what plaintiff wants.
|
|
|
Post by karellen on Apr 29, 2022 8:59:34 GMT -5
There's a reason there's a 1-lawyer firm pursuing this lawsuit. Almost as if she literally sold her sole to the devil to fund a career that will go nowhere once the butlers decide they don't need her anymore, or they fund her until they die. Sold her "sole"? Did not know that was possible.... Was it the soles of her shoes, or the sole of her actual feet? If it was the sole of her foot, or both feet, does it impact how she walks? How much height did she lose? Did it change how her shoes fit? (Sorry..old English teacher in me. I could not resist)
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Apr 29, 2022 9:21:46 GMT -5
Almost as if she literally sold her sole to the devil to fund a career that will go nowhere once the butlers decide they don't need her anymore, or they fund her until they die. Sold her "sole"? Did not know that was possible.... Was it the soles of her shoes, or the sole of her actual feet? If it was the sole of her foot, or both feet, does it impact how she walks? How much height did she lose? Did it change how her shoes fit? (Sorry..old English teacher in me. I could not resist) Ahh dang-it, didn't even notice it got autocorrected. Got, got.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Apr 29, 2022 10:46:39 GMT -5
Almost as if she literally sold her sole to the devil to fund a career that will go nowhere once the butlers decide they don't need her anymore, or they fund her until they die. Sold her "sole"? Did not know that was possible.... Was it the soles of her shoes, or the sole of her actual feet? If it was the sole of her foot, or both feet, does it impact how she walks? How much height did she lose? Did it change how her shoes fit? (Sorry..old English teacher in me. I could not resist) Of *course* it’s possible! Sheesh!
|
|
|
Post by karellen on Apr 29, 2022 10:48:02 GMT -5
Sold her "sole"? Did not know that was possible.... Was it the soles of her shoes, or the sole of her actual feet? If it was the sole of her foot, or both feet, does it impact how she walks? How much height did she lose? Did it change how her shoes fit? (Sorry..old English teacher in me. I could not resist) Of *course* it’s possible! Sheesh! good point...
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Apr 29, 2022 12:33:32 GMT -5
There's a reason there's a 1-lawyer firm pursuing this lawsuit. A well-written complaint, alleging very specific facts. It may be a sole practitioner, but knows how to draft a complaint. Much of what people have commented about here constitutes inadmissible evidence. Just on the basis of the complaint, there is enough to get the case to trial, if that's what plaintiff wants. No way this goes to trial. The defendants essentially claimed that he was a pedophile. I think they have a pretty good basis to do this given that there are at least three victims claiming he had sex with them under the age of 18. But Rick Butler himself admits that he had sex with them just that they were 18. The fact that having sex with a girl over 18 isn't illegal doesn't make it moral. All of the defendants claims are true even if you just take Rick Butler at his word. It is perfectly legal to lead a boycott of a coach and organization for repeatedly having sex with former players just after they turn 18. Something doesn't have to be illegal for it to be a perfectly fine reason for a boycott. This complaint continues to confuse that point. And my guess is any judge with any moral sense at all will look very poorly on this lawsuit.
|
|
|
Post by beba on Apr 29, 2022 13:24:46 GMT -5
A well-written complaint, alleging very specific facts. It may be a sole practitioner, but knows how to draft a complaint. Much of what people have commented about here constitutes inadmissible evidence. Just on the basis of the complaint, there is enough to get the case to trial, if that's what plaintiff wants. No way this goes to trial. The defendants essentially claimed that he was a pedophile. I think they have a pretty good basis to do this given that there are at least three victims claiming he had sex with them under the age of 18. But Rick Butler himself admits that he had sex with them just that they were 18. The fact that having sex with a girl over 18 isn't illegal doesn't make it moral. All of the defendants claims are true even if you just take Rick Butler at his word. It is perfectly legal to lead a boycott of a coach and organization for repeatedly having sex with former players just after they turn 18. Something doesn't have to be illegal for it to be a perfectly fine reason for a boycott. This complaint continues to confuse that point. And my guess is any judge with any moral sense at all will look very poorly on this lawsuit. I didn't say that the case is going to go to trial, what I said is that it appears that there is enough here that the plaintiffs' can get the case to trial if they want to. Having practiced as a civil trial litigator for 40 years, including federal court, and including many of these kinds of cases, I am well aware that most cases do not go to trial. A man having sex with a consenting 18-year-old adult woman is not, by legal definition, a pedophile. There are many words that could be used to describe such a man, but "pedophile" is not one of them. We as a society have decided, for better or worse, that an 18-year-old is an adult. (The only personal opinion I would offer here, after raising 6 children, is that the law should be 21. This is a Vietnam-era relic of the law.) Your analysis ignores the gravamen of the Complaint. The plaintiff attorney has carefully drafted the Complaint to allege that the defendants improperly interfered with the plaintiffs' business prospects. The complaint does not allege that they simply tried to organize a boycott, but that they engaged in a pattern of conduct designed to completely destroy the business. And that they did so using tactics that were tortious, such as making misstatements about him. For example, starting at paragraph 52, the complaint describes very specific communications that are alleged to have been false. I agree that organizing a boycott can be a noble thing, but disagree that using false statements (if that happened; I have no opinion about the truth of the allegations) is a proper way to do it. Also, the issue will not be whether or not Butler engaged in conduct that is "moral", or "indecent" or "despicable". No matter how immorally he may have acted, it does not appear he acted illegally (as far as I have seen). I am not aware of any claim or evidence that he violated any law, rule, regulation, standard, etc. The depth of immorality is not a legal issue in this kind of case. He merely needs to show that the defendants conducted a campaign to financially destroy him, and that they did so improperly, using lies and harassment. They seem to admit, even in this thread, that destroying him was and continues to be their goal, so the trial (if any) may come down only to whether they engaged in conduct that was illegal or improper. It will be their conduct on trial, not his, no matter how despicable it may have been to "engage" with an 18-year-old girl, consensual or not. I agree with you that a boycott may be proper, decent and moral. I agree with you that Butler may be less than a gentleman. But the defendants have to convince a jury (not the judge) that they did not make false statements about him in their efforts. A jury could conclude that this was a personal vendetta, carried out with a disregard for the truth. And this is why most cases get settled before trial; uncertainly drives sleeplessness, and that motivates settlements.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 29, 2022 17:53:05 GMT -5
I am not aware of any claim or evidence that he violated any law, rule, regulation, standard, etc. Statutory Rape
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 29, 2022 18:00:24 GMT -5
I am not aware of any claim or evidence that he violated any law, rule, regulation, standard, etc. Statutory Rape I mean, yeah, there are certainly claims that he violated laws. He denies those claims, but that doesn't mean those claims don't exist. As far as I am aware, all such claimed incidents have passed the time in the statute of limitations for the jurisdictions in which they are claimed to have occurred, so he's not at legal criminal risk from them.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 29, 2022 18:04:23 GMT -5
But the defendants have to convince a jury (not the judge) that they did not make false statements about him in their efforts. A jury could conclude that this was a personal vendetta, carried out with a disregard for the truth. And this is why most cases get settled before trial; uncertainly drives sleeplessness, and that motivates settlements. That's one way. Truth is considered to be an absolute defense against defamation charges, so if they can convince people that they are telling the truth, they win. There are other defenses, though. If they can show that they had reasonable cause to believe their claims and did not act out of malice, then (IIRC) they also win, even if they can't prove their claims as absolute truth. But there are actual lawyers in this conversation, and I defer to them for the accuracy of this. And in general, as Butler is the one bringing the lawsuit, I think the burden of proof to show his case is actually on him, not on the defendants. But IIRC, in most places the burden for a civil lawsuit is only "more likely than not".
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Apr 29, 2022 18:08:08 GMT -5
He merely needs to show that the defendants conducted a campaign to financially destroy him, and that they did so improperly, using lies and harassment. Thank you for your thoughtful response. Of course they engaged in a campaign to financially destroy him. The question is did they do so improperly and did they use lies. The tricky thing for the Plaintiffs here is that the Defendants aren't actually the accusers. Those are three different women. So the Plaintiff is going to have to prove both that the original accusers lied and that the defendants should have reasonably known that they were lying. How exactly do you do that when dozens of newspapers and media outlets believed the accusers enough to write stories and produce TV segments about the incident? For that matter all of the sports governing bodies here have banned Rick Butler so they apparently believe the accusers are at least credible. The even bigger problem IMO is Rick Butler admitted to have sex with three 18 year olds who were former players. Statutory rape is a crime with specific legal elements. Being a pedophile isn't a crime but a psychiatric disorder. I am not sure in that world that there is some huge difference between 17 and 18. The response to this is going to be easy. First, let me show you the evidence and statements of the accusers. Second, lets look at the long list of article outlining the accusations. Third, all of the sports governing bodies have banned this man. IMO this gets thrown out real fast.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 29, 2022 18:23:55 GMT -5
But the defendants have to convince a jury (not the judge) that they did not make false statements about him in their efforts. A jury could conclude that this was a personal vendetta, carried out with a disregard for the truth. And this is why most cases get settled before trial; uncertainly drives sleeplessness, and that motivates settlements. That's one way. Truth is considered to be an absolute defense against defamation charges, so if they can convince people that they are telling the truth, they win. There are other defenses, though. If they can show that they had reasonable cause to believe their claims and did not act out of malice, then (IIRC) they also win, even if they can't prove their claims as absolute truth. But there are actual lawyers in this conversation, and I defer to them for the accuracy of this. And in general, as Butler is the one bringing the lawsuit, I think the burden of proof to show his case is actually on him, not on the defendants. But IIRC, in most places the burden for a civil lawsuit is only "more likely than not". This isn't really a defamation suit, it's tortious interference. Not knowing what IL says, generally they'd have to be proven to have acted wrongfully. The Complaint presents the Butlers side, but some of the things they call "false claims" are clearly not (e.g., having the letters written to accusers when they were 16). This is intended to intimidate and will go very, very badly when the factual record is filled out.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 29, 2022 18:26:14 GMT -5
That's one way. Truth is considered to be an absolute defense against defamation charges, so if they can convince people that they are telling the truth, they win. There are other defenses, though. If they can show that they had reasonable cause to believe their claims and did not act out of malice, then (IIRC) they also win, even if they can't prove their claims as absolute truth. But there are actual lawyers in this conversation, and I defer to them for the accuracy of this. And in general, as Butler is the one bringing the lawsuit, I think the burden of proof to show his case is actually on him, not on the defendants. But IIRC, in most places the burden for a civil lawsuit is only "more likely than not". This isn't really a defamation suit, it's tortious interference. Not knowing what IL says, generally they'd have to be proven to have acted wrongfully. The Complaint presents the Butlers side, but some of the things they call "false claims" are clearly not (e.g., having the letters written to accusers when they were 16). This is intended to intimidate and will go very, very badly when the factual record is filled out. Thanks. As I understand it, it can also be quite risky for plaintiffs to bring such suits to trial, because if they do, they have to go under oath themselves. And they can hardly refuse to testify in a suit that they themselves are bringing to court.
|
|
|
Post by metoo on Apr 30, 2022 9:09:54 GMT -5
Beba thank you for your expert opinion. It’s nice to see that people care about this issue enough to read about it and respond. I’d like to ask that you read more on this case before you respond again. 1) We were not yet 18 yo when he did what he did to us. I think if you read the full body of information about this case you will easily come to this conclusion. The AAU, JVA ( a program Butler himself started!), USAV and Disney all believed us over him after examining the facts. 2) You said you didn’t see anything illegal. The above is illegal. Just because the statute of limitations passed so we could not bring charges in court does not change the fact what he did was illegal.
Does anyone know when the judge may rule on the case being dismissed or not? Have the defendants asked for that?
If it goes to court can the judge force him to testify under oath?
|
|