Jerry Jones charged in sexual assault suit

[IrishTex]

The lawsuit was filed September 30 by Patricia Gavin. It is described by Courthouse News thusly: “Sexual assault, theft, false imprisonment, and privacy actions where the plaintiff asserts she was pinned against the wall in a restaurant by the defendant and sexually assaulted, among other things.” The suit was filed pro se.

Link (http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2010/10/01/jerry-jones-hit-with-sexual-assault-suit/)

[BaseballUmp]

This is ridiculous

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by IrishTex
plaintiff asserts she was pinned against the wall in a restaurant by the defendant and sexually assaulted, among other things.”

Translation: Jerry Jones is a billionaire and I want some $$$.

[IrishTex]

And it looks like my story went national!

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Link (http://outofbounds.nbcsports.com/2010/10/jerry-jones-hit-with-sexual-assault-lawsuit.html.php)

[Txbroadcaster]

That might be the most bizarre thing I have ever read lol

[waterboy]

I'm thinking this is an obvious attempt to extort money from a billionaire. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. This makes me wonder why there isn't a law against people filing frivolous lawsuits for the sake of extortion. If that turns out to be what she's doing does anybody else think she should be charged with extortion?

[BEAST]

Originally posted by waterboy
I'm thinking this is an obvious attempt to extort money from a billionaire. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. This makes me wonder why there isn't a law against people filing frivolous lawsuits for the sake of extortion. If that turns out to be what she's doing does anybody else think she should be charged with extortion?

I agree with you 100%.




BEAST

[waterboy]

One thing is for sure, if there was a criminal law against suits that are obvious attempts at extortion, there would definitely be fewer of them filed.....

A 70-year-old man with money out the gazoo sexually assaulting a woman? Please.........:hand:

[DDBooger]

I find it amazing how fast people rush to judge an accuser as an extortionist when the perp is of "moneyed" influence. It's almost like a double standard, because if he had no money, I wonder if we'd all respond the same. This is such a difficult thing to prove and disprove. The simple accusation is a scarlet letter on the accused and the accuser is almost always seen as a gold digger. Cultural norms and mores sometimes stink at deciding truth or fiction.

[BwdLion73]

Originally posted by DDBooger
I find it amazing how fast people rush to judge an accuser as an extortionist when the perp is of "moneyed" influence. It's almost like a double standard, because if he had no money, I wonder if we'd all respond the same. This is such a difficult thing to prove and disprove. The simple accusation is a scarlet letter on the accused and the accuser is almost always seen as a gold digger. Cultural norms and mores sometimes stink at deciding truth or fiction.

I think you answered your own question. If he had no money there would be no law suit.

[waterboy]

I don't find it "amazing" that people, myself included, jump to such a conclusion because it sounds fishy. She will have her day in court, BUT if she is lying I think she should have criminal charges filed against her for extortion. That's just my opinion. I probably shouldn't have assumed the obvious, but if it "looks like duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, chances are it is a duck". I may be wrong in my opinion, but that's for a court to decide based on evidence presented.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BwdLion73
I think you answered your own question. If he had no money there would be no law suit. I think you proved my point.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by waterboy
I don't find it "amazing" that people, myself included, jump to such a conclusion because it sounds fishy. She will have her day in court, BUT if she is lying I think she should have criminal charges filed against her for extortion. That's just my opinion. I probably shouldn't have assumed the obvious, but if it "looks like duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, chances are it is a duck". I may be wrong in my opinion, but that's for a court to decide based on evidence presented. No, I don't think you're wrong or right. But the court of public sentiment and opinion is a peculiar thing. We almost cynically apply the most negative instincts about us to a person of no influence against a person of significant influence. Unless it serves a purpose (normally political).

[ronwx5x]

However, someone's opinion does not make the lawsuit right or wrong. Every American is allowed an opinion and Booger's opinion that the other person's opinion is wrong is just another opinion.:D

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
However, someone's opinion does not make the lawsuit right or wrong. Every American is allowed an opinion and Booger's opinion that the other person's opinion is wrong is just another opinion.:D Which I never stated anything to the contrary. And I never said it was wrong, but a jump to a conclusion.

[waterboy]

Originally posted by DDBooger
No, I don't think you're wrong or right. But the court of public sentiment and opinion is a peculiar thing. We almost cynically apply the most negative instincts about us to a person of no influence against a person of significant influence. Unless it serves a purpose (normally political).
If it wasn't charged against a 70-year-old billionaire without any precedent of that type of behavior on the defendant's part, I wouldn't make the assumption I made. Suffice it to say, my opinion means absolutely nothing in a court of law. When the evidence is presented, and I'm found to be in error about my opinion, I will gladly say that I was wrong. I would be shocked, too!:eek:

[BEAST]

I still agree with Waterboy in that, if its found that this is an attempt to get money out of Jerry, I think there should be laws to punish her.




BEAST

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by DDBooger
Which I never stated anything to the contrary. And I never said it was wrong, but a jump to a conclusion.

Yes, in the vernacular that is known as an opinion.:nerd:

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Yes, in the vernacular that is known as an opinion.:nerd: yes, one that never indicated he was wrong in any form or "vernacular" ;)

While we're declaring the obvious, the sky appears blue during cloudless days. :)

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by DDBooger
yes, one that never indicated he was wrong in any form or "vernacular" ;)

While we're declaring the obvious, the sky appears blue during cloudless days. :)

Your point here is lost in the clouds. Opinions are by their very nature almost always slanted to one side or the other. None of the opinions, including yours, amounts to an indictment or an admission of guilt. They are just opinions, get it? Judgemental, yes, but they are not a jury reporting a decision.

If those above are being judgemental then so are you.:(

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Your point here is lost in the clouds.
I think perhaps your comprehension of what I said is in the clouds. My statement was an observation of society about a hypothetical scenario fitting what this was about. I didn't say YOU ALL ARE WRONG IN CONDEMNING HER. In fact, I generally didn't talk about Jerry at all.



Originally posted by ronwx5x
Opinions are by their very nature almost always slanted to one side or the other. Yeah, but that is a lazy generalization based on dichotomous thinking. Empirical fact can be used to form an INFORMED opinion whereas hear say and intuition can give people a simple opinion.



Originally posted by ronwx5x
None of the opinions, including yours, amounts to an indictment or an admission of guilt. Nor was it displayed in such a manner except in your confrontational tone which is really why you are pursuing this because you look silly pressing a point you didn't have, which is that I'm playing judge and jury.


Originally posted by ronwx5x
They are just opinions, get it? Judgemental, yes, but they are not a jury reporting a decision. Judgmental no, observational, yes. Empirical, no, because I have no data to back it up. Though I can acquire it.


Originally posted by ronwx5x
If those above are being judgemental then so are you.:( Not at all, merely pointing out a reality, we judge before we know the facts. That isn't judgmental, it's readily observable as none of us HAVE THE FACTS.

[ronwx5x]

Then my opinion is that all your posturing is mere opinion. You are equally entitled to posture just as are the other posters who state an opinion.

Personally, I have no opinion, based on fact or fiction, of the lawsuit filed. I just like to point out the obvious bias of your judgemental attitude!:D

[BaseballUmp]

Originally posted by waterboy
but if it "looks like duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, chances are it is a duck".

One Easter years ago when I was just a kid I got a "duck" that looked like a duck walked like a duck and quacked like a duck...come to find out a few weeks later it was a goose haha

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Then my opinion is that all your posturing is mere opinion. You are equally entitled to posture just as are the other posters who state an opinion.

Personally, I have no opinion, based on fact or fiction, of the lawsuit filed. I just like to point out the obvious bias of your judgemental attitude!:D I have a societal bias about people jumping to conclusion? LMAO Your circular reasoning is comical, though, not really much else you can say to salvage a point you don't have ;)

But hey, that's my opinion. :p

[BaseballUmp]

I wish I could talk all fancy and distinguished like you all :(

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by DDBooger
I have a societal bias about people jumping to conclusion? LMAO Your circular reasoning is comical, though, not really much else you can say to salvage a point you don't have ;)

But hey, that's my opinion. :p

Circular in that you pose judgement on others for posing judgement? GUILTY! Laugh if you will, but you laugh alone. But that is what you want, right? Your attempt at logical reasoning is lost when you are doing the same thing of which you accuse others. That simply smacks of bias.

You lose, good night.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Circular in that you pose judgement on others for posing judgement? GUILTY! Who am I judging here? Who have I castigated? lmao Who am I directly confronting about this issue? My anecdotal experience is in these scenarios people (generalized) will condemn the accuser. Plenty of evidence of this in behavioral, psychological and social studies. This isn't so much an opinion as much as an observation better known as condemning the victim irrespective of the truth.



Originally posted by ronwx5x
Laugh if you will, but you laugh alone. But that is what you want, right? Your attempt at logical reasoning is lost when you are doing the same thing of which you accuse others. That simply smacks of bias. LOL your understanding of these concepts (or lack of) is what makes me laugh. I'm not doing the same thing, observation and condemnation are not the same. I'm hypothesizing more than ostracizing or condemning. It really isn't hard to understand. You are really really reaching.


Originally posted by ronwx5x
You lose, good night. haha Insecurity is an ugly thing.

[Txbroadcaster]

She has a history of these type of things..and Jerry Jones is trying to get them to file charges on her

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/10/04/woman-in-jerry-jones-case-has-history-of-legal-cases-vs-celebs/?ncid=txtlnkusspor00000002

[waterboy]

So, basically, I was dead-on in my rush to judgment. There seems to be a pattern with this woman...........suing rich people. The only way to deter these types of frivolous suits is to charge these types of plaintiffs with criminal charges. There are laws against frivolous suits based on lying (false claims), but rarely do they get more than a slap on the wrist. I think the laws need to be more severe.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by waterboy
So, basically, I was dead-on in my rush to judgment. There seems to be a pattern with this woman...........suing rich people. The only way to deter these types of frivolous suits is to charge these types of plaintiffs with criminal charges. There are laws against frivolous suits based on lying (false claims), but rarely do they get more than a slap on the wrist. I think the laws need to be more severe.


Reason why they are wary to file criminal on false complaints is more people would be LESS willing to sue, even those in the right because they would be afraid if they lost

[waterboy]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Reason why they are wary to file criminal on false complaints is more people would be LESS willing to sue, even those in the right because they would be afraid if they lost
Yep. I thought of that, but it would definitely cut down on "frivolous" lawsuits through false complaints.:p When there's a pattern such as this woman has it should definitely throw out a red flag, in my opinion, and she should have to pay for any countersuit. If she doesn't have the money to pay the countersuit she should go to jail. There has to be some kind of law in place that deters people like this from trying to make money extorting from the rich. I'm not sure there is a "fair' way of doing that, however.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by waterboy
Yep. I thought of that, but it would definitely cut down on "frivolous" lawsuits through false complaints.:p When there's a pattern such as this woman has it should definitely throw out a red flag, in my opinion, and she should have to pay for any countersuit. If she doesn't have the money to pay the countersuit she should go to jail. There has to be some kind of law in place that deters people like this from trying to make money extorting from the rich. I'm not sure there is a "fair' way of doing that, however.

I agree..BUT jail for a civil suit even losing a friviolous case is akin to debtors prison

[waterboy]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
I agree..BUT jail for a civil suit even losing a friviolous case is akin to debtors prison
True. Suffice it to say, I don't think there's much that can be done to stop people like this from suing for monetary gain, or else it probably would've already been done. A new law would hurt those who sue for legitimate reasons, too. What can we do?:(

[BaseballUmp]

I think if they are suing frivolously they in turn should be held accountable for their actions. At least for defamation of character if it were able to be proven in court that what she is saying is all lies and was only in an attempt to hurt Jerry Jones while trying to fill her wallet.