Judge in the Jay-Z sexual assault lawsuit case granted a request to file a dismissal motion. Of course the internet goes largely silent on the matter
- Thread starter Elim Garak
- Start date
Devilinurear
Veteran
LexDiamonds
Superstar
Ain't no evidence on that case. The girl couldn't provide accurate details regarding the location of the place and her dad didn't even vouch for her.
They just successfully smeared Jay Z's name and reputation permanently though
They just successfully smeared Jay Z's name and reputation permanently though
The God Poster
LWO representa
It will still be silent if it actually gets dismissed which is the problem
bourgeoisie tall freak
Superstar
it's a motion. what do they deserve, a virtual cookie?
the last thing people need to do is chime in on legalities that they don't understand. that helps nobody. see tory lanes
the last thing people need to do is chime in on legalities that they don't understand. that helps nobody. see tory lanes
Honestly it doesn't matter. Most people have their opinions. I hate to see these 20n year old cases getting tried based off people's memoriea and no real evidence. I couldn't tell you who I slept with 20 years ago. It's all bullshyt really. Smear his name and get payed.
Judge would have denied the request if he felt there was no basis for it.
Basically means he thinks there is grounds for dismissal,
bourgeoisie tall freak
Superstar
this is part of the court rules that a party should inform the judge before filing a motion. jay sent the judge a letter, so now the judge is saying ok file the motion. this is just court procedure and has nothing to do with the merits of the claim so as long as they followed the court rules, the judge was going to allow the motion to be filed. it's not like SHE was going to say "no you can't file the motion" just randomly lol
further, i believe the motion is going to be a statute of limitations argument, so that is also nothing about the merits of the claim.
The motion will be on several grounds. You don’t have to file a motion to dismiss on one basis. The statute of limitations argument isn’t it because it was extended under NY’s survivor act. It will be
1) on substantive grounds: and
2) based on the fact that the law Buzbee filed under didn’t exist at the time of the alleged acts. You cannot criminalize something after the fact.
bourgeoisie tall freak
Superstar
correct. i just read the first page of the letter so i don't know all the grounds they are basing it on other than the timing of the statute, which if that was upheld, the court is not going to even get into the merits of the claim. but yeah idk what the term for that is legally, i just call it statute of limitations
We got an attorney on the coli. So proud of you.correct. i just read the first page of the letter so i don't know all the grounds they are basing it on other than the timing of the statute, which if that was upheld, the court is not going to even get into the merits of the claim. but yeah idk what the term for that is legally, i just call it statute of limitations
