Rape shield laws apply to criminal rape cases, not cases where someone is claiming 10 million dollars in damages because a school didn’t do enough to protect them.
Rape shield laws apply to criminal rape cases, not cases where someone is claiming 10 million dollars in damages because a school didn’t do enough to protect them.
I agree this is ridiculous to ask for this information, but I also find it equally ridiculous that she is suing the school. How do you prove a school should have stopped a rape?
Honestly, that was my very first reaction, too, and I can’t seem to shake it.
This doesn’t add up. You say they are adults, but he seems to be wearing a headband of some sort.
So when is Jezebel going to stop doubling down on their support of Planned Parenthood and actually consider that it might be run by horrible people out to make serious cash... and if there’s cash to be made, don’t you think it might behoove the people involved to try to persuade / convince more women who visit the…
Oh no, ankle monitors. That is way better than prison and seems like a good compromise while ice determines their status.
Isn’t that what Gawker is for?
Her situation would be much different if she had not been involved in having him kicked out of the country—this would have been decided in the US. The victims here are the kids who are the rope in this tug of war.
Have you actually botherd to read up and follow the full story here?
#allsportsmatter
I'm 99% sure he pays her for her travel and somewhere for her to stay in Monaco. She brought this upon herself by getting his visa revoked. She thought it would guarantee her full custody & it blew up in her face. I have absolutely no sympathy for Kelly in this situation.
So this is what we have here:
so lets talk about gawker’s native advertising for like a hot second because i accidentally click on that shit like 45 times a day
...Daily Mail, a garbage excuse for a publication...
Ooh puuhlease. Gawker and Jezebel source so much material from the daily mail they should cut them a check.
Why should he not have published that? Just because she didn’t want him to? Just because it was inappropriately personal? Seems like an odd stance here. As Natasha Vargas-Cooper recently said, “If it’s true, you publish.”
So according to Gawker, someone’s weight is their own business, but their sexual orientation is fair game for journalists. Makes sense.
I don’t know what any of that means.