Winston strikes back with a counter suit

im4uainva · May 10, 2015

jthomas666 said:
Any course of action that results in Winston being under oath will likely not end well for him.

Once upon a time that might have mattered. I no longer believe that taking an 'oath' is going to make any difference in ascertaining the truth anymore. We have plenty of people in jail that took an 'oath' to tell the truth, yet didn't. Not only in jail, but in political offices also. They all take an'oath' to uphold the Constitution and it's laws, yet it seems many forget that 'oath' once they achieve the power they so strongly coveted. An 'oath' only holds true if the punishment for violating it gives one a reason to not defile it. I certainly don't believe that an 'oath' means anything to Mr Winston. That's my opinion.

Roll Tide!

81usaf92 · May 10, 2015

bamanut_aj said:
To me, this is the biggest point. Someone is actually advising him that it would be a good idea to re-open all the facts in this case, and have him try to keep the story straight?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually it is response to her lawsuit in civil court. It is probably intimidation for her to let it go, but it does pressure her to win the case or be bankrupt because of the counter suit. So he isn't de opening it and he will most likely drop it if she drops hers

KrAzY3 · May 10, 2015

81usaf92 said:
Actually it is response to her lawsuit in civil court. It is probably intimidation for her to let it go, but it does pressure her to win the case or be bankrupt because of the counter suit. So he isn't de opening it and he will most likely drop it if she drops hers

In a way this mirrors what some big companies do in cases. They can litigate the other person to death, they have deep pockets, the other party doesn't, and they're basically saying not only can we tie this up in court, but we can bankrupt you. It's a pretty good scare tactic, but I imagine with the way they are doing it, they have no intention of actually heading to court with this case.

81usaf92 · May 10, 2015

KrAzY3 said:
. It's a pretty good scare tactic, but I imagine with the way they are doing it, they have no intention of actually heading to court with this case.

I see it going this way or an out of court settlement like Kobe and Ben did in their cases.

CoastGhost · May 10, 2015

We will see if she has confidence in her case. It seems to me that Winston still has everything to lose. What does she have?

Rush · May 10, 2015

jthomas666 said:
Any course of action that results in Winston being under oath will likely not end well for him.

Wish I could agree, JT...

If there's oe thing that my years of practicing law have taught me, it's that swearing to tell the truth means waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too little to waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many...

Rush · May 10, 2015

81usaf92 said:
Actually it is response to her lawsuit in civil court. It is probably intimidation for her to let it go, but it does pressure her to win the case or be bankrupt because of the counter suit. So he isn't de opening it and he will most likely drop it if she drops hers

Precisely...

He - and his lawyers - are presenting her with one helluva downside...

Crimson1967 · May 10, 2015

selmaborntidefan said:
I'm no lawyer but I'd suspect winning such a case is damned near impossible. How are you gonna prove SHE cost you the endorsements when you did OTHER things as well?

He is also suing Publix.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

B1GTide · May 10, 2015

Just like the OJ Simpson case, no way he can win. Winston will settle this to avoid being convicted in the court of public opinion. Every tiny piece of evidence submitted will be rehashed on the news every day of the trial. There is no way that he can come out of this looking good.

As for the counter suit - it is expected. It is his leverage to get her to settle.

81usaf92 · May 10, 2015

B1GTide said:
Just like the OJ Simpson case, no way he can win. Winston will settle this to avoid being convicted in the court of public opinion. Every tiny piece of evidence submitted will be rehashed on the news every day of the trial. There is no way that he can come out of this looking good.

.

The problem is this is a civil suit not a federal or state. He is probably using this as leverage and waiting to see what she does. If she stays with the suit and loses he will follow thru with the counter and will most likely win since it will look as though as this is a case with no wheels. He will use the rulings of the investigation while at fsu and the ruling of the civil suit as his evidence in the counter. He is basically saying she better have a concrete case or he is flipping the tables on her if she loses. This is an intimidation tactic trying to make her let it go.

B1GTide · May 11, 2015

BamainBoston said:
Her losing the case does not mean he wins his defamation case. Two different sets of arguments, and given that he is a public figure, he'd basically have to prove that she made it all up to prevail. This is a set up for the settlement. That way, when he settles, he can spin it as she knew that he had her on the defamation, so she gave up. He didn't want a distraction going into camp, blah blah blah, so rather than pursue it, he settled.

This is correct, but it is still leverage. It instills fear in her that, if she loses her suit and then loses agian in his suit, she is ruined financially and in the court of public opinion. He is telling her that she needs to either go "all in" or settle, and decide before her suit goes to trial.

The reality is - if her suit does go to trial and he wins, he would almost certainly drop the defamation suit. He wouldn't want to go through all of that again with another chance of losing with so little to gain at that point.

KrAzY3 · May 11, 2015

Another aspect is that this plays into the hands of Winston apologists. The "where is the proof" crowd, the she's just trying to get money crowd (despite facts to the contrary on both accounts). So, not only is it a move to give them leverage, but it's also a PR move at the same time. People who haven't followed this case closely can easily get suckered into thinking this somehow exonerates Winston.

Also, let's not forget that intimidation, and an unfair system are two tools that rapists rely on. If there are any other victims, the harder things are for this woman, the less likely anyone else is to come forward.

81usaf92 · May 11, 2015

KrAzY3 said:
Another aspect is that this plays into the hands of Winston apologists. The "where is the proof" crowd, the she's just trying to get money crowd (despite facts to the contrary on both accounts). So, not only is it a move to give them leverage, but it's also a PR move at the same time. People who haven't followed this case closely can easily get suckered into thinking this somehow exonerates Winston.

Also, let's not forget that intimidation, and an unfair system are two tools that rapists rely on. If there are any other victims, the harder things are for this woman, the less likely anyone else is to come forward.

I'm not a lawyer but everyone said oj Simpson and Robert durst were slamdunk trials and look how they turned out. So it's not as easy as probably knowing= conviction.

bamaslammer · May 11, 2015

I know this is legal wrangling as usual but in my opinion having the evidence put before anyone other than the cigar smokers in charge at FSU is a mistake by Winston's team. They should write a big check and pray she takes it. It probably doesn't really matter because it's almost a forgone conclusion that Winston will end up dead or in jail before his first contract expires.

Rama Jama · May 11, 2015

I am not sure she can get a fair civil trail in Florida. I know there is a much lower standard of proof, but since the DA didn't pursue it, many juror's will feel she was in it for the money all along. I don't agree with this , but the jury pool is likely contaminated beyond redemption.

AV8N · May 11, 2015

BamainBoston said:
Standard in a civil trial is more likely than not.

Didn't OJ lose the civil suit for wrongful death? It's true that juries are hard to predict, though. It's hard to get 12 people to agree on anything.

Rama Jama · May 11, 2015

AV8N said:
Didn't OJ lose the civil suit for wrongful death? It's true that juries are hard to predict, though. It's hard to get 12 people to agree on anything.

I think it only requires 2/3rds of the jury. Legal eagles, correct me if I am wrong.

81usaf92 · May 11, 2015

Rama Jama said:
I am not sure she can get a fair civil trail in Florida. I know there is a much lower standard of proof, but since the DA didn't pursue it, many juror's will feel she was in it for the money all along. I don't agree with this , but the jury pool is likely contaminated beyond redemption.

Its the real threat to her case. Largely due to the Ben roethlisburger Lake Tahoe rape allegation turning out to be false and the woman wanting money. Not saying its the case here, but it isnt so black and white of a prediction on how a jury will vote.

GeorgiaTider · May 12, 2015

KrAzY3 said:
Let's make sure we're aware of the facts.

She reported the rape before she even knew his name, and before he'd actually played a football game at Florida State. So, the pretense of her going after him in an attempt to gain something is ridiculous, she actually went back to the police (who were still twiddling their thumbs) and said she saw him in one of her classes later on and wrote down his name. I'd assume the police knew who he was before she did...

This utterly destroys any attempt to say she accused him of rape because of who he was, and it even puts a pretty big dent in the idea that it was consensual because she didn't even know his name. Then, just in case you're left with the idea that well she just made the whole thing up, well his fluids were on her and just in case you get the idea that she voluntarily went along with it there's two other fact that just hang in the air.

A: Shortly after the incident she went and reported the rape. She didn't wait weeks or even days. She went to the police and said what happened.
B: During the interview bruises appeared on her. During, not before or after.

We have to believe she had consensual sex, that left her bruised and unhappy with a guy who she didn't know and then accused him of rape immediately afterwards to try to take advantage of his fame he didn't have yet. So, you can have what ever idea you want to have of "proof" but common sense certainly leans towards believing her allegations.

Excellent post.

alwayshavebeen · Jan 25, 2016

It took a while but it looks like a little justice is prevailing....Many of us had predicted that Title IX would be his biggest problem...

"Florida State University has agreed to pay Jameis Winston's accuser $950,000 to settle a Title IX lawsuit filed due to the accuser believing the school handled her sexual assault allegations poorly in 2013.
According to USA Today, the $950,000 lump sum payment to Erica Kinsman, which includes attorneys' fees, is the "largest settlement for Title IX claims regarding indifference to a student's sexual assault."

FULL ARTICLE

Winston strikes back with a counter suit

All-SEC

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Suspended

All-American

All-American

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

All-American

All-American

1st Team

All-American

TideFans Legend

All-SEC

All-SEC

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!