Vladek Filler wins again
May 1, 2015 By Robert Franklin
At last, Vladek Filler is a free man. Oh, he’s been “free,” as in “no longer in jail,” for over two years. But when I say “free,” I mean free of all the consequences of the vendetta waged against him by his ex-wife and a shamefully corrupt Ellsworth, Maine prosecutor’s office that stopped at nothing to railroad an innocent man.
That man, Vladek Filler, has always been factually innocent, but now he’s officially, legally so. A state appeals court quashed his conviction of assault, the only prize former District Attorney Carletta Bossano’s office had to show for its relentless hounding of him.
It all started some eight years ago when, in the midst of their divorce and child custody fight, Vladek’s wife, Ligia Filler, claimed that he had raped her. Despite the fact that he had no police record, that the claim occurred during a child custody battle and that Ligia Filler was obviously emotionally unstable, Assistant District Attorney, Mary Kellett pursued the case against Filler with a zeal borne, not of a desire for justice, but of a desire for blood.
Kellett’s behavior in Filler’s case was not merely morally and ethically wrong, although it was both those things. It apparently was the product of her blind faith in the notion that women never lie about rape. I say that because of the multiple other rape and sexual assault cases prosecuted by Kellett that were either overturned on appeal or that she lost outright. Most prosecutors have a sense of when to charge a case, when to take one to trial and when an accused is probably innocent. Kellett seems to have had no such sense, at least when it came to sexual assault charges.
Otherwise, why did she not offer Vladek the dismissal the facts of his case so clearly warranted? Put simply, all Kellett had was the word of a woman who had every reason to lie and on whose behalf there was literally no evidence. Most prosecutors can see such a case for what it is — a sure loser.
Not only that, but the family court judge that viewed the same evidence Kellett did gave primary custody to Vladek, not his wife. How likely is it that a family court judge would place children with a father if the judge had the slightest inkling that the father might have done what his wife claimed? Without a doubt, that judge saw the truth — an emotionally disabled mother making wild, unsubstantiated charges against her husband for the sole purpose of keeping him out of his children’s lives.
Mary Kellett didn’t care. She knew, as few others did, that she would violate any rule of prosecutorial ethics and criminal procedure in order to put an innocent man in prison. And she almost succeeded. Filler was at first convicted, but the very judge who heard his trial for rape overturned the conviction on — of course — the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct.
But Kellett wasn’t finished. Ligia also claimed that Vladek had tossed water on her during an argument. Now, most prosecutors wouldn’t waste their time on such a trivial matter, particularly since, once again, there was no evidence that Vladek had done any such thing. But again, he was convicted, and again it was due to Kellett’s misconduct. Filler served 21 days in jail.
It is that conviction that the appellate court overturned on April 24th. It too was the product of Kellett’s many ethical violations.
But Filler is not a man to allow injustice to run free in the streets. Not content with complete vindication of all his actions by courts of law, he took on the District Attorney’s Office and Mary Kellett specifically, filing a grievance against her for her blatant wrongdoing.
He won that one too. Mary Kellett now has the distinction of being the only prosecutor in the history of the state to have been suspended from the practice of law due to her ethical violations while in the service of the people of the county.
But even that isn’t the end of the story. In last year’s election, DA Bossano was ousted from office due in no small part to her failure to oversee the corrupt behavior of her subordinate, Kellett.
In short, Vladek Filler’s story is that of a lone man standing up to a system of criminal prosecution that was all too used to running roughshod over men accused of sexual assault. What Mary Kellett did in Filler’s case are the actions of a lawyer to whom it never occurs that there might be adverse consequences to her violations of law. Almost certainly, she’d done similar things countless times before and was astonished when one person stood up and shouted “Halt!”
Mary Kellett is now out of a job and has a black mark on her record as an attorney.
If this had been an NBA championship series, Vladek Filler would have swept the opposition. Eight years later, he has his children and his criminal record is unblemished. He is indeed a free man.
What he doesn’t have, though, is his good name. Oh, the people who know him admire him and he has the love of his children and the avid support of his sister who did yeoman service on his behalf throughout his legal ordeal.
But the same Maine news media that were all too eager to shout from the rooftops allegations made against him, that reported his convictions, that unquestioningly channeled Ligia’s false claims and Kellett’s false statements about the case have suddenly gone quiet. Yes, those who were happy to convict an innocent man in their own court — that of public opinion — don’t care to report the fact that, at long last, he’s not guilty of the offenses charged. So far, not a word of his exoneration has been reported in the local or state news media.
In its own way, that’s every bit as shameful as Mary Kellett’s illegal, immoral and unethical conduct.
But in the end, Vladek Filler is the last man standing. For eight years, he stood against the enormous power of the state criminal justice system and won. That’s something for every reader of this blog to ponder. Vladek Filler’s grit and determination have been rewarded. Maybe yours can be as well.
And perhaps best of all, there are two kids (no longer little) down in Georgia who have a father they can look up to. They too can learn a thing or two about the power of being right and not backing down. Those kids may not yet realize it, but they’ve got a dad whose example will serve them all their lives.
Source
This is great. I've been following this from the beginning and now I'm glad it has been concluded. This is a solid MRA victory. This is one we should be proud of. We were pushed around and now we are pushing back. We weren't nice about things we were militant and we accomplished a successful pushback. Thank you to all those involved. For all those did the work and activism know that your work has paid off and that not only is Vladek Filler a free man Mary N. Kellett is a disbarred disgraced feminist former attorney who found out the hard way that you don't fuck with MRA's. We gave feminists an asswhopping they won't soon forget.
Showing posts with label Good news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Good news. Show all posts
Friday, May 1, 2015
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Federal court gives men a weapon to fight back against false accusers
Students Accused of Rape Can Fight Back // Court OKs Suits Against University, Employees, and Female
With so much attention focused on alleged failures to prosecute students accused of date rape, the problem of universities whose judicial proceedings are unfair to the accused have been largely overlooked
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRLog (Press Release) - May 19, 2014 - WASHINGTON, D.C. -- WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 19, 2014): With so much attention focused on the alleged failures of many universities to forcefully prosecute male students accused of date rape and sexual assault, the problem of universities whose judicial proceedings are unfair to the accused, and/or are overzealous because of pressure from female students or otherwise, have been largely overlooked.
But now a new judicial ruling gives those wrongly convicted a powerful new weapon - they can sue the university, the employees who participated in the proceedings, and even the accused herself in federal court for substantial monetary damages and other remedies, notes public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who was twice called a “radical feminist.”
After a school tribunal at Saint Joseph's University found a male student to have committed sexual assault arising out of an incident of allegedly consensual sexual intercourse, he took legal action, says Banzhaf, who has been successful in over 100 sex discrimination proceedings.
The federal court held that he was entitled to sue the private university under the state's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and that he could also sue the university, university employees, and the female complainant for defamation (slander), with the court holding that their accusatory statements about him were not legally privileged.
Interestingly, the court said that he could also sue the female complainant for intentionally interfering with his contractual relations with the school; an important ruling, suggests Banzhaf, because for such an intentional tort he can seek much higher punitive damages in addition to general damages. Also, the court ruled that the mere fact that the tribunal found that the male student had committed the wrongful act complained of was not conclusive as to his guilt or innocence, and did not shield the female complainant from this type of legal liability.
Several additional claims by the plaintiff were not accepted by the court on the basis of the complaint which had been filed, but the court said that the male student was not precluded from bringing up these claims again, provided they were properly pleaded.
These claims included, said Banzhaf: breach of contract, violation of Title IX (discrimination against him by the school on the basis of his gender), negligence, making public statements which place him in a false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (which might also warrant punitive damages).
"Female university students in 'he said, she said' rape and sexual assault cases, who were dissatisfied with the way the school handled the situation, are increasingly seeking legal remedies.
But now men who feel that the pendulum has swung too far, or that they were not treated fairly in school judicial proceedings, suddenly also have powerful legal weapons on their side.
Also, says Banzhaf, it is likely that some attorneys will take these cases on a contingency fee basis, so that both rich and poor students can go after both the universities and any women who improperly accuse them. Female students, knowing that they may have to repeat their allegations under oath in open court, may think carefully before bringing any unfounded charges, he predicts.
Source
Well shut my mouth. This is a blessing,it truly is. It's about time someone in government took action and gave men a legal remedy to fight against the injustice of being falsely accused. This is what activism and making our concerns known accomplishes. There are lots of twists and turns on this road but if it yields victories such as this one then it is worth it.
With so much attention focused on alleged failures to prosecute students accused of date rape, the problem of universities whose judicial proceedings are unfair to the accused have been largely overlooked
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRLog (Press Release) - May 19, 2014 - WASHINGTON, D.C. -- WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 19, 2014): With so much attention focused on the alleged failures of many universities to forcefully prosecute male students accused of date rape and sexual assault, the problem of universities whose judicial proceedings are unfair to the accused, and/or are overzealous because of pressure from female students or otherwise, have been largely overlooked.
But now a new judicial ruling gives those wrongly convicted a powerful new weapon - they can sue the university, the employees who participated in the proceedings, and even the accused herself in federal court for substantial monetary damages and other remedies, notes public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who was twice called a “radical feminist.”
After a school tribunal at Saint Joseph's University found a male student to have committed sexual assault arising out of an incident of allegedly consensual sexual intercourse, he took legal action, says Banzhaf, who has been successful in over 100 sex discrimination proceedings.
The federal court held that he was entitled to sue the private university under the state's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and that he could also sue the university, university employees, and the female complainant for defamation (slander), with the court holding that their accusatory statements about him were not legally privileged.
Interestingly, the court said that he could also sue the female complainant for intentionally interfering with his contractual relations with the school; an important ruling, suggests Banzhaf, because for such an intentional tort he can seek much higher punitive damages in addition to general damages. Also, the court ruled that the mere fact that the tribunal found that the male student had committed the wrongful act complained of was not conclusive as to his guilt or innocence, and did not shield the female complainant from this type of legal liability.
Several additional claims by the plaintiff were not accepted by the court on the basis of the complaint which had been filed, but the court said that the male student was not precluded from bringing up these claims again, provided they were properly pleaded.
These claims included, said Banzhaf: breach of contract, violation of Title IX (discrimination against him by the school on the basis of his gender), negligence, making public statements which place him in a false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (which might also warrant punitive damages).
"Female university students in 'he said, she said' rape and sexual assault cases, who were dissatisfied with the way the school handled the situation, are increasingly seeking legal remedies.
But now men who feel that the pendulum has swung too far, or that they were not treated fairly in school judicial proceedings, suddenly also have powerful legal weapons on their side.
Also, says Banzhaf, it is likely that some attorneys will take these cases on a contingency fee basis, so that both rich and poor students can go after both the universities and any women who improperly accuse them. Female students, knowing that they may have to repeat their allegations under oath in open court, may think carefully before bringing any unfounded charges, he predicts.
Source
Well shut my mouth. This is a blessing,it truly is. It's about time someone in government took action and gave men a legal remedy to fight against the injustice of being falsely accused. This is what activism and making our concerns known accomplishes. There are lots of twists and turns on this road but if it yields victories such as this one then it is worth it.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
SB 967 is stalled-for now
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S) : De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Cannella, Evans,
Galgiani, Monning, Pavley, Torres, Wolk, and Yee)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Ammiano, Fong, Gonzalez,
Quirk-Silva, Skinner, Ting, and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 03/27/2014
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 04/07/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : Placed on APPR. suspense file.*
COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS
TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.
Source
*SUSPENSE FILE
A bill or set of bills, with a fiscal impact, set aside in Appropriations Committee by a majority of Members present and voting. These bills may be heard at a later hearing.
Source
It's been put off for awhile. Congrats to all who wrote on behalf of all men,not just college age men,to be free of feminist oppression. You did good give yourselves a pat on the back. Cyber high 5's to everyone who did their part. We need to keep an eye on this bill just in case someone is stupid enough to try and revive this Frankenstein's monster of a bill back to life we will be ready again. Not just to fight SB 967 but all misandric bills that come before legislatures and congresses worldwide. The Men's Rights Movement will be a force to reckon with.
MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S) : De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Cannella, Evans,
Galgiani, Monning, Pavley, Torres, Wolk, and Yee)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Ammiano, Fong, Gonzalez,
Quirk-Silva, Skinner, Ting, and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 03/27/2014
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 04/07/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : Placed on APPR. suspense file.*
COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS
TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.
Source
*SUSPENSE FILE
A bill or set of bills, with a fiscal impact, set aside in Appropriations Committee by a majority of Members present and voting. These bills may be heard at a later hearing.
Source
It's been put off for awhile. Congrats to all who wrote on behalf of all men,not just college age men,to be free of feminist oppression. You did good give yourselves a pat on the back. Cyber high 5's to everyone who did their part. We need to keep an eye on this bill just in case someone is stupid enough to try and revive this Frankenstein's monster of a bill back to life we will be ready again. Not just to fight SB 967 but all misandric bills that come before legislatures and congresses worldwide. The Men's Rights Movement will be a force to reckon with.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Good news
From SAVE Services:
In a MAJOR VICTORY for us, the Dept. Of Education has backed off their Affirmative Consent proposal.
The proposal (partners would be expected to give their explicit consent to sex every step along the way) is silly, yet potentially dangerous. We asked you to oppose it, and you did. Thank you.
Together, we made a difference. On April 2, the DED released its new proposal, and guess what is missing! That's right: Affirmative Consent.
Congratulations!
But we're not done yet.
Even though the committee didn't recommend including the "Dear Colleague" letter's preponderance of evidence standard as part of the rule, it's still a concern. Please ask DED Secretary Arne Duncan to replace the "preponderance of evidence" standard (51%) with "clear and convincing" (70-80%) level of proof.
Email Arne Duncan: arne.duncan@ed.gov
Thanks!
teri
PS. If you live in California, contact your lawmakers to oppose SB 967. It's an Affirmative Consent bill!
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Can you help us grow? Please share this e-lert.
This is indeed good news. Time to start writing Arne Duncan and tell him to go with "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is what the criminal courts use. Or better yet just turn the cases over to the criminal courts. After all they are the ones best suited to handle these cases. Not a bunch of faculty members and students who look at a rape kit and say:"I have no idea what I'm looking at". Not only that but judges in criminal courts are more impartial than those on some college or university board that may be influenced by the opposition. Affirmative Consent would have brought this monstrosity to life and that may still happen in California if SB 967 becomes law. If SB 967 becomes law it could spread to your state so opposing it now would be the best thing or face it later.
In a MAJOR VICTORY for us, the Dept. Of Education has backed off their Affirmative Consent proposal.
The proposal (partners would be expected to give their explicit consent to sex every step along the way) is silly, yet potentially dangerous. We asked you to oppose it, and you did. Thank you.
Together, we made a difference. On April 2, the DED released its new proposal, and guess what is missing! That's right: Affirmative Consent.
Congratulations!
But we're not done yet.
Even though the committee didn't recommend including the "Dear Colleague" letter's preponderance of evidence standard as part of the rule, it's still a concern. Please ask DED Secretary Arne Duncan to replace the "preponderance of evidence" standard (51%) with "clear and convincing" (70-80%) level of proof.
Email Arne Duncan: arne.duncan@ed.gov
Thanks!
teri
PS. If you live in California, contact your lawmakers to oppose SB 967. It's an Affirmative Consent bill!
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Can you help us grow? Please share this e-lert.
This is indeed good news. Time to start writing Arne Duncan and tell him to go with "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is what the criminal courts use. Or better yet just turn the cases over to the criminal courts. After all they are the ones best suited to handle these cases. Not a bunch of faculty members and students who look at a rape kit and say:"I have no idea what I'm looking at". Not only that but judges in criminal courts are more impartial than those on some college or university board that may be influenced by the opposition. Affirmative Consent would have brought this monstrosity to life and that may still happen in California if SB 967 becomes law. If SB 967 becomes law it could spread to your state so opposing it now would be the best thing or face it later.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
A blurb of hope
From Demand Progress:
Hollywood's bragging that they're pushing a new version of SOPA. But in less than 24 hours more than 50,000 of you have emailed the White House to demand that President Obama reject Hollywood's back room deal.
This is indeed encouraging as it shows Obama and the other PTB that we are not going to let them cancel the Constitution on us,particularly the First Amendment. Be sure to sign the Fight For The Future petition mentioned in the post previous to this one and sign the Demand Progress petition as well.
Hollywood's bragging that they're pushing a new version of SOPA. But in less than 24 hours more than 50,000 of you have emailed the White House to demand that President Obama reject Hollywood's back room deal.
This is indeed encouraging as it shows Obama and the other PTB that we are not going to let them cancel the Constitution on us,particularly the First Amendment. Be sure to sign the Fight For The Future petition mentioned in the post previous to this one and sign the Demand Progress petition as well.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Good news
25 January 2011 Last updated at 03:51 ET
MP Dominic Raab says men victims of discrimination
A Tory MP has defended comments he made accusing feminists of "obnoxious bigotry" and adding that men were the victims of "flagrant discrimination".
Dominic Raab said men had a raw deal in the workplace, working longer and being at greater risk at losing their jobs.
He told the BBC it was sexist to claim men had caused the recession and "equality had to cut both ways".
Labour said the comments showed the Tories were out of touch and progress in equality was under threat.
The MP's remarks came amid a row over sexism in football and the media after two leading Sky Sports presenters were disciplined for making derogatory comments about a female assistant referee.
In an article for the Politics Home website, Mr Raab said that despite the UK having "some of the toughest anti-discrimination laws in the world", society was often "blind to flagrant discrimination against men".
'Gender warfare'
Citing what he said were "trite generalisations" about male bankers causing the 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent recession, he added: "Feminists are now amongst the most obnoxious bigots."
Standing by the comments, he told BBC Radio 4's PM programme that he was opposed to discrimination of all kinds including what he said was "pretty obvious" bias against men.
“I think blaming the recession on men is an obviously sexist comment”
Dominic Raab
Conservative MP
"You cannot have a situation where, rightly, Sky Sports presenters are being picked up for sexist comments they make about women knowing the offside laws and on the other hand say that when there are blatantly sexist comments in the media regularly and no-one blinks - that is wrong."
"If you believe in equality, it cuts both ways."
Citing comments by Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman in 2009, in which she suggested the scale of the financial turmoil may have been reduced if failed investment bank Lehman Brothers had been run by women, he said "subtle" discrimination against men often went unchallenged.
"I think blaming the recession on men is an obviously sexist comment. We should be as tough on all forms of sexism and, frankly, try and get away from gender warfare and the politics of difference."
Retirement age
Mr Raab - MP for Esher - said huge progress had been made in reducing the gender pay gap in the past 40 years and remaining inequalities were less a product of "endemic sexism" than the challenges facing working mothers and couples trying to juggle work and family responsibilities.
Workplace discrimination could only be fully tackled by looking at working conditions "in the round", he added.
"Men work longer hours, they die earlier but they retire later than women. That is not a problem we are going to fix for seven years. How can that possibly be justified?
"The fact is that men working longer hours, enjoy their jobs less - according to the surveys - commute from further afield and are more likely to face redundancy."
Kate Green, chair of the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party, condemned the remarks.
"This is exactly the kind of attitude that shows the Tories are out of touch on issues of importance to people across the UK and are not a family friendly party.
"The equality and diversity agenda put in place by Labour has been hugely important in levelling the playing field for millions of people in the work place and we need to ensure we continue to build on its success."
Equality campaigners say women will bear the brunt of the £81bn in government spending cuts planned over the next four years but failed in a recent legal challenge to last year's Budget.
Source:here
This is great. Hats off to Dominic Raab hopefully the next prime minister of Great Britain.
NCFM’s huge landmark sex discrimination case now final
January 25, 2011
By NCFM
The Daily Journal, California’s leading daily newspaper, recently published in Verdicts and Settlements the verdict obtained by several NCFM members and their NCFM attorney for a recurring Ladies Night at the Century Supper Club in Los Angeles where men were charged up to $20 for entry while women were allowed to enter for free.
This trial court verdict follow these same NCFM members victory at the California Supreme Court case of Marc Angelucci v. Century Supper Club, wherein the Court ruled that men do not have to affirmatively assert their right to equal treatment to the offending business in order to have standing to file a sex discrimination claim. The Justices commented that the Supper Club’s behavior was “startling” and “absurd”.
The NCFM members are Marc Angelucci, NCFM Vice President, and Elton Campbell who were represented by NCFM Board Secretary and attorney Al Rava. The Plaintiffs were awarded substantial judgments which need to be collected. The Century Supper Club is out of business.
This is a huge landmark victory because it firmly establishes that men are entitled the same rights as women and they don’t have to lower themselves by ask for equal treatment. This would be akin to a Woman/Black/ Homosexual having to ask for equal treatment at a Men/Caucasian/Heterosexual Night promotion in order to sue for discrimination
Harry Crouch
President NCFM
Source:here
This is indeed great news but we have a lot more to do to achieve our goals.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
An alright candidate
I know more times than not we usually go after a misandric politician but here's one we can give the thumbs up to. What makes Ken Buck special? Because he wouldn't prosecute a man for rape based on flimsy evidence. He said that the so-called "victim?" invited the accused,her ex-boyfriend, up to her place and in an effort to get back at him she accused him of rape. Buck saw through this and didn't prosecute when he was the DA. This as you can imagine has many feminists stirred up and bitching royally about this. Why are they so upset? Because someone actually applied the law fairly and saw what he describes as "buyer's remorse" coming from the "victim?". I guess feminists go ape shit when someone safeguards a man's rights, knows a con job when he sees one and doesn't do the feminazis bidding. For that Ken Buck seems like a better candidate. So if you live in Buck's district and you're an MRA you may want to remember Ken Buck this election day.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Good news indeed
H.S. Coach Awarded $4.5 Million For False Accusation In Sex Case
No Charges Were Ever Filed Against Patrick Gillan
POSTED: 11:49 am PST January 20, 2005UPDATED: 5:28 pm PST January 20, 2005
LOS ANGELES -- A San Marino High School girls' basketball coach publicly identified as a sexual molestation suspect but never charged was awarded a total of nearly $4.5 million Thursday in compensatory damages.
A second phase of the trial to determine if punitive damages will be awarded to Patrick Gillan on top of that gets under way Thursday afternoon.
Gillan sued San Marino, its police department and several officers, who held a news conference to identify him -- and ask any other supposed victims to come forward -- after he was taken into custody in December 2001. His mug shot displayed that day was shown on TV and printed in several newspapers.
No charges were ever filed against the coach, who was put on paid suspension during the investigation and reclaimed his job two months later.
In his lawsuit, filed in May 2002, Gillan alleged defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from false arrest.
In the initial verdict phase, a Los Angeles jury awarded Gillan $1,937,000 for past damages, and $2,516,000 for future loss of earnings -- which totals $4,453,000.
Gillan had asked for $1.2 million to $3.8 million for past damages, and $900,000 to $3.6 million for future damages.
The jury will now decide if Gillan is due punitive damages from the officers involved in calling the news conference.
The officers contend they were just doing their job by investigating a legitimate claim -- made by Taylor Bouchard, who by then was in college.
Bouchard, who graduated from San Marino High in June 2001 and is now 21, testified in the civil trial and still contends she was sexually molested when she was 17.
According to court papers, Gillan was released immediately after being booked by San Marino police, and the paperwork stated only that he had been "detained."
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert O'Brien, who presided over the trial, ruled Thursday that there was no probable cause for the arrest.
The department continued to investigate Bouchard's claims, and in February 2002 the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office decided not to prosecute Gillan.
Bouchard and her mother were named in the Gillan lawsuit, but as part of a settlement deal eventually were dropped as defendants.
Source: http://www.nbc4.tv/education/4112461/detail.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes,it is good news. I,on the other hand,would not have allowed her mother and/or the accuser to squirm out of it that easily as I would have sued them as well.
No Charges Were Ever Filed Against Patrick Gillan
POSTED: 11:49 am PST January 20, 2005UPDATED: 5:28 pm PST January 20, 2005
LOS ANGELES -- A San Marino High School girls' basketball coach publicly identified as a sexual molestation suspect but never charged was awarded a total of nearly $4.5 million Thursday in compensatory damages.
A second phase of the trial to determine if punitive damages will be awarded to Patrick Gillan on top of that gets under way Thursday afternoon.
Gillan sued San Marino, its police department and several officers, who held a news conference to identify him -- and ask any other supposed victims to come forward -- after he was taken into custody in December 2001. His mug shot displayed that day was shown on TV and printed in several newspapers.
No charges were ever filed against the coach, who was put on paid suspension during the investigation and reclaimed his job two months later.
In his lawsuit, filed in May 2002, Gillan alleged defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from false arrest.
In the initial verdict phase, a Los Angeles jury awarded Gillan $1,937,000 for past damages, and $2,516,000 for future loss of earnings -- which totals $4,453,000.
Gillan had asked for $1.2 million to $3.8 million for past damages, and $900,000 to $3.6 million for future damages.
The jury will now decide if Gillan is due punitive damages from the officers involved in calling the news conference.
The officers contend they were just doing their job by investigating a legitimate claim -- made by Taylor Bouchard, who by then was in college.
Bouchard, who graduated from San Marino High in June 2001 and is now 21, testified in the civil trial and still contends she was sexually molested when she was 17.
According to court papers, Gillan was released immediately after being booked by San Marino police, and the paperwork stated only that he had been "detained."
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert O'Brien, who presided over the trial, ruled Thursday that there was no probable cause for the arrest.
The department continued to investigate Bouchard's claims, and in February 2002 the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office decided not to prosecute Gillan.
Bouchard and her mother were named in the Gillan lawsuit, but as part of a settlement deal eventually were dropped as defendants.
Source: http://www.nbc4.tv/education/4112461/detail.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes,it is good news. I,on the other hand,would not have allowed her mother and/or the accuser to squirm out of it that easily as I would have sued them as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)