- Joined
- Aug 2, 2021
Non-lawtalker just spitballing, but hey, this thread needed some juicy developments, but if the judge does specialize in cases involving minors and she’s listed as Jane Doe.. would that potentially mean plaintiff is STILL a minor? With the implication that it’s a fresher victim OR it’s one from years back that was absurdly young. Like 14-15 years old.
Probably not. I mean, anything's possible, but I doubt it. Like I said earlier you don't have to be a minor to be a John/Jane Doe, you just have to demonstrate to the court that publishing your identity would harm you in some significant way that is not a direct result of your decision to pursue the suit itself, but is a result of the nature of the subject of the suit.
That said, the person was probably either a minor at the time, or an adult employee of RT, as it would be a lot more difficult to prove wrongdoing if it was just some random woman he hooked up with. I suppose it could be some 19-year-old he plied with alcohol, but probably not.
EDIT: Whatever it is, it can't have been very bad otherwise there would be a criminal case. It's obviously something that's a combination of difficult to prove but not very severe, making it not worth it for a prosecutor to try to build a case beyond a reasonable doubt, but worth it to press in civil court where they only need a preponderance of evidence.
For instance, let's say it was a 17-year old girl. That's legal in Texas. But let's say she asserts that he gave her booze. That would make it wrongdoing, but almost impossible to prove in criminal court years after the fact. Instead she sues in civil court because then she only has to make the court believe her, instead of completely prove it.
Last edited: