Might be thinking of publication bans. Of course NDAs are strictly a civil thing and the shoving case will be civil.
|
|
|
Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.....
- Thread starter Paul
- Start date
Sexual assault is criminal and there is a NDA in place so I can't give you the details.
Maybe.. maybe not. It's a broad topic.. and the specifics of each case and/or NDA may mean a different answer.
If anyone has signed an NDA and has questions about it.. they should consult a lawyer.
Even if the NDA can't be made to stick (in court) the cost to defend will be a significant punishment for violating it alone. Also given the NDA likely came with a cash settlement. Even if one wins they lose.
And NDAs are the result of a settlement, not a trial. That means everything reverts to basic contract law. A violation of NDA essentially voids the contract, meaning that cash settlement could all be clawed back (as you imply).
There are exceptions and limitations in the laws governing NDAs.
Some of those include.. subpoenas, government, reporting crimes, legal proceedings, court orders, etc... public knowledge and public interest.
In cases like the upcoming Frank Stronach rape trials.. if there are any NDA issues.. they will be dealt with and ruled on during the proceedings. Any attempt to go after the victim(s) or witnesses for testifying afterwards would be pointless.
In order to sue the victim and/or witnesses.. the assailant would have to file a claim in a court.. making it public knowledge.. which is exactly what the NDA was trying to prevent in the first place.
AND.. then there will be the support for the victims.. it would be massive. There would be lawyers, legal groups, rights groups, government and politicians... and millions of others standing with the victim(s).
Some of those include.. subpoenas, government, reporting crimes, legal proceedings, court orders, etc... public knowledge and public interest.
In cases like the upcoming Frank Stronach rape trials.. if there are any NDA issues.. they will be dealt with and ruled on during the proceedings. Any attempt to go after the victim(s) or witnesses for testifying afterwards would be pointless.
In order to sue the victim and/or witnesses.. the assailant would have to file a claim in a court.. making it public knowledge.. which is exactly what the NDA was trying to prevent in the first place.
AND.. then there will be the support for the victims.. it would be massive. There would be lawyers, legal groups, rights groups, government and politicians... and millions of others standing with the victim(s).
That doesn't make sense. If the assailant is suing the victim, it would be because the horse is already out of the barn (the victim broke the NDA and spoke about the event to the press). The crime now being public knowledge would be the reason for suing them.
Doesn't make sense if the victim went public.. but if the person only told other people, the police or a hearing (may or may not have been public).. In some cases.. the lawsuit would make it public.
Who told other people. Who told other people. And it's now common knowledge.
A student Trudy was banging at West Point Gray Academy signed a NDA when he cut her a cheque for $2.5M. Her relatives didn't, some of them spilled the beans, and here we are. Can Trudy sue her? No (and he's still denying the story, so there's that).
Tuition runs ~ $30K so not the Walmart crowd.
If Trudy did sue would it become another Streisand effect where the louder you protest the unwanted attention the more people become interested.
Assuming the "Victim" was at or near 18 YO was it a crime other than the position of responsibility factor.
Then there's the escalation factor. Start by screwing one person and eventually you screw 40 million.
17
Why not ask if he just put the tip in? It’s the same equivalency. If you have sex with someone under 18 and you’re in a position of authority you are guilty of statutory rape. There is no gray area “she told me she was 19” wiggle room.
The law is 18 for anyone of authority like a teacher, doctor, police officer, religious leader, etc.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
In Canada, the ages of consent are:
12 when your partner is 12-14
13 when your partner is as old as 15
14 when your partner is as old as 19
15 when your partner is as old as 20
16 - age of full consent
18 - you're on your own
Exception: People 17 and under cannot consent to sexual activity with someone in a position of trust, authority, or dependency (teacher, coach, police officer, priest, medical practitioner, care giver). Same goes for someone exploiting them (pimp).
So why did this get covered by a NDA? It's not as if she was 18 and he only broke the school rules, a civil matter.
Mike was wrong. A 17 year old is covered under the authority addendum. Under 18, no bueno. Skippy could/should have been charged with statutory rape, if it wasn't for the RCMP being his personal marionettes.
Sexual exploitation
A 16 or 17 year old cannot consent to sexual activity if:- their sexual partner is in position of trust or authority towards them, for example their teacher or coach
- the young person is dependent on their sexual partner, for example for care or support
- the relationship between the young person and their sexual partner is exploitative
Last edited:
Mike said.... "People 17 and under...."
You guys are saying the same, just worded differently.
The age of consent laws were changed years after Trudeau worked at West Grey Academy. I don't know what they were prior to the change..
They have to consider the law at the time of the incident(s).
Frank Stronach was charged with charges that don't exist I the CC anymore... but did at the time.
You guys are saying the same, just worded differently.
The age of consent laws were changed years after Trudeau worked at West Grey Academy. I don't know what they were prior to the change..
They have to consider the law at the time of the incident(s).
Frank Stronach was charged with charges that don't exist I the CC anymore... but did at the time.
Remember the glacial efficiency of our court system. What happens at 17 likely doesn't get resolved until you're 19+.
|
|
|
|
|