"In his book, Feldman writes that Haim was raped at age 11 on the set of the 1986 film “Lucas,”.."
“The man who had stolen his innocence,” Feldman writes, “ . . . walks around now, one of the most successful people in the entertainment industry, still making money hand over fist.”
For years, there were accusations about Weinstein that weren't taken seriously. Will more people start taking Feldman and others like Molly Ringwald seriously about pedophilia in Hollywood? I've personally never doubted them.
Feldman can't name names for legal reasons (stupid statute of limitations in CA). He has said he/they are powerful and are "still making money hand over fist", so it probably wasn't a stage assistant. I'm tempted to list the names of the director and producer of the film "Lucas" here, but instead I'll just link the credits:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091445/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast Will people now believe Corey Feldman - (
New Window )
Does anyone believe that the parents who let their kids stay with Michael Jackson really had their best interest in mind?
This is one of those cases where the kids have no say, and anyone who is empowered to or responsible for their care likely doesn't give half of a shit. That's why you're hoping for a name, so that he can be named and shamed out of a job, if not to have someone come forward and press charges to put the fucker away.
So that the film industry doesn't move to Toronto?
Half kidding there, really no good answer to that question.
The Corey's were looked at as being drugged out weirdos who self-destructed when it is entirely possible they were hooked on drugs by predators who then robbed their souls. Horrific.
2) Why does CA Statute of Limitations prevent him from naming the alleged perpetrator?
3) I despise the current statute of limitations laws in most states, including NY. It has prevented my wife from getting full closure on her past. I have spoken to several local and state politicians about this. They will all say they support changing the laws, but there is no traction there.
But there's no guarantee that the profits from the book would cover the costs of getting sued. And if it's a break even, why on earth would you put yourself through it? You refer to the moral obligation on Feldman, but what about the moral obligation of Feldman to provide for his family which could be impaired or destroyed?
It may be that he doesn't want to face a slander or libel lawsuit, but that is civil, not criminal, and that has nothing to do with any SoL.
Because if he names names, he can be held liable for slander and be subject to lawsuits.
Unless he has footage of the acts, and especially if a studio is tied to the claims, he will likely have to spend a crapload of $$ defending himself, once again becoming a victim.
They don't anymore, the statute of limitations was repealed last year and there were loopholes on the 10 year limit anyway, but because Haim is deceased it complicates things regarding the 10 year statute of limitations loophole.
This is where my wife is. As a young girl into her teens she was molested. When she finally came forward her family didn't take her seriously because it was a family member. It wasn't until her mid-20s that she began dealing with this in therapy and the it was far too late. In that regard, there is no real sense of closure for the victims.
Quote:
2) Why does CA Statute of Limitations prevent him from naming the alleged perpetrator?
Because if he names names, he can be held liable for slander and be subject to lawsuits.
Unless he has footage of the acts, and especially if a studio is tied to the claims, he will likely have to spend a crapload of $$ defending himself, once again becoming a victim.
The burden would be on the plaintiff to prove that Feldman is lying, not on Feldman to prove that what he is saying is true.
FYI...California eliminated the statute of limitations in 2016.
It was all over the news with the Bill Cosby trial.
Quote:
2) Why does CA Statute of Limitations prevent him from naming the alleged perpetrator?
Because if he names names, he can be held liable for slander and be subject to lawsuits.
Unless he has footage of the acts, and especially if a studio is tied to the claims, he will likely have to spend a crapload of $$ defending himself, once again becoming a victim.
I understand his position. It just infuriates me how difficult it is for victims. And, I believe Feldman was abused as well. So, it is not just dealing with the nightmare of a deceased victim.
The mental and emotional trauma is indescribable. This is why I get so angry when people here (and in general) get cavalier about a male teenage student having sex with a female teacher, but up in arms when it is a female student and male teacher. In either case, the teacher is acting inappropriately, illegally, immorally, and abusing their position of authority...even if it appears to be consensual. The long term affects are immeasurable.
1. This is a Hollywood story, and Hollywood stories are likely to generate more interest than college football stories, especially on in a global sense. Disclaimer: I don't mean to categorize the Sandusky situation as a college football story. I don't see it that way, but others do. It's much more than that.
2. There is tremendous buzz right now regarding abuse in Hollywood. It's a very hot topic. I don't think the Sandusky disgrace generated the same energy and urgency (sadly).
3. Social media. What kind of social media presence did the Sandusky story have? Very little. The Hollywood abuse thing is screaming all over social media, for example, #metoo. Social media can be very powerful.
I'm hopeful that people will be "outed", although there are multiple significant reasons for skepticism. I'm going with "hopeful" because I'm just that kind of person and it's something I really want. This stuff has to end.
I'm talking about how the legal options a plaintiff would have could tie things up for years and force Feldman to spend his time and money all while opening new wounds.
Would you consider contacting him and telling him you would defend him in a libel case if he named names?
Quote:
The burden would be on the plaintiff to prove that Feldman is lying, not on Feldman to prove that what he is saying is true.
I'm talking about how the legal options a plaintiff would have could tie things up for years and force Feldman to spend his time and money all while opening new wounds.
True....but Feldman is not necessarily without options to fight back. While I don't know the ins and outs of California law and Statutes of Limitations, if the plaintiff were to bring these issues up, then he would likely be opening the door for Feldman to assert counterclaims in the millions of dollars for pain and suffering, lost earnings, and other damages relating to the alleged abuse. With the plaintiff's already difficult road to prove that Feldman is lying, plus potential liability on counterclaims by Feldman, Feldman could be in position for a good settlement if a perpetrator were to actually bring a slander or libel lawsuit.
Would you consider contacting him and telling him you would defend him in a libel case if he named names?
Definitely an issue....but someone willing to make a name for him or herself would also likely take a financial risk to potentially reap a huge reward, in both money and publicity.
Truth is a complete defense, but it doesn't pay the attorney's fees.
Plus, Feldman would be able to counter-sue for legal fees and damages.
Given the high profile nature of this case, I can almost guarantee a Gloria Allred type would do it pro-bono.
The risk a pedophile has of suing a person who accuses them of a a true act of pedophilia is enough of a deterrent IMO - especially if their closet is littered with more skeletons like it probably is.
IMO they'd be better served (if it's true) issuing a swift denial, maybe even threaten to sue, and hope it goes away.
Lastly, Feldman has a very low net worth, he's at risk of losing almost nothing. In fact in the court of public opinion it could even help to have him viewed sympathetically.
Plus, Feldman would be able to counter-sue for legal fees and damages.
Given the high profile nature of this case, I can almost guarantee a Gloria Allred type would do it pro-bono.
The risk a pedophile has of suing a person who accuses them of a a true act of pedophilia is enough of a deterrent IMO - especially if their closet is littered with more skeletons like it probably is.
IMO they'd be better served (if it's true) issuing a swift denial, maybe even threaten to sue, and hope it goes away.
Lastly, Feldman has a very low net worth, he's at risk of losing almost nothing. In fact in the court of public opinion it could even help to have him viewed sympathetically.
Bingo.
Plus, Feldman would be able to counter-sue for legal fees and damages.
Given the high profile nature of this case, I can almost guarantee a Gloria Allred type would do it pro-bono.
The risk a pedophile has of suing a person who accuses them of a a true act of pedophilia is enough of a deterrent IMO - especially if their closet is littered with more skeletons like it probably is.
IMO they'd be better served (if it's true) issuing a swift denial, maybe even threaten to sue, and hope it goes away.
Lastly, Feldman has a very low net worth, he's at risk of losing almost nothing. In fact in the court of public opinion it could even help to have him viewed sympathetically.
Well Allred has never been afraid of a TV camera, let's see her step up and make the pro bono offer. And while maybe Feldman's low net worth would create sympathy with a jury, it wouldn't pay any attorney's fees.
It’s just a dumb subject upon which to strike a partisan tone. As a previous poster noted, this is something that cuts across many industries…potentially anywhere there exists a powerful vs subjected dynamic. Weinstein & young women seeking roles. Foley & DC pages. Hastert and his student (?). Coaches & their players. And of course Clergyman & children. To name only some. (I’d cite a couple more high profile men but that would send the thread to deletion).
Important to highlight a distinction between harassment and actual physical abuse (especially toward minors) but it’s all fucking disgusting.
Hopefully these “elite” outlets – like, also, the Globe and its Spotlight reporting – continue to expose the odious who sliver among us. Seemingly a thankless endeavor if the tone of the OP is representative.
agree
Quote:
says is true and he has proof or even corroborating witnesses it would be beyond risky for anyone to sue him for libel or defamation.
Plus, Feldman would be able to counter-sue for legal fees and damages.
Given the high profile nature of this case, I can almost guarantee a Gloria Allred type would do it pro-bono.
The risk a pedophile has of suing a person who accuses them of a a true act of pedophilia is enough of a deterrent IMO - especially if their closet is littered with more skeletons like it probably is.
IMO they'd be better served (if it's true) issuing a swift denial, maybe even threaten to sue, and hope it goes away.
Lastly, Feldman has a very low net worth, he's at risk of losing almost nothing. In fact in the court of public opinion it could even help to have him viewed sympathetically.
Well Allred has never been afraid of a TV camera, let's see her step up and make the pro bono offer. And while maybe Feldman's low net worth would create sympathy with a jury, it wouldn't pay any attorney's fees.
until someone actually sues there are no attorney fees. Easy for me to say since it's not me.
Excellent post.
Quote:
Isn't why this poor slob doesn't name names, it's why does CA have the statute of limitations law for child rape?
So do most states. In NYS there is a statute of limitations. I believe you have 5 years from the committed act for child sexual abuse. It is really ridiculous, as many (most?) victims don't come forward until years later for a variety of reasons. Sexual abuse can be crippling for anyone, but it is especially true of a child and it has long lasting effects. Many can't even begin to deal with the trauma until well into their adulthood, when the statute of limitations is long gone.
This is where my wife is. As a young girl into her teens she was molested. When she finally came forward her family didn't take her seriously because it was a family member. It wasn't until her mid-20s that she began dealing with this in therapy and the it was far too late. In that regard, there is no real sense of closure for the victims.
Matt, Excellent post and I feel for your situation and your wife's trauma. People that have experience with this understand perfectly well why very strong people often do not come forward and the many institutional barriers to doing so. Survivors of molestation that come forward are to be applauded and protected, not chastised for doing too little too late.
Walters practically blamed the victim - for such an outrageous accusation!
Do you think it's appropriate that Barbara Walters in a TV interview completely dismissed Feldman's allegation without consideration that it might be true? Treating him like he's an irresponsible nutjob?
Do you think it's appropriate that Woody Allen (accused by multiple people of being a child molester) and Roman Polanski (a known child rapist - drugged and sodomized a 13 year old girl) get standing ovations at award ceremonies?
Your big problem is that I called them hollywood/media elites?
The word "elite" bothers you that much?
He's pretty much the definition of elite.
The term is splitting hairs anyway. The point was that Hollywood has no problem lauding and fostering people who have had some really nasty allegations tossed their way.
It’s just a dumb subject upon which to strike a partisan tone. As a previous poster noted, this is something that cuts across many industries…potentially anywhere there exists a powerful vs subjected dynamic. Weinstein & young women seeking roles. Foley & DC pages. Hastert and his student (?). Coaches & their players. And of course Clergyman & children. To name only some. (I’d cite a couple more high profile men but that would send the thread to deletion).
Important to highlight a distinction between harassment and actual physical abuse (especially toward minors) but it’s all fucking disgusting.
Hopefully these “elite” outlets – like, also, the Globe and its Spotlight reporting – continue to expose the odious who sliver among us. Seemingly a thankless endeavor if the tone of the OP is representative.
Lastly, Feldman has a very low net worth, he's at risk of losing almost nothing.
For almost anybody the potential of losing everything one has doesn't feel like "nothing".
Quote:
Lastly, Feldman has a very low net worth, he's at risk of losing almost nothing.
For almost anybody the potential of losing everything one has doesn't feel like "nothing".
Do you know the standard for winning a libel or defamation case?
If the allegations are true, I would not expect a lawsuit.
I'd expect some boisterous denials, threats of lawsuits, and then nothing.
You almost literally can't win if the claims against you are true.
Quote:
Quote:
Lastly, Feldman has a very low net worth, he's at risk of losing almost nothing.
For almost anybody the potential of losing everything one has doesn't feel like "nothing".
Do you know the standard for winning a libel or defamation case?
If the allegations are true, I would not expect a lawsuit.
I'd expect some boisterous denials, threats of lawsuits, and then nothing.
You almost literally can't win if the claims against you are true.
I am not disputing that, just pointing out that losing everything doesn't feel like nothing as you noted for a reason he should proceed.
maybe this isn't a big deal to some, but a standing ovation for a convicted child rapist ain't too cool, imo.
Before anyone accuses me of using a biased website, I don't know anything about the site. I just know it has the video of the standing O for a child rapist.
lonk - ( New Window )
1. This is a Hollywood story, and Hollywood stories are likely to generate more interest than college football stories, especially on in a global sense. Disclaimer: I don't mean to categorize the Sandusky situation as a college football story. I don't see it that way, but others do. It's much more than that.
2. There is tremendous buzz right now regarding abuse in Hollywood. It's a very hot topic. I don't think the Sandusky disgrace generated the same energy and urgency (sadly).
3. Social media. What kind of social media presence did the Sandusky story have? Very little. The Hollywood abuse thing is screaming all over social media, for example, #metoo. Social media can be very powerful.
I'm hopeful that people will be "outed", although there are multiple significant reasons for skepticism. I'm going with "hopeful" because I'm just that kind of person and it's something I really want. This stuff has to end.
I truly hope that you're right and I'm wrong, and that things will be different this time around. Just that after all of the Weinstein hubbub, knowing that the only outcome is that one guy will have to retire early (and keep all his money) doesn't give me a lot of confidence.
Poor slob? That's some bedside manner there, doctor.
I was simply saying #1 the statute of limitations which was preventing him from coming forward was removed in CA in 2016 and that fear of being sued (if he is telling the truth and has proof) should not be the main reasons why he doesn't.
He should do whatever he is comfortable with, but there are a few ways to mitigate his fears of lawsuit.
Priests of the Catholic Church or Hollywood Producers. It doesn't matter.
But as the one article linked above shows, documentaries on the Catholic Church pedophiles can get Oscar nominations. Documentaries on Hollywood pedophiles can't get made (or if they are made it's with no financing, no distribution, recognition, etc.)
Because the middle of a game thread is nowhere to declare that your grandfather molested you as a child.
Seems to be a different tone here, don't you think?
Maybe I could've left out my feelings about not wanting to be lectured by so many who have, imo, been looking the other way and enabling this type of thing.
Anywho, I've spent way too much time here. Have a nice day.
I was simply saying #1 the statute of limitations which was preventing him from coming forward was removed in CA in 2016 and that fear of being sued (if he is telling the truth and has proof) should not be the main reasons why he doesn't.
He should do whatever he is comfortable with, but there are a few ways to mitigate his fears of lawsuit.
Sorry if I misinterpreted you point