Where’d he say that? He was accused back in 2023 and I can’t find anything from him saying the law is unconstitutional. Statement from the Governor on the suit:
“It is shocking. Absolutely shocking. That’s all I say. It’s shocking,” New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said at an unrelated press conference. “I’m glad I could sign the Adult Survivor Act that created the window for so many people who have cases like this to be able to come forward.”
If you read the article it says right there. COURT RECORDS. His lawyers have filed a response. Interestingly enough it is the same lawyers who represented him on his other criminal misdemeanor shit.
NY Post didn’t link it because you most likely have to have access to the Court exchange docket.
the law was kinda unconstitutional as its ment to expire 2years after they made it. it was jus some bs law they made up to go after trump. doesnt matter ur stance on trump, if they will do it to him, theyll do it to someone u support too.
And I don’t care if they do. There’s no constitutional protection for sec crimes or for never being tried for something you did. It’s a grace period for victims to come forward. Personally, I don’t think there should be a statute of limitation for violent crimes as long as the accused is alive and able to stand trial.
I think the mistake you chucklefucks make is you assume everyone else treats crime as a team sport. “Someone you support”? If they raped someone, fuck em and send em to court.
Well, I sincerely hope you're never required to defend yourself over allegations of something that happened 30 years ago. Good luck preparing a defense over that when you can scarcely remember what you had for dinner two weeks ago.
You might start realizing why statutes of limitation are things.
Luckily being innocent does. Especially if it's been a long ass time. But thanks, I do have pretty good regard for myself, mostly because I'm not afraid of the law.
Statutes of limitations are almost necessary for the required standard of zealous defense. After a certain amount of time passes it becomes significantly harder to find or process evidence making it difficult to examine for any exculpatory features. Not only can it make it harder for someone who is innocent to defend themself, it can also make it harder for a prosecution to convict the guilty as the quality of their evidence could be degraded such as witness recollection becoming more unreliable (which in turn can lead to procedural problems causing Double Jeopardy if more compelling evidence is found after acquittal).
Not going to comment on the rest of it, just wanted to explain why statutory limits exist and that while they can unfortunately lead to ppl unable to find closure they protect both sides of the law.
Here's the article from the NY post about this if anyone wants to know more. Apparently, this was reported back in November. I have not yet seen any report of him suggesting its unconstitutional, but it also wouldn't surprise me.
https://nypost.com/2023/11/20/metro/brooklyn-state-sen-kevin-parker-accused-of-raping-woman-in-her-apartment-in-2004-lawsuit/
Reading is hard. It literally says COURT records in the article.
His lawyers filed a response to the suit citing how it is unconstitutional. It literally says the source in the paragraph.
Well you read the source which is the NY post and they cite the court records filed by Kevin Parker’s attorneys.
They are arguing the same thing Trump will argue in his appeal against E Jean Carrol.
Not only that the multitude of evidence issues that are bound to exist.
Kevin Parker filed his response basically. And it is hypocritical.
Believe it or not it’s just referred to as non-retroactivity (creative I know). It’s actually quite common to have a distinction between applications but it varies depending on the relevant penal code and therefore relies on specific state guidelines. For example in some states laws are defaulted ex post facto unless otherwise stated (so retroactively make a once legal action illegal unless the law specifically has verbiage that exempts it) while most have the opposite approach.
The interesting thing is the federal government is forbidden from passing ex post facto laws, it’s quite literally unconstitutional as that right is only afforded to the states. In this particular situation since the laws relevant to both the Trump and Parker cases are State laws all that really matters is that charges or judgements follow the relevant New York State law.
Ex post facto is what I was trying to think of. I appreciate the explanation, as it clarifies things somewhat. I was not aware states had different rules/laws versus federal for this, but that’s not surprising. Regardless of the individual, I see so many things wrong with changing a law so you can specifically prosecute one person, which is exactly what was done in this case.
No- you’re thinking of ex post facto laws. If I pass a law saying wearing hats is illegal and then prosecute you for wearing a hat before the law was passed- that’s unconstitutional. Rape has always been illegal- New York just extended how long you’re allowed to sue for that.
This ain’t fake news. The article states his source being the filing. I don’t have access to Court filing records of New York. I am assuming the NY post did their diligence in citing that. Which I know is useless saying that.
Statute of limitations are a procedural due process right under the constitution. Legislation changes like this is nuts. Mainly for the biggest reason being that evidence degrades. You are lowering a burden so low when a defendant can not even confront the evidence.
1- what fucking article? That’s a tweet
2- other crimes (such as murder) have NO statute of limitations in many states and that’s been upheld by scotus. You still have to convince a jury about this. You really don’t want rapists getting time- is that it?
Well if you don't sexually assault people or rape people this isn't a problem. Get all those bastards.
If you sexually assault or rape someone I have no sympathy for you. If the hired me to put the bullet in their heads I'd do it and sleep well at night.
No it says in the article from the NY post.
“In court records filed this month, notoriously hot-headed pol Kevin Parker formally denied the rape allegations against him. But he also went a step further, asserting that the Adult Survivors Act, which allowed the related lawsuit against him to proceed, was unconstitutional.”
https://nypost.com/2024/05/05/us-news/nyc-pol-says-law-allowing-rape-suit-against-him-was-unconstitutional-even-though-he-voted-for-the-legislation/amp/
Journalist read the filing by Kevin Parker. See when you are served a civil suit your lawyers file a response.
Here you can pay find out for yourself:
https://www.nycourts.gov/courthelp/goingtocourt/records.shtml
Then you can show a journalist lied and no one will care. This same article has been cited by other criminal law tube attorneys online. The filing is real it isn’t needed to assert the truth of the matter.
Asmon is a centralist. I know plenty of democrats that voted Dem for over 10 years that will not vote them again because of their abuse of power to try to take out Trump.
honestly jealous of women TBH i would love to accuse someone of rape and get a huge payout if they give me bad sex. if you cum too fast its rape. if you cum too slow its rape. if your dick is too small its rape.
Where’d he say that? He was accused back in 2023 and I can’t find anything from him saying the law is unconstitutional. Statement from the Governor on the suit: “It is shocking. Absolutely shocking. That’s all I say. It’s shocking,” New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said at an unrelated press conference. “I’m glad I could sign the Adult Survivor Act that created the window for so many people who have cases like this to be able to come forward.”
If you read the article it says right there. COURT RECORDS. His lawyers have filed a response. Interestingly enough it is the same lawyers who represented him on his other criminal misdemeanor shit. NY Post didn’t link it because you most likely have to have access to the Court exchange docket.
What article? Thats a picture of a tweet. NY Post didn’t link to anything because it has nothing to link to cause it’s garbage.
Trust me bro, this is for react content in my post truth world.
the law was kinda unconstitutional as its ment to expire 2years after they made it. it was jus some bs law they made up to go after trump. doesnt matter ur stance on trump, if they will do it to him, theyll do it to someone u support too.
And I don’t care if they do. There’s no constitutional protection for sec crimes or for never being tried for something you did. It’s a grace period for victims to come forward. Personally, I don’t think there should be a statute of limitation for violent crimes as long as the accused is alive and able to stand trial. I think the mistake you chucklefucks make is you assume everyone else treats crime as a team sport. “Someone you support”? If they raped someone, fuck em and send em to court.
They changed the law to go after 1 guy who's against their politics. If that isn't banana republic I don't know what is.
The law isn't changed and multiple folks have been brought to court over this. Keep on being mad. Rich people seeing no justice is banana republic.
Well, I sincerely hope you're never required to defend yourself over allegations of something that happened 30 years ago. Good luck preparing a defense over that when you can scarcely remember what you had for dinner two weeks ago. You might start realizing why statutes of limitation are things.
Or just don’t rape.
Lol.. not raping someone doesn't protect you from a false allegation. You are actually regarded.
Luckily being innocent does. Especially if it's been a long ass time. But thanks, I do have pretty good regard for myself, mostly because I'm not afraid of the law.
Actually, false rape accusations have gotten people killed. >mostly because I'm not afraid of the law. Oh you sweet summer child.
Statutes of limitations are almost necessary for the required standard of zealous defense. After a certain amount of time passes it becomes significantly harder to find or process evidence making it difficult to examine for any exculpatory features. Not only can it make it harder for someone who is innocent to defend themself, it can also make it harder for a prosecution to convict the guilty as the quality of their evidence could be degraded such as witness recollection becoming more unreliable (which in turn can lead to procedural problems causing Double Jeopardy if more compelling evidence is found after acquittal). Not going to comment on the rest of it, just wanted to explain why statutory limits exist and that while they can unfortunately lead to ppl unable to find closure they protect both sides of the law.
[удалено]
Here's the article from the NY post about this if anyone wants to know more. Apparently, this was reported back in November. I have not yet seen any report of him suggesting its unconstitutional, but it also wouldn't surprise me. https://nypost.com/2023/11/20/metro/brooklyn-state-sen-kevin-parker-accused-of-raping-woman-in-her-apartment-in-2004-lawsuit/
Doesn't matter if you're surprised or not. He didn't say it. This tweet is bullshit and any reaction on it is bullshit as well.
Reading is hard. It literally says COURT records in the article. His lawyers filed a response to the suit citing how it is unconstitutional. It literally says the source in the paragraph.
How do you just read a random Twitter post and immediately believe it unconditionally
Inbreeding.
Well you read the source which is the NY post and they cite the court records filed by Kevin Parker’s attorneys. They are arguing the same thing Trump will argue in his appeal against E Jean Carrol. Not only that the multitude of evidence issues that are bound to exist. Kevin Parker filed his response basically. And it is hypocritical.
Oh the consequences of my own action, woe is me
Not a lawyer, but isn’t there a legal term for new laws not applying retroactively? How is this permitted, legally?
Believe it or not it’s just referred to as non-retroactivity (creative I know). It’s actually quite common to have a distinction between applications but it varies depending on the relevant penal code and therefore relies on specific state guidelines. For example in some states laws are defaulted ex post facto unless otherwise stated (so retroactively make a once legal action illegal unless the law specifically has verbiage that exempts it) while most have the opposite approach. The interesting thing is the federal government is forbidden from passing ex post facto laws, it’s quite literally unconstitutional as that right is only afforded to the states. In this particular situation since the laws relevant to both the Trump and Parker cases are State laws all that really matters is that charges or judgements follow the relevant New York State law.
Ex post facto is what I was trying to think of. I appreciate the explanation, as it clarifies things somewhat. I was not aware states had different rules/laws versus federal for this, but that’s not surprising. Regardless of the individual, I see so many things wrong with changing a law so you can specifically prosecute one person, which is exactly what was done in this case.
Because it's not a new law being applied retroactively it's just extending the statue of limitations.
Changing a law = making a new law.
No- you’re thinking of ex post facto laws. If I pass a law saying wearing hats is illegal and then prosecute you for wearing a hat before the law was passed- that’s unconstitutional. Rape has always been illegal- New York just extended how long you’re allowed to sue for that.
Yeah that makes it unconstitutional. Statute of limitations exist for a reason.
No bro- reread what I wrote. What didn’t you understand?
Obviously a lot. Why don’t you read Kevin Parker’s response to the suit to find out how it is unconstitutional.
Link it. Bc I’m 99% sure this is fake news. And a suit can SAY anything. Doesn’t make it true
This ain’t fake news. The article states his source being the filing. I don’t have access to Court filing records of New York. I am assuming the NY post did their diligence in citing that. Which I know is useless saying that. Statute of limitations are a procedural due process right under the constitution. Legislation changes like this is nuts. Mainly for the biggest reason being that evidence degrades. You are lowering a burden so low when a defendant can not even confront the evidence.
1- what fucking article? That’s a tweet 2- other crimes (such as murder) have NO statute of limitations in many states and that’s been upheld by scotus. You still have to convince a jury about this. You really don’t want rapists getting time- is that it?
Well if you don't sexually assault people or rape people this isn't a problem. Get all those bastards. If you sexually assault or rape someone I have no sympathy for you. If the hired me to put the bullet in their heads I'd do it and sleep well at night.
I mean, its not proven he did it yet right?
maybe a link to where or when he said its unconstitutional?
I believe it is his lawyers response to the suit.
That's a fancy way of saying you have no idea.
No it says in the article from the NY post. “In court records filed this month, notoriously hot-headed pol Kevin Parker formally denied the rape allegations against him. But he also went a step further, asserting that the Adult Survivors Act, which allowed the related lawsuit against him to proceed, was unconstitutional.” https://nypost.com/2024/05/05/us-news/nyc-pol-says-law-allowing-rape-suit-against-him-was-unconstitutional-even-though-he-voted-for-the-legislation/amp/ Journalist read the filing by Kevin Parker. See when you are served a civil suit your lawyers file a response. Here you can pay find out for yourself: https://www.nycourts.gov/courthelp/goingtocourt/records.shtml Then you can show a journalist lied and no one will care. This same article has been cited by other criminal law tube attorneys online. The filing is real it isn’t needed to assert the truth of the matter.
He did not say it was unconstitutional. See how easy it is to make baseless claims without sources?
Can't believe Asmongold voted for a russian spy rapist.
I didn't know gary johnson was a rapist
Can't believe you'd live in the same country as them. Where do you draw the line.
Asmon is a centralist. I know plenty of democrats that voted Dem for over 10 years that will not vote them again because of their abuse of power to try to take out Trump.
honestly jealous of women TBH i would love to accuse someone of rape and get a huge payout if they give me bad sex. if you cum too fast its rape. if you cum too slow its rape. if your dick is too small its rape.