Lawyer For Roethlisberger Accuser Attacks ‘Frivolous’ Claim
It’s been quiet as of late on the legal front for Big Ben, but as today’s Tribune Review reports, has an update on the case:
Ben Roethlisberger’s failure to make a sworn legal statement denying an accusation that he sexually assaulted a Nevada casino worker undermines his position, his accuser’s lawyer said this week in a court filing. “This case is not even a ’she said, he said’ case,” Reno attorney Calvin Dunlap wrote. “It is a ’she said’ case because he has never, in this litigation, said otherwise.” Dunlap’s comments came in a 10-page rebuttal filed Tuesday to a motion for sanctions against him, which Roethlisberger’s attorney’s sought for filing what they called a “frivolous” lawsuit designed to “coerce a windfall from an admired, civic-minded and successful football star.” Dunlap called that allegation “bunk.” “She has brought her case for the sole purpose of ending Mr. Roethlisberger’s belief that he can, at will, pursue his narcissistic sense of entitlement to have his way with any and every woman irrespective of their will,” Dunlap wrote.
Subscribe to Steelers Gab via RSS Feed or E-mail and receive daily news updates from us!
This post has 3 comments
October 9th, 2009 at 11:02 am
This is total BULL! Roethlisberger may not have made a sworn legal statement saying he never assaulted her, but he DID make a public statement to the press about a week after this woman made this accusation. Mr. Dunlap’s opinion that Roethlisberger has never once in this litigation said otherwise is a completely bogus statement!
March 23rd, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Here, here leave Ben Roethlisberger alone. How much more crap does this poor man have to deal with. He is a great quarterback and this girl just wants the fame. From the way it looks, she is getting it because the press has nothing better to do then to try this case in the media. Come on a handsome man like that could get any women he wanted why would he have to stoop to her level to making things up????
“The inflammatory language of the rebuttal seems calculated to attract media attention and embarrass Ben into a settlement that the facts themselves do not warrant. It is a common plaintiff ploy, and the media happily cooperates because it is ‘news’ and inspires public debate that may increase readership.” DrGeorge posted this and I have to agree with him.
Too many women cry wolf when they should not just to get money and fame. I cannot believe that the court system does not have someone more pressing to prosecute. That it has to go after anyone with money. Enough is enough leave Ben Roethlisberger alone. Tell this girl to get a job like the rest of the country.
October 10th, 2009 at 11:34 am
The defendant in any lawsuit, including Ben Roethlisberger, has no obligation to prove his innocence. In a civil suit, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving guilt by a preponderance of the evidence. The absence of a ’sworn statement’ to the contrary from Ben proves absolutely nothing. The defendant’s answer to the pleadings, denying guilt, is essentially the same thing in any event.
The quality of the evidence in this case, at least the facts leaked to the public to date, are far from persuasive. The defense by its motion raises a valid legal question: whether the facts alleged by Mr. Dunlop even make out a prima facie case against Ben. Mr. Dunlop in his rebuttal to that motion blithely called the defense motion ‘bunk.’ Disparaging remarks are no substitute for evidence. Moreover, his assertion that the plaintiff’s ’sole purpose’ for bringing the suit was to save other innocent girls from Roethlesberger’s clutches seems laughable and self-serving — or is the plaintiff’s demand for $300,000 in damages not one of the stated purposes of the lawsuit?
The inflammatory language of the rebuttal seems calculated to attract media attention and embarrass Ben into a settlement that the facts themselves do not warrant. It is a common plaintiff ploy, and the media happily cooperates because it is ‘news’ and inspires public debate that may increase readership.
Either Mr. Dunlop has alleged facts sufficient for a prima facie case, or he has not. The court will now rule on the motion and decide if the plaintiff has stated adequate facts to justify a trial. In the meantime, any collateral statements by either attorney are pure posturing and wholly irrelevant. Nor is the American public likely to be fooled by such remarks. The average Joe may be naive and gullible in some things, but he certainly knows the difference between steak and baloney.