Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

DSK Accuser Suing the Post for Libel

* 7/5/11 at 12:50 PM

The woman who accused Dominique Strauss-Kahn of sexual assault is now suing the New York Post for a story the paper ran on Saturday claiming that she was working as a prostitute in the hotel as a side gig to her job as a housekeeper. From the filing: "All of these statements are false, have subjected the plaintiff to humiliation, scorn and ridicule throughout the world by falsely portraying her as a prostitute or as a woman who trades her body for money and they constitute defamation and libel per se."

[Reuters]

this new level of injustice of letting one woman from the scum class destroy a public servant

got a problem with people who work for a living?

he's an international banker and a politician for christ sakes, he's the epitome of scum class

Lord I can just see the fun the New York Post lawyers would have getting her under oath and doing a detail questioning of this lady as well as being able to get court orders to look at all those strange bank accounts just to start with in defensing against a civil suit by her.

Yes I am sure she is as pure as Firefly try to paint her and the Post lawyers would come up with nothing, LOL and more LOL............

Blame it on old-fashioned discomfort, so out-of-step in our culture of sexual hyper-frankness, when it comes to discussing the nature and details of an alleged rape. Or blame it on political correctness that rarely accords alleged rapists the usual presumption of innocence and had, in a working single-mother African immigrant, a near-perfect caricature of the perfect victim. Or blame it on the idea that, since Mr. Strauss-Kahn is well-known as a philandering rogue, he must perforce also be a brute. Or blame it on the political calculations of a Manhattan district attorney with a less-than-sure touch who might well have been reluctant, when it came to the question of whether to rush DSK's case to a grand jury, to be seen siding with the powerful against the powerless.

Blame it on all of the above. In the case of People v. Dominque Strauss-Kahn, each of us—inveterate Francophobes, knee-jerk victimologists and so on—had a reason to idle our brain.

So this is as good an opportunity as any to ask where else we might be committing similar blunders. The climate change obsession, with its Manichean concept of polluting corporations versus noble eco-warriors? The Wall Street obsession, with its belief the boardroom boys were criminally guilty of the financial crisis? The China obsession, with its view that the Middle Kingdom is destined to overtake the U.S. in global economic and political clout? The Israel obsession, with its notion that if only Jewish settlements were removed from the West Bank peace would break out throughout the Middle East?

In each of these cases, the media (broadly speaking) has too often been guilty of looking only for the evidence that fits a pre-existing story line. It doesn't help that in journalism you can usually find the story you're looking for, whether it's record-breaking heat in some corner of the world, or malicious Israeli settlers making life miserable for their Palestinian neighbors, or evidence of financial chicanery in Manhattan, or of economic prowess in Shanghai.

But anecdotes are not data—which happens to be the world's most easily neglected truism. Also true is that sloppy moral categories like the powerful and the powerless, or the selfish and the altruistic, are often misleading and susceptible to manipulation. And the journalists who most deserve to earn their keep are those who understand that the line of any story is likely to be crooked.

and you are back in Salem

Quote:

he's an international banker and a politician for christ sakes, he's the epitome of scum class

Oh so how would you run the international finance system?

I think this would be an excellent post to advise "Ophelia's" counsel of.

They would need to burn thousands of man hours going through my postings looking for hints that I had given concerning my personal life and then having high price private detectives track me down

What, you have no plans to attend an A2K meet and greet?

In the School of Scandal textbook, the first rule of holes is to stop digging. When you've made a mis take, don't get yourself in any deeper.
The Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., apparently is now learning that lesson. Or maybe he's still ignoring it at his own peril. It's hard to tell what he is thinking.
The kindest explanation for how he and his team screwed up the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case is that they made the best decisions they could with the information they had. Defenders of Vance, and there are a few, say the circumstances gave him little choice, and they applaud his recent admissions that the hotel maid has a habit of lying as proof of his professionalism and integrity. They argue that what's clear in hindsight was muddy in real time.


Sorry, that's an excuse, not an explanation. For lawyers to say the legal system worked in this case is like a doctor who says the operation was a success when the patient died.
The case could be a mere billing dispute over sex that ran amok because prosecutors didn't take time to get the facts. Defending that decision makes them sound like, well, unscrupulous defense lawyers.
The DA's job is to make the right decision the first time, not to make the first decision quickly and then beg for understanding when the facts go south. Perfection isn't required, but Vance will dig himself in even deeper if he argues this mess is defensible.
The biggest mistake was the rushed decision to indict Strauss-Kahn immediately because prosecutors wanted to keep him in jail. Otherwise, he would have been released and they feared he would flee to France, which does not have an extradition treaty with the United States.
But that decision meant that, under state law, they had only five days to indict him. That meant putting the maid before the grand jury -- before they had a chance to fully check out her and her story.
It backfired, and it's not clear only in hindsight. Some people in Vance's office reportedly argued against the rush to indict because they believed a full investigation was necessary to confirm the maid's version. They were right to be cautious -- the investigation ripped the case apart.
There was another option. Prosecutors could have held off on the indictment and accepted Strauss-Kahn's immediate release while arguing that his passport should be seized until the facts of a serious allegation were clear. Indeed, that's what eventually happened, but it came after an indictment that now looks like a serious miscarriage of justice.

Vance, a Democrat elected in 2009 to succeed the legendary Robert Morgenthau, needs to move fast to publicly explain how he got himself into this hole. But first, he needs to drop the shovel.
It's hard to see any way to do that without dropping the charges against Strauss-Kahn. The maid's been unmasked as a serial liar, and couldn't testify in a parking-ticket case.
With prosecution sources telling reporters they're now not sure a crime took place, no jury would ever convict him of rape or sexual assault. Because Strauss-Kahn would be crazy to plead guilty even to a misdemeanor, Vance has two choices: dismissal or pursuing a misdemeanor trial to save face.



Forget a trial. That would be a farce on top of a disaster.
But dismissing the charges against Strauss-Kahn only marks the start of Vance's duty to clear the air about this sordid matter.
He also needs to conduct a credible and timely postmortem about his office's decisions, statements and actions -- including his personal role. He then must release that report and answer questions in a public forum.
Then we'll know whether he's stopped digging.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/cy_starring_in_the_shabby_da_a6Eto5Cqxe2UoN1uqmqeNJ#ixzz1RJ0DSnMa

I don't think anyone should be above the law.

I don't much care what you think about it.