Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

The maid's attorney said the HIV story was untrue when he was interviewed on The Today Show this morning. I think it was in a New York rag mag, which also denied knowing if the alleged victim (the maid) had the virus...only reported she allegedly lived in housing set aside for AIDS victims in Harlem. They didn't go so far as to publish her address, though...unlike some foreign newspapers.

Now there's one hell of a plot line for one of these legal beagle shows. Is a person who is forced into a sex act required to disclose HIV status? If the person didn't disclose it, can it be considered a forced act?

Or was that person simply applying the same allowable force that a citizen can legally use to blow away a criminal in their abode, sort of a slow bullet?

The name of the woman and her picture is now in the public domain thanks to the French press.

So a man should get this kind of treatment for the "crime" of unwise consensus sex?

I had yet to find this information for myself but if it is true as posted on this thread that she enter this country by claiming to be a rape victim she is already aware of the rewards for claiming victim hood and in this case that would be million of dollars in civil suits

Good comedy routine from 2009 about the accused

he French press may consider the personal lives of the nation's politicians off limits, but French comedians don't


video of the routine is at the link

The French press has come up with any number of conspiracy theories - with their suspects ranging from short-CDS hedge fund holders in New York to irate German taxpayers wanting no more IMF-supported bailouts - but the current crop of French "philosophers" stand above the fray in absurdity:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2011/05/frances_intelligentsia_and_imf_chiefs_arrest&fsrc=nwl

Since her name can't be published yet in this country her records must remain off-limits until it is. The French don't have this problem, so they published.

Thank to the internet the silliness of allowing the man name to be drag through the mud but by law the woman ID should be hidden does not work at all.

Do you have the French link to the information that she gotten into the US by claiming rape once before?

Yes - but since I'm in NY right this second I'm not even sure it's legal to link it. Hope one of the legal eagles online will come over and sort this one out.....

So linking to a French newspaper might be illegal? Sound more like China then the US does it not?

Oh well I would not worry about the law so must as upsetting poor Robert as those non-reporting laws had always been on very shaky constitution ground and are enforced mostly by newspapers agreeing to honor the non-reporting of rape “victims” IDs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_shield_law

Identification of alleged rape victims by media outletsAs a matter of courtesy, most newspapers and broadcast media in the United States do not disclose the name of an alleged rape victim during the trial, and if the alleged rapist is convicted, most will continue to not identify the victim. If the case is dropped or the alleged rapist is acquitted, most media will no longer shield the name of the victim.[dubious – discuss] This practice was probably related to laws in some states which made it a crime to publicly reveal the name of the victim in a rape case. When such laws were challenged in court, they were routinely struck down as unconstitutional.[4]

in Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn 420 U.S. 469 (1975), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a Georgia statute that imposed civil liability on media for publishing a rape victim's name. The news station had obtained the victim's name from public court records– a factor the Supreme Court held to be important, noting that "the First and Fourteenth Amendments command nothing less than that the States may not impose sanctions on the publication of truthful information contained in official court records open to public inspection."
in Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court found a Florida statute which provided penalties for media outlets that publicized the name of an alleged rape victim unconstitutional.
in State of Florida v. Globe Communications Corp., 648 So.2d 110 (Fla. 1994), the Florida Supreme Court held that a Florida criminal statute that prohibited the media from identifying the names of sexual assault victims violated the First Amendment. In that case, Globe Communications Corp. twice published the name and identifying information of a sexual assault victim, violating the Florida statute. The paper had lawfully learned the victim's name through investigation. The Florida Supreme Court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Florida Star v. B.J.F., finding that the Florida statute barring any media publication of a rape victim's name was unconstitutional because it was "overbroad"; that is, it punished the media even if, for example, the name of the victim was already known in the community. It also found that the statute was "underinclusive" in that it punished only media publication and not acts by a private person.

it seem that the New York Time Newspaper had reported rape "victims" names.

Also take note that New York State is not listed as one of the three states that still have such laws on the book in the legal article below.

As I stated I think the main problem is that our host Robert might not wish to enter these waters.

Copyright (c) 1993 Fordham Law Review
Fordham Law Review
SYMPOSIUM: THE PRIVACY RIGHTS OF RAPE VICTIMS IN THE MEDIA AND THE LAW *: PERSPECTIVES ON DISCLOSING RAPE VICTIMS' NAMES.


* This Symposium, given at Fordham Law School on January 28, 1993, was cosponsored by the Fordham Law Review and the Fordham Law Women. What follows is an essay written by Professor Denno and commentaries based upon remarks given at the Symposium by Michael Gartner, Linda Fairstein, and Helen Benedict.
April, 1993
61 Fordham L. Rev. 1113
Author
DEBORAH W. DENNO **
Excerpt
INTRODUCTION

THE great majority of news organizations in this country do not publish the names of alleged rape victims either at the time the rape is reported or when the victim testifies at trial. 1 This "conspiracy of silence" 2 is based, in part, on the media's recognition that rape is more personal, traumatic, and stigmatizing than other crimes. 3 Rape victims are also treated differently than other crime victims by American society and the criminal justice system. 4

Two years ago, 5 NBC Nightly News sparked a nationwide debate 6 when it broadcasted the name of the woman who had accused William Kennedy Smith of rape after her identity had been disclosed by two tabloids. 7 The accuser had not wanted her name revealed and was said to have been "shocked" by NBC's decision. 8 Although several news organizations, 9 including The New York Times, 10 subsequently revealed the accuser's name, the other major television networks and most media did not. 11

To date, the United States Supreme Court has protected a news organization's decision to disclose a rape victim's name 12 even though three states -- Florida, 13 South Carolina, 14 and Georgia 15 -- have statutes prohibiting the media from doing so. 16 Florida Star v. B.J.F., 17 the Court's most recent ruling on this issue, however, has left undetermined whether, in certain circumstances, a news organization violates a rape victim's constitutional right to privacy by revealing her name. 18 Although no news organization was found liable ...

The French press doesn't support the rape allegations from what I could figure out - instead, they've added to their original suspicions (hedge funds short-CDS on Greek bonds, irate German taxpayers, etc) the extreme right wing (Strauss-Kahn is jewish, his accuser a Moslem woman from the French-speaking Guinea) though why the extreme right would be in cahoots with African Islamists I've yet to figure out. On her HIV status there is no doubt - the French have obtained a copy of the form she signed in order to get special housing in the HIV-AIDS building in the Bronx; her blood test was attached.

The being the same US that made looking at Wikileaks by a government employee, even on off hours at a personally owned computer, grounds for termination? That government??

The woman who very likely will be found to be the victim in this affair, will inevitably face an excruciating public examination of her life and motives in the eventual trial of DLS. That ordeal is at least justifiable in the interests of doing justiuce to the accused and seeking the truth of the matter.

However, beyond that why would anyone wish to publicize her name, residence, medical status and all the rest at this point?

The only statement of which I am aware from DLS's lawyers indicate their belief that the evidence will not indicate that the event was forced, whatever that may mean. That appears to implicitly acknowledge that some sexual contact occurred. Unravelling the details and the motives of the only two humans in the room at that time is the task of the police and the judicial system - not any of us here.

It is clear that some in France are more sensitive to the relative loss, attendant to this situation, of a prominent person such as DLS than to the supposed equality of justice that both their and our legal systems promise. That difference in attitudes is perhaps understandable (and indeed arguable from their perspective) in that France and most European countries (though France more than most) has a very top down tradition in its political and social affairs. Their revolution in 1789 merely substituted a new aristocracy for the old one. Their government and corporations are heavily populated with graduated of their elite national schools and their legal system reflets a degree of authoritarianism as well. Thes differences are the result of the different choices and traditions of the French- things they are fully entitled to choose for themselves. It is merely useful for us to recognize the different perspectives we bring to these issues.

However, from either perspective, I can see no reason to inflict additional injury on any of the participants in this matter, merely to satisfy curiosity or to advance debating points here. The justice system will eventually determine the truth as well as it can be done. Trying to do it here merely for entertainment or self-promotion is unnecessary, potentially harmful to others and, frankly, stupid.

Oh, these guys are on a long, long crusade to prove that rape doesn't exist, and that the vast majority of reported cases are totally false and represent attacks on men instead. You just happened to walk into the middle of the crusade.

Cycloptichorn

So I'm not in that decision tree, but no I don't think so. The US has no reason to snub Cameron, Cameron has no reason to nominate him and I think the movement to let someone outside of Europe and the US run the show is pretty strong right now.

One French media outlet claims they published the maid's name in order to protect her.

Why Slate.fr Published the DSK Accuser's Name

That a joke as when a man is charge with rape it is on the local news for all to read and hear.

His employer, his family, his neighbors and on and on is given all the details of the charges with his picture in handcuffs shown more likely then not.

If he is found not guilty later that is just too bad.

To get to the bottom of what likely happened. We have already inflicted gratuitous pain on DSK, considering that to this point the woman might be the only one of the two who did anything wrong she should not be immune from the states sadism....in the name of fairness.