Winston's accuser has filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim against her.

[SunDevilNole]

Looks like you're having a conversation with yourself, yo.

 

[CoralGablesNole!!]

Posting for anyone who is interested in Jameis' case.

So far it's just me. Guess that's why they want to hide things about the case in the LR. So no one will see it.

 

[Banditking]

This has been discussed. I think the consensus was that they were misusing some aspect of statute of limitations as it pertained to another issue or some such. Basically, it was expected. . . here, anyway, that this would be denied.

 

[CoralGablesNole!!]

This has been discussed. I think the consensus was that they were misusing some aspect of statute of limitations as it pertained to another issue or some such. Basically, it was expected. . . here, anyway, that this would be denied.

Ah. Link to that thread?

 

[CoralGablesNole!!]

Erika Kinsman, Matt Baker - not "Winston Accuser".

EK is Winston's accuser. Don't get it.

 

[SunDevilNole]

 

[PlantZspear]

if he wins this suit... can he then go after everyone in the media that smeared his good name too? =D
lawl... even tho that would be funny to see that... I know it won't happen... Erica's grounds for dismissal are on such shaky grounds it's abysmal... I'm starting to wonder who's the worst of this whole charade... Erica or Erica's lawyers egging her on with such ridiculously poor arguments that are bound to be shredded in court.
Friggin travesty of comedy is what this is but then I've always considered the blame game of the court system the corrosion of humanities foundations... but that's just me

 

[rdbarks10]

Here's a cut and past from the introduction to their MTD:

I. INTRODUCTION

Neither time nor governing law support the claims in Defendant’s Counterclaim. Because the statements that form the basis for Defendant’s two defamation claims are simply the continued publication of Ms. Kinsman’s statements on December 7, 2012, that she was raped and on January 10, 2013, that Defendant was her rapist, his defamation claims are time-barred under Florida’s single publication rule and two-year statute of limitations. Defendant’s tortious interference claim, premised on the same allegedly defamatory statements, fails for the same reasons. Finally, even if Defendant’s Counterclaim was not time-barred, Ms. Kinsman’s statements are privileged under Florida defamation law and constitute constitutionally protected speech that render her immune from suit.

Portions of Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses should suffer a similar fate and be struck – including, in particular, a highly inflammatory and gratuitous 17-page “Preliminary Statement” in which Defendant attacks Ms. Kinsman’s character and credibility through unfounded claims of lying, manipulating evidence and other impertinent allegations. Accordingly, for the reasons below, the Court should dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaim with prejudice and strike portions of his Answer and Affirmative Defenses.

Problem is she did a movie this year and stated the claims again. My guess is the Colorado lawyers were not on board with her doing a movie. Too late.

 

[Banditking]

There's also the fact that her story has changed several times. Every time she changes it, it seems like it should count as a new claim.