“Kesha’s abuse allegations didn’t state a time, place, or specific type of conduct … Her claims of insults as an artist, her looks, and her weight are insufficient to constitute extreme, outrageous conduct intolerable in civilised society”.
KE$HA’s Rape & Abuse Claims Dismissed By Judge, Contractual Issues Remain
The enduring legal battle between singer Ke$ha (Kesha Rose Sebert) and producer Dr Luke (Lukasz Gottwald) has taken another turn, with the pop starlet suffering a major defeat when all but one of her eight claims of rape and abuse were dismissed by New York Supreme Court Justice Shirley Kornreich.
In the 27-page decision, Kornreich elaborates on the nature of Sebert’s claims and brings to light a number of points as to how and why she settled on dismissal.
In 2013, Sebert failed to record any new material, and thus, Gottwald commenced a breach of contract action in New York.
“Immediately thereafter”, Sebert brought action alleging claims of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and gender violence, which again, allegedly all occurred in California.
Particularly on the matter of what the New York statutes commonly refer to as “hate crimes”, which Sebert alleged Gottwald violated, Kornreich ruled that “Every rape is not a gender-motivated hate crime”, and also rejected the singer’s suggestion that all of Gottwald’s alleged threats over the past decade were motivated by a “hate crime” agenda.
Basically, there were quite a lot of holes in Sebert’s story. Judge Kornreich noticed this, and thus wrote:
The only claim that wasn’t dismissed was the one related to contractual issues, which will be discussed further on April 13; Kornreich concluded that “The remaining arguments of the parties were either unnecessary to reach or were considered and found to be without merit.”
Getting down to brass tacks, Sebert’s claims were recognised in a court of law as counterclaims, filed simply in response to Gottwald’s initial lawsuit against her regarding the contract breach, which he had every right to do as her employer.
Sebert requested leave to amend her statement, which Kornreich also denied for the following reason:
This case has been circulating the wires for some months now, and you can revise or catch up on our coverage of it via the following links:
Both Sebert’s and Gottwald’s lawyers made no comment on Judge Kornreich’s decision.
And one final note, I’d like to discuss for a moment the importance of the word ‘allege’. Tradtionally, to allege something means to make a specific claim, despite there being no solid evidence that that particular version of events actually took place. In Judge Kornreich’s report, there were fifty instances (yes, I counted) where the word ‘allegedly’ (or one of its synonyms) was used to describe the nature of Sebert’s claims. This means that from the beginning, there was never enough evidence to ever truly know whether or not her assertions were factual. Therefore, upon reflection, to have taken any stance other than neutral on this entire matter seems daft, as that means you’ve broken the golden rule and assumed. Don’t you know? Never assume anything, because by doing so you’ll only make an ASS out of U and ME.
As a primarily impartial news platform, IPHYB would again (for the third time) like to remind our readers that the presumption of innocence remains crucial to the function of the legal system, and that only the people directly involved truly know what happened.