Statement Regarding Moss...Via Reiss

[neuronet]

Monk here.

Here's what happened:
1. They were hanging out partying and she hurt her hand.
2. They were too drunk to go to the hospital.
3. She got her medical attention, and it cost her a few bucks. Moss didn't offer to play.
4. When the lawyers got involved, Moss offered to reimburse her for the injuries.
5. She got herself in with a selfish basturd of a lawyer, who went for the jugular.
6. Moss said, FU to the lawyer.
7. Now, it escalates. Rochelle is now hungry for a book deal, so it is in her best interest to keep it going, get as much media attention as possible. Simply put, she has become a whore.

 

[mosi]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0116081moss1.html


I find it interesting that she doesn't know his place of employment......

Also, who filled the form out? The description of the event is written very vague.

Also, she fears retaliation because she sought medical attention for her finger? That is why she wants a restraining order?

 

[Watson's IQ]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0116081moss1.html


I find it interesting that she doesn't know his place of employment......

Even better than that, on the first page where it asks for "Date of Birth of Petitioner" she put 10/22/08.. Something tells me she's not quite playing with a full deck. But then, sometimes finger injuries can cause serious psychological trauma, so who knows.

 

[VJCPatriot]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0116081moss1.html


I find it interesting that she doesn't know his place of employment......

Wow. This is just, wow. It sounds like the lawyer dictated to her what to write on the form or something. Does she even know what battery means? How does a hurt finger that comes up with a negative x-ray constitute a "serious injury?"

 

[TN Patriot]

They should have required more information to process this. I have heard TRO's are given out fairly easily in Florida, but most I have seen the required a more detailed narrative. Something is up with this.

 

[Fahrenhype]

Even better than that, on the first page where it asks for "Date of Birth of Petitioner" she put 10/22/08.. Something tells me she's not quite playing with a full deck. But then, sometimes finger injuries can cause serious psychological trauma, so who knows.

"Your honor, clearly my client did not get into an altercation with a fetus two weeks before the mother was inseminated."

 

[JR4]

There is a lot in that statement that just makes no sense or shows
exactly what these lawyers want.

1. If Randy's lawyers offered 6 figures
why didn't they accept .... if
it's "never been her intention to hurt Mr. Moss in any way."

2."Ms. Washington has been unfairly characterized as someone simply seeking financial gain"
I guess seeking millions of bucks for horsing around and accidently
getting hurt isn't seeking financial gain.

3. Couldn't drive?
( I guess she couldn't call a Cab or have any friends that would take her
... there must have been some friends at her house if there is to be
evidence on Randy's ability to recall things )

4. Battery?
If they were engaged in consentual horsing around there was no battery.

5. "Do your homework and check his resume." remark shows
They intend on bringing up Randy's past ... she will air all the
dirty laundry she knows about Randy in public court.

Someone didn't think the term "blood sucking lawyers" was appropriate.
Well what say you now?

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

5. "Do your homework and check his resume." remark shows
They intend on bringing up Randy's past ... she will air all the
dirty laundry she knows about Randy in public court.

That cheap shot he kinda had coming. Randy had said "do you your home work and check my resume, ask around I don't hit women" or something like that.

 

[pats-blue]

Re: Statement Regarding Moss..Via Reiss

Actually, she has the burden of proving all of the elements of the statute. You're right that the standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt." She has to show a "preponderance of the evidence."

It's still a real burden of proof. Judges will issue temporary 15 day restraining orders at the drop of a hat. A permanent injunction is a much bigger deal. People have the constitutional right to go where they want to go in this country, and a restraining order impinges on that right. This is why you are entitled to a full due process hearing with the other side having the burden of proof before a permanent restraining order can be issued against you.

Actually that is not correct. It is a hearing for a protection order only. This is purely a CIVIL hearing. There is no such thing as a"permanent injunction" in this case. A RESTRAINING ORDER is valid for approx 1 year depending on the Court in that County. This isn't a Constitutional issue at all and I am not sure where you are getting that. "Impinges on his right"? I don't think you get what a Protection or restraining order is. It will prohibit him from going to TWO places, her home and work. He would not be able to contact her and might not be able to drive down her street depending what the judge says but it does NOT impinge on any Constituational rights.

You are only entitled to the hearing if you request it, to get the order quashed. Moss' attorneys are not contesting it and in fact what I have heard they what to let it stay in effect. They are attending to make sure it isn't expanded by her saying some other wild things.

What "statue" are you talking about that she needs to prove? If Moss wanted the order quashed he would show up and she would have to preset her side and he would present his side. There is no evidenciary threshold to meet in a OOP hearing. You are entitled to question the petioner and the judge listens to both sides and makes thier decision. There is no statute involved at all.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Re: Statement Regarding Moss..Via Reiss

Actually that is not correct. It is a hearing for a protection order only. This is purely a CIVIL hearing. There is no such thing as a"permanent injunction" in this case. A RESTRAINING ORDER is valid for approx 1 year depending on the Court in that County. This isn't a Constitutional issue at all and I am not sure where you are getting that. "Impinges on his right"? I don't think you get what a Protection or restraining order is. It will prohibit him from going to TWO places, her home and work. He would not be able to contact her and might not be able to drive down her street depending what the judge says but it does NOT impinge on any Constituational rights.

You are only entitled to the hearing if you request it, to get the order quashed. Moss' attorneys are not contesting it and in fact what I have heard they what to let it stay in effect. They are attending to make sure it isn't expanded by her saying some other wild things.

What "statue" are you talking about that she needs to prove? If Moss wanted the order quashed he would show up and she would have to preset her side and he would present his side. There is no evidenciary threshold to meet in a OOP hearing. You are entitled to question the petioner and the judge listens to both sides and makes thier decision. There is no statute involved at all.

Not for nothing, but this is so wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

A court order compelling a person to do or not do something, or affecting an economic right, always raises a constitutional/due process issue. Even if it's for just $.01.

Anyway, orders of protection in Florida, like everywhere, are SOLELY creatures of statute. The statute under which this claimant is proceeding is Fla. Stat. sec. 784.046. If you want to read it, it's here: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes..._Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0784/Sec046.HTM

You're also entirely wrong about the fact that the order continues in 15 days unless the repondent demands a hearing. The order was obtained ex parte. That is extremely unusual in the law. It can only be done on an emergency basis. There is a 200 plus year constitutional tradition in this country that no order shall enter against a person without the opportunity to respond. Accordingly, the injunction dissolves automatically in 15 days unless a hearing is held at which the complainant establishes that the statutory prerequisites are met. (Although the 15 days can be extended once by the judge for extraordinary circumstances.) This is why the hearing was set 14 days after the initial order issued. Moss does not have to move to have the order quashed to be entitled to a hearing. You're just making stuff up.

Moss doesn't have to show up if he doesn't want to, in which case it will be converted into a permanent injunction so long as the judge finds she meets her burden.

"Preponderance of the evidence" is the burden of proof on petitioners and plaintiffs in civil actions in every court room in america.

 

[Pujo]

Re: Statement Regarding Moss..Via Reiss

Not for nothing, but this is so wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.
...

"Preponderance of the evidence" is the burden of proof on petitioners and plaintiffs in civil actions in every court room in america.

Actually, he's right. The statute doesn't spell out the required burden of proof, and in some cases civil courts use standards other than preponderance of the evidence. One commonly used alternative burden of proof is "clear and convincing evidence" used in most child custody cases (it's a harder burden to meet than preponderance, but not quite beyond a reasonable doubt). It looks like the statute leaves it up to the court to determine what standard of proof is enough.

 

[DarrylS]

what I do not like it that this is being tried in the press and there has been nothing substantive offered as of now, by the time we find out the truth we will probably all be disapointed.. this is the type of stuff that should have never been this well known.. too much information, too much speculation..

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Re: Statement Regarding Moss..Via Reiss

Actually, he's right. The statute doesn't spell out the required burden of proof, and in some cases civil courts use standards other than preponderance of the evidence. One commonly used alternative burden of proof is "clear and convincing evidence" used in most child custody cases (it's a harder burden to meet than preponderance, but not quite beyond a reasonable doubt). It looks like the statute leaves it up to the court to determine what standard of proof is enough.

Right -- but clear and convincing evidence is more strict, not less, than preponderance of the evidence.

No person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. It might seem silly to say that telling someone they can't go within 100 yards of a car or 500 yards of a person implicates "liberty" within the meaning of the constitution, but it does. If a judge were to enter an injunction against you saying you couldn't smoke in Green Bay Wisconsin on leap day, it would impact your liberty and it would raise a constitutional issue. Even if you never plan to go to Green Bay. Even if you don't smoke. Even though leap day only happens once every 4 years.

The Supreme Court has held that, except in very unusual circumstances, you can't put the burden on the person being deprived of liberty to establish their innocense. Nor can you try a person in this country in abstentia.

The notion that people could get 15 day restraining orders ex parte and without hearings is a fairly new one in the law. It's a very large exception to the ordinary constitutional rules. But it's tolerated because sometimes it's necessary to protect people.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Re: Statement Regarding Moss..Via Reiss

Actually, he's right. The statute doesn't spell out the required burden of proof, and in some cases civil courts use standards other than preponderance of the evidence. One commonly used alternative burden of proof is "clear and convincing evidence" used in most child custody cases (it's a harder burden to meet than preponderance, but not quite beyond a reasonable doubt). It looks like the statute leaves it up to the court to determine what standard of proof is enough.

Unlikely, more likely there is a stature on the books in Florida that says unless otherwise modified by stature in all civil actions that burden is preponderance. That is what many states do.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Re: Statement Regarding Moss..Via Reiss

Unlikely, more likely there is a stature on the books in Florida that says unless otherwise modified by stature in all civil actions that burden is preponderance. That is what many states do.

Probably right. The only time you see a standard higher than preponderance is when it's constitutionally compelled -- like in defamation cases where the 1st amendment actually requires clear and convincing. (And, of course, criminal cases, where the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is required by the constitution.)

Somtimes you see it even where it's not constitutionally compelled, but very very rarely. Like some states require fraud to be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

 

[hambone1818]

Hold on...so she doesn't know Randy Moss' employment but knows his lawyers name and phone number? And two separate statements really jumped out at me:

1) "Committed a battery upon Petitioner causing serious injury. Respondant refused to allow Petitioner to seek medical treatment"

--Serious injury? A non-broken or -dislocated finger? OK, sure. And in what way did Moss 'refuse to allow' her to seek medical treatment? Very vague...did he block the door? Threaten her with a knife? Continue to bang her, thus not allowing her to get to the hospital? Makes no sense, at all.

2) "Petioner(sp) fears retalitory(sp) action by Respondant for seaking medical treatment."

--Again, makes zero sense. She fears that Moss is going to attack her for...going to the doctor? Very vague, and more than that it just doesn't make sense.

This is unfortunately a non-issue that will be trumped up by the media and result in a settlement that makes Moss appear guilty. She'll get her money, the lawyer will get his 15%, and Moss' name will be dragged through the mud. Seems like (most) everyone will be happy.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Re: Statement Regarding Moss..Via Reiss

Why? Are you saying you buy all of this without proof?

I sincerely hope even if Moss was drinking that he denies it. Admitting it will hurt him hugely even though it has nothing to do with whether he's guilty.

 

[RayClay]

Re: Statement Regarding Moss..Via Reiss

That's the money quote, IMO.

R-e-$-$-p-e-c-t?