Jump to content

Axl Sued For Sexual Assault


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Stay.Of.Execution said:

Stop spreading bullshit 

I not spread BS, i read it, then i accept that Internet is full of BS. Thanks for nothing......

1 hour ago, Georgina Arriaga said:

That Is misinformation

Now will delete  my post.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, History2010 said:

Default judgement could be worse financially. Courts really don't appreciate being ignored so the penalties could be a lot more severe than if he just participates and is found liable.

That might be true, but I imagine Axl is wealthy enough to not have to worry about it as much.

3 hours ago, Blackstar said:

From what I understand, it's the plaintiff's responsibility to serve the lawsuit properly. If they fail or are not able to do it in the ways provided for in the civil law codes, they can request the court to allow them to serve it in another way.

Three visits to his door and a mailed letter would normally be considered sufficient even if there was no answer at the door.

3 hours ago, Blackstar said:

In the lawsuit of the woman who claims she was injured by Axl's mic, her lawyers haven't been able to serve the lawsuit to Team Brazil (who is one of the defendants) yet, and the court gave them permission to publish ads in the LA Times and other newspapers and also try to send it by email (the lawsuit hasn't been served yet even after that):

Has anybody seen these ads? :lol:

3 hours ago, Avillart said:

He doesn't have the option to ignore it. Once he/his lawyers got the 30 days (or whatever the time frame in this case is, in the Russell Brand case it was 30 days) he/they have to respond. Also, it doesn't look good to the outside to "ignore" it, especially when it's a person in the spotlight.

If he ignores it and fails to respond, there could be a default judgement, but I think there would be less publicity than if he chooses to actively participate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Ratam said:

I not spread BS, i read it, then i accept that Internet is full of BS. Thanks for nothing......

Now will delete  my post.

It's ok @Ratam we all misread things on the internet, that reply was a bit aggressive for no reason. I am a bit worried about how this lawsuit is going to play out now though 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

Three visits to his door and a mailed letter would normally be considered sufficient even if there was no answer at the door.

Has anybody seen these ads? :lol:

In TB's/Fernando's case it isn't considered service (see the document I posted: https://jumpshare.com/s/8mdVcUdO8L29KYBphNUw)

I suppose Axl can delay it and gain more time, but not ignore it (and I don't think he intends or wants to, since his attorney responded to the press right away).

I can look for the ads (notices) :lol:

Edited by Blackstar
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BluegrassBlues said:

It's ok @Ratam we all misread things on the internet, that reply was a bit aggressive for no reason. I am a bit worried about how this lawsuit is going to play out now though 

I came off more aggressive as I intended, sorry. I just get annoyed about this topic after all the Karen Rodgers saga 😛

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stay.Of.Execution said:

I came off more aggressive as I intended, sorry. I just get annoyed about this topic after all the Karen Rodgers saga 😛

That's completely understandable, we're all human! I know I'm newer around here, but from all the past threads I've caught up on she has been here for years and has posted a lot of cool stuff, so I don't believe she would ever intentionally say anything that wasn't true. Personally I don't consider Sheila a victim based on everything I've read, and I'm so ready for this lawsuit to be over with 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BluegrassBlues said:

It's ok @Ratam we all misread things on the internet, that reply was a bit aggressive for no reason. I am a bit worried about how this lawsuit is going to play out now though 

I don't think anything significant is going to happen for a while. Even when Axl's answer is filed in about two months from now, at this stage it will be just typical (a typical answer is addressing the lawsuit paragraph by paragraph and denying everything without further explanation). Unless he files a counter-suit (e.g. for defamation) along with the answer, but I doubt it.

5 minutes ago, AxlRQ93 said:

So is Axl’s career over

No.

Edited by Blackstar
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Axl is going to be just fine, it is all he said/she said and there is no physical evidence or anything anyways.
If it happened or not (which idk how anyone would be able to find out anyways) now is way too late.

Also, how the hell can someone not break out of a pantyhose? Don't those have holes and are very thin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Skamos66 said:

Axl is going to be just fine, it is all he said/she said and there is no physical evidence or anything anyways.
If it happened or not (which idk how anyone would be able to find out anyways) now is way too late.

Also, how the hell can someone not break out of a pantyhose? Don't those have holes and are very thin?

not when they are used to tie hands together

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

If I understood correctly, there was uncertainty about Fernando's whereabouts and address because supposedly he had moved.

Yes, but also although there was someone there to receive the lawsuit, they refused to give their name, so it was delivered to "John Does". Axl obviously can't say that he has moved (and I don't think he would be interested in having an "excuse" like that), but since there was no one at the door he can be considered absent for a while. But regardless, it is necessary for Axl or someone on his behalf (e.g. his lawyer) to acknowledge the service by signing the papers they received in order for the lawsuit to be considered served.

Edited by Blackstar
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is, for example, Axl's and GN'R's answer to the mic injury lawsuit:

https://jumpshare.com/v/iQ8bp9ncBYZ8gilkJhX4

I expect something similar in this one, too.

Just now, Scream of the Butterfly said:

To my knowledge, it isn't necessary.

According to this, it is:

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/cvp/article-3/312-a/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, BluegrassBlues said:

It's ok @Ratam we all misread things on the internet, that reply was a bit aggressive for no reason. I am a bit worried akmmmmbout how this lawsuit is going to play out now though 

Maybe the fact that passed 34+ years is difficult to get evidences, and it can finish in nothing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ratam said:

Maybe the fact that passed 34+ years is difficult to get evidences, and it can finish in nothing.

That is what I am feeling now, at first I was very sympathetic to her just based on Axl's past record with women, but the more I've learned about it I just honestly do not believe her, and that's not just because I am a fan. If she has real evidence I will eat crow, but for now I just can't say I do 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

It says that a signed acknowledgement "shall constitute proof of service" but I don't see where it says that it's the only possible proof of service or that a person who refuses to sign is considered not to have been served.  If that were the case, then anybody who doesn't want to deal with a lawsuit could easily avoid it by just refusing to sign the documents, which would be absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

It says that a signed acknowledgement "shall constitute proof of service" but I don't see where it says that it's the only possible proof of service or that a person who refuses to sign is considered not to have been served.  If that were the case, then anybody who doesn't want to deal with a lawsuit could easily avoid it by just refusing to sign the documents, which would be absurd.

I suppose it wouldn't say it if it wasn't needed, at least in the case of sending the lawsuit by mail, or it would mention alternatives for proof of service. But not only does it mention it, but it says "must". I'm not sure about the case of leaving it at the door (if the affidavit is enough as proof).

Edited by Blackstar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

I suppose it wouldn't say it if it wasn't needed, at least in the case of sending the lawsuit by mail, or it would mention alternatives for proof of service. I'm not sure about the case of leaving it at the door (if the affidavit is enough as proof).

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/dont-bother-avoiding-process-servers/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...