NY Mets pitcher Johan Santana says if his rape accuser wants to play ball (in court) she needs to reveal her name -- and he wants a judge to throw out the case if she doesn't ... according to new legal documents.
TMZ has obtained Santana's motion to dismiss the civil lawsuit in which his attorneys claim, "Mr. Santana will be placed at a serious disadvantage, for he will be required to defend himself publicly while the Plaintiff will be allowed to make her accusations behind a cloak of anonymity."
The plaintiff filed as Jane Doe, but according to the motion, Florida law requires someone filing a civil lawsuit to "disclose his or her name in the complaint."
Rape accusers commonly remain anonymous in criminal cases, but not in civil matters.
See More
Reader Comments
(Page 1 of 2) | 1 | 2 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments
you cant drag my name through the mud,famous or not. I AGREE WITH YOU JOHAN!
You are innocent until proven guilty. If the alleged accuser's name is not released, the alleged attackers name should not be released either. Some women lie about being raped. The alleged attacker's name is ruined, if if he is found not guilty. His reputation is shot.
I agree that either both names should be public or private until a conviction.
That being said if Santana is so concerned about both parties being on a level playing field I assume he is using public counsel and not trying to buy his way out of it.
Why the civil lawsuit and not a criminal trial? All she wants is money?
well duh! public persons will be open to public and anonymous non famous people will remain anonymous, ESPECIALLY if they are the VICTIM!(altough anyone who is not famous and still choses to come out in public are nothing but fame ho's)(that, again, proves his accuser really is a real victim who wants to be anonymous, look what happened to the poor girl raped by roman polanski - she want to be left alone so bad she even says she wants to forget the whole thing, just because of the media hunting her, the victim!, leave the victims alone!)
As a supporter of victims rights, I agree the victims name should be kept off criminal cases. HOWEVER, if you are filing a civil case without regard to a criminal count then it is all about the MONEY. Hmmm, Rachel Ho-won't-tell's ten million. Just like the woman in the Kobe case. Screw you, if you don't want to follow through with a criminal prosecution I suspect your motives are about money.
He must have banged a lot of broads if he needs specification.
People wake up. You know its all about money! A civil suit instead of criminal? Innocent untill proven guilty, and if he is innocent then she should go to jail for at least 5 years!!!!!
The fact that she hides behind a veil of anonymity, and a CIVL suit just proves she's in it for the money. If she was at all emotionally damaged by this "alleged" rape, should have filed a criminal suit.
WOLF-CRIER!
You don't get raped and take your rapist to court over a financial settlement, you want them to rot in prison for what they've done and so they don't do it to anyone else.
However this lying whore's lawyer should have known that!
Being a rape victim myself, I can understand her need for privacy. The last thing she needs is to have her name plastered all over the place, so this pig of a man can smear that too! It's so degrading.
She did file a criminal complaint, but it was thrown out for lack of evidence. Santana also tried to settle this civil lawsuit, but she would not accept what he offered. He has admitted having sex with her on the golf course, but says it was not rape. I don't know all the facts but believe if a criminal prosecution was not possible, she should have taken whatever money he offered and moved on with her life. If she continues to pursue it, she must reveal her identity.
And people wonder why sexual assault goes unreported in this country...
