Brian Banks’ FALSE Rape Accuser Ordered To Pay $2.6M


jstate83

jstate83

GOAT FARM!
Even C/T got to give this one the thumbs up. :lol:

They finally going after that sorry heffa.
With this judgement, the school district can go after her also.
OUT HER.........BREAK HER..........IF POSSIBLE............JAIL HER!!!!



Brian Banks’ FALSE Rape Accuser Ordered To Pay $2.6M
A judge ordered Wanetta Gibson, who falsely accused NFL player Brian Banks of rape while they were students at Long Beach Poly High School, to pay a $2.6 million judgment, The Long Beach Press-Telegram reported Friday.

Wanetta Gibson, who recanted the alleged rape in 2002 that put Banks in prison, was ordered to pay a $1.5 million, plus an additional $1.1 million in fees to the school, including for making a false claim and court-related costs, the Long Beach Press Telegram reported.


NBC 4 Los Angeles reports.

cnn video
 
Last edited:
What pisses me off about this is you see this kinda stuff every year and these women never face criminal charges. She basically destroyed this man's life and his future NFL career just because and the worst she gets is a civil suit. I mean it's not like she actually has 1.5 mil to pay him anyway so most likely what, she'll get her wages garnished for a few hundred a month?
 



unknown1 said:
What pisses me off about this is you see this kinda stuff every year and these women never face criminal charges. She basically destroyed this man's life and his future NFL career just because and the worst she gets is a civil suit. I mean it's not like she actually has 1.5 mil to pay him anyway so most likely what, she'll get her wages garnished for a few hundred a month?
Click to expand...

They probably won't even get that. At most they can charge her with filing a false report - the statute of limitations is long gone on that. A creative DA might try to throw some fraud charges in on her since she used her lie to collect money.
 
This case is just one of the many reasons why the judicial system needs revamping so there are more people in it that understand scientific facts a lot better than just allowing someone's emotions/gut feelings dictates to the outcome. This case is definitely a modern day lynching. Too many brothers have die from hanging just because a White female screamed raped.
 
Last edited:
ALPHA3 said:
Nah we'll pass! She's not an honest criminal.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they are honest because there are no laws to find them guilty. You have to love the laws in Louisiana or the lack thereof, such as the recently adopted constitution amendment signed by Piyush "Bobby" Jindal that allows convicted felons on probation to carry a fire arm. The cowboy gangs and villains from the days of the Wild Wild West would fall in love with modern day Louisiana.
 
jstate83 said:
Even C/T got to give this one the thumbs up. :lol:

They finally going after that sorry heffa.
With this judgement, the school district can go after her also.
OUT HER.........BREAK HER..........IF POSSIBLE............JAIL HER!!!!



Brian Banks’ FALSE Rape Accuser Ordered To Pay $2.6M
A judge ordered Wanetta Gibson, who falsely accused NFL player Brian Banks of rape while they were students at Long Beach Poly High School, to pay a $2.6 million judgment, The Long Beach Press-Telegram reported Friday.

Wanetta Gibson, who recanted the alleged rape in 2002 that put Banks in prison, was ordered to pay a $1.5 million, plus an additional $1.1 million in fees to the school, including for making a false claim and court-related costs, the Long Beach Press Telegram reported.


NBC 4 Los Angeles reports.

cnn video
Click to expand...

:tup:
 
JAG89 said:
I'm sure they are honest because there are no laws to find them guilty. You have to love the laws in Louisiana or the lack thereof, such as the recently adopted constitution amendment signed by Piyush "Bobby" Jindal that allows convicted felons on probation to carry a fire arm. The cowboy gangs and villains from the days of the Wild Wild West would fall in love with modern day Louisiana.
Click to expand...

This time you can't blame this one on BJ. A constitutional amendment does not ever require the signature of the Governor because it becomes law by vote of the people. Any constitutional measure can only be approved by the people. However, the bill that was filed by the legislator to get this measure on the ballot can become law with or without the Governor's signature. At any rate, if this law goes south he has out because the voters of the state approved this. If elected officials could just change the state constitution democracy would end and tyranny would began.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/03/new_orleans_judge_rules_statut.html

An Orleans Parish judge on Thursday ruled that the state statute forbidding certain felons from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, in the wake of a constitutional amendment passed last year that made the right to bear arms a fundamental one in Louisiana. The issue will now go straight to the state Supreme Court, which must decide whether the statute infringes on Louisiana citizens' now-enhanced right to gun possession.

Orleans Parish Criminal District Court Judge Darryl Derbigny on Thursday dismissed the charge against one felon, but took his decision a step further than another judge faced with a similar decision earlier this month.

Derbigny ruled that the entire statute -- RS 14:95.1 -- was unconstitutional after voters last year approved by a sweeping majority a constitutional amendment backed by the National Rifle Association. That bill made gun ownership a "fundamental right," on the same level as freedom of speech or religion.

A court interpreting any law restricting a fundamental right -- as gun ownership is now considered -- must approach it with "strict scrutiny," the highest level of judicial scrutiny.
 
ALPHA3 said:
This time you can't blame this one on BJ. A constitutional amendment does not ever require the signature of the Governor because it becomes law by vote of the people. Any constitutional measure can only be approved by the people. However, the bill that was filed by the legislator to get this measure on the ballot can become law with or without the Governor's signature. At any rate, if this law goes south he has out because the voters of the state approved this. If elected officials could just change the state constitution democracy would end and tyranny would began.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/03/new_orleans_judge_rules_statut.html

An Orleans Parish judge on Thursday ruled that the state statute forbidding certain felons from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, in the wake of a constitutional amendment passed last year that made the right to bear arms a fundamental one in Louisiana. The issue will now go straight to the state Supreme Court, which must decide whether the statute infringes on Louisiana citizens' now-enhanced right to gun possession.

Orleans Parish Criminal District Court Judge Darryl Derbigny on Thursday dismissed the charge against one felon, but took his decision a step further than another judge faced with a similar decision earlier this month.

Derbigny ruled that the entire statute -- RS 14:95.1 -- was unconstitutional after voters last year approved by a sweeping majority a constitutional amendment backed by the National Rifle Association. That bill made gun ownership a "fundamental right," on the same level as freedom of speech or religion.

A court interpreting any law restricting a fundamental right -- as gun ownership is now considered -- must approach it with "strict scrutiny," the highest level of judicial scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Although the law was approved by the voting majority and didn't require Piyush "Bobby" Jindal's signature, it was supported by Jindal and the NRA. And you are right. Elected officials can't amend the constitution without the approval of the voting majority. And as a fundamental right, it would be easier for a person to own a gun then driving a car, since driving a vehicle on public roadways is not a right, but a privilege. A Georgia community near Atlanta has passed a law that requires the head of each household to own a gun or face a penalty.

http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
 
JAG89 said:
Although the law was approved by the voting majority and didn't require Piyush "Bobby" Jindal's signature, it was supported by Jindal and the NRA. And you are right. Elected officials can't amend the constitution without the approval of the voting majority. And as a fundamental right, it would be easier for a person to own a gun then driving a car, since driving a vehicle on public roadways is not a right, but a privilege. A Georgia community near Atlanta has passed a law that requires the head of each household to own a gun or face a penalty.

http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he didn't support it. Even though he did support it, these gun loving yahoo's in Louisiana could have easliy voted this down. How ironic they vote for stuff like this, but vote a measure that would dedicate more funding for education.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top