Walt, the idea here is that she is not suing for rape. She is suing for racketeering. She claims that both the college and the church helped cover it up in violation of federal law, and she is suing for damages.
On June 17, 2020, Dave Hyles filed a motion to dismiss all charges against him by Joy Evans Ryder. Dave referred to a previous motion filed by the church and college that claimed that 1) the statute of limitations has expired and 2) that the RICO (anti-racketeering laws) does not apply to Joy’s case.
Opinion: 1) Dave refers to a Supreme Court ruling that RICO expires four years after discovery of the crime, while a federal law states that there is not a statute of limitations if it is a sex crime against a minor.
2) The courts have consistently ruled that when there is a contradiction between the INTENT of the lawbreakers vs. what the law actually SAYS, then what the law actually says is valid. Lawmakers probably did not intend RICO to be used against churches, but if RICO allows it, it is legal.
Several times, Dave complains that Joy makes general statements about the church /college covering up crime, without naming individuals.
Opinion: That’s why she’s suing the ORGANIZATIONS, not various people within the organizations.
Dave spends a lot of time arguing that the federal laws do not apply to him, and that the statue of limitations has expired. He cites some court rulings and laws to support this claim.
Opinion: There will have to be some court rulings on contradictory laws.
Dave claims that because he did not violate all of the provisions of RICO and obstruction of justice, he cannot be prosecuted for either charge, because he did not show a pattern of violating these laws.
Opinion: Dave is not being sued for a “pattern” of rape; he is being sued for raping a specific individual.