David Hyles being sued

If I'm reading the lawsuit correctly, the dirty little secret seems to be that there is no lawsuit unless the judge lifts the 4 year statute of limitations that a private citizen has to sue an organization for damages for corruption, which is what she's alleging.

So it seems that she can put whatever screenshots she wants on social media, the lawsuit isn't a thing until the judge waives the SoL.

Can someone clarify?
 
TidesofTruth said:
50 Times?!?!?!??!?!


In the words of the Great Kanye West "When you hear about slavery for 400 years ... For 400 years? That sounds like a choice."
Click to expand...
So lets be clear....Are you saying she chose to be raped? #2 Kanye West is not great. #3 If a young girl is being threatened & deceived, is it rape? Help us understand your comment.
 
Robin MH said:
If I'm reading the lawsuit correctly, the dirty little secret seems to be that there is no lawsuit unless the judge lifts the 4 year statute of limitations that a private citizen has to sue an organization for damages for corruption, which is what she's alleging.

So it seems that she can put whatever screenshots she wants on social media, the lawsuit isn't a thing until the judge waives the SoL.

Can someone clarify?
Click to expand...

Robin, you are correct about the state statute of limitations having expired. Joy is suing under a federal anti-racketeering law. She maintains that the cover-up violated these laws.
 
Indiana Senate Bill 109 initially aimed to extend the amount of time survivors have to bring criminal charges against their abusers. Under current state law, Hoosiers who were sexually abused as children have until age 31 to criminally prosecute those who harmed them.
An amendment to SB 109 would ultimately keep the statute of limitations in place, but allow for three exceptions to the rule if one of three things occurs: DNA evidence sufficient to charge the offender is discovered, a recording of the crime is revealed, or a confession is made.

www.theindianalawyer.com

Web Exclusive: Senate passes bill extending sex crimes statute of limitations - The Indiana Lawyer

A bill that would have done away with the statute of limitations for certain child sex abuse crimes is making headway in the 2020 Indiana General Assembly. But some advocates are disappointed in how the bill has panned out.
www.theindianalawyer.com www.theindianalawyer.com
 
Supporting Victims said:
Indiana Senate Bill 109 initially aimed to extend the amount of time survivors have to bring criminal charges against their abusers. Under current state law, Hoosiers who were sexually abused as children have until age 31 to criminally prosecute those who harmed them.
An amendment to SB 109 would ultimately keep the statute of limitations in place, but allow for three exceptions to the rule if one of three things occurs: DNA evidence sufficient to charge the offender is discovered, a recording of the crime is revealed, or a confession is made.

www.theindianalawyer.com

Web Exclusive: Senate passes bill extending sex crimes statute of limitations - The Indiana Lawyer

A bill that would have done away with the statute of limitations for certain child sex abuse crimes is making headway in the 2020 Indiana General Assembly. But some advocates are disappointed in how the bill has panned out.
www.theindianalawyer.com www.theindianalawyer.com
Click to expand...
These all seem like reasonable exceptions.
 
If you're curious about why the FFF is a dying Christian hate site, consider that Ransom is an administrator.

Some time ago, a group broke off, complaining, among other things, that Ransom could not possibly be saved. Curious, I looked at some of his attacks on me (I usually didn't read them, because God tells us that scorners have no wisdom). Romans 2:1 tells us that you who judge do the same things. Ransom showed a depth of sin that was incredible--I had never come close to attaining that level of sin either before or after I was saved, and yet Romans 2:1 tells us that all of them describe Ransom.

Don't complain to me--I didn't make the accusations, and "we" didn't make the accusations. Ransom alone made the accusations. And it is God Who said that Ransom was describing himself--I didn't say it, and We didn't say it. God said it.

It took some effort, but I looked up Ransom's accusations against the people who said that he couldn't possibly be saved The ones I could find showed a breadth of sin into areas I had never entered, and yet Romans 2:1 states that all of these sins applied to Ransom.
 
Another site with information on the case: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/32387315/Ryder_v_Hyles_et_al

First Baptist and HAC are being defended by the same two lawyers.

Dave is being represented by a different lawyer than the church and college.

The previous article stated that Dave had been subpoenaed. He was then issued an "Alias Summons" because they were unable to find him. Later, Dave's lawyer appeared in court, but it does not state if Dave was with him.

A lawyer for the church and college asked for a delay, but the judge did not give a ruling that day.
 
Vince Massi said:
Twisted-- Dave, the church, and the college are all defendants.
Click to expand...
How stupid of me. I kept thinking the church was suing Dave. (They probably should!)

I deleted my idiotic comment.
 
Hey, Brother, no problem. I understand that you used to help churches set up their sound systems for free, and I respect you for that.

So far, they have only had a preliminary hearing. The purpose is to establish who the lawyers are, to get the names and addresses straight, to clarify misunderstandings, and to get the trial process started. There has not been a trial yet, but since a judge has been appointed, things are moving.

It LOOKS like HAC and FBCH have deserted Dave--MAYBE.
 
Vince Massi said:
Hey, Brother, no problem. I understand that you used to help churches set up their sound systems for free, and I respect you for that.
Click to expand...

HUH? I think you've got me mixed up with someone else, but thanks anyway.
 
Vince Massi said:
Another site with information on the case: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/32387315/Ryder_v_Hyles_et_al

First Baptist and HAC are being defended by the same two lawyers.

Dave is being represented by a different lawyer than the church and college.

The previous article stated that Dave had been subpoenaed. He was then issued an "Alias Summons" because they were unable to find him. Later, Dave's lawyer appeared in court, but it does not state if Dave was with him.

A lawyer for the church and college asked for a delay, but the judge did not give a ruling that day.
Click to expand...
The link goes nowhere.
 
Ransom said:
Sure it does. It's just "hard-to-understand." Clearly you don't understand it, since you lack Vince's epic clicking skills.
Click to expand...
It works for me, but then I was smart enough to take Vinny's class at HAC, "URL Clicking Skills Made Easy". He was a good teacher.
 
Ransom said:
Sure it does. It's just "hard-to-understand." Clearly you don't understand it, since you lack Vince's epic clicking skills.
Click to expand...
I tried it again, it just says "Forbidden".
Is that an omen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top