Strauss-Kahn Countersues NYC Hotel Maid for $1M
Source: ABC News
The disgraced French politician and former head of the International Monetary Fund said in court papers filed Monday that Nafissatou Diallo (na-fee-SAH'-too dee-AH'-loh) made a "malicious and wanton false accusation" when she said he assaulted her one year ago.
The criminal case against Strauss-Kahn was dismissed after prosecutors lost faith in Diallo's credibility. She then filed a civil lawsuit accusing him of assault.
A judge this month rebuffed Strauss-Kahn's claim that he had diplomatic immunity.
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/strauss-kahn-countersues-nyc-hotel-maid-1m-16349855#.T7JZwcWMHc8
This story should make for a *fine* book or Lifetime TV movie one day....
= new reply since forum marked as read
of winning. But, go ahead and throw your money away. 
And I think her allegations likely have merit, part. in light of - as I said - later exposes.
That's all. 
the immunity claim had already been shot down. I'll just go put my contact lenses in now... 
I wouldn't take ABC's word on this (or on anything, for that matter).
The maid who accused him is so unreliable, and lied so many times, that the prosecutors dropped the case. The way I read this (my suspicion about it) is that those who were out to get him--for his anti-"austerity" views--failed. And my sense of this situation is that, yes, he has a libertine lifestyle--he makes no apologies for it--but, no, he is not likely a rapist. Though anybody is capable of any crime--we're all human, with the capacity for murder, rape, theft, etc., depending on circumstances (including, for instance, substance abuse), he just doesn't have the profile or the personality for this crime. It is antithetical to his lifestyle--and counter-intuitive.
In any case, the man has been convicted of nothing. NOTHING! So to ridicule him for counter-suing is highly inappropriate (a couple of posts, here, above mine). If he was, indeed, set up, he has little other choice and he may in fact be admirable for fighting back. Why should his sexual relations with consenting adults be used against him--the way the corporate press has done in this case--crucifying him for his free-spirited lifestyle and convicting him in the press?
Corporate press frenzies like this one are similar to mob rule--to lynchings, to egregious injustice. They may be doing it to him as an exercise in their power, and/or in collusion with covert, pro-"austerity" forces, or because they think he deserves it ('powerful leader rapes maid and gets away with it, feels he's untouchable'). But whatever their motives, in using a phrase like "disgraced" politician" (similar to their use of "authoritarian" and other epithets to describe Leftist leaders in Latin America, for instance, while failing to report facts that say otherwise), it is effectively mob rule, not justice. The prosecutors found that their "victim" was a liar. They had no case. Strauss-Kahn was convicted in the press not in a court of law. Even if he's guilty--which I doubt--he has a right to the presumption of innocence, no matter how rich, powerful or well-connected he is.
The phrase "disgraced politician" is highly prejudicial. It assumes that those who respond, mob-like, to press accusations that are not subject to court proceedings or any safeguards of his rights as a human being, by automatically believing that he is guilty, are correct. Millions of people can "believe" that you are guilty of something and deserve the word "disgrace" and be dead wrong.
I don't think that this is just sloppy journalism (failing to take the time and trouble to accurately characterize an accused person who is, by rights, "innocent until proven guilty"
. In truth, his only "disgrace" is that a known liar accused him and the Corporate Press trumpeted that accusation far and wide and added details of his free lifestyle that made him seem guilty (to superficial headline scanners, i.e., most "news" consumers). I think that the phrase "disgraced politician" is quite deliberate--not just sloppy journalism--that is, the Corporate powers behind ABC and other disreputable "news" organizations WANT him to be "disgraced." (This 'news' story bears a lot of resemblance to the one against Julian Assange of Wikileaks and also to the far right frenzy over Bill's Clinton's sexual dalliances.) (I'm talking about the smell--mob rule, or attempted mob rule.)
"Disgraced politician" is a carefully calculated phrase used to convict him without evidence. It is a slimy phrase (like the word "authoritarian" that I mentioned above) that doesn't require facts. Isn't he "in disgrace" because of, um, the scandal around his name? If you asked the average American, "is he in disgrace?," wouldn't they say "yes"? Wasn't he forced out of the presidential race in France because of this "scandal"? (Ha, ha, ABC! The Leftists won anyway!) Doesn't everybody know that he is "disgraced"?
Thus, no facts are required, because everybody "knows" it.
Another slimy journalistic tactic in this article is its opener, that Strauss-Kahn is "striking back against" a "maid." In reality, he is striking back against high-placed, powerful prosecutors, and the entire Corporate Press, who were more than anxious to go after him and make him look guilty, until their case collapsed. He is not likely to get a million dollars, or even one dollar, out of this lawsuit, if it is successful--and it will surely cost him a great deal. He has no legal handle with which to pursue a countersuit against the prosecutors or the Corporate Press. And the "maid" has sued him--in civil proceedings that could ruin him without proving that he committed a crime.
As I said, he has little choice but to countersue--and calling this "striking back" against "the maid," in this context--an accusation of violence (and one that was so weak, the zealous prosecutors were forced to drop it)--is highly prejudicial. It is "yellow journalism"--loading the case. He is not "striking" her; he is defending himself against what he says is, and what well may be, a false accusation. If this accusation ever becomes established as a fact, THEN it might be fair to use words like "striking" a "maid" (or "disgraced" , not before.
