New Accusations Edmonton Oilers owner Daryl Katz paid for sex with a teenager.

[Walkingthroughforest]

Neither of those explicitly mention Katz; there were two other men in the suit who allegedly did more or less the same thing. It also is not a categorical denial Katz paid the victim for sex. If it was that cut and dry that would've been the statement.

Listen, I definitely think Katz did do this. However that statement by the lawyer would have been far more ambiguous if they were going to leave him out to dry. It would say something like "Their counterclaims have certain false implications of others and are an unfounded attempt to portray the women they abused as liars". The wording of the statement they gave is essentially saying that all the people being accused are wrongfully accused.

 

[snag]

Listen, I definitely think Katz did do this. However that statement by the lawyer would have been far more ambiguous if they were going to leave him out to dry. It would say something like "Their counterclaims have certain false implications of others and are an unfounded attempt to portray the women they abused as liars". The wording of the statement they gave is essentially saying that all the people being accused are wrongfully accused.

Bingo.

I think Katz is a creep. But as it is laid out and presented...well...you said it better than me

 

[PostBradMalone]

Listen, I definitely think Katz did do this. However that statement by the lawyer would have been far more ambiguous if they were going to leave him out to dry. It would say something like "Their counterclaims have certain false implications of others and are an unfounded attempt to portray the women they abused as liars". The statement they gave is essentially saying that all the people being accused are wrongfully accused.

But that's essentially what it does say. There's no "all" in there, only a vague allusion to "others". Perhaps it was an error on the part of the victim's counsel, but it would have been very easy to explicitly relay what you're saying in far clearer language. If it was intentional, you have to ask yourself why.

 

[Walkingthroughforest]

But that's essentially what it does say. There's no "all" in there. Perhaps it was an error on the part of the victim's counsel, but it would have been very easy to explicitly relay what you're saying in far clearer language. If it was intentional, you have to ask yourself why.

So, no. Lawyers speak in very specific terms with very specific wording. How that phrase was chosen was intentional and designed to include ALL those named in the countersuit.

 

[PostBradMalone]

So, no. Lawyers speak in very specific terms with very specific wording. How that phrase was chosen was intentional and designed to include ALL those named in the countersuit.

I disagree, that's not at all what a plain reading of that statement suggests. Keep in mind, that comment was issued specifically to CBC, and about a story focusing on Katz's involvement. It would have been easy to deny the central allegation in clear and specific language. The victim's counsel did everything but.

 

[Sniper99]

This incident is before he underwent those surgeries.

Can't say I feel bad for this scumbag anymore. Good riddance.

Did you EVER feel bad for him? be honest.

 

[Walkingthroughforest]

I disagree, that's not at all what a plain reading of that statement suggests. Keep in mind, that comment was issued specifically to CBC, and about a story focusing on Katz's involvement. It would have been easy to deny the central allegation in clear and specific language. The victim's counsel did everything but.

You're reading it as a layman and not a lawyer. What was said was a legal statement, not a press release from a communications specialist.

 

[Steerpike]

A 17 year old doesn't know what they're doing in this situation?

Don't get me wrong, an old greasy billionaire buying sex with a young girl is nasty, but a 17 year old has full agency.

And being attracted to a 17 year old doesn't make you a pedophile, lol.

This is Sage at 16. She looks quite a bit older than her age.

Katz is a nasty coomer who deserves the backlash for being creepy, but it doesn't make him a pedophile.

I actually kind of hate when issues like this get tied up with that.

This is an extension of a common issue among degenerate ruling class men where they primarily date girls who aren't old enough to drink. It takes the inherent power imbalance they would have an a relationship and magnifies it to a ridiculous level. These girls are physically mature, but are mentally still children.

50 year old billionaries who date 18, 19, and 20 year olds are already disgusting. Old rich dudes who f*** 16-17 year old girls deserve the statutory rape charge. You also can't take someone across a border to evade statutory rape. He's f***ed.

 

[PostBradMalone]

You're reading it as a layman and not a lawyer. What was said was a legal statement, not a press release from a communications specialist.

I'd again suggest you are the one reading it as a layman would, and assuming words/interpretations that were very clearly not there. Accidentally? Possibly. Intentionally? Also possibly, depending on whether there has been or is other litigation- or perhaps even a settlement- involving the parties at issue.

 

[Del Preston]

You also can't take someone across a border to evade statutory rape. He's f***ed.

I could ask this question to 95% of the board, but did you even read the article?

 

[Walkingthroughforest]

I'd again suggest you are the one reading it as a layman would, and assuming words/interpretations that were very clearly not there. Accidentally? Possibly. Intentionally? Also possibly, depending on whether there has been or is other litigation- or perhaps even a settlement- involving the parties at issue.

I am not reading it as a layman. You should not assume things about people's background.

 

[PostBradMalone]

I am not reading it as a layman. You should not assume things about people's background.

I'm not assuming anything, merely reading what you're posting in this thread:

Someone who has a better understanding of the law than me needs to clear this up.

From what I understand, Katz being named as a 3rd party defendant...

And then you went on to ask some very basic questions about civil law and exculpatory evidence. If you're not reading it as a layman, and but you're not a lawyer, what/who exactly are you reading it as?

 

[Walkingthroughforest]

I'm not assuming anything, merely reading what you're posting in this thread:



And then you went on to ask some very basic questions about civil law and exculpatory evidence. If you're not reading it as a layman, and but you're not a lawyer, what/who exactly are you reading it as?

You realize that people can interact with different types of law, such as contract law, a lot in their profession without being lawyers?

 

[Steerpike]

I could ask this question to 95% of the board, but did you even read the article?

What part of the article makes it seem less like he gave a 17 year old ballarina 75k for sexua-a ballarina film which never got made?

 

[Sniper99]

Gary will do his best to look the other way

if It was an owner of the Coyotes he would.

 

[Del Preston]

What part of the article makes it seem less like he gave a 17 year old ballarina 75k for sexua-a ballarina film which never got made?

Probably the part where the girl's own attorney says it's false and that the accusation is being used as a tactic by the Buttons to discredit what his client and the other girls are claiming in the previously filed sexual abuse lawsuit.

Where did you get the idea that Katz took her across the border to evade statutory rape?

 

[ijuka]

I actually kind of hate when issues like this get tied up with that.

This is an extension of a common issue among degenerate ruling class men where they primarily date girls who aren't old enough to drink. It takes the inherent power imbalance they would have an a relationship and magnifies it to a ridiculous level. These girls are physically mature, but are mentally still children.

50 year old billionaries who date 18, 19, and 20 year olds are already disgusting. Old rich dudes who f*** 16-17 year old girls deserve the statutory rape charge. You also can't take someone across a border to evade statutory rape. He's f***ed.

Aah, I wasn't planning on comment on this much more, but this is exactly it. At 16, 17, these girls are physically mature. And if someone says that they wouldn't be sexually attracted to them due to their age, that's difficult to take seriously. If you'd be saying that you don't feel any attraction towards them while they're 17 and magically start being attracted to them when they become 18 without their appearance changing in any way, then you're, frankly, just lying to yourself. A 17-year-old is not a child - it's not the same thing as if it was a 11-year-old, in which case being attracted to them would make you a pedophile.

Rather, the issue's about the lack of maturity(brain development) and the difference in status. These 16-year-old girls are still dependent, and their brains don't stop developing until their late 20s. And they're easy to manipulate or take advantage of. Especially someone with a billionaire's influence could do all sorts of things, and it could influence the girl. Statutory rape protects these girls from such manipulation, even if the sex itself is technically consensual.

But the 18-year-olds, 19-year-olds... They also have similar issues. Their brains still aren't matured. And they can be taken advantage of in a similar manner. Honestly, it is a bit sad to me that there's almost no protection from such things after turning 18. I feel like "statutory rape" should not be a cut and dry rule that ends as soon as you turn 18. Instead, I feel like it should be a gradual, sliding scale. Imagine if this girl was 18 instead of 17. Would this even be talked about? No. Would her own personal experience be any different if that had been the case? Probably not.

I'm also certain these things are going on under the surface much more than we'd be lead to believe.

 

[Statto]

Canada's age of consent​

After age 16, it's not so black and white.

I dunno . . . teenager . . . billionaire . . . probably not a relationship of authority or dependency . . .

Depends really, Prince Andrew probably has a slightly different take. For the record I’m not saying that it applies in this case however if the people responsible for the Ballerina’s are (hypothetically) basically Epsteining them then the 3rd parties would definitely be in a position of power and it certainly doesn’t qualify as consent.

 

[Lempo]

I think @Regal hit it on the head.

She was of legal age to have sex (17) according to that article, but not of legal age to be solicited for sex (18).

Proper terminology would probably be 'solitcted a minor' rather than 'had underage sex'.

And on this note, Katz's worry that the girl would use/keep the money herself reads out like an attempt to ensure (or give the optics) that there is no pimp (= a third party for whom some or all of the money would go) involved in the scenario.

I don't know the Canada law but I would assume that soliciting a pimped minor is way worse than soliciting a minor, as the potential legal repercussions go.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

Peter Pocklington redemption tour.

Can we go a week without some newly awful NHL story? Jesus

But the NHL doesn't have a culture problem?!!!

This is the second time for Katz and the other one his own lawyer won't say how it was resolved. These wealthy wankers do like to think they can get away with anything so who knows.

 

[Satire]

Trying to decide who is the creepiest party involved here.

The Button’s, who are alleged to have done all sorts of horrible things.

The rich men, who are alleged to have taken advantage of a 17 year old.

The mother, who is alleged to have used her daughter as a source of morally questionable income.

The lawyers, who may be making up/disingenuously representing some or all parts of these accusations.

There’s a chance the Button’s are making this up as well, although I think there are skeletons to hide on all sides here.

Yeah digging into this whole thing is wild... The girl in question has pretty much said that the situation the Buttons are accusing Katz of here is bogus, but who knows at this point...

 

[Cancuks]

People need to be careful about jumping to conclusions here. The couple that launched this suit that named Katz are terrible people who victimized these ballerinas sexually, raped them at gunpoint and did all kinds of terrible things. They aren't at all trustworthy people and they're the ones who are naming Katz in the lawsuit. I wouldn't be surprised if he countersues them now for defamation if indeed these texts were about her film project. Really does it make sense for Katz to be "having his guys" wire money to a 17 year old for sex? Wouldn't this be something he would do in secret not publicly with his employees in the know?

 

[Lempo]

The original accusations against Buttons are harsh stuff:

Ballerinas suing Boston Ballet's former dancer and husband share abuse

Last year, five different women filed a joint lawsuit against dance teacher Mitchell Taylor Button and his wife Dusty Button. Now, four of the women have spoken out in detail about the alleged abuse.

www.dailymail.co.uk

What I ponder is, why the initial suit against Buttons was made in District Court of Nevada, of all places?

Humpries' phone (with these inflammatory Katz screenshots) allegedly was in possession of the Buttons.

I understand that Nevada has lax prostitution laws, particularly on pimping. Has that informed the choice of court by Humpries et al, as it was probably to be expected that Buttons would try defend themselves with a prostitution-related counter-sue?

 

[Sdrawkcab321]

Billionaire has sex with a minor? Color me shocked…

 

[JoVel]

Just a tip for everyone. You should probably never defend someone with the argument that they're "not technically a pedophile". That's not gonna make you look very smart.