Weinstein is toast as is spacey. Both were Hillary supporters so I say “live by the sword, die by the sword”. I never am in a room alone with a woman or child. Too dangerous in this culture. I try not to interact with black entitled people or any entitled women with children. It’s a sad situation that human touch of any type other than shaking hands is an invitation to legal trouble

For California, yes. SOLs for non-federal claims are based on state law though, so it varies wildly across the country.

Weinstein is an asshole, and every body in the business knew it. In relating how he touched her breast, one actress even reported that he said (like the scorpion to the turtle), something like, "Hey I like it, that's the way I am. But come on in."
Power is the greatest seducer, and unlike the aforementioned actress, I feel certain many current complaining "victims" were simply those that "went on in" knowing what was expected, having expectations of their own, but also hoping they could dance around Harvey's expectations and still achieve their own. Most likely, that didn't often happen. Then years later when they looked back and felt that their expectations weren't met, and that they'd been fucked literally and figuratively, the incident went from being deception to being rape or assault. So I think there should be not only a statute of limitations, but also a statute stating claims made after the expiration of the SOL constitute automatic grounds for counterclaims of slander.

Common Law definition of "assualt": An intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
"...apprehension...of an imminent...offensive act" That seems to be a pretty low hurtle to jump over to make a claim. It seems to me that much of the problem is that women are now expected to meet multiple standards of sexuality with no real guideposts on how to balance their sexuality with their professional expectations, their romantic desires and their sense of morality. A romantic excursion turns bad and they feel taken advantage of and maybe even humiliated for letting themselves be seduced, And it is even more demoralizing when giving in to seduction, or to the ego inflating fuel of being desired by someone powerful, and then to later discover they'd been had, and all their romantic and/or career advancing expectations were false. It then becomes too easy to retrospectively seek retribution, especially if the seducer has already been called out by another "victim".
Years ago, men who did such things were written off as simply "cads", and women wrote it off as painful, sometimes embarrassing, and often ego bruising learning experiences. But they analyzed what they believed happened, realized there were signs that they missed and committed to themselves to be more careful and not be taken advantage of the next time. Not so much any more. Women are supposed to be equal to men in all respects, including being in the power position of the sexual initiators, and even the sexual aggressors. But when they're not, and are taken advantage of, they now feel doubly damned for having doubly failed for not having been in control and for letting themselves be taken advantage of, i.e. not scorned but doubly scorned. And you know how that saying goes...

I think we will get to see with the cases in Hollywood that are brewing

Maybe it would be more honest with a short statute of limitations. Either there is legitimate harm that is prosecuted or there isnt

Though as far as the Hollywood claims go, I'm inclined to agree with you. If the women willingly traded sex for an opportunity, then it's "her body, her choice." If it was forced, then not so much. This is all imo from a moral standpoint, though. Legally, there's no sex allowed for workplace advancement, etc.

I would be shocked if there were no limitations on the civil claims. I did hear that the suspended SOLs for prosecuting rape cases, but that's only criminal and has to be rape (i.e., if the state could charge someone with a crime at any point), but I'd bet the civil claim falls off. Even in Cali, it sounds odd to me to have NO limit for civil claims.

my understanding is that there is NO statute of limitations in california for sex "crimes". Thats why they are going whole hog against Weinstein and Kevin Spacey.

I happen to think that the starlets who are complaining actually looked at the casting couch as the way to stardom, and did it willingly. If anyone should be upset, it should be the stockholders of the movie companies who may have been duped into thinking a starlet who gave into the casting couch was better than she was

Not sure where you're getting 30 years from. Most statutes of limitations for civil damages are less than 10 years. In Minnesota, for most things it's 6 years. For intentional torts like assault it's 2 or 3 years. Only exception to that is because of the huge priest/child sex abuse scandal, the Minnesota legislature suspended the SOL for a few years and said adult victims of child abuse had until the fall of 2016 to start lawsuits, but now we're back to the normal 2 or 3 year limitation period. Of course, that doesn't stop someone from talking about it 30 years after the fact, but a civil claim for damages would be loooooooong expired.

EDIT: typos

It seems that the long statute of limitations is more to feather the nests of the lawyers by encouraging "victims" that they have rights they can sue over sometimes 30 years later. This is just stupid. Getting patted on the butt is something the "victims" should just GET OVER.

As an attorney who represents victims of sex abuse, rape, assault, etc.:

Major problems with too-short statutes of limitation for any claim are that they prevent actually knowing what the damages are and thereby encourage unnecessary litigation to preserve the ability to make a claim at all.

As a baseline clarification: The statute of limitations is a date by which a lawsuit must be started-- that lawsuit can carry on for years, even 10+ years in some circumstances. The lawsuit simply has to be started.

I'll break down some main problems with too-short SOLs:
(1) Knowledge of the injuries is a fundamental fact necessary to know how much money is needed to compensate for the injuries. (e.g., is someone facing long-term PTSD, or is it short-term difficulty/normal emotions and will pass in a year? Is a broken bone going to heal well, or will there be permanent limitation of use? the list goes on, and there's a dramatically different value to "temporary and healed well" versus "for the rest of my life." There can be no negotiation about the value of the claim without knowledge of the value of the claim, and it takes time to know the full extent of damages.
(2) Because the full damages take time to know, claimants won't be willing to settle until time has passed, likely more than the short statute of limitation. Thus, attorneys like me have to start lawsuits simply to preserve the claim. This burdens the courts, increases costs for everyone, and is completely unnecessary. In the current system, most civil claims do not ever start a lawsuit (i.e., they settle before starting a lawsuit). That's the best -- everyone talks through the facts and law and comes to a clear view of the risks/exposure, and reach a mutually acceptable resolution of the conflict without courts!

To further complicate things, many instances of abuse (sexual or not) are within relationships and it simply takes time to get people physically and legally separated (e.g. divorce fully finalized) to where it's safe to bring forward a civil claim for the damages.

Lots of issues, but wanted to shed some light.

That is rational!

One notorious event Manhattan Beach is remembered for is the McMartin Preschool pedophile scandal in the '80s. (strangle bo mention of thi episode in the 2012 Centenial celebration,) The shrinks managed to get children to "remember" all manner of bizzare things and there were bumper stickers saying "believe the children". Sureal. (BTW "pedo"
means "fart" en Espanol)

Agreed. not a crime if entered into of her own free will she has reached the age of consent (not by statute, but conscient). A person can make a living using their hands, their looks, their minds--so why not their gonads? Your body is yours.

How do you make a hormone? Don't pay her.

No doubt that Weinstein was and is a Whore Master dog and lower than whale shit at the bottom of the deepest ocean. The issue as I see it is he was capable of paying the price for what ever he got. All of this "After the Act" crying years later is nothing more than horse road apples. Rape me once and shame on you. Rape me twice and shame on me. Said another way. Monica blew a President but if he was just a Resident of her apartment complex there would be no issue. I think this is Prostitution multiplied by a factor of $Millions as long as all these woman were over 17 years old or what ever the age of consent is where ever the act took place. Guys like Harvey can get laid all night long as long as they have hundred dollar bills sticking out of their under ware.

Prostitution ought not be a crime -- but you're certainly right that these women were engaged in it.

I believe there is an epidemic of false charges of sexual harassment being filed -- not only because the current crop of "snowflakes" will take any joke (or posted cartoon, etc.) as sexual but because asking someone once is falsely called harassment. And outrageous workplace regulations protect the accuser from retaliation even if proven a liar.

This is a law that badly needs to be weakened, and protections for the accused made stronger. Certainly the statute of limitations is one of those. If a victim of SH doesn't formally complain within six months, she's probably making it up.

And statutes of limitations need to be kept (and shortened) even more for serious crimes such as rape and molestation, because "recovered memories" have been proven not to genuinely exist and because waiting years robs the accused of any ability to find witnesses and defend himself.

Early 70s while in the USN but this was a NY event.

My understanding is as walkabout said, harassment is not a crime. I am not a lawyer (maybe I won't use the internet abbreviation here), but I thought it was a civil contract matter. I could be completely wrong. In my mind it's like hiring a young engineer to develop software and then telling him he has to do some disgusting job like clean filthy toilets or something or else he'll get a bad recommendation in the engineering world. There would be nothing wrong it if the original job description were the disgusting work. But changing the job is not following the agreement, and it could be fraud if the whole thing were a planned trick.

Yep, been there, done that. Were you in S. CA. in the 60's by any chance?

To me, there's an even bigger legal problem -- the issue of acts from the past being judged not by the legal and community standards that prevailed at the time, but through the legal and moral eyes of the future.

There should be no penalty for sexual dalliance. It's nobody's business except those involved. If either party has been in some way damaged, through incest, rape, pedophelia, that should be handled through our courts. If it happens and a plaintiff refuses to take legal steps then nothing should be done and nothing should be made of it. This habit of piling-on after a brave soul has the courage to use the courts, is almost as despicable as the accused act.

my daughter is where my hair went...two sons doing great