Maid sues Strauss-Kahn over NYC hotel encounter (AP)

AP - A hotel maid who accuses ex-International Monetary Fund boss Dominique Strauss-Kahn of sexual assault sued him Monday, seeking unspecified damages as a result of what she calls a "violent and sadistic" attack in a room at the upscale Sofitel hotel that left her life "in shambles."

More...

A couple of really basic concepts then onto my points. First, trying a person for the same offense in criminal court then in civil court or vise versa is NOT double jeapordy under the Constitution because the burden of proof is completely different....Beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal cases) vs. preponderance of the evidence (civil suits). That is, in the former you get jail time. In the latter, you pay money damages......BIG DIFFERENCE.

Secondly and what is fairly unique in this case is grounded in the "Rules of Evidence". Here, Strauss-Kahn has an apparent history of chasing women. Prior conduct is permitted into evidence rather easily in a civil action where prior conduct is considered prejudicial to the defendant in a criminal case and not admissable unless the Defendant "opens the door" to his/her prior behavior generally (of course there are other strategies e.g. impeachment etc. but let's stay basic).

Logically, the victim of a rape, assault or even murder (OJ Simpson case) would first want the bastard prosecuted and imprisoned for a very long time. If aquitted, then sue in civil action. Why? Publically show the evil conduct of the perpetrator under a successful lessened burden of proof. Of course, you may sue in civil action even if convicted in a criminal court (remember there is no double jeapordy as explained above).

Now, the issue is "WHY IS DIALLO'S LEGAL TEAM INITIATING CIVIL ACTION PRIOR TO CRIMINAL ACTION?" I say it is a MONEY MOTIVE. Obviously, their peadings are seeking punatives. Punative damages are designed to punish or deter conduct, not to compensate the victim. Compensatory damages do that.

For instance, applying punative damages of $10,000 to the corner Deli will definitely deter that deli from repetative negligent behavior. Applying $10,000 to McDonalds does NOT punish McDonalds or deter McDonalds from repeating negligent behavior. Afterall, 10 grand is a mere bag of shells (Ralph Cramdon). BUT, $10,000,000 in punative damages just might hurt Micky D a bit.

In this case, Strauss-Kahn certainly has deep pockets and he has a history of similar sexual conduct which is readily admissible in a civil proceeding. What I do not understand as to the Diallo camp's strategy is that Diallo also has a pissy history of sexual innuendos. However, this is a "he said, she said" case with no witnesses.

Therefore, I believe as her legal team believes that she would loose in a criminal proceeding. Her less than crediblle prior conduct would be at issue and although she would likely win in civil action, punitives would be very minimal if any at all because of the prejudicial carry-over from a criminal proceeding.

I SAY GO FOR THE BUCKS AND SUE THE RICH BASTARD FOR HIS PRIOR BEHAVIOR. SURELY THE COURT WILL MAKE SURE HE DOES NOT HARASS ALL THESE YOUNG LADIES AGAIN.