The Crown Prosecution Service in the United Kingdom hasn’t yet come to a conclusion whether to bring sexual assault charges against Kevin Spacey in almost 6 different cases.
On the other side, however, it was seen that the Oscar winner has step-sided some incriminating charges and a heavy $40 Million in damage.
A federal judge in New York today disagreed with an unidentified blamer of the one-time House of Cards star his move to keep his identity private in the big bucks assault and battery suit filed last September with Star Trek Discovery star Anthony Rapp. While the pseudonym “C.D.” plaintiff in question has 10 days to refile the matter under his real name, the man’s lawyers have already told the court that their client feels he “is emotionally unable to proceed with the action and will discontinue his claims.” As said in the talks.
One of the major deciding factors was that C.D. conversed with many, even Rapp and members of the media, about his claims of Spacey sexually abusing him in the early 1980s when he was not even 18! Said Judge Lewis A Kaplan’s.
Judge Lewis A Kaplan went ahead to write a memorandum of twenty pages out of while the statement “The evidence suggests that C.D. knowingly and repeatedly took the risk that any of these individuals at one point or another would reveal his true identity in a manner that would bring that identity to wide public attention, particularly given Spacey’s celebrity,” shone the most.
The suits preceding started in New York State court last fall and due to higher risk factors was moved to federal court in November 2020. C.D. and his representatives have fearfully predicted that putting his identity out there would cause re-triggering of the PTSD he used to suffer after the attack of Spacey.
The Judge Lewis A Kaplan however found his statement fishy as C.D. was seen making conversations about this with many individuals and there was so re triggering that kicked in then. Unsatisfied by his claims the judge said that revealing of the name is necessary as the case progresses ahead and the bitter reality has to be addressed.
As the issue is already turning heads of media executives and as the court hearing comes closer it is obvious that the risk of disclosure would grow.