Roethlisberger attorneys go on offensive
Share with others:
In their first legal response to the civil lawsuit accusing Ben Roethlisberger of sexual assault, attorneys for the Steelers quarterback argue that his accuser never filed a police report, boasted of having consensual sex with him, timed the lawsuit to capitalize on media attention, and suffered a psychological breakdown after having an affair with a married man.
The counter-accusations were contained in a motion filed in Reno, Nev., by Mr. Roethlisberger's newly expanded legal team seeking a change of venue to the Lake Tahoe area.
The accuser, a 31-year-old employee of Harrah's Lake Tahoe, claims Mr. Roethlisberger assaulted her while staying at the casino-hotel for a celebrity golf tournament in July 2008. She also named eight Harrah's employees in her lawsuit.
The Post-Gazette does not name alleged victims of sexual assault.
Although attorneys involved with the case would not comment, the filing speaks for itself. In it, Mr. Roethlisberger's legal team strongly discounts the plaintiff's accusations.
"More than a year later, [the plaintiff] -- having filed no police report (in stark contrast to her recent seeking police assistance for alleged prank calls) -- and by her own admission, suffering from significant psychological problems -- filed her baseless complaint in this matter, falsely alleging that she had been sexually assaulted by Mr. Roethlisberger," the motion states.
"This false and slanderous claim was directly contrary to the story that plaintiff had previously told. She never told her parents that she had been assaulted by Mr. Roethlisberger. Plaintiff never told her co-workers, including her mentor, that she had been harmed or battered by Mr. Roethlisberger. To the contrary, she boasted to her friends and co-workers that she had consensual sexual relations with Mr. Roethlisberger and was happy about that. Plaintiff was also not afraid or apprehensive about the prospect of an unplanned pregnancy, but expressed to others that she hoped that she was pregnant by Mr. Roethlisberger."
The filing also targets the timing of the lawsuit, "which coincided with the opening of professional football training camps, events which garner the attention of the national media ... and the deliberate delay predictably and purposefully prejudiced Mr. Roethlisberger by depriving him of an opportunity to thoroughly gather evidence to rebut plaintiff's false and vicious claims."
The lawsuit "is designed to exploit Mr. Roethlisberger's celebrity status," and her lawyers hope to use the news media to boost their case, the motion states.
"Plaintiff and her publicity-seeking lawyers plainly intend to employ a 'Nifong' strategy in this case," the filing states. "[They] seek to have the press republish these false and salacious allegations in an effort to abuse the judicial process in hope of securing an extortionate payday. Again, plaintiff explained to her colleagues that this was her plan."
North Carolina District Attorney Michael B. Nifong was the prosecutor in the 2006 rape case against members of the Duke University men's lacrosse team. He was disbarred and found guilty of criminal contempt, and the case against the players was dropped.
Finally, the filing states, "[The plaintiff's] problems -- lack of job security, need for medical benefits, need for treatment, increasing debt and lack of income -- have nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. Roethlisberger. They are the result of her inability to do her job and her difficulty with employees of Harrah's.
"Her psychological breakdown appears to be the sad by-product of an affair with a married man whose wife apparently concocted a scheme to have plaintiff fall in love with a fictional soldier and be abandoned by him to create heartbreak and instability."
The matter of the "fictional soldier" was laid out in an eight-page affidavit filed Friday by Angela Antonetti, a former co-worker and friend of Mr. Roethlisberger's accuser.
According to Ms. Antonetti, the plaintiff had had a relationship with a married man named "Fritz," which ended in the summer of 2007, after the man's wife found out about it.
Later that year, Ms. Antonetti testified, the plaintiff told co-workers of having an online romance with a soldier in Iraq named "Ben." In late 2007, the plaintiff discussed falling in love with "Soldier Ben" and her plans to marry him upon his return from Iraq.
In September 2008, two months after the golf tournament at which the alleged encounter with Mr. Roethlisberger occurred, the plaintiff told Ms. Antonetti "she had discovered that Soldier Ben was a fabricated hoax and that Soldier Ben did not exist. [The plaintiff] told me that she had received an e-mail from Soldier Ben's e-mail account that said, 'Gotcha.' "
Ms. Antonetti said the plaintiff told her that "Soldier Ben" had been the fictitious creation of the wife of "Fritz."
It was after that, the filing by Mr. Roethlisberger's attorneys points out, that the plaintiff began to suffer breakdowns that required hospitalization.
The change-of-venue request was filed at 4:45 p.m. Friday in Second Judicial District Court in Washoe County but was not posted online until yesterday. It was submitted by attorney John Echeverria, of Reno, who has joined Mr. Roethlisberger's legal team because of a requirement that a member of the Nevada Bar Association be part of court proceedings in the state.
William David Cornwell Sr., of DNK Cornwell LLC in Atlanta, is the lead attorney for Mr. Roethlisberger's defense. With Mr. Echeverria's attachment, Mr. Cornwell will have permission to practice law in Nevada for this case only.
Joining Mr. Cornwell and Mr. Echeverria are two partners from Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, a high-profile international law firm based in San Francisco. They are Rollin B. Chippey II, and Franklin Brockway Gowdy, who has represented sports agent Leigh Steinberg.
All attorneys involved referred questions to Mr. Cornwell, who could not be reached for comment yesterday. Calvin R.X. Dunlap, the Reno-based attorney for Mr. Roethlisberger's accuser, declined to comment.
The change-of-venue request argues that the case should be tried in Douglas County (Lake Tahoe) rather than Washoe County (Reno), and that the plaintiff is engaged in "a transparent attempt at venue shopping."
"Plaintiff is a resident of Douglas County," the filing states. "The events which give rise to her claims occurred in Douglas County. Douglas County is also where virtually all of the defendants and key witnesses reside."
The filing also cites law that says once the demand for a change of venue is filed, "the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the county in which the action is filed is indeed a proper venue."
First Published August 11, 2009 12:00 am
