Personally I'm confused about what Wade is exactly claiming. The complaint mentions Wade "compartmentalized" those events and did not believe or understand what they are. To me it sounds like some sort of repressed - compressed-suppressed memory claim without calling it such.
So regardless of what you call it Wade claims he didn't remember or realize it until May 2012 and he couldn't have brought the lawsuit before. It's their way of arguing against Estate's all statue of limitation passed argument.
Well I have seen a website for recovered memory abuse cases and it seems like in every instance it required collaborative evidence for it not to be dismissed. I still think he's looking for other kids who said stuff similar to his such as Chandler mentioning going to jail (as threat) or evidence of what Wade calls "brainwashing".
------------
That link you posted was interesting.
Therefore, where the victim does not purport to have repressed the abuse itself, but instead alleges only to have recently discovered the extent of their psychological injuries from the abuse, tolling of the statute does not occur. (Evans, supra, at p. 1620)
The Marsha V. court reflects a common thread between the decisions rejecting the delayed discovery rule in the case of adult survivors of childhood molestation. A plaintiff who, by her own admission, was molested "against her will" but does not claim to have immediately and completely suppressed the abuse, cannot take advantage of the discovery rule. This should be distinguished from the case where the plaintiff claims to have had no prior awareness of the "wrongfulness" of the defendant’s conduct until some point in time which is no more than three years before the complaint is filed. This is the distinction drawn in the Jolly and Evans decisions. California courts have thus far been reluctant to apply the discovery rule, unless the plaintiff can successfully argue that she has repressed the molestation, or that she was ignorant of the "wrongfulness" of her abuser’s conduct.
So regardless of what you call it Wade claims he didn't remember or realize it until May 2012 and he couldn't have brought the lawsuit before. It's their way of arguing against Estate's all statue of limitation passed argument.
Well I have seen a website for recovered memory abuse cases and it seems like in every instance it required collaborative evidence for it not to be dismissed. I still think he's looking for other kids who said stuff similar to his such as Chandler mentioning going to jail (as threat) or evidence of what Wade calls "brainwashing".
------------
That link you posted was interesting.
Therefore, where the victim does not purport to have repressed the abuse itself, but instead alleges only to have recently discovered the extent of their psychological injuries from the abuse, tolling of the statute does not occur. (Evans, supra, at p. 1620)
The Marsha V. court reflects a common thread between the decisions rejecting the delayed discovery rule in the case of adult survivors of childhood molestation. A plaintiff who, by her own admission, was molested "against her will" but does not claim to have immediately and completely suppressed the abuse, cannot take advantage of the discovery rule. This should be distinguished from the case where the plaintiff claims to have had no prior awareness of the "wrongfulness" of the defendant’s conduct until some point in time which is no more than three years before the complaint is filed. This is the distinction drawn in the Jolly and Evans decisions. California courts have thus far been reluctant to apply the discovery rule, unless the plaintiff can successfully argue that she has repressed the molestation, or that she was ignorant of the "wrongfulness" of her abuser’s conduct.
