NY: New US rape lawsuit filed against boxer Mike Tyson

Source: news.yahoo.com 1/24/23

A woman in New York state has filed a civil suit against Mike Tyson, accusing the former boxing champion of raping her in a limousine in the early 1990s, according to court filings.

The woman, who asked the court to remain anonymous, filed her complaint in early January under a temporary New York state law allowing victims of sexual assault to seek civil damages regardless of the statute of limitations.

Tyson spent three years in jail beginning in 1992 after being found guilty of raping model Desiree Washington, who was 18 at the time.

In a short affidavit dated December 23, 2022, the plaintiff states that she met the boxer at a nightclub “in the early 1990s,” then followed him into his limousine, where he allegedly assaulted her before raping her.

“As a result of Tyson’s rape, I suffered and continue to suffer from physical, psychological and emotional injury,” she said.

She is seeking $5 million in damages.

By late Tuesday, Tyson had not issued any public statement.

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

A perfect example of the flawed reasoning of eliminating the statute of limitations. Bet the accuser’s lawyer told her that her accusations don’t even need to be true – his prior convictions will meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Cha-ching. Really curious how they came up with the $5 million figure as damages.

Interesting that the comments all appear to be in support of Tyson. Makes me think he has a sliver of hope in front of a jury.

Encourage you all to read the linked article inside this one about the lifting of the limitations too. As at Dustin said, this is what happens just as we’ve seen with Steven Tyler. NY better be ready…

I just saw an AD on TV from lawyers who are soliciting for clients to bring suit against specifically persons in trust and power for sexual abuse. Just like asbestos and weed killer! Of course, It’s under the guise that they’re fighting for victim’s rights. There is a whole new industry, and they’re not ashamed by it! Then again, why should they be? After all, we’ve diminished integrity in America down to nothing in recent times, right?

I’m surprised that every modeling agency and club promoter in NY hasn’t been brought up on charges. Most models start when they’re 15/16 and get dragged to clubs by their promotors/managers to get drunk at the clubs. A lot of times the only way their manager will find them work is if they sleep with him or his associates. Not to mention a lot of the sleepy photographers.

The housing they keep them in are usually very much like a crack house. 15 models in a studio on Greenwich Street in the financial district.

(You learn a lot working in a deli on the night shift.)

I’m throwing this lawsuit out that what I would do.

She can remain anonymous which is crazy ass hell. If you’re an adult woman accusing a famous person of sexual assault you should have to give all protections of being anonymous.

Good thing that woman in Macy’s elevator that I bumped into 25 yrs ago didn’t get my name. I would still be in Danger of a charge. Actually 99% of us don’t have to worry, since the prerequisite for having a woman file a charge is that you be worth at least $1 million dollars. After all, a girl’s gotta eat, right?

I feel like the more the statute of limitations get changed and are applied retroactively the greater the chances that Calder v. Bull gets revisited. Most of these lawsuits are probably for the money with hope of a big payday however the more there are the greater the chance that some aren’t settled and get moved up to appellate courts which could result in the SCOTUS taking a new look at Calder v. Bull. Some of the conservative justices have already indicated they want it overturned though maybe they won’t want to for a sex case or they will avoid hearing it entirely. The fact is though that a strict reading of the constitution would mean that ex-post applies to civil laws too. If conservative justices are constitutionalists like they claim to be, it would get overturned and this would prevent ex-post facto application of a registry.