J. J. Redick takes the low road
There was no easy road for J. J. Redick to take following revelations this week of an abortion contract he and his handlers concocted in 2007 for pregnant girlfriend Vanessa Lopez.
But there was a high road. Alas, Redick chose the low road. From his Twitter account last night…
To be sure, unless Lopez had the DNA of her aborted baby tested, there is now no way to ever prove or refute Redick’s claims. The evidence has been destroyed.
But the fact remains Redick and his handlers devised a contract stipulating Lopez had to kill her 16/17-wk-old baby to fulfill it – dangling money and a continued relationship as carrots.
Redick’s attorney, Greg McNeill, followed up by breathing down Lopez’s neck the very day she had her second-trimester abortion to get the medical records (and per the contract, she also had to be willing to “submit[ ] to a post-pregnancy examination by a doctor of REDICK’s choice to confirm both the prior pregnancy and its termination”). Redick really, really wanted to be sure that baby was dead.
Objectively speaking, one scenario would be Redick knew he wasn’t the baby’s father but loved Lopez and couldn’t stand the thought of her carrying another man’s child. It appears even she wasn’t sure who the father was. Why then offer her $25,000 if the relationship pursuant to the abortion fizzled?
On the flip side, if Lopez were attempting to extort Redick, and he was so confident the baby wasn’t his, why not wait for the baby’s birth to confirm paternity?
There’s another email I didn’t post yesterday, dated two weeks after the abortion, indicating Redick and McNeill were apparently hacking into Lopez’s email account, not exactly ethical. (Actually, it appears to be illegal.) Click to enlarge…
I know relationships can get incredibly messy. And when they do there is plenty of blame to go around. The fact is Lopez agreed to kill her baby, no matter who the father was. The real victim here is that murdered baby.
Nevertheless, the high road for Redick would now be, without even admitting paternity, to say something as simple as, “I’m sorry for any pain I’ve caused Vanessa Lopez.”
But, no.
A few months ago Redick admitted that during his Duke years he “was sort of a pr***.”
Um…
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Redick really, really wanted to be sure that baby was dead.
There was no need to confirm prior pregnancy if he “really, really” wanted to be sure the baby was dead. He apparently really, really didn’t want to shell out money unless the whole thing was real.
I just read the article you linked to and reread the contract, and it is clear that your earlier post falsely represented the contract as payment for an abortion; rather, it was an agreement to pay up if the relationship didn’t last a year. Clearly what happened here is that Lopez was claiming to be pregnant, was willing to have an abortion, and Redick et al figured that the easiest way to make her go away was by paying her $25,000 to go away.
indicating Redick and McNeill were apparently hacking into Lopez’s email account
Or he had the password, or it had been disclosed in a deposition.
And I’m guessing that the reason that your other post said that the lawsuit against O’Neal was “off topic” was because it was inconvenient to acknowledge that Lopez’s lawyers quit because they considered her claims fraudulent–which was what the judge said when he ruled against her. The judge’s comment on the Redick documents in question were: “Her harassment of and efforts to secure money from Redick and his family was extensive and plainly demonstrated.”
That’s probably why Redick didn’t apologize to her.
Incidentally, I’d never heard of Redick (or Lopez) before, and really don’t care about him. But stuff like this is why pro-life news outlets lack credibility. You all really should be ashamed of the way you take advantage of the gullibility of your readers.
Jill,
Here’s the problem I have with this “story.”
First, I am no fan of JJ Redick (even though I live in Orlando, I am not a Magic fan) and I agree that circumstantial evidence coupled with the reputation NBA stars have seem to point to his guilt.
However, one principle trumps all others. We don’t pronounce someone guilty of murder until there are “two or more witnesses.” If we do, then we have committed a great sin as well.
I would be careful about this until the source is confirmed. This website that “broke” this story is lower than the National Enquirer. Just read some of the other stories they put out. None of them have the Truth. This is an on-line gossip website. Please consider the source of this alleged “abortion contract.”
Vanessa Lopez also went after Shaquille O’Neill in court. According to the Orlando Sentinel:
************
The agreement appears in the case file of a civil lawsuit that Lopez filed in 2010 in Orange County Circuit Court against former NBA superstar Shaquille O’Neal. In that case, Lopez alleged O’Neal harassed and cyberstalked her after she ended her five-year affair with O’Neal.
A judge dismissed that case in May, court records show.
The judge wrote, “Lopez has misrepresented facts from the very beginning of discovery in this lawsuit.” The judge also referenced the documents related to Redick, stating, “Her harassment of and efforts to secure money from Redick and his family was extensive and plainly demonstrated.”
***************
Most newspapers who are repeating the story are using words like “claimed” and “alleged.”
My question is: What if Redick turns out to be innocent of any wrongdoing?
My understanding is that he is a a home-schooled, Christian man, who preached abstinence until marriage. Is it possible he could be the target of a smear? The same “lawyer” who went after Herman Cain, Gloria Allred, is representing this woman.
If this “contract” is correct, then the allegations ought to be proved. Lopez and Allred ought to show the original copy. They ought to show it was notarized (the copy I saw was not) and/or have an independent handwriting analysis done on the original ink signature.
Otherwise, she is not a credible witness.
LisaC,
I didn’t go into Allred/O’Neal any further because it went way too far into the weeds and off-topic. But in a nutshell, Allred, I was told, wanted to accept a settlement (of which she would have allegedly received 40%) but Powers didn’t. So Allred allegedly made up an excuse to walk, first telling Powers she wasn’t prepared to go to trial. O’Neal’s side allegedly made a motion to dismiss the case, and without waiting for Lopez’s counter, did. The case is now on appeal to the 5th District Court.
On the hacking topic, there was no deposition 2 weeks after the abortion.
You’re right about the $25k. Will fix.
Jay – whatever website initially broke the story doesn’t matter. It broke the story by showing the actual contract. It wasn’t gossip. To my knowledge, no one is disputing the validity of the contract, which is substantiated by email exchanges between Redick and his handlers.
The same “lawyer” who went after Herman Cain, Gloria Allred, is representing this woman.
No, Gloria Allred and the rest of Lopez’s legal team dropped her, saying that “[Lopez] insists upon taking actions that counsel considers repugnant” and that they could not continue to represent her without committing fraud.
It is entirely possible that the contract is genuine but that Lopez was not interested in continuing the pregnancy and was using it opportunistically. Contrary to what Jill’s anonymous source claims, it is being reported that Lopez had an attorney who was involved in drawing up the contract.
It is POSSIBLE the contract is genuine.
If it is possible to see the actual contract, then why haven’t we seen it?
Was there a notary who can testify as a witness to the contract?
Let there be two or more witnesses first. Redick might be guilty of murdering a baby, but claiming he is guilty without credible witnesses is a great sin.
Anyone can create an email exchange or a document and post it on-line. My point here is that this hasn’t been proved — the sources are not credible. The judge threw out the case (from which this contract was “leaked”) saying that
“Lopez has misrepresented facts from the very beginning of discovery in this lawsuit.” The judge also referenced the documents related to Redick, stating, “Her harassment of and efforts to secure money from Redick and his family was extensive and plainly demonstrated” (Orlando Sentinel).
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/blogs/magic-basketblog/os-mbb-jj-redick-vanessa-lopez-20130724,0,5346083.post
So the only “fact” we know here is that Lopez is a false witness.
I don’t understand the constant need of our culture to tarnish celebrities with no actual proof. I can understand the lame stream media doing that because they are Godless. I don’t understand why Christians would take the word of a known adulteress and liar over a man who claims to be a Christian.
LisaC, Yes, there is a lot of he said/she said. I posted the actual contract, actual emails, and actual related documents. As I indicated, they speak for themselves.
Jay – You’re going overboard here. No one is disputing the documents or emails are authentic. Redick may have denied on Twitter the baby was his, but he never denied the contract was authentic. The fact is he created a contract to ensure his gf got an abortion. Doesn’t really matter whose baby s/he was. The man who calls himself a Christian has also admitted to being a “pr***.” I can say the same about myself at certain points in my life, although I’d use different terminology.
That said, Redick may have turned over a new leaf. I don’t know him. I hope so. We are talking about 2007.
The actual documents paint a horrid picture of this guy.
His wife needs to wake up to the fact that he treated a woman and a baby like chattel. Who is to say that be won’t send his crass and disgusting lawyers to pounce on her? Prob a matter of time.
This is a story about a mega misogynist. Protests from feminists??? I’m waiting…….
Allred/O’Neal any further because it went way too far into the weeds and off-topic. But in a nutshell, Allred, I was told, wanted to accept a settlement (of which she would have allegedly received 40%) but Powers didn’t. So Allred allegedly made up an excuse to walk, first telling Powers she wasn’t prepared to go to trial.
I’m not sure who Powers is–Lopez? Like I said, I didn’t know anything about any of this until I started Googling this morning. But the timeline appears to go as follows:
January 2010: Lopez retains Allred. Allred spends two years preparing for the trial, including a motion to have it televised.
January 2012: Depositions begin.
February 6, 2012: (date on the court documents) Allred and her team quit, implying fraud on their client’s part. Proceedings suspended until Lopez can obtain new counsel. Months pass, during which Lopez’s new team could counter the offer that Allred turned down. (I could not find when her new legal team came on board).
May 2012: Judge dismisses lawsuit, asserting that Lopez “lied often. She lied about facts important to the defense, and she demonstrated an utter disrespect for the system of justice.”
YMMV, but the judge’s conclusion that Lopez lied in court would seem to confirm Allred et al’s assertion that she was not honest.
LisaC, Yes, there is a lot of he said/she said. I posted the actual contract, actual emails, and actual related documents. As I indicated, they speak for themselves
I hadn’t seen your response of 12:17 when I submitted my most recent post. But we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether or not it’s relevant that a court has found the contract to be evidence of extortion on her part.
Well well, when you are over the target you get a lot of flak and it looks like Jill was over the target and JJ friendlies are on it.
The judge also referenced the documents related to Redick, stating, “Her harassment of and efforts to secure money from Redick and his family was extensive and plainly demonstrated
Could be but not all judges are credible, qualified and non-misogynists.
The judge I had during my divorce/custody hearing nodded off during testimony, made a snide comment about me to a lawyer, but is also a prominent Christian in his community.
Protests from feminists???
The fundamental principle of feminism is that women have the right to make decisions about matters that pertain to them because they are capable of acting rationally. This is why not everyone instantly jumps on board when Ms. Lopez’s friend claims that an “emotional state preclude[s]” rational action.
Don’t get me wrong: if a 28-year-old woman was indeed so immature that a man five years her junior manipulated her into believing that she should terminate a wanted pregnancy after agreeing to take a post-breakup payoff that was a quarter of the sum that she originally sought, all in the hopes that he would keep dating her, then yes, she is to be pitied.
yes, she is to be pitied
Agreed. The pitiful are much easier to manipulate. But those who manipulate the pitiful are even more pitiful than those they manipulate. I think the lawyers are more pitiful than the dad and the abortionist is the most pitiful of all.
Yeah, Lisa C. You go. Vanessa was manipulated. Why else would a woman agree to a mid-term abortion contract like that and then refuse to collect the money?
What kind of a douchebag schmutz coerces a woman into an abortion with thousands of dollars, especially when if the baby wasn’t his he wouldn’t have any reason to insist on abortion? And then the creep goes to the extreme of stipulating that she be examined by a doctor of his choosing to make sure she had the baby killed? Like she’s his property, like a freaking racehorse. Yeah, how uberly pro-woman of you.
Are you defending him in any way? I mean… any way?
Nice job deflecting, but no matter what Vanessa did, Reddick looks like scum, and there’s no way to doll him up. His image is over, and should be. You don’t treat human beings like he did and come out looking good. Puhleeeeze.
Doesn’t this contract amount to a contract for prostitution?
I mean he is agreeing to pay her $25k to have consensual sex and not be further obligated.
That is prostitution.
It is a contract for long term prostitution. Right?
I assume that is illegal. Okay, so like a contract to pay $25k for a cargo load of marijuana, this contract is invalid because it is a contract for something that is illegal, in this case prostitution.
Are you defending him in any way? I mean… any way?
No. I am…
1). Objecting to the infantilization of women that is the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement, the lifeblood of the pro-life media, and the driving force behind Jill’s peddling of this story in particular. The woman was 28 years old. She is old enough to buy a house, enlist in the military, and get married without a grown-up’s permission. She’s old enough to decide whether or not to have an abortion. Her citation of “mixed feelings” should have been discussed during the counseling session. If she remained “certain” and “okay”–as she said she was–about the procedure, then she was entitled to have it, because that language indicates that she was not, in fact, being coerced.
Even if the payment had been offered to have the abortion–which it was not–there are no circumstances under which anyone who believes in the concept of ‘personal responsibility’ would think that paying someone $25,000 constitutes coercion. And although everyone who is commenting on this story is ignoring it, the contract is prefaced with the statements that the two parties had agreed to end their relationship and that she had decided to have the abortion. It is hard to believe that anyone thought that she could save a relationship by signing a document stating that she had ended it.
I realize that it is being reported that Ms. Lopez had “already taken her pre-op Valium” when she signed the contract, but Valium is not a stupid pill. It, unlike reading pro-life websites, does not reduce one’s capacity for critical thought.
And no, I’m still not defending him. I am also
2). objecting to both the careless and deliberate misuse of information that is driving this story. If Ms. Lopez did not want an abortion, all she had to do was not have an abortion. She had it because she hoped to profit from it. Usually, pro-lifers think that it is wrong to profit from abortion, but not in this case, because it’s a better story to smear someone with an accusation of coercion. Jill has chosen to omit the exculpatory evidence that a judge concluded that Redick, not Lopez, was the subject of an extortion attempt. Elsewhere on the web, dumb people are writing lugubrious meditations on what “Redick’s child” might have grown up to be, even though not only did Redick deny being the father, but Ms. Lopez has sworn an affidavit saying that she had no reason to think that he was the father. Why, then, report that Redick “coerced” his girlfriend into aborting “their” child? Because people are too lazy to read anything other than the prechewed headline in this blog, which has been reposted elsewhere. And while I’m not defending Redick, I do think it’s unfortunate that people are, either out of laziness or poor reading skills, claiming that he was paying her to have carefree sex. The contract said that the relationship was over. What he was paying her for were the confidentiality and non-disparagement clause. That’s obvious to anyone who bothers to read the contract past the word “terminate the pregnancy.”
So again, I think that the entire point of posting this story on a pro-life blog was to manipulate gullible people. Personally, if I went to pro-life “news” sites for news, I’d be offended by how dumb they assume their readers are.
Correcting myself: I shouldn’t have said that she had the abortion because “she hoped to profit from it.” It may well be that she had decided to have the abortion regardless and that she simply hoped to profit from the situation. All I know is that a woman who is haggling over the amount of her payoff isn’t being coerced.