It’s not new news or anything that Aerosmith‘s Steven Tyler is a piece of fucking human garbage; it seems that a long-standing accusation of abuse from victim Julia Misley is speaking volumes again.
In his autobiography, Does the Noise in My Head Bother You? Tyler said that he nearly “took a teen bride,” adding that her “parents fell in love with me, signed a paper over for me to have custody, so I wouldn’t get arrested if I took her out of state.”
Misley said Tyler performed various acts of criminal sexual conduct upon her after they met at an Aerosmith concert in Portland. Julia claims Tyler was able to convince her mother to allow him to become her legal guardian in 1975 after flying her to numerous cities where he was touring and performing the same sexual acts.
Yeah, like I said. A piece of human garbage.
Anyway, Los Angeles County judge ruled Wednesday that Steven Tyler must face trial in California over child sexual abuse allegations brought by Julia Misley, while dismissing related claims tied to alleged conduct in Oregon, Washington, and Massachusetts.
After a series of hearings, Judge Patricia A. Young said the claims arising from alleged abuse in California were sufficiently supported to proceed. However, she indicated that claims connected to other states were barred by statutes of limitations and would be dismissed. The judge said a written order memorializing her decision would follow, “I have clearly signaled how I intend [to rule],” Young said from the bench. “I’m not moving the trial.”
The ruling represents a mixed outcome for both sides. Misley’s attorneys suggested they could amend the complaint to focus exclusively on California-based conduct, but Young said she was inclined instead to formally terminate the non-California claims, which would prevent them from being refiled. She asked for additional time to craft a narrowly tailored decision that would preserve Misley’s causes of action, including sexual battery, sexual assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, as they relate to California, while dismissing the remainder
Misley first filed her lawsuit in December 2022, alleging that Tyler sexually abused her beginning in 1973, when she was a minor, and continuing for several years. Tyler has denied the allegations
Tyler sought dismissal of the lawsuit in its entirety, arguing that the relationship was governed by Massachusetts law, where he claims he primarily resided with Misley and where the age of consent at the time was 16. His attorneys maintained that Massachusetts law should apply even when the couple traveled together to other states.
Misley’s legal team countered that Tyler was required to comply with the laws of each state in which the alleged conduct occurred. They also argued that the California claim was timely because it was filed during the final days of California’s Child Victims Act lookback window. That law, enacted in 2019, temporarily lifted the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims, allowing survivors to bring civil actions that had previously been time-barred.
Judge Young agreed in part, concluding that California has a clear interest in enforcing its child sexual abuse laws against conduct alleged to have occurred within the state. At a prior hearing in December, she stated that even if certain conduct may have been legal elsewhere, California law applies to actions taken within its borders.
“California absolutely has an interest in people coming into our state, committing a crime here, such as childhood sexual abuse, and then leaving again,” Young said at that time.
The judge ruled, however, that the statutes of limitations governing claims in Oregon, Washington, and Massachusetts were not revived by California’s legislation and therefore could not proceed
According to the complaint, Misley alleges that she first met Tyler in 1973 while attending high school and that sexual encounters occurred in multiple states during Aerosmith’s tour stops. She claims Tyler later brought her to California, where she alleges additional abuse occurred. Misley also alleges she was groomed into a relationship in which Tyler became her legal guardian.
Tyler has acknowledged the guardianship arrangement in past public statements, including his 2011 memoir, though his legal filings later disputed its relevance. In his initial response to the lawsuit, Tyler asserted immunity on the basis of his alleged role as a guardian, a defense he subsequently withdrew.
The case now proceeds, limited to claims arising in California. No trial date was altered as a result of Wednesday’s ruling.
I hope Tyler rots in a cauldron of piss.
About The Author
