Lovely Disaster Posted July 29, 2008 Posted July 29, 2008 No, she said she had fully disclosed all of her debt in writing to her fiance before he had come to Florida to move her to be with him. Ya, I do, and I didn't find anything different than what you did. This is the most I can see: Speaking to Meredith Vieira on Friday's Today show, where she appeared with her attorney Lydia J. Sartain, Shell refuted Gibbs's claim that she was swimming in debt. The allegation, she said, is "simply not true." Thats it??? Because she said its "simply not true"? If that is the case, I'm sure her financial records can be pulled up to prove she was not swimming in debt and that 30 grand didn't all of a sudden just get credited to one of her debt accounts.
climbergirl Posted July 29, 2008 Posted July 29, 2008 Ridiculous. Don't some of you see the irony here? The majority (men and women) of posters here are denigrating this women for suing this man and for the decision the jurors made. A jury of six men and six women. And they made their decision of awarding her money AND how much to award in under 12 hours. Using this thread as an example, the case would have been thrown out in under 12 hours. Clearly they were privy to information that we are not. And to assume there wasn't any forensic accounting is just naive.
tanbark813 Posted July 29, 2008 Posted July 29, 2008 One of the jurors actually said she didnt agree, but she wanted to go home. This is important to note. This thread would be a hell of a lot different if we all had to agree before we could leave our respective places of business (or wherever all you folks are posting from). Plus, juries aren't random samplings of the population anyway. The lawyers pick and choose who they think will give them the outcome they desire.
Dark-N-Romantic Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 American needs to wake up and realize it is shooting itself in the foot. Sad is the day when a person can get paid because they chose to follow their heart or let their emotions get the better of them and when it does not work out they want to take someone to the cleaners. Don't get me wrong, I think payments are due under certain circumstances (i.e. a spouse is forced to divorce for the sake of their life or the lives of others from a destructive spouse) and I do feel strongly that an adulterer or adulteress and their lover should be able to be sued for their bad and dangerous conduct (yes adultery is a dangerous conduct, if you don't think so, ask all those people hurt or dead because of it). However, I think this was the MOST outlandish case in the history of the idiotic things people chose to sue for. You know what, yeah it sucks that SHE chose to give up a job for a man thought was going to be her husband. SHE chose to take and keep a lower waged job for the sake of love. But, to now say that because things did not turn out the way I wanted it to, I want a do over is the stupidest thing she could of done, and it was just a stupid for the jury to even decide in her favor instead of letting her but chalk it up to experience. I would not be surprised or saddened if she is found dead. And maybe the jurors need to be in the same shoes as this man. I may be harsh, but this is the universal truth for all men and women... It sucks when what we thought should happen don't. It sucks when we spend time, effort, and finances on things in our lives and they don't turn out the way we want them. But, you know what, the most of us can live with that. Yeah some suffer harder than others, but you know, must of us just brush ourselves off and move on. We may never know why he did not go through with it. For all we know he might of discovered something about her that said maybe he shouldn't marry her. Or maybe he realized he wasn't ready and changed his mind. Either cause, at least he made the right choice in not pursuing something that might of been wrong in the long run. But, why should he have to pay because of things that could naturally occur in any relationship? You know what stories like this and some of the views I see here gives me justification of why I should be afraid to even get involved with a woman. I mean from them having the right to keep or terminate a child WE created to winning a lawsuit over a broken heart. It scares me. It scares me very much to know that I could do all the right things and they still be seen as wrong and I suffer for my choices. This is why I have dated more foreign women than American women. And that is why I tell foreign women, don't every wish to be like them, many of them are as bad a some of the men of your own country and to be proud and stand up for their heritage and ways and not think that American was are a shining beacon. Don't get me wrong I love my country and would die for it. But, it would be for those who actively stand up and stand for something and for the hope that their actions will spark a greater change in this morally bankrupt nation. DNR I wish someone could show me why I should have hope here.
twice_shy Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 No, she said she had fully disclosed all of her debt in writing to her fiance before he had come to Florida to move her to be with him. Her saying it doesn't make it true. If she wasn't in debt and he didn't pay 30 grand of her debt for her, then it would be fairly easy to prove or disprove through financial statements no?
twice_shy Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 Ridiculous. Don't some of you see the irony here? The majority (men and women) of posters here are denigrating this women for suing this man and for the decision the jurors made. A jury of six men and six women. And they made their decision of awarding her money AND how much to award in under 12 hours. Using this thread as an example, the case would have been thrown out in under 12 hours. Clearly they were privy to information that we are not. And to assume there wasn't any forensic accounting is just naive. And OJ went free. Whats your point?
BUENG1 Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 Ridiculous. Don't some of you see the irony here? The majority (men and women) of posters here are denigrating this women for suing this man and for the decision the jurors made. A jury of six men and six women. And they made their decision of awarding her money AND how much to award in under 12 hours. Using this thread as an example, the case would have been thrown out in under 12 hours. Clearly they were privy to information that we are not. And to assume there wasn't any forensic accounting is just naive. Juries are made up of everyday people, most who dont even want to be wasting their day. Its not like they're god and infallible
amerikajin Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 And women wonder why men don't want to commit. This is beyond absurd. I hope she develops a coke habit and sniffs it all up her nose because that would serve her right. If this man can be sued does that mean that walkaway wives can be sued as well? No dude, it's American women who wonder why men don't want to commit. I haven't dated an American woman (save one date) in over 6 years and this kind of shyte is a perfect example of why they're just not worth my time. The American feminist movement has created a culture of women who are obsessed with competing and dominating men. They've created a culture of women who, during their 70 hour work week that they've fought so hard for, spend every waking minute angry at men. They spend their off time hating men too but once in a while they go out and see less feminized, more traditional women -- the kind they scorn, the kind they're brainwashed to have contempt for -- they see these women walking arm in arm with a man and that they're actually smiling and seemingly pleased with their lives. So then, in that brief moment, they are reminded that they, too, have feminine instincts that need to be tended to, and they start desperately seeking suckers, er, I mean, men. The poor Yankee saps who don't know any better end up popping a boner for these chicks and taking their bait. They're convinced that women here are the best on earth. They don't realize that they're about to embark on a long road that will result in much bitterness. Hell, they might even get so badly burned by their experience that they might even decide to be celibate or move to San Francisco and become a complete fag. And so as American women turn men into metrosexuals and queers, they'll be left without men to shack up with, leaving them to do lesbian love scenes with their fellow feminists. p.s. Bartender, no more hefe weizen for me. Close me out before I really become obnoxious.
sb129 Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 I think the whole thing is ridiculous, and its another example of a case that may have a detrimental effect on legitimate cases in the future. People make bad choices and mistakes in life. We f**k up. Does that mean we get to sue someone everytime we do? Shouldn't we just accept responsibility for our actions and learn from them rather than trying to shift the blame and make someone "pay" every time? Its the grownup equivalent of going whining to the teacher when someone shoves you out of the sandbox.
amerikajin Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 Ridiculous. Don't some of you see the irony here? The majority (men and women) of posters here are denigrating this women for suing this man and for the decision the jurors made. A jury of six men and six women. And they made their decision of awarding her money AND how much to award in under 12 hours. Using this thread as an example, the case would have been thrown out in under 12 hours. Clearly they were privy to information that we are not. And to assume there wasn't any forensic accounting is just naive. Of course I was only half-joking before. Juries and the law are far from fallible. Like how is it that someone can spill hot coffee on themselves and get paid $2 million?! Maybe it's because the tort system in this country's messed up. And so is the dating system. I can understand it if she felt burned, but what kind of precedent are we setting if we allow people to recover damages for breakups? I think she's your typical Ameri-skank who's trying to get even with the Patriarchy. All I can say is American dudes are traveling around the world more and whenever they do, they usually leave their Ameri-scabs behind in favor of foreign girlfriends, and it's no wonder why. Foreign women treat them like men, and they only want to be treated like women in return. Being valued by their man is enough for most of the foreign women I've dated. Seriously, I doubt I'll ever date an American chick ever again -- a shag maybe but that's all. Why put up with the pretense of pseudo sophistication and the God forsaken chase, a routine in which Amerigirl pretends like she doesn't like you and will only pay attention to you when you ignore her and treat her like crap, but dumps your ass the moment you become "nice"??? Why put up living with someone who pretends to be confident, when in reality her "confidence" is just a masquerade for her deep seeded insecurities which will manifest themselves in time??? Ameri-chick will end up competing with her man and hating him when he scores a better job and earns a higher paycheck, but the moment she outdoes him??? She'll say she's "outgrown" her partner, look for someone who's a better "match" and say crap like "We were going in two different directions, he wouldn't change with me." She's never satisfied. Always wants more and more is never quite enough. Smart dudes look beyond our borders.
amerikajin Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 No one was calling him a scumbag. It's apparent that the woman had some legal rights due to how much money she lost in changing her life for the contract she made with the man while he is out nothing. Gifts don't count, those were his choice, and even if he did pay that much in gifts, it still doesn't cover the loss of salary. It could be many more years of lost salary if she can't secure a similar position. However, he didn't leave his higher paying job and rearrange his life to marry her, only to have her break it off three days before the wedding. So...that appears to be it. Just like someone stated, how is this win affecting anyone? She had the right to take it to court, she did, she won.....ok???? Oh God, get the f*ck over it already. It's called love, and it's also called life. People often make the wrong call in relationships, and sometimes it has financial consequences. I've been in one LDR in which I moved and basically gave up a career for a relationship that ultimately didn't work out. We broke up because we ultimately decided we weren't right for each other, but hell, even if I had determined she was a complete flake and thought she was just dicking me around, suing her would have been the last thing on my mind. It was as much my destiny to find out whether she was "the one" as it was hers. That's why it's called DATING and not MARRIAGE!!!! This culture has gone off -- way off -- the f*cking rails. Like I've already said (albeit in a slightly more indirect way) ten or twenty years from now, women in this country ought not to complain about not finding a good root. I've been beyond our borders and I can tell you that while American men are desirable in the eyes of many international women, the same cannot be said for American women. It's only American men who get conned into believing they're worth a f**k, and if they keep this up, it'll be a lifetime of celibacy and lesbian love scenes uploaded to YouTube. The jury followed the law in this case. Let's not forget that this is the same civil code that allows a burglar to sue homeowners for damages (and win) if they hurt themselves on your property in the process of breaking into your home. Think about that before you go spouting off on the virtues of some dame winning a jury-awarded judgment. It's not about what's righteous, it's about how competent her attorney was in arguing her case. She had the better lawyer, that's all.
Sks Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 O it'll be a lifetime of celibacy and lesbian love scenes uploaded to YouTube. At least someone benefits from it.
Lovely Disaster Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 They weren't dating, they were engaged, and she moved because he wanted her to because he was marrying her and told her to do so. SHe wouldn't have given up her job. Oh God, get the f*ck over it already. It's called love, and it's also called life. People often make the wrong call in relationships, and sometimes it has financial consequences. I've been in one LDR in which I moved and basically gave up a career for a relationship that ultimately didn't work out. We broke up because we ultimately decided we weren't right for each other, but hell, even if I had determined she was a complete flake and thought she was just dicking me around, suing her would have been the last thing on my mind. It was as much my destiny to find out whether she was "the one" as it was hers. That's why it's called DATING and not MARRIAGE!!!! This culture has gone off -- way off -- the f*cking rails. Like I've already said (albeit in a slightly more indirect way) ten or twenty years from now, women in this country ought not to complain about not finding a good root. I've been beyond our borders and I can tell you that while American men are desirable in the eyes of many international women, the same cannot be said for American women. It's only American men who get conned into believing they're worth a f**k, and if they keep this up, it'll be a lifetime of celibacy and lesbian love scenes uploaded to YouTube. The jury followed the law in this case. Let's not forget that this is the same civil code that allows a burglar to sue homeowners for damages (and win) if they hurt themselves on your property in the process of breaking into your home. Think about that before you go spouting off on the virtues of some dame winning a jury-awarded judgment. It's not about what's righteous, it's about how competent her attorney was in arguing her case. She had the better lawyer, that's all.
amerikajin Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 They weren't dating, they were engaged, and she moved because he wanted her to because he was marrying her and told her to do so. SHe wouldn't have given up her job. They weren't married. Period. End of story. Engagement isn't marriage. People back out of marriage all the time. I agree that there should be some fair compensation for whatever they've spent on planning the wedding and so forth, but to drag someone to court and start suing them over something that turned out to be a bad career move is a bit much. They guy was a complete flake -- it happens. But that's also one of the hazards of long-distance dating: you never really know who you're dating until you get to know them on a more personal level. What would happen, indeed, what will happen if she ends up dating some guy in her hometown and he just backs out of it at some point due to a classic case of cold feet? Is she going to get lawyers involved? I mean, yeah, she could. And yeah, she could probably win. That's not the point. The point is, do we really want to start planting the seed inside our heads that we can start taking ex boyfriends and fiancees to court if things don't work out? That's just absurd. As I say, this is just another reason to stay away from the domestic dating pool.
Woggle Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 I wouldn't tar all American women with the same brush because I have heard some true horror stories from Britain and Canada. I married an American woman and she is nothing like what you describe. I don't know how I was this lucky but good American women do exist. It is pretty easy to spot a misandrist and if men would take some time to hone this instinct they would be better off.
Lovely Disaster Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 Not really, Amerikajin, this is clearly an isolated case, this isn't happening everyday. If I had been in that position, I wouldn't sue, I don't think a lot of women would. I would dust myself off and look for a better job, or maybe beg for my old job back and start an exciting new chapter in my life. But this woman felt she was put out enough by this guy enough to sue.
Dark-N-Romantic Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 They weren't dating, they were engaged, and she moved because he wanted her to because he was marrying her and told her to do so. SHe wouldn't have given up her job. Oh poor her. She is such a victim. I think the only people who sides with her are those poor "victims" of their own case of "If I knew then what I know today, I would not have done it." When will these people grow up and say and accept that SHE/THEY MADE HER/THEIR OWN BED AND NOW MUST LIE IN IT? Are people really that blind? I she would of been laughed out in any smaller courts because it is counted as one of those risks one takes in a relationship. The simple golddigger CHOSE ON HER OWN VOLITION, IN THE HOPE (this is the operable here) FOR THE TWO GETTING MARRIED! What should he have done? Married her knowing full well he would not be happy? Lovely I would suggest you not to date or getting married. And men and women should be fore warned of women and men like these No this is not a personal attack but an observation and from life experiences and watching court program shows. Women like this do not take responsibility for their own actions. Yes, they many say, "Now that I taught about it and saw what happened, I was stupid for doing it. But, I did it because I was in love." Of freak'n please! This is the biggest cop out and pity party. She took a chance and it did not pay off. A relationship is like going anything else with life, a gamble. You want to play, have to be willing to pay. Now the only time you should get anything back was if it was intentionally a game was intentionally rigged for your lose. If any one dares, I would like some one to answer the following questions... 1) What if it were on the other foot? Should he or any man should have the right to so a woman who is making more money than him for expenses occurred for the hopes of a marriage? 2) Do you really think this lends to promoting a healthy relationships? 3) Should he be allowed to sue for money he spent on the debts that he paid that are clearly her own? 4) If you were in the same situation. Would you sue? 5) If you were one of the jurors, would you have made the same decision? 6) Do you think this kind of law should be in place for everyone who decide they want pay back for suffering a probability of life? 7) If you live in another country, do you have such laws on your book? Have any man or woman prospered from it? DNR
lino Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 I've been beyond our borders and I can tell you that while American men are desirable in the eyes of many international women, the same cannot be said for American women. Well I like American girls
Art_Critic Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 You want to play, have to be willing to pay. Now the only time you should get anything back was if it was intentionally a game was intentionally rigged for your lose. DNR.. In court it came out that he never intended to marry her.. The biggest reason he lost was he did intentionally do this to her. He testified that even when he gave her the ring he never intended to marry her..
twice_shy Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 Here is something else. I don't care how much money this other guy had. Who in their right mind takes a $50,000 a year hit to get married? Come on. thats insane. And if she was worth $81,000/year, why is it she could only find a 30 grand job? Hell, if the guy had that much money, why get a job at all? If he has lots of money, what the hell is 30 grand a year gonna do for their income? nada
Art_Critic Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 Who in their right mind takes a $50,000 a year hit to get married? I hate to agree with you TS.. but I feel the same way.. That is the biggie lesson learned from this.. I certainly would not have done it.. But people buy houses together and do stuff like this all the time without being married.. As far as the rest.. Come on.. She was worth 81k.. she moved to a city that didn't support her type of job and income so in order to make the bills she took a pay cut for him. Debating whether or not she is worth the 81k or if they would miss the 50k a year is just dumb.. She WAS earning it so therefore she was worth it..and anybody would miss 50k a year. I guess her getting a job at all goes against the gold digger theory doesn't it ?
grogster Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 DNR.. In court it came out that he never intended to marry her.. The biggest reason he lost was he did intentionally do this to her. He testified that even when he gave her the ring he never intended to marry her.. Really! That's interesting. If so, the whole thing smacks of fraudulent misrepresentation. Plaintiff detrimentally relied on defendant's fraudulent promise to marry. He defrauded her, and she deserves damages for the harm. If this were a regular business deal between two guys, no one, but the parties and their lawyers, would care. F@ck him--he deserves to take the hit.
tanbark813 Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 Debating whether or not she is worth the 81k or if they would miss the 50k a year is just dumb.. She WAS earning it so therefore she was worth it..and anybody would miss 50k a year. I guess her getting a job at all goes against the gold digger theory doesn't it ? Not exactly. No one put a gun to her head to take the lower paying job. She did it of her own accord. So when they were still planning on getting married she was okay with earning less. But once the guy dropped her, she suddenly wasn't okay with earning less. So that heavily implies that she was relying on his money. The lawsuit just shows that she was determined to get it one way or another. People these days just don't want to take responsibility for their actions. This woman is one example of that. Though there is one really good thing about this story. It makes for a great dating filter. Bring it up in conversation with a woman on the first date and if she sides with the woman in the story, make sure there isn't a second date.
serial muse Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 Though there is one really good thing about this story. It makes for a great dating filter. Bring it up in conversation with a woman on the first date and if she sides with the woman in the story, make sure there isn't a second date. Well, I agree that it's a good filter, in the sense that if a guy brought this story up on a first date, I'd immediately suspect that he was getting geared up for an anti-woman rant. Whether or not this woman is a total wretch (and I seriously don't know, based on the scant, contradictory info posted here, since I wasn't in that courtroom) the part that scares the willies out of me about this thread is how it immediately became some sort of diatribe against women in general and how they're all gold-diggers and have a sense of entitlement and feminists want to bite the heads off of men and pluck out their entrails. Or something. Seriously, get over it and try to see at least some people as individuals, not representative of an entire gender. This is one woman and one man, and it sounds like maybe they've both got issues and aren't going to be anyone's model of humanity. If some guy started out a date with me with this kind of story and watched me expectantly, I'd sense the hate and the silly "test" and you can bet there'd be no second date. Why bother? He's predisposed to mistrust me, and it's not worth my time to "convince" him to treat me fairly. How insulting.
tanbark813 Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 If some guy started out a date with me with this kind of story and watched me expectantly, I'd sense the hate and the silly "test" and you can bet there'd be no second date. Why bother? He's predisposed to mistrust me, and it's not worth my time to "convince" him to treat me fairly. How insulting. Because I was 100% serious too. I abhor sarcasm.
Recommended Posts