Log in

View Full Version : Legal Help!! A wife is suing me!



Pages : 1 [2]

04-27-2003, 12:23 PM
Rath!

Ok! Here is the thing! What is the difference if Patricia (or anyone else) “had” sex with this person for the money? Would you feel the same way like you do know?

I know what you are trying to tell me! Believe me I know! But please try to understand something too! This is all about the money! A cannot repeat enough! I don’t think this person is walked in to this club and pointed he’s finger on Patricia then said” Ok honey I find you, please let me give you $ 30.000 then will see what is going to happen! Maybe you could love me if I give you more and more money!” Would you? No!

Some people spend $ 20 on the dancers some $30.000 or more. The “more money” doesn’t mean you could get “more” because of the amount!

He had a choice to say: “Ok this is enough it’s not going anywhere even if I give more money!”

I’m sorry but I’m on Patricia’s side with this one, even if I’m a man! Maybe he was “blinded” or whatever you called but ha did what he did. If he smart enough he could learn form he’s own mistake. If not well there is always some other “Patricia” as long as the strip clubs remain opens!

Jay Zeno
04-27-2003, 01:20 PM
I'm having a midlife crisis. I'm going to go out a find a girlfriend to lavish money on, buy a convertible and crash it, then empty the account, go to the casino, and lose it all on the Munsters slot machine. When I'm done, my wife can sue the girlfriend, the car dealership, and the casino. Maybe we'll pull BMW and the Munsters in on the lawsuit, too. Then since we're still married, we'll split the settlement.

Life is good.

04-27-2003, 01:46 PM
Rath!

I think we should stop now! It's not going anywhere.

Unfortunately the only person who can tell us what was really happened is not here :-(
Maybe we should invite him? :-)

Just for the record I don’t blame Anna Nicole what she did! I blame the justice system! She couldn’t even do without someone who’s inside this “system”. After all doesn’t really matter is what we are thinking about her.

Finally I don’t think Patricia needs any excuses! This kind of scenario doesn’t exist anywhere else but in America! Whatever you like it or not we have to live with that!

tragic-beauty
04-27-2003, 06:05 PM
well.. it didn't seem as if you signed any documents as to wether or not you would pay him back.. no binding agreements.. ect..

Or did you?


Cant believe shes going to sue you though.. That's bs..

Pamela
04-28-2003, 12:01 AM
Thorn all you have to do is introduce the dancers you know to this message board, and a "hot" topic.
Saying that....It's only normal for each of us to have pretty much different opinions. We are not all saying the same thing here.

We are people, and putting thoughts into words is tough for alot. It's not as heart felt, or rude if we want it that way, trust me.

I don't get your thread, but remember we are not you. We are individuals, and talking about a subject on a board, is not like talking to people in real life. You can't compare the two.

If this woman asked me for advice with her situation to my face, i would tell her i think i am not the one you should be telling or asking for information about this. Why. In case it ever did go to court. I don't want to be party to something that may ruin her or him.

Here we can speak of feelings we could not say to ones face. I would not say to ones face!!. Not that this is fake at all to me, it's very real. I give the best advice i feel fit. But if i disagree with someone i state it. As we all do at times pretty much, that is what seperates us from the animals...We think to reason. Animals act upon instinct, or training ability.

I think you may understand what i am saying about message boards, and "trying" to give the advice you feel fit, by just being able to read. But not in real life situation.
And that makes us numb, or full of hate. no :)

Melonie
04-28-2003, 02:02 AM
(I know I said I'd bow out . . . .)

Melonie, why are you so insistent that Patricia's legal liability is all that matters? Since (thank god) the law doesn't regulate EVERYTHING we do but allows us play to do things that aren't really right, why doesn't it matter whether what she did was just plain wrong, irrespective of the legalities? You sound like you'd be shouting that she'd be justified if she had shot somebody but had a statute of limitations defense.

... because "right and wrong" are personal judgements! My personal judgement of what is "right and wrong" may not agree with anybody elses. Certainly voters in different states have different ideas about "right and wrong" on the same issues, leading to laws in one state allowing girl/girl shows on stage to be advertised in local newspapers, while laws in another state would deem the same girls doing the same show guilty of prostitution. Residents or politicians in many localities have gone on record that they feel that having any adult businesses within their city is "wrong", and have attempted to enact ordinances to that effect. Fortunately, the LAW has restrained them from turning their personal judgement into reality, through the appeals courts.

Legalities are all that matter at the bottom line. It's 100% legal for a porn actress to fuck on video in exchange for a large fee. It's 100% illegal for the same porn actress to fuck in a hotel room without video in exchange for the same or a lower fee. However, is it or is it not illegal for the very same porn actress to fuck in a hotel room without video and without a fee being paid, where by sheer coincidence a male fan who she was with in the hotel room "gives" her expensive jewelry.

If you're dwelling on "right and wrong", the matter involved in this lawsuit is whether a jury made up of housewives, retirees etc. will think it's "right or wrong" that a dancer continued to maintain a "relationship of some sort" with a regular customer who was married, thus supposedly inflicting "emotional distress" upon his wife. Obviously the typical sort of people who wind up on juries will probably go out of their way to stick it to the "evil, drug addicted, slut" of a dancer that Hollywood has stereotyped into their minds. The question which then really matters is if the LAW will restrain the jury members from awarding all of the dancer's assets to the "poor victimized" wife as punitive damages for the 'psychological harm' the dancer supposedly caused. I guarantee you that if this matter is left totally to the discretion of a typical jury consisting of 4 idle housewives, 2 civil servants, 4 retirees, a minister and a white collar office worker, the dancer will be left penniless.

doc-catfish
04-28-2003, 03:52 AM
What's important is whether Patricia played this guy. That happens all over the world. And it's wrong wherever it happens.
There. You said the magic word. WHETHER Patricia played this guy. I do not know enough about this matter to make rash assumptions whether she predatorily encouraged the man's behavior, or if he lavished her with his own free will, and as long as I do not have those facts, I'm not going to.


You guys who keep harping on the lawsuit have a moral blindspot so big Anna Nicole's ass wouldn't fill it.
You guys who keep harping on the morality of what was allegedly done here need to stay on topic.

Why do we keeping bringing up the lawsuit? READ THE THREAD TITLE PLEASE. It says, " Legal Help!! A wife is suing me!". It was not intended as a generalized discussion on the ethics (or lack thereof) in a dancer/sugar daddy relationship. If you would like to start a discussion on that matter, I would suggest REGISTERING and starting a new thread, preferably in the "Customer Conversation" forum where it belongs.
::) [argue] [shameful] [grr] [argue] [beat] [eek] [cuss] [frustrated]
Yes, it's a perfectly legitimate topic, and I would be more than happy to contribute my two cents and then some to it in a thread where it is appropriate to do so, but my two cents on the "Patricia" matter is up.

ATLDiscoLawyer420
04-28-2003, 04:40 AM
seeing as how this will eventually come before a jury in a Texas court, my advice would be ...

a) liquidate all of your assets, empty any bank accounts, and stick the cash in a home safe (or buy gold bars). If you own a car, sell it and lease one instead. If you own a home, sell it and rent an apartment instead. When the case gets serious, the first thing the wife's attorney will try to do is get a financial disclosure of how much you are "worth". Anything that shows up on that financial disclosure is fair game for a jury to award to the wife. Also, bank safety deposit boxes or post office boxes are not "safe", as the judge can order them to be opened as part of the financial disclosure.

b) start making some accusations of your own in regard to the wife - i.e. that it was SHE who had the original problem and that it was SHE who drove her husband into your "arms". Publicity is a two edged sword. If you're going to be crucified in the local media you might as well make a regular circus out of it and force her to consider the fact that by pursuing this lawsuit she'll be exposing herself to some public lumps as well. Also, as you pointed out, the wife has many more resources than you do to conduct this 'battle' in the courts. Moving it to the media evens the odds, or actually could tilt them in your favor since newspapers and TV are much more likely to favor a hot looking chick than some middle-aged housewife. Ironically, you might even be able to get the opportunity to make some positive statements about exotic dancing in a public forum and dispel some of the 'hollywood stereotype' bullshit that dancers are prostitutes, thieves and drug abusers, which would also take a lot of wind out of the wife's sails in advance when she tries to convince the jury that her husband was 'seduced by a prostitute'.

c) plan on moving to a different city after the case is over. The political anti-dance club fallout will probably put a major crimp on dance club activities in the short term at least.

I feel the need to tell you that the advice offered in A is illegal, and is likely punishable as fraud in some jurisdictions. At the very least all of these transactions could be undone. However, the odds of her actually finding all of these transactions are not 100% either, however if she is as rich and powerful as you say it wouldn't be all that hard. When sued, you will get served with what is called discovery. This will likely incude admissions, interogatories and requests for production of documents. These will invariably have questions about your assets, what you did with the money, prpoerty etc, so at some point after you do this (if you follw this advice) you could likely add perjury charges to your list of pending charges as well. Not to mention that if you are found to have been hiding a few things, your credibility in the eyes of the jury and the court, will be very low and they might not believe any of your story. I would advise against oart A.\

B and C are right on the money, but you have to make sure of one thing so that she doesn't slap you with a defamation suit. Defamation is making false allegations about someone else that damages someone elses reputation. However, the truth is an absolute defense to defeamtion. IF what you are saying is true, then you can say it no matter what. If what you are saying is FLASE you might be committing defamation or slander (written form) of def) and liable for even more $$. However you are fine to start a publicity war due to the shocking nature of what is going on, and the potential harm to her image, if you are doing nothing more than pleading your own case and discussing the truth. When you start threatening her with publicity make sure your threats are legitimate.

Another thing to look out for is to watch what you say and to whom you say it when discussing this incident.
Theoretcially you could be being taped by any customer who comes in, or her/him when they call to speak with you (if this happens I am not sure).

Under texas law, any party to a phone ca../convo can tape it without the conent of the other party. If you are a third party, it is a felony to tape/produce this information.

But if, for example, a customer was to come in while this case was going on and say "hey I saw you in the news. I hope that you takke that crotchety old bitch to the cleares etc, or I hope you squirelled your money away before she could get it etc DON'T RESPOIND OR SAY ANYTHING in fact I would even discuss this case with anyone. Even this internet posting board can theoretically be traced back to you through the isp # and discovery if they want to do enough digging (and you sound like you have a rich, bored, scorned woamn on your hands, a DEADLy combination IMO)

Texas laws on wiretaps/taping convos/phone calls

Texas Penal Code § 16.02: So long as a wire, oral or electronic communication — including the radio portion of any cordless telephone call — is not recorded for a criminal or tortious purpose, anyone who is a party to the communication, or who has the consent of a party, can lawfully record the communication and disclose its contents.

Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," Texas Code Crim. Pro. Art. 18.20.

Unlawful recording of a conversation, or disclosure of its contents with reason to know of the illegal interception, is a felony punishable by two to 20 years in prison and a fine not to exceed $10,000. Texas Penal Code § 12.33. A civil cause of action is expressly authorized for unlawful interception or disclosure. Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 123.002. The plaintiff may be entitled to $10,000 for each occurrence, actual damages in excess of $10,000, punitive damages and attorney fees and costs. Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 123.004.

ATLDiscoLawyer420
04-28-2003, 04:45 AM
I think that much of the advice above is great. I do beleive that peple that threaten never do, and people that do never threaten. So it remains to be seen whether "the wife" actually goes forward with a circus that will undoubtedly make her look at vert best, quite bad.
Here's some unsolicited legal advice (keep in mind that my practice is Ny and Connecticut based, and that Texas law varys).
First of you all the wife must prevail in a trial against you. Yes you will have to defend yourself. However, my experience tells me that what sometimes starts off looking bleak, turns out to be something very different. SO don't push the panic button.
If you are actually sued, and a judgement is rendered against you, the question is how would she collect. If you follow the very good advice from Melonie, you will have little in the way of assets to get at. Your stream of income is, I assume to a a large extent invisible. Unlike many salaried employees, she would not be able to execute a post judgement garnishment on your wages.
Beyond that , the ultimate and most powerful weapon you have is bankruptcy. Now before you freak about that concept, hear me out. Your filing would instantly eliminate any judgement against you forever. If you do this and you own a home, you would in most states, never lose your home due to homestead exemptions. Therefor, don't think about liquidating until you speak with a bankruptcy lawyer. You would most likely keep your car and household furnishings( although the big screen tv might be at risk). Each state has laws that set forth the type of property and dollar vaue of same that is exempt from creditors, so you need to determine this before taking this step. There will be an impact on your credit, but ironically, it may not be as bad as you think. You can very easily rebuild your credit because you have a clean slate and can't re-file for 7 years. I have clients that we have counseled in this area and they bought homes for the first time , a year after filing, so it is not the end of the world.
One last thing. Who cares what others think. Those that love you and know you, will love and care for you, no matter what. Nobody else counts.
Best of luck

I thought under federal bankrupcy law you could only exept 10 k of the equity in your home (20k for married couple??) Not my area, but that is what I seem to remember.

ATLDiscoLawyer420
04-28-2003, 04:53 AM
I would think it would be hard to prove you were trying to inflict mental distress on his wife. Perhaps a lawyer would be better able to give you advice.


It is difficult to prove the intentional aspect in general. Lucky for you texas doesn NOT recognize NEGLIGENT in flcition of emotional distress. A much lower standard that is recognized in other areas of the country.

http://www.aslme.org/pub_ajlm/21.2_3a.php.

(article explaining the teaxas sup ct cutting down NIMD)

http://www.divorcesource.com/research/edj/torts/98nov126.shtml.

interesting article on interspousal property problems. If you have an atty in the area, might want to consult with him and see if this decision means that you should be able to 'win' your suit b/c it is more proper for her to bring the action against her husband, than you, and in the divorce, not in the courts as a harrassingtactic. Either way an interesting read.

ATLDiscoLawyer420
04-28-2003, 05:01 AM
This thread seems to be straying from the facts here. The original point is that Patricia is potentially being sued for "intentional infliction of psychological harm" or whatever the specific charge is in Texas. If found guilty, she will be subject to outrageous amounts of punitive damages potentially being awarded by the jury to the wife (I'm thinking $100,000's). In addition, because the husband had the foresight to write "loan" on checks he wrote and Patricia accepted them or the goods purchased with them, she's also potentially liable for some $30,000 in repayment. Regardless of the "morality" of Patricia's "relationship" with this Sugar Daddy (which I have my own opinions about - posted elsewhere), the fact remains that the wife is setting in motion legal proceedings which could basically keep Patricia in poverty for the rest of her life.

Even worse, these legal proceedings, if successful, could set legal precedent for thousands of other wives to bring similar legal proceedings against dancers all over the country, which is a SERIOUS matter! This could also potentially remove Sugar Daddies and "regulars" from the income equation of every dancer, forcing girls to weigh the $1,000's or $10,000's they might earn against the $10,000's or $100,000's they might be forced to pay out if a wife successfully brings a similar lawsuit against them. And unlike doctors or engineers or other professions, no underwriter is going to offer "malpractice" insurance for dancers! This lawsuit is not just Patricia's problem! If this precedent is established, any dancer who relies on "regulars" that spend significant amounts of money on them over time (thus establishing a long term relationship of some sort between the dancer and the "regular" which the wife can prove in court) is potentially at risk of also being sued for "infliction of psychological harm" or "alienation of affection" or similar charges by the "regular"'s wife.

For the record, here is what is needed for IIMD in texas.


"This Court adopted the Restatement's formulation of intentional infliction of emotional distress in Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619, 621-22 (Tex. 1993) (adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts section 46 (1965). We have held that to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must establish that "(1) the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) the defendant's actions caused the plaintiff emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was severe." Randall's Food Markets, Inc. v. Johnson, 891 S.W.2d 640, 644 (Tex. 1995). Extreme and outrageous conduct is conduct "'so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.'" Twyman, 855 S.W.2d at 621 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts section 46 cmt. d (1965))."

ATLDiscoLawyer420
04-28-2003, 05:11 AM
It does not matter! seriously! He will get in trouble perhaps, but the dancer did her job. He spent high amounts on her inside the club. OK so he wrote loan on some checks. She should have to pay them back sounds to me thats what they were! Pay them back!
AS for gifts etc. that, is his doing. She may lose her job, because of seeing him outside the club, he will get in trouble with his wife. Wife may follow through and sue. (may not). Stand up to the pate. The only bad parts of this situation are....He wrote loans on some checks....Pay them back. Sounds to me like they may have indeed been a loan, or he would have wrote gift, etc.
As for other dancers and copycats to this....Keep it in the clubs, you'll be fine. I don't care how much money a guy spends on me, i don't say" hey if this is your wifes money i can't dance for ya". Screw that. This small incident will go no place as for us other dancers. As you see she met him outside the club, and accepted huge amounts of money and gifts.

That is not what dancing is all about. Next time pick a single "sugar daddy". Sounds like she was playing more than one guy! It will come back and bite you. My thoughts on this whole case. Get what you deserve. It was wrong meeting guys outside work. And loans, are that...Pay them back. They rest he will have to "step up to the plate and deal with". Melonie, i disagree, a dancer is not responsible to pay back monies given to her at work. That would be crazy! And since we accept cash not checks, prove the amounts. It can't happen at work. And if so, it's his problem not the dancer. Guys however will not stop going to strip clubs, it DOES work both ways. Wifes are not perfect, and there is a reason married guys come to see us!


One other potential problem I just thought of is the IRS problem here. That is unless you declared al this 30 k in income, as only 11,000 a year in gift is giftable tax free. The rest must be paid as income from what I remember from Prof. Abrahams tax class. If you didn't declare these gifts, and all other income for the year the IRS can come after you. This is always a threat when dealing with the powerful (which it sounds like she is) as they can have their connections puul strings and get you audited etc, and depending on how you reported your income this could get you in a dditional trouble.

velvet
04-28-2003, 05:46 AM
i give up you cant argue with a troll, he obviousley has issues with dancers and i cant help but feel he personally thinks hes been taken advantage of because he didnt get fucked sometime for his little bit of money. he already has stated he is a trick, or john or whatever you want to call it. he cant grasp the fact that a man would give a girl money because he wants to. not for sex or in the case of thorn that he was having a breakdown of some sort to even think a man would give a girl money other than for sex. who says this guy wasnt in his right mind? i have men give me money all the time that are perfactly sane. it all comes down to the leagalitys of the case this thread was started for. i doubt you would say his broker was a thief if he gambeled away money in the stock market or at the crap table. he must have been having a breakdown to gamble that much money away. it's the same thing

ATLDiscoLawyer420
04-28-2003, 05:57 AM
For the record, here is what is needed for IIMD in texas.


"This Court adopted the Restatement's formulation of intentional infliction of emotional distress in Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619, 621-22 (Tex. 1993) (adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts section 46 (1965). We have held that to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must establish that "(1) the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) the defendant's actions caused the plaintiff emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was severe." Randall's Food Markets, Inc. v. Johnson, 891 S.W.2d 640, 644 (Tex. 1995). Extreme and outrageous conduct is conduct "'so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.'" Twyman, 855 S.W.2d at 621 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts section 46 cmt. d (1965))."



To those of you completely dismissing this case (althouh I agree with thorn, it is weird that in a thread this long, albeit only a few days old, that the lead poster has 1 post) if it is real I think a real cause of action can be established.

1. intentional or reckless (would hinge on whether she knew he was married, if so then I think most juries would find that it was either reckless or intentionally have an affair with anothers husband) It would probably be really important to this to someohow prove that she did not have sex with him to win this point, b/c most juries would find it impossible that a human could spend 30 k on a stripper and not get laid, perception is reality and it would be very tough to find a jury that would believe this IMO.

2. "exreem and Outrageous" 30 k is 3 months. Nuff said.

3. In the first post she admitted it had. Even if the lady had emotional problems before (although this could be used to offset the damages" Most states (not sure of texas on this one) adopt a rule called "the eggshell skull" "take the defenadnat as you find them". This means that with very few exceptions (supersensitivities of a particular person... IE can't sue the fry clerk for asking you if ou want fries and happen to be allergic, had parents killed by french fry, of the kind that are so remote that you could never forsee) Much harder t make the case that an affair (which is clearly what she is alleging, not just 30 k in 'loans') could meet the damages test here.

4. "severe" Original post said it was.


MANY exceptions, and ways to disprove what I said above (this is the law after all, and could go many directions) but this is a very plausible scenario depending on how the facts truly are. For people to simply laugh this off is fine, but then again people used to laugh when anti-tobacco people wanted to sue tobacco companies. :o

Melonie
04-28-2003, 08:11 AM
Well, rath, as much as many of us would like to reflect back on the "good ol' days" when strippers only danced on stage before an audience and got paid well just for putting on a performance, with a few notable exceptions (i.e. very upscale show clubs) today's dance clubs do involve one on one interaction between dancers and customers. That interaction can stem from personal conversations with a customer, to varying degrees of physical proximity/contact with a customer. Additionally, a few dancers see fit to extend the dancer/customer relationship to something beyond straight business in a setting beyond the club.

Morality is in the eye of the beholder. To your average housewife, minister or cop, everything that dancers do is judged to be immoral ! From your statements you obviously don't feel any differently now that you know the reality of the dancing business for all but a few lucky show club dancers. With that in mind, adios!

Jay Zeno
04-28-2003, 08:46 AM
You guys are a bunch of moral midgets.
honestly thought that stereotype was an unfair libel on strippers. This board has tought me differently.

If you're reduced to calling people who disagree with you "moral midgets," it's a good time to leave.

If you look at the postings, there was a range of reaction, not just one simple reaction. One singular reaction would indicate a stereotype. A wide range of reactions would counter that stereotype perception.

If you've been "taught" the stereotype, it's only because that's what you wanted to hear.

Ciao.

Bill_Clinton_1
04-28-2003, 10:24 PM
...Crap!!I didn't know SHE was the one with all the money...
I just wanted to reiterate the point that the wife in this case has all the money, so I feel it is safe to assume that the husband spent $30,000 of his wife's money.

If I had a bad relationship with my wife and she had a ton of money, I think it would be rational to try to blow as much of it as possible. It's easy to spend someone else's cash. I'm surprised he didn't spend more.

velvet
04-29-2003, 03:50 AM
blah blah blah thorn you keep saying the same thing over and over. i think we know where you stand. you are the morals police for dancers. thanks dont know how we ever got along without you! we'll just go with it's the evil dancers fault ok? not the man who is in "crisis" lol crisis my ass.

ATLDiscoLawyer420
04-29-2003, 04:09 AM
Something I have noticed here about the men who are bashing Patricia, they have made little to no mention of the husbands "moral incorrectness"
It is he who is to blame here, and he the wife should be taking to court. If he had an agenda for spending that money other than getting into Patricia's panties ( which it seems so to me from what I read- sounds like revenge against his wife) then he may very well have played Patricia with sob stories of his own. I am imagining things like this:

husband-" oh I just need someone to make me forget about how sick my wife is, I just want to escape the reality I am losing her"

" It brings me happiness to do these things for you, it isn't the amount that matters to me its being able to help you "

"Seeing you happy and taken care of is all the thanks I need"

yes it was niave of Patricia but do I think she played him, not from what I read.

Any of you bashing her, calling her immoral and such are probably hypocrites. If someone was offering you cash and gifts all the time telling you they wanted nothing but your happiness in return you'd probably accept some if not all they offered too.

Quit blaming Patricia for the husbands behavior.



I hope I am not included in this group with my comments above.

I think it is a given that a marrried man who aquires a sugar-bebe and spends 30k on her in 3 months has so clearly crossed a line of morality , no matter where you draw the line. I do have sympathy for those who are afflicted with diesases or mental infirmity (addictions, illness etc).

If the shoe were on the other foot and a dancer was spending 30k on a 'habit' of any kind and was being used by a rich millionaire type who truly did enjoy her company, but was still using her (I guess the reciprocal action would be most likely prostitution by this hypothetical-- If any of you have seen requiem for a Dream think Jennifer Connelly's character) because he was aware of her addiction/illness, I would think that was equally wrong. Actually I would think that was more wrong, as I think the physical pangs and needs assocaietd with drug addiction would be greater than intimacy/sexual addiction, but then I am sure there are sex addicts out there who would debate me.

I never intended not to morally scorn the hubbie, I was just asking if your opinion of the 'ethics' of the situation change if he clearly has a sexual addiction. (which for the record he may or may not have, only patricia--- who might not exist since she ahs posted once and left-- knows for sure. It is equally plausible this was truly just a wash to get back at his wife and he really enjoyed the idea of blowing all of his money on her... we don't know enough facts to truly know)

my 2 cents

patricia
04-29-2003, 08:04 AM
This is Patricia!
I have been having some very awful days and yes the lawsuit is moving forward. I was served yesterday. I will be back in a few hours, or tomorrow at the latest. One thing I will mention to the earlier posts about liquidating...in Texas a judgement in civil court is NOT dismissable by bankruptcy.
I haven't read the latter posts but I will quickly. Oh, and yes, like a fool, I did lead him to believe there would be sex. I am only being brutally honest here so that *someone* can benefit from the shit I brought upon myself, and soon to be my family. I imagine this will kill my father:(

Pamela
04-29-2003, 08:14 AM
Sorry Patricia,
i have to back out of this one. Hell i am a dancer, and can't be of any help to you.
If this is really happening to you, i wish you luck. But this thread is out of my league. I don't have the credentials to even go there.
Pamela

Djoser
04-29-2003, 10:09 AM
Well, shame on Patricia!

No doubt Joan of Arc would have turned the guy down flat...

Mother Theresa, had she been blessed with pulchitrude rather than just a saintly disposition, would have wielded it with greater care, and would have made it clear from the get-go that sex was out of the question...

Patricia is no angel, I suppose, but it is much easier to bash her for being unable to resist a temptation few on this Earth will ever be faced with, than it is to face such temptation oneself.

She is now paying a price far greater than any abuse this lame-ass troll can dish out, so I vote we give the girl a break. I for one wish her luck, she's going to need a bit, to get through this ordeal.

Some deceptive enticement notwithstanding, what she has done is probably no worse than what the vast majority of women in this tawdry little MTV paradise I live in would leap at the chance to do.

Having spent most of my life living in relative penury (thanks, Veronica), I have been unable to play the role of Sugar Daddy. I should have been born with the ability to bounce a ball, instead of wield a brush. Or maybe whine into a mike in a moronic voice about how the bimbo I was screwing dissed me one night, while thousands of new bimbos line up for the privilege of having me treat them like dirt. To those guys, 30 G's is a drop in the bucket.

Instead I have been repeatedly amazed (and often quite amused) to watch women who would no doubt satisfy the stringent moral criteria of a troll, throw themselves at men who are physically and mentally pathetic in comparison to me, because their wallet was fatter than mine. Women who would no doubt leap on the bandwagon to lynch Patricia, and would sneer at any and all strippers, regardless of their level of integrity. But at least they aren't whores.

Wait, whores actually yield up the sex to the guy with the cash. Patricia just kept him in a state of anticipation.

The guy might have gotten his wife's money's worth, for all we know. Sex is often no better than the mental foreplay beforehand. Delightful anticipation can be a state of infinitely greater bliss than any quick nut bust in VIP by some bicycle shorts clad geek.

I can think of many women whose prolonged and tantalizing attention would be well worth the paltry sum of 30,000$, which that godlike stud Donald Trump would blow in an hour, without being necessarily blown in the process.

In a land where celebrity jocks and rockstars are getting millions of dollars for doing what is ultimately little more than acting out their fantasy, complete with the abject adulation of millions of ass-kissing worshippers, such a sin as accepting money thrust upon her by a perhaps persuasive suitor seems forgiveable to me.

And I doubt he wore a big "Kick Me" sign on his back. Probably one that said "I'm so cool, fuck me." would have been appropriate. I've seen plenty of those in my time. Besides, the idea that a man who admits purchasing sexual favors has any moral standing superior enough to castigate Patricia is laughable. So good-bye aleady, and good riddance. Go hang out with the guys that talk about their dicks, and how to get a stimulating VIP with them.

You are human, Patricia, and you are paying the price for your mistake as we speak.

I wish you success in riding out this ordeal, from the bottom of my heart.

04-29-2003, 06:33 PM
ATLDiscoLawyer,

Isn't it funny that the Bankruptcy statutes are Federal, and the bankruptcy court is federal, but what gets decided is basaed on the laws in the state where the Bankruptcy is, especially the "safe harbor" stuff? There sure are a lot of scumbags with big houses in Florida! (tax fugitives, too).

Patricia,
There's good reason for the law being that way - specifically to prevent people from skirting various protections by divesting themselves of assets, pulling some "stunt", and then declaring bankruptcy to "get out cheap". just so you know, taking the advice of anyone of divesting yourself of various assets and then declaring bankruptcy - there's prohibitions on doing an awful lot of stuff "in contemplation of bankruptcy". For example, if you knew you were going to file, and decided to run up your debts/credit cards just before doing it, you could very well get those things "undone" because you did it "in contemplation" of filing.

Devastating Divyne
04-29-2003, 10:40 PM
And you'd take it even though it would pretty well indicate that the person doing it was in some sort of emotional crisis? [Be honest here... people don't go giving away tens of thousands of dollars to strangers if they aren't having issues.]





I just caught up on this thread and um, you happen to be wrong. People who have this type of disposable income throw it away all the time. People who have it spend it. I buy $200 and $400 shoes when I have it to spend and at other times a trip to 9 West or Enzo has to satisfy me and my wants b/c I don't have the money to blow at that time and will set $100 as my limit. There are men and people out there who do not ever have to set a limitation on what they can buy. This time the money was not his to spend and in all actuality its not about money its about feelings.

A couple of examples of people with money to spend: friend dates an NBA boy who spends cash out the ass b/4 they got together ie.officially dating, to impress her complete with shopping sprees and renting her Bentley's at a $1000 a day when she flew to LA, TX, IL or NY to see him play. Dot.com guys blow through town every now and then and blow 1000s all around my club to impress girls and clients. Music people, athletes, and the independently wealthy, etc. throw away this kind of money all the time to impress people they feel are worth impressing be it strippers, high-society broads, whoever they feel is worth it.

I know several ladies in and around Atlanta, and a few more places actually, some entertainers and some everyday chicks that caught his eye that Jermaine Dupri bought cars for some he was banging when he bought em some he wasn't. I don't see him suing them now that the IRS is getting him for tax evasion blaming it on them.

Point is: It wasn't his money to spend. His wife is hurt and embarassed. She is gonna get the bad stripper who stole her good, faithful loving husband away with her satanic nude seductions and distractions. Its not about what Patricia did. Its about the legal system and what the point the wife is trying to make could mean to the rest of us. If she led him on thats one thing. However, regardless to what happened the lawsuit is becoming a reality. Those here are only offering advice as best they see it to help Patricia weather the storm thats about to come that can, for all practical purposes, set a precedent about customers in our line of work and their money that will have us all wondering if they have wifes, how their wife feels about their visits, and where the money they are spending on us comes from.

The lawsuit is here and now and like Stonecold said: THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.

Tigerlilly
04-30-2003, 03:47 AM
Hey don't ya'll wish we all lived
in Texas- we could sue all kinds of customers, managers
etc for causeing intentional mental distress [joker]

Sorry Patricia , I couldn't resist.

Regular_Customer
04-30-2003, 04:23 AM
I wonder if filing a counter suit against the husband would work? You know, the "He lied to me about his wife and their problems" schtick? Especially if she were to claim the husband was seeking her because he claimed he wasn't being satisfied physically or emotionally at home?

Sounds to me like the wife wants to hurt/embarrass Patricia, hence the whole contacting family thing mentioned at the very beginning. I'm all for turning it back around. Patricia goes after the hubby and tells the wife she has no choice but to do so, given the lawsuit against her. THEN, have a lawyer politely mention with both cases out there it has become a media zoo; which is causing emotional and financial hardship on Patricia. Point out that it is fairly obvious the wife is only suing to cause these hardships and that it would be a shame to be forced to sue the wife on the same grounds...

Then belabor the whole media circus it could become and ask the wife where she plans on moving years from now, when all three lawsuits get settled, because she'll never live it down...

Of course, I think twisted, so it might not work.

velvet
04-30-2003, 04:24 AM
i pretty much agree with lily. although i question if patricia is in fact real. 10 pages of replys and she conviently comes in at the end to agree with the trolls.

as for rath, i doubt i would enjoy his company he seems very arrogant. money doesnt force me to stick around an asshole. who cares how long he has been going to stripclubs in fact it makes him a little pathetic in my eyes if he is sooo imersted in strip club culture.

thorn is aptley named he just loves to be a thorn in anyones side that doesnt agree with his trick ass.

i'm sooo done with this topic

Pryce
04-30-2003, 08:20 AM
Super: Shrunk! [cheers] I've cleaned out many of the repeated arguments.

Rath: You're not a troll, but please do not post the same things over and over or take things way off topic.

Thorn: Read Jason's post about sueing everyone. Being emotional does not render one irresponsible for their actions. By that logic, if Patricia was in an unstable mindset then it would be ok for her to have taken the money. Hell, this could even be a scheme by the couple to take money from Patricia. That doesn't seem likely, but none of us know enough to cast judgement.

Patricia: Good luck. Consult a lawyer in your area quickly.

Richard_Head
04-30-2003, 05:01 PM
Wow, I can't believe you are all missing the obvious, why doesn't Patricia just manipulate one of her other Sugar Daddies into buying her out of this mess?

Devastating Divyne
04-30-2003, 05:12 PM
[email protected] u richard head. Its so right in our face I can't believe noone thought of that one before. She might be leery of sugar daddy's right now................................or she might have read this post and is on the phone with one of them right now.

HairFan
06-18-2003, 11:50 AM
Missouri Supreme Court ruled against "alienation of affection"

harleyz
06-18-2003, 08:13 PM
Just wanted to say good luck! I've had wives come after me physically, but never in court. Hope all ends well for you.