View Full Version : Suckered By Stripper, Man Sues
stant
10-28-2005, 12:58 PM
Stant - would that seriously be allowed? Depends on the Judge. In US fed court, never. But some state older jurists won't notice you slip this sort of thing by. You already know where I'm going with it. They won't.
Lilith
10-28-2005, 01:03 PM
Husband has no alleged causality relevant to the claims.
I'm sure her lawyer can put something together which will lead the judge down the primrose path towards putting two and two together. Goodness knows all that "defendant claimed to have been unmarried, did not inform plaintiff of marriage, etc etc" certainly opened the door to opposing counsel begging the question of why it was so damned important.
Based on what? I can't imagine a set of facts that would support an mp claim here.
Come now, Stant, don't be silly. If the vast majority of this filing is thrown out as insubstantive, irrelevant and otherwise failing to show prima facie evidence of anything at all warranting a lawsuit then what you have left is malicious prosecution. If this guy hasn't been countersued already then it's the thinnest of threads that will save him from that in the future.
stant
10-28-2005, 01:05 PM
Which leads again to reasonable cause for belief. If I donate $3000 to the American Red Cross for Katrina victims, I have reasonable cause for belief that it will be spent on Katrina victims. If I donate $3000 to my brother for Katrina victims, I have reasonable cause for belief that it will be spent on Katrina victims. If I give $3000 for Katrina victims to a woman, whose name I don't even know and have never relentlessly pursued, and whom I have allowed to lie to me for three years then I quite realistically have no reasonable cause for belief that it will be spent on Katrina victims. Further, I set the standard for a claim that my continual and persistent financial gifts for purpose A which are never spent on purpose A gives a reasonable person cause to believe that I really don't care where the money is spent and the purpose given is irrelevant to me.
Therefore, no fraud.
You just lost the jury.
whom I have allowed to lie to me for three years There's an admission....
I quite realistically have no reasonable cause for belief that it will be spent on Katrina victims.What about your mother's cancer operation....? You have a really honest face Lillith. I trust you.
This is the bitch for the defense. They have to prove their client is a liar. Then they are fucked by a lack of credibility....
stant
10-28-2005, 01:08 PM
If the vast majority of this filing is thrown out as insubstantive, irrelevant and otherwise failing to show prima facie evidence of anything at all warranting a lawsuit then what you have left is malicious prosecution. .Nice jargon slinging. Dont mean shit.
He says/she says passes demur every time. Its a fact judgement always left to the jury. End of dismissal argument.
(you forgot habeous corpus, fiat lux, carpe diem, and e pluribus unum)
(oh btw you cant sue for mp until the case is adjudicated to verdict or other resolution and even then it is an extremely tough claim. Malice is not the same as frivolous.)
If I give $3000 for Katrina victims to a woman, whose name I don't even know and have never relentlessly pursued, and whom I have allowed to lie to me for three years then I quite realistically have no reasonable cause for belief that it will be spent on Katrina victims. Further, I set the standard for a claim that my continual and persistent financial gifts for purpose A which are never spent on purpose A gives a reasonable person cause to believe that I really don't care where the money is spent and the purpose given is irrelevant to me.
Therefore, no fraud.
Being a pathologial liar is not a defense against an accusation of lying. It's an admission of a pattern of deceptive behavior. A series of frauds does not somehow magically transform the act of a fraud into "non" fraud.
Lilith
10-28-2005, 01:26 PM
You just lost the jury.
Being an ex-stripper sued by her sugardaddy, she's be a fool and a damned fool to allow this to be a jury trial. Remove to federal and avoid a jury at all cost.
There's an admission....
... by both parties, if by one at all. He cannot claim that she lied for years without also admitting to have allowed her to lie. For years. Just picture it. "Well, I was pretty sure that her mother wasn't sick and it was damned obvious that she didn't get implants and didn't have dental surgery and didn't go to California and didn't go to Japan... but how was I to know that she wasn't lying this time?"
What about your mother's cancer operation....? You have a really honest face Lillith. I trust you.
That's if he can prove she lied. For all the evidence given thus far, he's merely stating that everything was a lie for three years based on the supposed lie about being single (which, at the time, appears to have been completely true). If he can prove that she was feeding him outrageous and obvious lies for years then we're right back to him showing why it didn't bother him for years but bothers him now, all of a sudden.
This is the bitch for the defense. They have to prove their client is a liar. Then they are fucked by a lack of credibility....
Frankly, I don't see anyone having the credibility card to play here.
Jenny
10-28-2005, 01:29 PM
Yeah, stant, but honest faces aren't all they are cracked up to be, and the fact is that the lawsuit delineates around her claim of being unmarried, not cancerous. I think the fact that he met a stripper in a strip club really undermines the "reasonableness" of depending on her statements. I don't think many people will believe that it is all that reasonable to believe a stripper (in a strip club) who says "I don't have a boyfriend".
Being a pathologial liar is not a defense against an accusation of lying. It's an admission of a pattern of deceptive behavior. A series of frauds does not somehow magically transform the act of a fraud into "non" fraud.
No, but if the series was substantive and obvious enough could it not undermine his belief in the deception (which is what is really at issue - whether or not he could reasonable rely on what she was saying). There is a lot of stuff in there - like she said she needed travel expenses to go to Japan, and never went. Was this for dancing, or a day job? Did he never see or call her while she was in Japan? Did it not occur to him to ask why she was being relocated to Japan? How does he know now that she was NEVER in Japan - I think this is part of it - it seems obvious that he knew that at least many of her deceptions were deceptions, and that leads us to think that a reasonable person WOULD NOT rely on her assertions. No? I didn't even include any jargon.
Lilith
10-28-2005, 01:32 PM
Nice jargon slinging. Dont mean shit.
Prove it. Go file a few lawsuits with no prima facie evidence whatsoever and see how it goes. Means a whole lotta shit, Stant, a whole lot.
(you forgot habeous corpus, fiat lux, carpe diem, and e pluribus unum)
And you didn't spell that right. But we digress, eh?
(oh btw you cant sue for mp until the case is adjudicated to verdict or other resolution and even then it is an extremely tough claim. Malice is not the same as frivolous.)
You must not spend much time in consumer law. Check PACER for such claims in your state alone. Frivolous litigant is worlds away from malicious prosecution.
stant
10-28-2005, 01:37 PM
Yeah, stant, but honest faces aren't all they are cracked up to be, and the fact is that the lawsuit delineates around her claim of being unmarried, not cancerous. I think the fact that he met a stripper in a strip club really undermines the "reasonableness" of depending on her statements. I don't think many people will believe that it is all that reasonable to believe a stripper (in a strip club) who says "I don't have a boyfriend".
This is too close to the facts of this case for my comfort level, but you hit some good points. This case is by no means the absurd proposition that you might think.
Lilith
10-28-2005, 01:38 PM
Being a pathologial liar is not a defense against an accusation of lying. It's an admission of a pattern of deceptive behavior. A series of frauds does not somehow magically transform the act of a fraud into "non" fraud.
But implicit permission and condoning of the pathological lies over a span on years does remove the plaintiff's ability to insist on honesty.
Do me favor, hein? Make a new post so I don't have to go back up and check to see if you edited again. I'll miss something and not answer good points because I thought I'd already read everything from that post. Much easier that way and your words won't get lost in the shuffle.
stant
10-28-2005, 01:48 PM
But implicit permission and condoning of the pathological lies over a span on years does remove the plaintiff's ability to insist on honesty.
Very good. Estoppel as an affirmative defense. It's tricky to assert and win it, but I can see it.
VVVV Look up estoppel, bro. And laches.
dlabtot
10-28-2005, 01:49 PM
But implicit permission and condoning of the pathological lies over a span on years d
LOL, there's no such thing as 'implicit' permission.... that is just a disingenuous way of saying "Permission was never given, but I acted as if it were anyway"
and the fact that someone was lied to over a period of years in no way means that person 'condoned' those lies.
dlabtot
10-28-2005, 02:15 PM
'a belief that "no" really meant "yes"' --- that pretty much sums up what bs the idea of 'implied consent' is.
Jenny
10-28-2005, 02:49 PM
Dlabot - there IS such thing as implied consent - consent that is not explicit, but implicit (see how that works) in the behaviour of the parties. I think what Lilith is saying is that the reasonable person would realize/have realized that the defendant (the female defendant) was lying, and that by going along with the deception one loses one's rights to sue over it afterwards. Plaintiffs have to be reasonable too, (yea, even under the law) not just defendants.
Stant: oops. But, in any case surely we have to approach the facts with the importance they are ascribed in the plaintiff's action?
stant
10-28-2005, 03:04 PM
A con that repeats the same lie over and over with a clear adoption by the mark that the lie is factual has some recourse in this theory. However, a con that continually changes the lie or con has no such luck. Each lie becomes a new con, and the mark has a new claim for fraud. Perhaps lies that date back several years are barred by the passage of time, but the mitigation of the fraud ends there. If the acceptance of the liar as a perpetual liar by the mark is the theory, then why assert any lies at all? Why not simply ask for the cash? This theory fails by mere common sense.
What members here understand is that a mark may be overcome by some amorous feelings for the con, which reduces his willpower. However, this does nothing to change the fraudulent representations made by the con, and potential civil and criminal liability. Imagine a defense of a con that prayed upon the elderly that they deserved to be taken because of their pathetic inability to stand up for themselves. I'd say this is a cautionary tale in the making to say the least.
dlabtot
10-28-2005, 03:04 PM
Yes there are such things as implications. However, there are also things called inferences which are often wrongly drawn. Just because someone didn't say something, doesn't (ahem) imply that they implied it. You have to actually do something, express something -- imply is a verb, it describes an action.
As to what a reasonable person would think, that is what juries and trials are for, to determine the answers to such questions.
Jenny
10-28-2005, 03:34 PM
A con that repeats the same lie over and over with a clear adoption by the mark that the lie is factual has some recourse in this theory. However, a con that continually changes the lie or con has no such luck. Each lie becomes a new con, and the mark has a new claim for fraud. Perhaps lies that date back several years are barred by the passage of time, but the mitigation of the fraud ends there. If the acceptance of the liar as a perpetual liar by the mark is the theory, then why assert any lies at all? Why not simply ask for the cash? This theory fails by mere common sense.
Well, the fact that the defendant is a liar is not why we are contending that this suit is invalid, but the fact that the plaintiff knew that the defendant was lying when the he handed over the money. Or so we are contending the reasonable person would know. So the defendant's state of mind is not at issue - because, again we are looking to compensate the plaintiff not punish the defendant for being a nasty bad liar.
What members here understand is that a mark may be overcome by some amorous feelings for the con, which reduces his willpower. However, this does nothing to change the fraudulent representations made by the con, and potential civil and criminal liability.
Well, that depends on what you mean by will power - if we may return to your scenario in which Punk and I are getting together to take someone for $100 000.00. This someone is very suspicious, because I have been very untrustworthy in the past. Perhaps this someone goes so far as to hire a private investigator to ascertain that I am, in fact, lying and then goes and hand over the money anyway, because of the amorous feelings and lack of willpower (I am pretty damn charming when I set my mind to it - I could do it). This certainly interferes with the civil liability. This, of course, is a situation in which the plaintiff knows-for-sure that the defendant is lying - however I think the same reasoning could be extended to what a reasonable person would know in his place.
stant
10-28-2005, 03:50 PM
but the fact that the plaintiff knew that the defendant was lying when the he handed over the money. .
I like this argument. The entire exchange is a charade. Role playing.
It may be a tough sell, however.
I'm not a self-righteous do-gooder as my last post might indicate, I was just puffing up an argument that I think might just work.
Like it or not, it's all about the $$$$.
My take on all this is that there are plenty of way to be an ROB without flagrantly lying. Does that qualify for moral high ground? }:D
Jenny
10-28-2005, 06:02 PM
I think I've established that I find them both to be equally reprehensible. I don't think it is cool or harmless to try to purchase people like that, and then try to ruin them when it turns out you aren't buying them after all. And yeah, she got what she could and was unethical and lied. But the guy is NOT a victim anymore than she was. Maybe this should get out and discourage other men - or other people - from using their money to try to manipulate and control other people's lives. If he wins, then there is certainly nothing stopping him from doing this same thing to another woman, or anyone else from doing something similar.
Don't forget - this case delineates around the fact that she is married - that she misrepresented her marital status, not that she lied about travelling or sick relatives. His case is turning on the fact that she is married and will therefore never be "his."
Stant - how about he knew or reasonably couuld have known?
stant
11-01-2005, 01:54 PM
Stant - how about he knew or reasonably couuld have known?
From the California Jury Instruction annotations on Fraud "reasonable reliance":
The "leading case" (see Blankenheim v. E.F. Hutton, Co., Inc. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1463, 1474 [266 Cal.Rptr. 593]) on justifiable reliance states: "[N]or is a plaintiff held to the standard of precaution or of minimum knowledge of a hypothetical, reasonable man. Exceptionally gullible or ignorant people have been permitted to recover from defendants who took advantage of them in circumstances where persons of normal intelligence would not have been misled.
‘No rogue should enjoy his ill-gotten plunder for the simple reason that his victim is by chance a fool.’
Doesn't look good for you and Punk, Jen ;) . Fortunately this is only a hypothetical.
dlabtot
11-01-2005, 02:07 PM
Don't forget - this case delineates around the fact that she is married - that she misrepresented her marital status, not that she lied about travelling or sick relatives. His case is turning on the fact that she is married and will therefore never be "his."
Based on my reading of the suit, your characterization is not accurate. Nothing in the suit says that it is about the fact that she will never be 'his' -- where did you come up with that one? Contrary to your assertion, it does, however, cite numerous lies and misrepresentations. Lying about her maritial status was just one of them.
stant
11-01-2005, 02:13 PM
DL is correct. The relevance of the fraudulently concealed marraige (between you and punk) is not that Doc can never "have" you, it's that you've concealed a financial base that would reasonably be expected to contribute or pay for the fraudulent expenses you ask Doc to pay for.
In other words, you are lying about the expense and your available means to pay. Forget your notions of jilted romance. This is about cash.
Jenny
11-01-2005, 02:38 PM
Based on my reading of the suit, your characterization is not accurate. Nothing in the suit says that it is about the fact that she will never be 'his' -- where did you come up with that one? Contrary to your assertion, it does, however, cite numerous lies and misrepresentations. Lying about her maritial status was just one of them.
Well, I realize that he did not characterize his lawsuit as in "I own her. Make that guy stop playing with my stuff". That is not what I was saying at all.
I also realize it cites numerous lies and misrepresentations. However, it includes them as examples (which I believe it says). It is not trying to recover for each individual instance of deception, likely because it would come to substantially less than 175k. The overarching "deception" that he is suing over is her misreprentation of her marital status - because that encompasses not only each specific instance, but any small amount he gave her day to day, or that weren't attached to specific lies. The only amount included was $3000.00 for dental fees, which he then replaces. Perhaps it is the English major in me that assumes, as the amount actually written in, that it is the most, or one of the most significant amounts that he gave her. Now I think there is limited rationale for arguing that her marriage is a significant deception (in these circumstances - Stant's quibble notwithstanding) and of course the one that leaps out at one (and, indeed, that will leap out at the judge and/or jury) is that he thought he was leasing her, and is now realizing that he is not, that she already belongs to someone else.
stant
11-01-2005, 02:47 PM
Well, I realize that he did not characterize his lawsuit as in "I own her. Make that guy stop playing with my stuff". That is not what I was saying at all.
I also realize it cites numerous lies and misrepresentations. However, it includes them as examples (which I believe it says). It is not trying to recover for each individual instance of deception, likely because it would come to substantially less than 175k. The overarching "deception" that he is suing over is her misreprentation of her marital status - because that encompasses not only each specific instance, but any small amount he gave her day to day, or that weren't attached to specific lies. .
I'll comment on the case at bar here because the Complaint is crystal clear. Plaintiff is seeking to recover for each and every instance of deception. The marraige deception is incidental at best.
The delineation of alleged deceptions are not put forth as examples but as allegations (potentially not exhaustive) of the specific frauds.
Plaintiff is also seeking Punitive damages, which is essentially a punishment for particularly malicious fraud, not a recovery of compensatory damages.
This notion that he is trying to "buy" or "lease" her and had no hope of such, is totally irrelevant and not in the least actionable. Perhaps this topic would be relevant to a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, but such a claim was not made.
See complaint, paragraph 15 for relevance of marraige deception allegation (concelament of financial means). See complaint paragraph 19, for an example of a fraud allegation Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages from (she claimed she needed money because she had breast cancer, Plaintiff says this was a lie).
dlabtot
11-01-2005, 02:56 PM
The overarching "deception" that he is suing over is her misreprentation of her marital status
Again you are making an assertion about what is in the suit that is not in accord with the facts. Did you read it? Where in it does it state what you claim it states? Please cite a page number and line of the suit that supports your assertions. Thank you in advance.
Jenny
11-01-2005, 03:45 PM
The delineation of alleged deceptions are not put forth as examples but as allegations (potentially not exhaustive) of the specific frauds.
Plaintiff is also seeking Punitive damages, which is essentially a punishment for particularly malicious fraud, not a recovery of compensatory damages.
I did read the punitive damages item, but it also does say that he provided her with 175K, and that is what he is seeking back. Doesn't that seem like he is just trying to recover?
This notion that he is trying to "buy" or "lease" her and had no hope of such, is totally irrelevant and not in the least actionable. Perhaps this topic would be relevant to a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, but such a claim was not made.
Well I agree - that was part of why I thought the suit seems a little frivolous. I think what I was trying to show is that what is REALLY being litigated under an extremely thin veil.
See complaint, paragraph 15 for relevance of marraige deception allegation (concelament of financial means).
I look, but I don't see that connection (please be patient).
See complaint paragraph 19, for an example of a fraud allegation Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages from (she claimed she needed money because she had breast cancer, Plaintiff says this was a lie).
Well, I saw that too - but I would be very surprised if the list of allegations added up to 175k, and the plaintiff is claiming that he gave her 175K.
Jenny
11-01-2005, 03:50 PM
Again you are making an assertion about what is in the suit that is not in accord with the facts. Did you read it? Where in it does it state what you claim it states? Please cite a page number and line of the suit that supports your assertions. Thank you in advance.
Okay. I don't see where I'm losing you. I think I've already explained my rationale (see my last response to you in which I pointed out that the list of allegations doesn't seem to add up to the damages he is claiming, and that he does claim the damages are what he has paid to the plaintiff. Also where I have already said that I realize the plaintiff is not characterizing his suit as "give me back my barbie"). If you find it lacking, please detail HOW and I will try to address, don't just keep repeating "where does it say that, where does it say that", or if you don't understand please let me know where I'm losing you, and I will try to clarify.
dlabtot
11-01-2005, 03:56 PM
Okay. I don't see where I'm losing you. I think I've already explained my rationale (see my last response to you in which I pointed out that the list of allegations doesn't seem to add up to the damages he is claiming, and that he does claim the damages are what he has paid to the plaintiff. Also where I have already said that I realize the plaintiff is not characterizing his suit as "give me back my barbie"). If you find it lacking, please detail HOW and I will try to address, don't just keep repeating "where does it say that, where does it say that", or if you don't understand please let me know where I'm losing you, and I will try to clarify.
You aren't 'losing me', lol. You are making a false assertion about what is in the suit. You are stating that: The overarching "deception" that he is suing over is her misreprentation of her marital status but that doesn't actually appear in the suit. There is nothing about an 'overarching deception' -- that's something you made up. The reason I keep asking you where it says that in the suit is that you are claiming that's what the suit says.
lol
stant
11-01-2005, 04:14 PM
I did read the punitive damages item, but it also does say that he provided her with 175K, and that is what he is seeking back. Doesn't that seem like he is just trying to recover?Plaintiff merely has to allege damages sufficient to warrant the venue. In Cali, that means >$25K to get into Soperior Court. The actual number at this stage is virtually meaningless. However, without commenting on this case, let's say you and I get into a car accident, and I sue you for $42,512.24 . It's a strategic ploy. Damages are always proven at trial and up to the jury. This ain't small claims court.
You are looking at this case with your stripper glasses on. (rosedelight colored;) ) You understand the underlying emotional dynamic and mutual pathetic manipulation that is the genesis of this clusterfuck. All that is only marginally relevant here. You need only look at the elements of each claim very specifically. [between you and me this complaint needs to be amended for a clear puni claim]
Regarding the marraige, if Doc thinks you are a single starving student and gives you money to help you out based on this, but you are actually married with a gainfully employed husband.... Then fuckin hubby Provider Punk should be paying the bills! This is the allegation.
Katrine
11-01-2005, 04:19 PM
If I gave my brother $3,000 for Hurricane victims, there is no way in hell its going anywhere but to buy velour throwbacks, hydro, air jordans, drinks, and hookers at the Houston spas.......
Men are such fools, but I don't condone her behavior. Hence, I was never big on the regular thing.....way too much potential drama such as above.
Jenny
11-01-2005, 04:19 PM
Okay.
Stant contends that the marital deception is in there as a concealment of financial means (which is also doesn't say, incidentally). I contend that it is in there to cover amounts he gave her that are not included in the specific acts of deception. I don't understand (still) where I am being unclear with this (I mean I can see many ways in which I could be full out wrong, and I am sure there are many ways that this could be argued. But you are not doing that. You are just acting like you don't understand what I am saying. And then I repeat it, and then you repeat what you said - and I hate that, it's boring). I never claimed to be quoting the action, and I think I've made clear that I realize perfectly well how the plaintiff IS NOT characterizing his suit, and I explained my rationale a while back. You are just pretending it isn't there for some reason of your own. I do seem to be losing you, as you have once again just posted "where does it say, where does it say" rather than reading or engaging with my explanation.
dlabtot
11-01-2005, 04:25 PM
Okay.
Stant contends that the marital deception is in there as a concealment of financial means (which is also doesn't say, incidentally). I contend that it is in there to cover amounts he gave her that are not included in the specific acts of deception. I don't understand (still) where I am being unclear with this (I mean I can see many ways in which I could be full out wrong, and I am sure there are many ways that this could be argued. But you are not doing that. You are just acting like you don't understand what I am saying.
That is a total misrepresentation of my comments. I understand you perfectly. You aren't being in any way unclear -- you're just wrong. The fact that you don't want to respond substantively to my question of where you got your wrong ideas about what the suit is about doesn't mean that I didn't understand what you said.
On edit:
Let's cut through the obfuscations:
Don't forget - this case delineates around the fact that she is married - that she misrepresented her marital status, not that she lied about travelling or sick relatives. His case is turning on the fact that she is married and will therefore never be "his."
No the case doesn't "delineate around the fact that she is married" -- there is nothing in the suit that indicates that. It might be your interpretation or your characterization but it is not an accurate depiction of the suit. 'Just saying it doesn't make it so'.
Since I have an open mind, I left open the possibility that I was wrong about this and asked you to cite the verbiage in the suit that led you to this conclusion.
In response, you accused me of being too dim-witted to understand you. http://anarchy.soak.net/smileys/eyes.gif
Jenny
11-01-2005, 04:28 PM
Plaintiff merely has to allege damages sufficient to warrant the venue. In Cali, that means >$25K to get into Soperior Court. The actual number at this stage is virtually meaningless. However, without commenting on this case, let's say you and I get into a car accident, and I sue you for $42,512.24 . It's a strategic ploy. Damages are always proven at trial and up to the jury. This ain't small claims court.
But the claim specifically says that he gave her 175 and that is what he wants back. Please don't tell me that I have to rely on the letter of statement for some things and ignore it for others. I'm a girl and I'm easily confused, and bad at math and stuff. I need some consistency.
You understand the underlying emotional dynamic and mutual pathetic manipulation that is the genesis of this clusterfuck. All that is only marginally relevant here. You need only look at the elements of each claim very specifically. [between you and me this complaint needs to be amended for a clear puni claim]
I promise I will be very discreet. Honestly, I made an assumption that because $3000.00 was the only actual figure listed that it was a significant one.
Regarding the marraige, if Doc thinks you are a single starving student and gives you money to help you out based on this, but you are actually married with a gainfully employed husband.... Then fuckin hubby Provider Punk should be paying the bills! This is the allegation.Good luck to me unless I want to bend over and show him my ass every time I want to go out to lunch. I don't even want to think about dinner, but I suspect it would involve tools. Really, I get the whole concealment of financial means, I just see no way to connect it to what I see written down (again, it's only early November, and I realize that I have no right to use this board as my personal extra credit project).
stant
11-01-2005, 04:30 PM
text I had trouble deciphering
Did we cross post here? Do you understand how damages are plead in Superior Court now? (i.e. randomly)
Jen....the $175K is (possibly) a throw away number. Get over it. Damage numbers are not an issue at this stage except for venue selection. OK?
This is not Small Claims Court. The computation of damages can be very complex and involve expert testimony, economic models, and a dart board.
The $3K number is included as an allegation of fact. You need to separate factual determinations from damage computation. No dart throwing allowed in judging facts. Unless the elements of a claim include a specific $ threshold, the $ amount is not relevant.
WTF is a "velour throwback"?
that girl is a hustler and needs to teach classes.
Jenny
11-01-2005, 06:16 PM
Did we cross post here? Do you understand how damages are plead in Superior Court now? (i.e. randomly)
Jen....the $175K is (possibly) a throw away number. Get over it. Damage numbers are not an issue at this stage except for venue selection. OK?
No! It says!
WTF is a "velour throwback"?
I assumed it had something to do with hair?
stant
11-01-2005, 09:48 PM
No! It says!
I agree. That number could prove to be a problem. Its a PI lawyer move. Insurance adjuster friendly. Blechhh.
I assumed it had something to do with hair?
If you have a really hairy back it would. Its a basketball jersey. I was making a really obscure reference joke.
lunchbox
11-02-2005, 08:50 AM
Velour is a type of material. Kind of like a long velvet. Usually find sweat suits made out of it, popular in the age of disco.
GoldCoastGirl
11-05-2005, 08:54 AM
Everyone loses except the lawyers.
There is also another saying is that the only true winners are BOTH lawyers. ;)
Regardless, he's still a fool for even filing this ... the lawyer is laughing all the way to the bank.
Where does it say in a club that men should remember that this nice girl paying attention to you really only wants your money and nothing else?
It's an unwritten rule that all the 'dancers' in a club are there purely for the money. Basically, it is assumed that you are 'adult' enough to realise this once you pay the entrance fee into a club. If you forget this whilst in the club, then the club (including all of its workers) is doing its 'job' well... you've fallen for the 'fantasy'.
He is a fool still as the transactions happened within the strip club... within Fantasy Land.
The whole set up of a club is a con... it is to deceive you into thinking you are somewhere else away from the every-day and 'norm'... so why doesn't he sue the club this chick was working within as well as they (indirectly by having her work within their walls in a way) helped with the lies.
In the end, neither party is innocent.
Eques
11-06-2005, 05:19 PM
And people scoffed when I said it’s to bad strippers can't be sued for this kind of shit. Apparently they can.
sol_de_pr2
11-06-2005, 06:24 PM
Read this post late, but I must say that this guy is a real dumbass!! ;D Didn't he realize in time that she was milking him out of his money. Hard to believe...
Read this post late, but I must say that this guy is a real dumbass!! ;D Didn't he realize in time that she was milking him out of his money. Hard to believe...
The guy is a dumbass, no doubt, but if karma exists, it'll bite her in the ass. Still, I can't help but smile and snicker when I think of the strippers reaction when she found out she was being sued.
DancerWealth
11-08-2005, 09:59 AM
Some things to ponder here. She is being charged with Fraud by means that she mis-represented herself to get money from someone else under explicit false pretenses.
Asside from the obvious fact that this guy is extremely gullable, he truly was illegally taken advantage of. While in the club environment, the "Dancer" is there to sell a product...namely lap dances and possibly drinks for the club etc. She isn't there to sell herself that she needs money for surgery, medical bills, etc. I'm sure hers, or any club in the country would support me on this. So by selling herself for such needs based on the customer's gullability, fraud was actually committed because the items she was selling to the customer (needs based on emergencies, desires, etc.) were fraudulent. She told the customer she needed money for emergencies which were ficticious and hence it becomes Fraud. Sales is just a matter of influence and there's nothing wrong with that until the product being sold is knowingly fictitious.
You have to look at this as being no different than buying a car from a salesperson who scams you. Let's say you go to buy a car, and the salesperson tells you that the model you are looking for does not come factory installed with the "Widget 2000" which dramatically increases the stopping power of the vehicle. You love the car, and want to make sure the car has all the safety features you want so you decide to buy the Widget 2000 for the car at an increase in price to the car. Later you find out that the part you just paid $5,000.00 for at the dealership not only was never installed, but never existed in the first place. Based on this, the auto dealership committed fraud and is literally no different than what the dancer in this case did to her customer.
Is he a complete moron for throwing money at her for such things? Absolutely! There's no question this guy is an idiot. That being said though, it still doesn't mean that fraud wasn't committed. If the customer wanted to be generous to her and give her extra $$$, that's great. Once she started stringing him along though, it transcends that though and she truly did commit fraud. The ultimate message here is that if you are a dancer, sell dances. But stringing customers along with "my mother needs money for surgery" issues is only going to get you in trouble later on. You wouldn't find it appropriate to have a car salesperson string you along for false products so he can get a higher commission check so why should you do the same to your customers for a few extra bucks.
Personally, I think the customer here deserves to have some pain here for being stupid...perhaps he learned a life lesson. I also think the dancer here deserves to have the daylights sued out of her for fraud. I think everyone needs to keep an eye on this case quite seriously. If this guy wins his case, it's going to set precident against dancers across the country that this sort of fraudulent sales strategy will no longer work.
Jenny
11-08-2005, 12:39 PM
Dancerwealth - a big difference here is that she is not selling anything. She is not saying "here is a dance. It is a really, really good dance; in fact, it cures cancer. You have cancer? Terrific. Buy this dance at $175K and your cancer will immediately disappear." She is simply asking for gifts. She is not offering anything in exchange; indeed the plaintiff wasn't asking for anything (unless you count "we'll get to know each other and become friends"). These are simply gifts obtained under false pretences. He is no longer a consumer. Just a big idiot.
Also note - it is not illegal to lie in sales. You are allowed to lie. "I drive one of these myself"; "those pants look nice on you"; "blue is a really up and coming colour this season"; "my kids LOVE the circus - especially the dancing buffalos." All this is perfectly legal, even if you don't drive, even if the pants look like crap, if you know perfectly well that blue is SO last year, and you don't even have kids. Oh, how about in our case "I give the best dances in this bar" - there is no recourse after that.
Anyway, the reason I find this weird and concerning is because it seems to me that he was giving her gifts for personal use - I can't see how it matters what personal use they went to. Like, if I said to a guy that I needed money to pay my phone bill, and then used the money he hypothetically gives me to pay my gas bill instead (in fact, maybe my phone bill was never even behind....). I'm pretty sure that is not actionable. I don't see why it is in this case just because the guy is a bigger idiot and the girl is a bigger liar. Personal use.
stant
11-09-2005, 12:31 AM
Dancerwealth - a big difference here is that she is not selling anything. She is not saying "here is a dance. It is a really, really good dance; in fact, it cures cancer. You have cancer? Terrific. Buy this dance at $175K and your cancer will immediately disappear." She is simply asking for gifts. She is not offering anything in exchange; indeed the plaintiff wasn't asking for anything (unless you count "we'll get to know each other and become friends"). These are simply gifts obtained under false pretences. He is no longer a consumer. Just a big idiot.
Also note - it is not illegal to lie in sales. You are allowed to lie. "I drive one of these myself"; "those pants look nice on you"; "blue is a really up and coming colour this season"; "my kids LOVE the circus - especially the dancing buffalos." All this is perfectly legal, even if you don't drive, even if the pants look like crap, if you know perfectly well that blue is SO last year, and you don't even have kids. Oh, how about in our case "I give the best dances in this bar" - there is no recourse after that.
Anyway, the reason I find this weird and concerning is because it seems to me that he was giving her gifts for personal use - I can't see how it matters what personal use they went to. Like, if I said to a guy that I needed money to pay my phone bill, and then used the money he hypothetically gives me to pay my gas bill instead (in fact, maybe my phone bill was never even behind....). I'm pretty sure that is not actionable. I don't see why it is in this case just because the guy is a bigger idiot and the girl is a bigger liar. Personal use.
Good post. I'm sure many have been thinking the same thing, so this will hopefully be usefull. First of all...regarding the defense of "personal use"...
"Your honor, my name is Tommy Chong, and I swear...every last killer green bud in the greenhouse was intended for personal use!"
That's an appropriate application of the "personal use" defense. No such thing for fraud.
The concept you are dancing around but may not have studied is the legal concept known as "puffing" which is distinguishable from Fraud. An enormous body of case law exists on this topic, much of it generated from securities prospectus class action cases. A gentleman from San Diego (Bill Lerach) has made billions of dollars litigating fraud vs. puffing. Also, as a consequence of his plaintiff victories, legit companies tend to be exhaustively honest when issuing prospectuses to potential stockholders. He singlehandedly cleaned up a rather dirty little secret of Wall Street.
I do find your statement that "it is not illegal to lie in sales", to be both erroneous and spectacularly perilous. Haplessly flittering about with this belief will eventually land you in a heap of shit. First of all, what you meant to say was "it is not ALWAYS illegal to lie in sales." Second, as a future legal professional you should pound it into your head that bad guys lie, good guys don't. Your client was either a) "puffing", or b) never said that.
One of the key elements that relates to reasonable reliance (see the case I cited above) is the notion of whether or not the defrauded person would have given the money were it not for the fraud/lie. This is critical. For example, in your hypothetical about the car salesman, if (1) he had claimed he owned the vehicle (rather than just "drive" one), (2) if this is not only false but determined by a jury to be a lie and not simply puffing, (3) it were reasonable to think that this was a critical factor in the purchase, and (4) the plaintiff suffered true measurable damage by relying on this lie, only then would a claim for fraud be actionable.
A classic example of puffing is how people write resumes. If I am an ambulance driver and I say: "I hold a highly stressful position in health care; one of great responsibility and as a first responder to trauma victims have saved countless lives." That's puffing.
"I have an MD from Harvard and did my emergency medicine residency at Mass General." That's potentially fraud. (once hired and I fuck up it becomes actionable).
If (to go back to my hypo) you can show that Doc would have given you the money whether or not you said you had breast cancer, you win. It's a dangerous game to play, in my opinion. DancerWealth as usual has great advice. He instinctively knows the difference here and is a credit to sales professionals for training them to act ethically even when the temptation not to can be overwhelming.
stant
11-09-2005, 01:11 AM
These are simply gifts obtained under false pretences. He is no longer a consumer. Just a big idiot.
Gifts obtained by fraud are actionable. (Tele-evangelists the apparent exception) Playing on a person's sense of generosity (frequently the elderly) by flagrantly lying to the about the purpose and need for their gift is not only actionable, it's repulsive. Having spent a fair amount of time in a hospital recently visiting an ailing relative, I find lies that play upon this emotionally traumatic experience particularly repugnant.
I'll admit that while looking at this case and my hypothetical I've completely divorced it in my mind from whatever industry related dynamic may be underlying it. Even in the hypothetical, I'm more or less viewing the "victim" as an elderly type donor, and the "perp" as a vulture feeding off the weak. Hey, it's how the Plaintiff's bar sleeps at night. }:D
[I was unable to edit my previous post. IE kept freezing. grrr]
DancerWealth
11-09-2005, 09:28 AM
Also note - it is not illegal to lie in sales. You are allowed to lie. "I drive one of these myself"; "those pants look nice on you"; "blue is a really up and coming colour this season";
Actually, it is illegal to lie in sales. The example you gave here is not a parallel to the current topic as it is a subjective statement whereas the dancer made a classified statement as in, "I need money for my breast cancer medical bills". One is subjective, one falls under the actual charge of "Obtaining Money Under False Pretenses" which is a classification of fraud.
Also keep in mind that there is already presidence where people have sued sales people in almost the exact example you gave and won. This is why clothing sales people now are encouraged not to give subjective opinions as to what looks "good on you." Embellishing on a sale is one thing, blatantly lying is another. In your example, you mentioned a car sales person saying he drove the car and loved it to make a sale happen. This is fraud and is actionable. The reason is because the customer is relying on the advice of the sales person as an authority of the product in this circumstance. By saying he drove the car and loved it, even when he didn't, he is now falling under the category of obtaining money under false pretenses because the customer is making a buying decision based on the direct advice of the sales person which is a lie. Should the customer be unhappy with the car and a legal dispute occur over the purchase, this could be a deal breaker in the courts for the dealer to give a refund.
WiseGuy_TX
11-14-2005, 07:02 PM
UK Contractor's fling with lap dancer returns £73,000 ...was she Brazilian too? (http://www.contractoruk.com/news/002382.html)
bella622
12-09-2005, 08:50 PM
Does anyone know whatever happened to this case??? This is happeneing to a girl I work with although for a lot less $$, but still a lot all together...
She is really worried, I told her I would try to find out...
Deogol
12-09-2005, 09:46 PM
Gifts obtained by fraud are actionable. (Tele-evangelists the apparent exception) Playing on a person's sense of generosity (frequently the elderly) by flagrantly lying to the about the purpose and need for their gift is not only actionable, it's repulsive.
Actually I think Jim Baker of the PTL club did find his way to prison for fraud. All that good money went into his house(s) and to pay for Tammy's make up bill (can you imagine that one!)
Deogol
12-09-2005, 09:58 PM
Does anyone know whatever happened to this case??? This is happeneing to a girl I work with although for a lot less $$, but still a lot all together...
She is really worried, I told her I would try to find out...
It looks like it was settled out of court in some way (whether it was settlement or the judge threw it out I dunno by the information on the web site.)
There is no judgement - yet there is no calendar dates for further action by the court.
If she is obtaining money for something other than dances or drinks - she is definitely wandering into dangerous territory. (And if that doesn't scare a potential hustler - imagine having your full name on the internet in the hands of some blue site types.)