




"never trust a big butt and a smile"-- Bell Biv DeVoe
If you're in your twenties and aren't a liberal, you have no heart. If you're in you're forties and aren't a conservative, you have no brain - Winston Churchill




$3000? Really, that's it? That girl needs to pick her customers better.





from the news story ...
(snip)"“I’ve never heard of a customer suing a stripper,” Nomi said. “I just don’t understand how this person can sue me for money that he freely gave. I would never have even taken it had I known I had to pay it back.”
Robert wouldn’t say much, but confirms he met Nomi at a strip club. He says she owes him about $3,000 worth of DVDs, a laptop and cash, and he’s suing to get it back.
“We started going on dates, going out to places,” he said. “I helped a little bit here and there, with money here and there. Because she was staying with me for a while because we actually had a relationship.”
“This guy is a nutcase!” Nomi said.
There may be no chance of mediation in this lawsuit.
“I know she’s very stubborn, so we’ll probably wind up in court,” Robert said.
Gerald Treece, attorney and law professor at South Texas College of Law, said it comes down to whether it was all gifts.
“It has no really great legal value,” he said. “It was ‘wow’ value, and it all depends on whose facts the court believes.”(snip)
Indeed it is a stretch to think that a Texas judge is going to believe the 'stripper' about her 'genuine relationship' with her customer !!!
For better or worse, this stupid small claims court case could raise a 'Pandora's Box' legal issue. That issue is something that the IRS has already spoken to in regard to tax policy. That issue, of course, is whether or not any cash or other 'items' exchanged between a club customer and a 'stripper' can be legally considered to be 'gifts' versus 'payments for services rendered'. If it's the latter, then any cash or other 'items' which the customer paid for are potentially subject to 'charge-backs' if the 'stripper' doesn't deliver the 'services' the customer was expecting her to render.





This is going no where. Unless this guy can prove she lived with him and she signed something saying she'd pay him back and it was notarized this guys out of luck! It's not the same melonie as saying he went to vip and is disputing it. I've seen cases were even with finger print and all signatures the guy somehow got his money back but thst's why a lot of clubs are video taping guys now after they get to 3000. This little case won't evn get on the I.R.S radar.
She took his money because he GAVE it to her. It's not like she stole it from him and it's not like they had a contract saying "This money is for such-and-such and if you terminate this agreement you must return the money." He just fucking gave it to her, because he probably thought they were going to get married or some shit. That's on him.
When you end a relationship it's not normal for one partner to demand that the other one return all the presents. I'm sure it happens, but it's a total psycho move.










As the Texas law professor points out, from a legal standpoint this is not a 'given' if the girl is a 'sex worker' !!!She took his money because he GAVE it to her. It's not like she stole it from him and it's not like they had a contract saying "This money is for such-and-such and if you terminate this agreement you must return the money." He just fucking gave it to her
... because, from a purely legal standpoint, this will be an issue for a Texas court to decide !!! If the court finds that an 'implied contract' existed regarding the OTC 'activities', the court will effectively be declaring the guy to be an OTC 'customer' = 'Sugar Daddy".I wonder why everyone here and in the article keeps saying "customer" instead of "boyfriend
Absolutely agreed and understood. However, the legal issue in question here doesn't involve a 'direct' transaction at a club. Instead it involves a possible OTC 'implied contract' between the girl / dancer and the guy / customer ... that he will provide X cash and other valuable items, in exchange for her providing certain 'services'. That's why this stupid little case is important ... because the underlying legal issue brings the possibility that a girl merely being a 'sex worker' as a matter of profession will also carry over into her 'position' in personal relationships. Slippery slope potential, obviously based on the Hollywood 'stripper' stereotype !It's not the same melonie as saying he went to vip and is disputing it
In other words, can every guy who interacts with a 'stripper' OTC ( short of becoming legally married ) potentially be interpreted to be a 'Sugar Daddy' ? If the 'stripper' ends an OTC 'relationship', can the guy then potentially seek reimbursement if the 'stripper' did not actually deliver the implied / expected 'services' ? To avoid such reimbursement lawsuits, must 'strippers' almost immediately f#!k every guy they go out with in 'real life' ?
Let's hope so !!! And let's hope not even in Texas !!!Only in Texas....
Last edited by Melonie; 05-17-2014 at 05:02 AM.





Melonie. OTC is illegal. So that angle would be laughed out of court. It's going to cost the guy more to retain an attorney than he paid her. This is going no where! LOL.




The one thing this article doesnt highlight is the fact he was her boyfriend. They lived together for awhile. The story is just being sensationalized to get internet traffic because she happened to be a stripper.
Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them. ~ Mark Twain





I would hope so. However, legal or illegal aside, if an independent contractor exterminator / carpenter / landscaper is paid on the assumption that a particular service will be performed to the customer's satisfaction, but in the judgement of the customer the expected service was not provided, that customer can sue the contractor. Only the type of expected 'service' is actually different in this case. And just because the 'service' in question is illegal, this doesn't prevent a civil suit to recover monetarily.Melonie. OTC is illegal. So that angle would be laughed out of court
Of course, a slippery slope interpretation could be that 'sugar baby' relationships are in fact a form of prostitution. This is the problem issue with this stupid little case. If a 'stripper' is involved, where does 'work' stop and 'personal' begin ?
So do Sugar Daddies and Sugar Babies, on occasion at least ! This is the central issue for the court to decide.The one thing this article doesnt highlight is the fact he was her boyfriend. They lived together for awhile




I knew a girl who got sued by her regular. He spent his life savings on her and tried to say that the money was a loan. He was laughed out of court. He bought her a boob job and would drop several thousand on her in the club every week.
Since he didn't have any documentation that the money was loaned, his case was thrown out. How embarrassing for him.




Just to clarify, OTC is not illegal. It is perfectly legal to pay someone for their company or companionship so long as sex is not part of the equation. I know plenty of girls who do private shows legally. It's when one person's genitals are touched by another person as a business transaction, that the companionship becomes prostitution. Proving in a court of law that someone purchased sex is very difficult w/o photos.





Exactly what I said in my first post. If my fiancé of 9 years couldn't get back 10,000 he gave me when we built our house with a signed notarized letter from me, this guy is out of luck! I know the court system pretty well Dated many a civil attorney. Melonie gets all melodramatic about these things. Like I said going no where....





I was referring to what melonie said. About howif he wins girls will be required to have sex via not providing services. Right. And no otc is not legal in all states! In florida giving a customer your phone number in a strip club can cause you to be arrested. It's called assignation to prostitution. Get your facts straight. In some clubs across the country you can't ask directly for an amount for vip. It's prostitution. Houston for instance. Lmao. Oh and asking for a drink can get you a solicitation charge as well. If you can't make money with out going out with cusies than maybe you shouldn't be in the business. Flame all ya wan't! I've never done otc in 20 years!





Yes and lap dances in some clubs are considered prostitution as well...





Looks like the radio station is a better newspaper than the Houston Chronicle.





True in regard to 'criminal' court proceedings. Not relevant in this case though ... because the inference was that, in a 'civil' proceeding, a 'customer' who did NOT receive the 'services' which the 'sex worker' implied they would in exchange for money and/or valuable items can sue to recover said money and/or valuable items. This has nothing whatsoever to do with 'criminal' court i.e. prostitution, lewd conduct, etc. - thus there is no need to prove that sex was purchased. It has to do with 'civil' court 'damages' i.e. a customer attempting reimbursement for moneys paid to a 'contractor' that did not perform the expected services. It's that simple.Proving in a court of law that someone purchased sex is very difficult w/o photos.
and here lies the potentially dangerous difference. In your situation the court did not question the fact that you and your fiancé were involved in a strictly personal relationship, and thus made decisions based on 'personal' interaction. In this Texas court case, the issue of 'personal' relationship is being questioned ... i.e. because the girl involved is a 'stripper', the 'customer' is attempting to assert that all of their OTC interaction was in fact an elaborate business transaction, which the 'customer' paid for based on certain expectations, expectations which the 'stripper' did not satisfy.If my fiancé of 9 years couldn't get back 10,000 he gave me when we built our house with a signed notarized letter from me, this guy is out of luck!
Like you, I'm hoping that this stupid little Texas case gets laughed out of court. However, if it doesn't, I'm concerned about the precedent which could be set ... i.e. that just because a girl is a 'sex worker', her 'real life' interactions with guys might be viewed as 'business transactions' ... potentially subject to 'reimbursement' claims !!!





^ We never went to court. Lol. Held that over my head for years after we broke up to get me to interact with him. He knew it would cost him at least a few thousand dollars tio retain an attorney and who knows what would happen. I gave him 2 grand to rid myself of him but to this day he still begs me back. Lol.





i'm confused..this guy is suing his stripper friend for not prostituting?? if he did win, wouldn't that make him a john and get him in more trouble than the piddly 3 grand is worth?





That's what I was thinking. Either he gave the money to her as a gift, which he even implies/admits in the article by saying "because she was staying with me for a while because we actually had a relationship" and he has no basis to get it back, or he gave the money to her for sexual services which is against the law. You can't sue a drug dealer for giving you bad drugs and you can't sue a prostitute for giving you bad head. Even if he was just paying for "companionship" how would he have any basis to get the money back? He can't prove that she didn't satisfy her end of the bargain. t don't understand how he would have a case at all here.
And yeah, the lawyer is seriously going to cost him 3x as much as he gave this chick if he takes this to court. What a fucking idiot. And Harry Potter DVDs? HARRY POTTER DVDS? WHO SUES SOMEONE OVER HARRY POTTER DVDS?














I agree with Audrey and michelle on this one.
In a court of law, nothing can be considered that is not mentioned by an attorney during the case.
Prosecution or the defense would be insane to bring up anything orbiting the issue of prostitution.
By doing so you are creating a criminal issue within a civil/ small claims court case that wasnt there before.
They will focus on the money. They will drag Nomi's character thru the dirt. She was the seductress and he was the helpless man.
They will drag his character thru the dirt. He was helping her of his own free will and when she wouldnt stay with him he got angry.
Blah blah blah .... huge attorney's fees later... the court will decide a dollar amount or tell them to go fuck themselves.
Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them. ~ Mark Twain
Bookmarks