Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Jilted Bride Awarded 150K After Wedding Called Off.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 05:59 PM
Original message
Jilted Bride Awarded 150K After Wedding Called Off.
Edited on Wed Jul-23-08 06:00 PM by OPERATIONMINDCRIME
It'll never cease to amaze me how fucking stupid jurors can be sometimes. This is the most stupid award I've ever seen and is almost offensive in premise. The stupid shit had tens of thousands in debt and even more that she hid, and when he found out he called off the wedding, and she gets 150 grand from him? I hope she fuckin rots and I hope to hell he wins on appeal. Only in america could a fuckin person win an award like this.


SNIP
RoseMary Shell sued her ex-fiance, Wayne Gibbs, after he broke off their engagement in 2007.

Shell argued her fiance's promise of marital bliss amounted to a binding contract. She said she left a high-paying job in Florida to be with Gibbs and she said she has suffered financial losses since their break-up. She also said she has suffered emotionally.

Gibbs testified that he had taken Shell on trips and paid $30,000 of her debt while they were engaged. He said when he found out she had even more debt, he canceled the wedding by leaving Shell a note in their bathroom.

Closing arguments were heard Wednesday morning and the jury awarded Shell $150,000 by Wednesday afternoon.





http://www.wsbtv.com/news/16966088/detail.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Parche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. Almost as bad as the hot Mcdonalds Coffee
:grr: :grr: I agree

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kdmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Did you ever actually look at that case?
Edited on Wed Jul-23-08 06:12 PM by kdmorris
Or do you just believe everything you hear?

While I agree that this one might be a stupid judgment, the hot coffee at McDonald's caused third degree burns over 6% of that woman's body. She tried to get McDonald's to just pay her medical bills ($20,000) and they refused.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. If this poster knew the facts, they would not have said it was frivolous.
The injuries were horrific.

The big legal point is that the hot coffee causing injuries was completely FORESEEABLE.


McDonald's never adequately explained why their coffee was so goddamn hot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheMadMonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Actually they did.
The coffee would be at just the right temperature for drive through customers to drink when they reached the office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Parche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #10
27. Coffee Is Supposed To Be Hot
Just like that guy who protested the Nuclear Train by laying on the tracks, and the train could not stop and ran him over, and he sued the railroad, now how stupid is that.....

I am all for lawsuits if you have been injured, but these 2 cases are ridiculous...
:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #27
38. Not 3rd degree burns to 100% of your crotch hot.
McDonalds management knew it kept the coffee far too hot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #38
48. You are correct!
Edited on Fri Jul-25-08 04:00 PM by TexasObserver
That is most misunderstood case in the history of American Jurisprudence.

And while we're on the topic, the ultimate award by the judge was only about $500,000. The judge did not award 80% or more of what the jury found to be damages.

I don't think most Americans have any idea that the elderly woman in question (1) was not driving, (2) had burns on her genitals so severe it required plastic surgery and grafting skin from places like the inside of her elbow, and (3) had medicals around $100,000 (past and future).

They also don't realize that the reason the jury wanted to hit McDonalds so hard is the evidence, which showed that (a) their coffee was 30 degrees hotter than the norm, and (b) they had experienced 700 such coffee burn cases over a period of 10 years, or about one every five days for ten years, and (c) McDonalds said it intended to continue serving its coffee that hot.

McDonalds did change the temperature of their coffee downward as a result of that case. The lady got enough to pay her medicals, her experts, and her lawyers, and still have a little left over.

Her case was soundly based in law. No one expects their coffee to scald them in two seconds. It was 30 degrees too hot, around 180 degrees, and it should have been closer to 150 degrees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-08 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #48
78. Sorry, but I disagree. ANY sane person should know that putting a hot
liquid between their legs is not a very intelligent move! That's one of the reasons car companies put CUP HOLDERS in their cars! IMO, this is another example of people not taking responsibility for their own actions, like the family of a weight lifter sued York after their son (30 years old) was killed when he was bench pressing 300lbs without a spotter, and he missed the cradle. They sued AND WON on the charge that York didn't put a sticker on their weight bars stating that you should never bench press without a spotter!

Some legal decisions are just stupid!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZ Criminal JD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #38
49. That is the way its customers wanted the coffee
If you don't want hot coffee, don't go to McDonalds. Why should we have to live with your judgment about how hot coffee should be? Who the hell are you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kdmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. That's how McDonalds SAID the customers wanted it
They had 700 cases of burns caused by their coffee and LOWERED the temperature of the coffee after this case.

How the fuck could ANYONE drink coffee that is hot enough to cause third degree burns over 6% of her body? It would scald your mouth and tongue. The answer is, they can't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZ Criminal JD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #52
64. They sell tens of millions of cups of coffee every day
You can get coffee anywhere. Apparently those millions disagree with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kdmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-08 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #64
67. Yes, and Starbucks sells more
Edited on Sat Jul-26-08 08:16 AM by kdmorris
and THEY keep their coffee at a non-burnable 150-160 degrees.

McDonalds still sells millions of cups of coffee a day, at the NEW temperature of 158 degrees. I cannot believe that you think getting third degree burns from coffee that had been proven already (by people getting third degree burns) to be too hot is OK. That was 30 degrees hotter than the temperature that other coffee places sell theirs at. That woman ended up getting skin grafts. A third degree burn burns through your skin, all three layers of it. Nothing should be that hot.

Sorry. I don't know why the hell you are arguing about this. A third degree burn is VERY bad. And there is NO excuse for McDonalds doing that. They don't keep their coffee that temperature anymore, and people still buy it, so I don't believe that your argument that "millions of people disagree with me" is relevant. This case was settled over 10 years ago, after which McDonalds itself apparently no longer believed that millions of people wanted their coffee hot enough to take the flesh off their skin and reconsidered, lower their coffee's temperature to what other coffee shops had theirs at.

Do you sit on the corporate board of McDonalds or something?

Edited to add a bit from the article: McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZ Criminal JD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-08 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #67
76. Is that why Starbucks is closing stores all over the place.
Because everyone likes their lukewarm coffee?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kdmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-08 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #76
84. McDonalds LOWERED THE TEMPERATURE OF THEIR COFFEE
After they were sued. And people still drink it and like it without getting third degree burns on their body.

What the hell? Why are you even keeping this going? Do you read?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #52
65. People commute
and wanted coffee that would stay hot through the trip and into the office. That was the reason for the demand for very hot coffee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kdmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-08 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #65
68. This case was over 10 years ago.
McDonalds lowered the temperature of their coffee after their coffee burned the flesh off of 6% of an elderly woman's body.

Millions of people STILL buy their coffee and DON'T take all the flesh off their skin when they spill it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #49
55. Uh huh.
And I suppose U.S. troops over in Iraq want live, exposed electric wires in their showers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZ Criminal JD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #55
63. Boy that's really related
I guess you slept all through logic classes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-08 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #38
71. Well, regardless of temperature, it's bloody-ass STUPID to set the cup in one's crotch!
I mean, the crotch is not exactly a stable place, let's face it...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #27
47. You cannot make coffee so hot that someone who drinks it would get 3rd degree burns in their throat.
"Third-degree burns occur when most of the epidermis is lost with damage to underlying ligaments, tendons and muscle. Burn victims will exhibit charring of the skin, and sometimes hard eschars will be present. These types of burns are often considered painless, because nerve endings have been destroyed in the burned area. Hair follicles and sweat glands may also be lost due to complete destruction of the dermis. Third-degree burns result in scarring and may be fatal if the affected area is significantly large.

Spilling some McDonald's coffee on your lap through clothing should cause at most a 1st degree burn (redness). If it had actually passed through her mouth that woman might not have survived. Starbucks has a specific degree that their coffee is set at for adults and a separate one for children.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kdmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #27
53. Coffee is not supposed to hot enough to burn your epidermis off
I'm sorry, but your argument is just silly. No one could drink the coffee, either. You can't just equate what happened at the McDonalds with every other stupid lawsuit you've ever heard of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZ Criminal JD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-08 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #53
69. Most McDonalds customers drink their coffee instead of pouring it all over
That is why people were buying it there, despite your dismay. Do you hold stock in Starbucks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-08 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #69
73. Would you care to put 180 degree liquid in your mouth? It would burn the hell out of you.
What part of this don't you understand? The company sold a product that severely injured people. They refused to stop selling the dangerous product. They deserved to get sued. Do you own McDonalds or something? Why are you defending a huge corporation over hundreds of people who were maimed by their dangerous product?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kdmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-08 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #69
82. No, I hate Starbucks
Their coffee tastes like burnt piss water.

I am saying, for the last time, that McDonalds customers would NOT be able to drink the coffee at 180 degrees. It doesn't happen, it can't happen. It would burn the flesh from your throat.

You are obviously completely married to your opinion. There's not much point in continuing this conversation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #10
35. Yes, the McDonalds Coffee case is totally different
The coffee was heated to unsafe temperatures, and as a result of the faulty cup design (why they didn't sue the cupmaker is beyond me) it left the plaintiff with 3rd degree burns on her inner thigh.

Ow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZ Criminal JD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-08 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #35
75. Were the billions of cups of coffee that they sold before this case
Causing burns? Apparently not, unless you think people kept going there everyday to get burned. People liked it or they would not have gotten coffee there. As I said you can get coffee on every corner somewhere. As far as the "700 cases" that just shows that out of billions there are at least that many who qualify for Darwin awards. Drink it, don't pour onto your lap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Celeborn Skywalker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-08 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #10
80. She was still a fucking idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kdmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-08 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #80
83. Um, yeah...
thanks for jumping in with your opinion. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
15. that's an ignorant statement...
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm


There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faygo Kid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
17. Which was an urban legend. Pushed by those who would take away your legal redress.
Don't be so fast to give up your rights based on some wealthy groups' mischaracterization of the facts. Check it out:

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
45. My sister dropped her McD's coffee cup in the parking lot & almost needed a skin graft on her ankle
The manager wouldn't even let her husband use the phone to call a taxi (they were bicycling that day) nor would he let them store their bikes there for later pickup.

When she finally got medical treatment she had to see a burn specialist. Then every single day for however long it took she had to return to have a professional change the dressings.

Sorry, I believe that McDonald's deserved to be sued. As far as I know, they are still keeping their coffee urns set to just under boiling temp, which is bad for the coffee but apparently somehow makes sanitizing the urns easier at the end of the day. And it's really, really unsafe. What happens when someone's little kid knocks mommy's coffee over?

Hekate


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. No, this is brilliant
I'm going to call my attorney and figure out a way to sue the shit out of both of my wealthy ex-boyfriends.

God bless America. :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. I wonder if my ex has a bass boat.
That's all I want. A bass boat.

Indeed, any of you DU guys out there, I've married for love and money before...this time I'm marrying for a bass boat, so no need to apply unless you've got a really nice bass boat and agree to state in your vows that you'll take me fishing every weekend, come snow, draught, sleet, or high water. :D




+

=

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikeytherat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #14
29. Bass boat metalflake - ain't nothin' more sparkly in the world!
mikey_the_rat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-08 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #14
79. I have two questions for you
1) Do you want it to have gator lights?

and

2) Are you planning on going noodling?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billyoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. The judge will reduce this to cover her car fare, at best.
Bet on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
4. Looks like he'll be paying of the rest of her debt...
unbelieveable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
devilgrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
5. I doubt that she'll see a cent of it.
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panader0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
6. Next it'll be a lawsuit claiming that a fiancee couldn't get it up.
Or if a guy finds out that his fiancee had implants. "When I found out they weren't real, I couldn't work. My trust was shattered right along with my heart. I need 150 grand."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. No, no, no. "Teh Gays did it." n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kutjara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
7. Er...engagements haven't been binding contracts since about...
...the middle of the 19th Century. Was the court using a book of Medieval statutes to decide this case?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Breach of promise. NOPE.
Breach of promise has not been a valid cause of action for, oh, probably the last century???

Spare me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. Hhhhhmmmm. Sure sets an interesting precedent.
So now we have at fault cancellation of engagement in an era of no fault divorce. Bizarre.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
9. There was a reason the jury awarded money
Obviously, something was brought up during that trial that made them award her the cash.

IMHO, YMMV.
Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spinbaby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #9
28. He was having an affair with another woman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. This explains it
I've been a juror. I'd like to think I'm not "fucking stupid". There are all kinds of people who sit on juries. Unfortunately, the law requires that a jury pool be pulled from the entire population, so invariably, there's going to be someone we disagree with.

There had to have been extenuating circumstances in this case, and infidelity could be it.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sanity Claws Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
13. I get the feeling that I didn't hear the full story
She left her job to be with him? He ended the relationship by leaving a note?
Something's missing here. The jury heard a lot more of the story than we have here.
BTW, did you notice that under the story was something was John Edwards and a mistress? This is a trashy station publishing lies from the National Enquirer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. There Ain't A Reason In The World That Justifies It. Horrible Precedent. Don't Care What They Heard
And I couldn't give a rat's fat ass about the Edwards story. It's the story I posted, which is real, that I obviously cared about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #16
31. So, in other words, we should make the judgment on the basis of a
newspaper article and your opinion?

You weren't in the courtroom and have no idea what the evidence was.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. No. We Should Make The Judgment On The Basis Of Common Fucking Sense.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough for you: THERE. ISN'T. A. REASON. IN. THE. WORLD. THAT. JUSTIFIES. THIS.

Horrible precedent, horrible jury finding, one need not have been there to recognize that. There is nothing that possibly could've been said in that courtroom that justifies such an award. Nothing. Know what nothing means? Nothing.

Engagement is not a contract, PERIOD. Anyone can break up with anybody at any time for any reason, and there should never be risk of lawsuit or financial damage. This is the most stupid court case I've ever seen. I hope she rots, and I hope the award is never truly granted and that she never sees a dime.

Dumbass jury.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Maybe I wasn't clear enough for you
There has to be some legal basis of loss found in order for a jury to award damages in the first place. We have no idea what else was in the testimony because the newspaper article didn't reprint all of it.

BTW, if you are willing to dismiss a case on the basis of a newspaper story, maybe we should just do away with our judicial system and let you decide what's good and what's not. I, for one, am not willing to do that.

I'd also be interested to know if you've ever served on a jury.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Guess I Didn't Speak Slowly Enough For You.
Your entire post and premise is irrelevant.

No matter how someone gets engaged, no matter how a party of that engagement chooses to call off that engagement, no matter what the circumstances possibly could've been, there is no basis for legal award. Rest assured, the award will undoubtedly be thrown out. But what a horrible precedent that jury attempted to set. They are a bunch of dumbasses.

As far as your doing away with the justice system comment, when taken in context to this issue and the way you overexaggerated it into something far more dramatic, well, that was just plain dumb.

And as a side note: Regardless of what the reasons POSSIBLY could've been, do you realize that you're condoning a concept of FORCED MARRIAGE by siding with this award? Does it not sink into your head that what this award essentially means, is that under certain circumstances an engaged party is legally FORCED to enter into a legal marriage or will have to give up all their financial assets? Are you so limited in your understanding as to not be able to grasp the gravity of what this award could mean?

Have fun with your defense just for sake of defending even though the defense looks really damn stupid type attitude. The jury findings were asinine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Is it impossible for you to disagree without calling someone else "stupid"?
My point, and my opinion, is as valid as yours. There is something in the legal code of the state this trial occurred in that allowed the jury in question to award damages.

You seem to believe that your opinion is more important than anyone else's and you don't need facts to arrive at it, so I didn't "overexaggerate".

Have fun with the name-calling.
Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #41
46. "There is something in the legal code ... that allowed the jury ... to award damages."
Partly right, and partly wrong.

The jury does not make awards. It's the biggest error made in reporting jury trial outcomes. Juries make factual findings. They are asked questions, and they are to give answers to those questions. There are liability questions, which help the judge determine whether the defendant is liable to the plaintiff. There are damages questions, which help the judge determine how much the defendant should have to pay.

When a case is heard by a jury, there are many motions before a jury is ever seated. Then during the trial, there are other motions regarding the theories of the case, the evidence, and what will be submitted to the jury in the form of questions.

After the evidence closes and both sides have rested, normally there is what we call THE CHARGE CONFERENCE. This is a meeting the attorneys have with the judge, for the specific purpose of deciding which questions will be submitted to the jury for consideration. The judge is supposed to make the jury submissions based upon the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced at trial. The plaintiff often pleads alternate theories for a recovery, and sometimes that is reflected in the questions submitted to the jury. For example, there might be a series of questions designed to determine if there was a breach of contract, and if so, what monetary damages resulted from such breach. At the same time, there might be a series of questions designed to determine if defendant can be held liable under a theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

When the jury gets the questions, their job is answer those questions. They do not and cannot make monetary awards. The can only answer the questions they are given. Sometimes juries put numbers in the blanks provided for monetary damages, and such amounts are not supported by the evidence adduced at trial. The judge can and should ignore such findings.

Suppose the evidence shows that the actual damages are $50,000, and there is no other evidence of damages. A jury can fill in $100,000 for the damages, but the judge will hold that the jury finding is not supported by the evidence. He or she will then likely peg the damages at the correct number, a number that will pass muster on appeal.

When this particular case went to the jury, it means the JUDGE had determined that the plaintiff has properly plead a valid cause of action under Georgia law. It meant he had ruled that the plaintiff had made a prima facie case, meaning she had shown some evidence to meet every element of the cause of action (or causes of action) upon which she rested her theory of the case.

This case outcome is not exactly what it's represented to be, IMHO. I suspect the case rests upon a theory of Detrimental Reliance. If he induced her to quit her job to marry him, if she gave up a position because he promised to marry her AND he wanted her to quit her job, then he can be held liable to her. The reason is that he induced her to change her economic position, she was reasonable in doing so in reliance upon his promise, and she suffered monetary damages as a result.

This is a well settled, long established cause of action. It is not specifically for the failed engagement, but would apply. Suppose someone duped you into taking a job 3000 miles away. They induce you with lies to quit your job, move, and buy a new home. Then you find out it's all a big fraud. You sue under the same theory of detrimental reliance.

In summary, you're right that this is a valid cause of action and that the judge ruled as such when he submitted the case to the jury. However, juries do not award damages. Judges do. Juries make findings, and their findings must be supported by the evidence for the judge to rely upon them in fashioning a judgment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Diadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #13
50. Not only left her job, had no career due to his promise.
Edited on Fri Jul-25-08 04:54 PM by OurVotesCount-Ohio
That combined with cheating probably had a lot to do with her award.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-10386...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. His liability is based upon her reasonable reliance on his promise & her changing positions ...
This is a case about inducing a person to materially change their economic position by reasonably relying upon the representations of another. His liability could exist without any promise of marriage, without any broken engagement. If he had simply said "if you'll quit working and live with me, I'll pay for you to live well," he'd still be liable, because she changed her position based upon his representation, she incurred economic losses because he failed to do as he represented, and she was reasonable in relying upon his representation.

If the evidence showed that she had just met this guy, she would have a tough time proving her reliance on his representations was reasonable. But in this case, where they had been a couple five years, she had every reason to rely upon his representations.

To me, the only real issue is whether the damages are justifiable under the law and evidence. The judge will decide that, and I'll look forward to seeing that outcome.

Her case is more compelling as presented in this article than in the original article. The five years they were together really matters. It provides the basis for a determination that she was reasonable in believing his promises of taking care of her.

Based upon the facts in the article you linked, I think she'll get more than the $25,000 I originally had supposed she might end up with. She probably does have more provable damages than that, although I doubt the $150,000 will pass muster. We'll see when the judge enters a judgment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Diadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #54
61. In re-reading the article, I see she was working but had given up
her career, so income loss would still come into play.

Thanks for your opinion, it sounds like you work in the legal field.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Yes, and that is what helps her prove monetary damages.
Edited on Fri Jul-25-08 05:32 PM by TexasObserver
I've tried 29 civil jury trials to a verdict, all in state district or federal district court. I've tried at least twice that many bench trials, with only a judge and no jury. I've handled a variety of types of cases. Your career tends to evolve, starting in one area, and moving to wherever you end up. I started doing errors and omissions defense work for professionals - architects, engineers, doctors, lawyers, accountants. I evolved from that into real estate and business lawsuits, and from there into officer and director liability cases. From there, I evolved out of trial work and into a more advisory type of work, mainly for business interests and non profits. Trying cases is hard, hard work, and in my opinion, for lawyers under 50 years old. I tried my last case when I was 51, and I simply grew weary of the whole process. It's very tedious, and it ruins just about every three day weekend, and many weekends.

The typical civil case for money has two central, necessary components:

1. there must be liability, meaning a provable case that the defendant had a duty under the law to plaintiff, that defendant breached that duty, and as a direct result of that breach of duty, the plaintiff suffered his, her or its injury.

2. there must be ascertainable, provable, recompensable monetary damages.

If I run a red a light, hit your car, and put you in a wheelchair, I lose big time, because the cost of your medical care and your loss of income is staggering. If I run the same light, hit your car, and you're not hurt at all, I'm just on the hook for the damage to your car. The difference is YOUR suffering, your loss.

ONE - is there liability?
TWO - are there ascertainable, provable, recompensable damages?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-08 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #54
81. Yet we have no-fault divorce
"To have and to hold, for richer and for poorer, in sickness and in health, as long as we both shall live"...


Yet my ex cheats on me then leaves me. I'm losing half of my time with my kid. And I can't get a dime from her for "by reasonably relying upon the representations of another" for the heartache and emotional trauma she caused me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
18. I'd need more information.
Such as, how much was spent on wedding arrangements, how much of those arrangements did the defendant agree to, and how early did he decide to call the wedding off before telling her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
20. Eventually, Mr. Gibbs will come to realize that $150 K to get out of that relationship was a bargain
:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_in_LA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
21. Most readers agree with you... see the poll
A jury awarded a Hall County woman $150,000 after she gave up her high-paying job to be with her fiance -- and then he called the wedding off. Do you agree with the jury's judgment for the jilted bride?
Choice Votes Percentage of 9606 Votes

Absolutely! 1619 17%

Absolutely Not! 7127 74%

I'm not sure. 860 9%

Thank you for taking part in our survey! Watch Channel 2 Action News for updates on this story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
22. If you sat on the jury, rather than reacting to local "news" you might see things differently
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
24. i watched the video and jury only deliberated for 4 hours so i think she had the better lawyer
that's a quick deliberation so his evidence and or closing argument must have been way better than the ex fiance's. He also paid $30,000 of her debt while they were together and he still had to give her another $150k, of course a good chunk of that will go to her lawyer. Lesson from this---have the better lawyer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #24
58. 4 hours is not an unusually short time for a verdict
It really does not have to take that long.

The trial could only take a day or two. They won't have that much to discuss.

BTW, short deliberations are usually defense verdicts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostInAnomie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
25. Yet another reason to never get engaged.
The whole marriage deal is just a way to fuck yourself over anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
26. A jury FINDING is not an award. It is simply their fact finding.
Edited on Wed Jul-23-08 08:25 PM by TexasObserver
We do not know what the questions were they answered, and do not know if the media have actually reported accurately what the jury found. Let us assume they wrote either $150,000 or some series of numbers that accumulate to $150,000. That's still not a judgment, it's simply their finding.

It is up to the judge to look at the jury findings, to apply the law of Georgia, and to fashion a judgment out of the trial result. It is entirely possible the judge will find a basis to set aside the jury verdict, or to enter a judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict, or to enter a judgment for the plaintiff, with damages at a level the judge finds appropriate.

We do not know the legal theory the plaintiff used, although the media piece alleges she had a contract theory of the events. If that is the case, I think this plaintiff will be unlikely to get a final judgment to her benefit. She may have used the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, or Detrimental Reliance, however. If that is the case, she may have a basis for a judgment in this case.

If you induce someone to change their position financially by some promise or inducement - such as "if you'll quit your job, I'll marry you" - such an inducement can be the basis for finding liability. This doctrine is not considered contract. It is a longstanding doctrine and is enforceable in most jurisdictions. It does not give the plaintiff the right to force the defendant to marry her, only to recompense her for the reasonable financial damages she can prove are directly resultant from his failure to honor his promise or promises to her.

To me, the problem is not a finding of liability under such a doctrine as Promissory Estoppel. The problem is the damages are outrageously high, and would appear to bear no rational relationship to his breach of promise, or her financial hit for such. She's still employable. She can work again.

I'll predict the judge will either toss the entire jury findings and not award the $150,000, or he will reduce the award to something he finds appropriate, maybe $25,000.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hogwyld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. Or the judge could go off the deep end
I'll predict the judge will either toss the entire jury findings and not award the $150,000, or he will reduce the award to something he finds appropriate, maybe $25,000.

Maybe the judge will find that the fiancee was an asshole, and award 50% of his posessions to her. That's the beauty of our system, it's one big surprise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #32
43. No, the judge won't do that. He can't.
Edited on Fri Jul-25-08 02:27 PM by TexasObserver
Your idea is absurd. The judge will not award 50% of the man's belongings to her. That's not even before this court. You're confusing palimony with a case for damages based upon Detrimental Reliance.

The beauty of our system is that it's NOT what you imagine it to be. Contrary to your misapprehension, the judge doesn't simply pull a solution out of his ass. He lacks the power or authority to do as you have suggested. That case is not before this court.

As for the guy who dumped her, it appears he's not the asshole, but she is. She's a lying deadbeat, and anyone who would marry her is nuts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #43
56. delete
Edited on Fri Jul-25-08 04:32 PM by TexasObserver
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #43
59. Or maybe he will sentance him to be her butler...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #32
57.  Upon reading a new article, I'll agree that he is an asshole.
She may be a lying deadbeat, as he alleged, but that doesn't change the fact that she appears to have reasonably relied on his representations to care for her as an inducement to get her to quit a job and move in with him. Having so induced her, he's clearly got liability for certain of her provable damages, including loss of income for a reasonable period of time. $150,000 seems a bit much, but until the court fashions a judgment, we won't know if that number will stick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
33. Imagine how much she would have hooked him for after 5 or 10 years of marriage
The guy is getting off cheap, learning what he needs to know about the woman before it's too late.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hogwyld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. I can imagine that this ordeal
has soured him on the entire marriage thingy for the rest of his life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
40. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
44. Caveat Emptor. The dipshit groom should learn how to shop.
For a bride, I mean.

I'm afraid my sympathy for the idiot is tempered by his obvious stupidity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
51. geezus, who is her attorney?! 150K for this?a consenting adult?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sequoia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
60. He didn't want to live in her parent's basement I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
66. Unreal. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aaaaaa5a Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-08 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
70. I don't know why any man would ever get married.

Men are second class citizens when it comes to divorce and family court situations. Now men are even "taken to the cleaners" if they decide NOT TO GET MARRIED!

I wish someone could explain to me why any man in today's society would go down the "marriage path." It's just way too risky the way the rules are set up against them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-08 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. I'm starting to agree.
Some men are genuine jerks, but there others who definitely don't deserve to be.

Mind you, how/why did she get into debt, and all the other tedious details...

I don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-08 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #70
77. I have no intention of ever marrying.
It's not of any benefit to me at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rage for Order Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-08 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
74. If women thought men were afraid to make a commitment before...
Edited on Sat Jul-26-08 09:01 PM by Rage for Order
They'll be in for a rude awakening if this judgment isn't overturned on appeal :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Oct 20th 2014, 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC