'Don't Date Him Girl' Lawsuit Update

When is a website liable for posting nasty stuff about other people? Take a look at Don't Date Him Girl, a website that allows women to post trashy stuff about men they think have cheated on them, as a warning to other women. (You can search their site here to see if you are listed.)

Pittsburgh criminal defense attorney Todd Hollis wasn't amused when he was listed. He sued Tasha Joseph, the website owner, two other women, one of whom he alleges wrote the initial post, another he says wrote a follow-up post, and five unnamed "Does" who posted or commented about him on the site. The complaint is here (pdf). How Appealing has been following the case and posted links to the website owner's Motion to Dismiss (pdf) and accompanying affidavit (pdf).

Now, according to How Appealing,

Defendant Alesia Roskov filed this Answer, New Matter, and Counterclaim last Friday in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

Alesia says while she dated Hollis, she didn't publish the information. She has countersued Hollis for among other things, having her served in the presence of tv cameras at her job at the Allegheny County Coroner's office. She's asking for a minumum of $50k in damages.

According to Hollis's complaint, more than 1,000 men are listed on the site and 100 new submissions are received daily. The owner says there are more than 200,000 daily visitors to the site.

What did the anonymous posters write about Hollis? The first, alleged by Hollis to be Carolyn Merritt Latimore (no relation) wrote that he had multiple children and herpes. Hollis asked Joseph to remove the post, and 36 hours later she did. But then another anonymous poster, alleged by Hollis to be Alesia Roskov, posted a second profile which alleged Hollis was either gay or bi-sexual.

Then there were third and fourth profiles with equally disparaging allegations, to which comments were posted.

Hollis claims Joseph is liable for failing to conduct any independent verification of the allegations, all of which he states unequivocally are false. He claims Joseph is liable for "defamation per se" and is seeking damages, also in an amount of at least $50,000.

So, what do you think? Does Hollis have a cause of action? I don't do civil cases but I seem to recall courts have held that websites aren't responsible for comments posted. Is it different because Joseph invited damaging information and created the site to display it? Should (or could) all the men listed get together and file a class action against her?

Personally, I think the site is deplorable and hope Joseph voluntarily shuts it down. Regardless of whether it's legally justifiable, it's morally reprehensible -- at least in my constitutionally protected opinion.

For a little late night music that reminds me of the site, here's Patty Smyth and Scandal doing Goodbye to You.

And what's Patty Smyth doing now? She's married former tennis ace John McEnroe in 1997. He is not on the Don't Date Him Girl site.

< The Twilight Zone | Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller a Casualty of Guanatamo >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Re: 'Don't Date Him Girl' Lawsuit Update (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 01, 2006 at 10:57:47 AM EST
    I have been on the receiving end of a false rumor offline. It cost me potential dating with several people. Such is life. And, if someone heard something false about me, they would be totally justified in being cautious, and I certainly wouldn't fault them for that. A potentially anonymous warning about someone on a website is not, however, a restraining order. Some people are going to be very concerned, others aren't. Particularly when there is an opportunity to rebut on your own behalf, people can judge credibility for themselves. There are some people who are going to want to take no chances and want to date someone whose never parted badly in their life. There are other people who are less choosy. In the same vein, I would encourage a potential bride to talk to any ex-wives of the fiancee, recognizing that some bias might be involved. It would provide insight, even if it is false or exaggerated. But, there are only two per se rules and neither is a good one for arriving at the truth. Either accept as true everything that anyone who posts says, or accept as true everything that anyone complains about a post says and remove it. It is far better to force both sides to make their case, knowing that someone is lying, because discerning who isn't easy. And, it is better to leave the public fully informed, than to suppress potentially relevant information.

    Re: 'Don't Date Him Girl' Lawsuit Update (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Tue Aug 01, 2006 at 04:59:48 AM EST
    A couple comments. 1. Can't agree more about the site-owner having had one of those "what could possibly go wrong?" ideas when dreaming up this site. "A lot", starting with "we're denying insurance coverage".... Newspapers carry defamation coverage, and that's against suits over publications which are vetted through various levels of journalistic ethics, editorial boards and policies, multiple sourcing (except the NY Post gossip columns, but that's another issue), and professional standards. In this situation, the defendant site has solicited information about "how bad" particular men - not "public figures" as defined in the caselaw - are as dates/prospective mates. Trolling for dirt on private persons and not vetting it for truth before allowing it to be posted on a for-profit site (whose revenues are destined to increase the more notoriety the site gets) strikes me as reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement(s) made, easily at least enough to survive summary judgment. And, yes, it's reprehensible, too. 2. There's little constitutional protection for the defendant here, save that provided by the caselaw which constitutionalized common law defamation actions. Starting with N.Y. Times v. Sullivan, the scope of common law defamation actions has been limited and cabined by First Amendment case law. The "reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement" standard derives from that case law. 3. Saying someone has herpes can, depending upon the state, fall within the bounds of per se defamation. Traditionally, per se defamation encompassed four types of statements - (a) (unsupported) allegations of unethical conduct in a profession, (b) (unsupported) allegations of criminality, (c) alleging someone has a "loathsome disease" (e.g., smallpox, AIDS, all types of VDs, leprosy), (d) alleging unchasitity in a woman. Following NY Times v. Sullivan and subsequent development of the case law, some states have eliminated or strongly limited the utility to plaintiffs of some or all of these categories. While this varies widely from state to state, probably the only one which survives in anything near its common law form is (c), which is what the plaintiff is suing over here. Given the context of the site and the allegation, I'd opine he's got a pretty strong case there. 4. Serving process is generally immune from being a cause of action, so I think the counterclaim is properly seen as "sound and fury, signfiying nothing". Noisy, but meaningless. I kind of doubt that telling a process server "X works at [address] and lives at [another address]" could ever give rise to any liability; process servers tend to require plaintiff's attorneys to give them information so they can find the defendant and serve them. This particularly because many servers advertise to the effect of "if we don't serve successfully, you don't pay". Putting a TV crew there may or may not give rise to some sort of liability, though the argument that service was being recorded to preclude later challenges to its' sufficiency will likely pass the eye-roll test.... FWIW, I once had the correspondent in a divorce case served by the sheriff's department where she worked as a deputy; she had stolen the affections of my client's wife.... She made a lot of noise, but it went nowhere. Also, there has been a lot swirling around the news about the Pittsburgh coroner and his office - given the plaintiff's work as a criminal defense lawyer, I would not be surprised if there were several more layers of story here, beyond a bad date and the woman seeking some measure of revenge.

    Re: 'Don't Date Him Girl' Lawsuit Update (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 01, 2006 at 05:48:29 AM EST
    She has countersued Hollis for among other things, having her served in the presence of tv cameras at her job at the Allegheny County Coroner's office. Can you really sue about where and how you are served? Boy, I would like to sue the SOB that served me at 5am by pounding on my apartment door. Are websites responsible for the comments posted on them? My layman's understanding is that it goes back to "Common Carrier" law which said that train companies and telephone companies were not responsible for what they carried so long as they basically didn't edit content. Since Don't Date him apparently does not let men post on their site in any fashion, even to rebut their arguments, I doubt if they can call themselves a common carrier. I don't know if Common Carrier has ever really been applied to teh Intarweb, but it's been discussed for probably 20 years. I would say that the big ISPs, Google, and Blogspot are common carriers. I would think that's a much harder claim for a particular blog, or registration required site. Not only should Don't Date him be closed, the owner should be sued into oblivion. Sued with extreme prejudice.

    Re: 'Don't Date Him Girl' Lawsuit Update (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 01, 2006 at 07:42:47 AM EST
    I don't think that the site is deplorable. Indeed, gossip about the character of potential mates of the opposite sex is something as old as time, and serves a valuable purpose. You can do a credit check or criminal records check about a potential significant other, but, short of hiring a professional match maker, there is a whole lot that other sources miss which is relevant only to a personal relationship. In a small community, this kind of gossip can cover a large enough share of potential members of the opposite sex to be useful. In a larger community, it can't. Without a technology like the Internet, it is virtually impossible to know what sort of person you're encountering unless you restrict yourself to a very narrow and tight social circle, which sort of defeats to idea of living in a large metropolitan area to expand your prospects. Also, certainly, under the reckless disregard standard, the host of this site ought to pass muster, even in the absence of statutory protection for website hosts. After all, each allegation comes with a witness to back it up. The host doesn't make anything up personally. The basis for the claim on the site rests wholely on the credibility of the person making the allegation. The fact that the man allegedly wronged in this case claims to know the name of the person who is making the allegation, and to have dated her, further corroborates the post. It is a bit like the peril of speaking to the cops -- everything you say that provides any link to the scene of the crime leaves fewer things for those who want to find you guilty to prove. There is no reason to believe that, but for the actions of the man in this case, that there would have been any monetary damages at all, although he might have had a harder time finding a date. But, hear again, the Internet provided him with a more productive option. Unlike the typical small town rumor, he is in this case in the position to know the allegations against him and post statements in the comments stating things like: "So and so is lying. I am the man in question, I don't have children, I don't have herpes, and I am not gay or bisexual." Then, the community at large, and more importantly, the community of people in that area who might think of dating either the accuser or the accused know that one of them, or both, may be lying and can proceed with caution. From the point of view of a third party this makes eminent sense. If a guy is such a cad that he inspires hateful allegations, even untrue ones, he is probably someone that you should be cautious in getting to know for that reason alone. Yes, under traditional private party libel concepts, which the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to dip its toes into, and which are rooted in British manners, it is an issue. Indeed, at common law which developed in a country without the first amendment, truth is merely a defense. A prima facie case is made out any time you say anything bad about anyone -- the rudeness of saying something bad is the gravamen of the offense, not fraud. But, the common law private party libel standards should go the way of alienation of affection lawsuits. Matters of the heart ought to be resolved in courts of love, not courts of law.

    Re: 'Don't Date Him Girl' Lawsuit Update (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 01, 2006 at 09:15:57 AM EST
    From the point of view of a third party this makes eminent sense. If a guy is such a cad that he inspires hateful allegations, even untrue ones, he is probably someone that you should be cautious in getting to know for that reason alone. And women that wear short skirts deserve to be raped. What planet are you living on, where decent people don't have enemies? Some of the posts on DontDateHim are undoubtedly true. Some are totally false. I suspect most are somewhat exaggerated. Big deal. Just about everyone who has ever dated more than a handful of people has some enemies -even if they merely think they have reason to have a beef with you. I hope no one ever says bad things about you, ohwilleke. Because if you are a man that would mean you are a cad, and if a woman that would mean you are a slut. And surely you are neither of those things, right?

    Re: 'Don't Date Him Girl' Lawsuit Update (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 01, 2006 at 12:10:40 PM EST
    ohwilleke gave me herpes.

    Re: 'Don't Date Him Girl' Lawsuit Update (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 01, 2006 at 01:19:53 PM EST
    A comment and a question. Comment: It seems likely that any damage to a persons reputation would extend well beyond his/her dating prospects. Employers regularly google job candidates, and many people google casual acquaintances for fun. Question: I'm curious how this relates to the disputes about ratemyprofessor.com. The case seems rather similar. Neither site provides the accused an opportunity to respond, only the most passionate --usually the angriest-- students are likely to post, and I'd be astounded if tenure and promotions committees don't look at a professor's reviews in evaluating her. I know there's been a lot of complaining about ratemyprofessor.com. But I'm not sure if there has been any legal action. It would be great to hear whether there are any special issues that arise in the ratemyprofessor case that aren't present in the dating site case (and no, I'm not intending to sue or anything --just curious).

    Re: 'Don't Date Him Girl' Lawsuit Update (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 01, 2006 at 02:24:14 PM EST
    You people are overanalyzing the law WAY too much here. This is an open and shut case. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides absolute immunity for the website operator (unless it can be shown that it was the operator herself who authored the comments under a pseudonym ) - so discussions of "defamation per se" and "public figures" are completely superfluous here. This case will be tossed out - guaranteed. "I don't do civil cases but I seem to recall courts have held that websites aren't responsible for comments posted." That's exactly right. And thank goodness for that! Otherwise the Internet would be strangled in its crib by a flood of libel cases. Nobody would allow sites to post interactive comments because people would be too afraid of being sued. Even people who merely LINKED to sites with allegedly defamatory material would be potentially liable without the protections of this law.

    Re: 'Don't Date Him Girl' Lawsuit Update (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 01, 2006 at 06:57:51 PM EST
    Rogan, agreed. As I like to put it, the internet has no eraser.

    Re: 'Don't Date Him Girl' Lawsuit Update (none / 0) (#10)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 01, 2006 at 07:49:42 PM EST
    TL is being too kind. IMO, the tubes can't subtract pea from the swimming pool. But this case does seem to have interesting issues: If you invite negative comments about folks is that the same as negative comments about folks being posted on your site (see TL;-) TL, as an example, posts and kindly allows us to comment. Is that the same as only being a site that hosts comments? I started to see what ohwilleke said, (and thinking - I'd gotten girls before because someone warned them away from me), and then I saw JPF's "ohwilleke gave me herpes." and started to think 'maybe free speech ends when someone yells fire in my pants.' Over all, this is a hard one, and it could be slippery, and I'm glad I don't have to find the crux of the matter. But I predict that by filing suit that lawyer is going to get less ... than he ever dreamed of;-)

    Re: 'Don't Date Him Girl' Lawsuit Update (none / 0) (#11)
    by cpinva on Tue Aug 01, 2006 at 09:59:20 PM EST
    levine, you claim websites have absolute immunity, under a statute never subject to judicial scrutiny, as near as i can tell. congress passes many laws, laws that may go unchallenged for years. all this means is that they haven't been challenged, not that they can withstand constitutional muster. frankly, i am concerned any time congress grants absolute immunity to anything or one, it's inviting abuse. the problem this web site has is it's very nature: it overtly invites any female to make any adverse assertion about any male, period. no proof is required, no rebuttal allowed. nothing dies on the net, ever. this isn't the same as the occasional negative comment made about someone here, TL isn't inviting only those. the owner of the site in question is asking people to defame others, no questions asked. i suspect that isn't what congress had in mind. were this a site run by a man, seeking only negative comments about women, by other men, with no recourse by the women in question, would this even be a subject for discussion? or, would the owner already have been tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail?

    Re: 'Don't Date Him Girl' Lawsuit Update (none / 0) (#12)
    by scribe on Wed Aug 02, 2006 at 09:54:16 AM EST
    I was just thinking about this case again, and, the image of Chris Rock doing a bit on this came to mind (not that he already has, but you get the idea, and IMHO he'd be perfect for it). Something like: "They create a website where they can trash men and say all sorts of vile things, and then you hear 'em whining 'where are all the good men? I can't get a date. No man will take me to dinner. Boo-hoo.'"

    Re: 'Don't Date Him Girl' Lawsuit Update (none / 0) (#13)
    by scribe on Wed Aug 02, 2006 at 09:54:59 AM EST
    I was just thinking about this case again, and, the image of Chris Rock doing a bit on this came to mind (not that he already has, but you get the idea, and IMHO he'd be perfect for it). Something like: "They create a website where they can trash men and say all sorts of vile things, and then you hear 'em whining 'where are all the good men? I can't get a date. No man will take me to dinner. Boo-hoo.'"

    Re: 'Don't Date Him Girl' Lawsuit Update (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 10:54:13 AM EST
    The owner of the site is asking for truthful information, not asking people to defame others, which in the end amounts to a form of fraud. It would generally not be considered reckless to rely on someone who says they are an eyewitness when writing a newspaper story, even when uncorroborated, absent a recent to doubt them. Indeed, single witness cases often win in court. There is no doubt by the way that somebody gets absolute immunity under Section 230 of the CDA. For example, the hosting company, and any computer that is a link in the internet passing along the message. is clearly immune. I'm not sure that the categorization issue that says Section 230 controls that person's liability is as clear. It may come out that way, but it is a harder case.

    Re: 'Don't Date Him Girl' Lawsuit Update (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 10:09:56 AM EST
    This article says it all: Is It Legal To Expose A Cheater Online? There are LOADS of these sites like DDHG around: Womansavers.com; DatingPsychos.com; PsychosandPlayers.com; Bashmyex.com; cheaterdb.com...... loads of them. And even some really heavy duty ones like jewishsurvivors.blogspot.com that out rabbis & jewish clergy who are sexual abusers. Going after these people is going to be impossible. Why don't the men who sue spend the money on making amends, going to therapy or being straight up guys? Its only defamation if its untrue!

    Re: 'Don't Date Him Girl' Lawsuit Update (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 12:10:50 PM EST
    Yes, but what IF the information is untrue, or mostly untrue? I read this website, checked out the DON'T DATE HIM GIRL site out of curiousity, and found a profile of MY OWN HUSBAND - recently posted. I know who posted it, too - a woman who dated him after his divorce, stalked him for two years after he wouldn't marry her, then unsuccessfully tried to sue him for over a million dollars based on the claim that she had performed the services "of a wife" for him while they were dating. (HUH?) She was dropped by two law firms and failed to pay her legal bills on the third. (All documented info.) So, there's his name, profession, personal information and slander (she claims he "abandoned his child," when we have primary custody of her!) up on a site. What does he do? What if someone googling him for professional reasons comes upon this? Personally, both he and I (and his ex wife!) are happy this woman is out of all our lives, though she's still obviously bitter (5 years later!). I doubt once he learns about this, he'll care, except to confirm his relief that his instincts about her during their break up were correct. But there ARE potential ramifications to posting this kind of info that is un-vetted by the website. Personally, I the women who post here are sick and bitter - the Chris Rock reference was right on. I dated plenty of losers in my single years and trust me, ladies, the ONLY revenge is to get on with your life and live it well! But these sites aren't going away - there needs to be some sort of legal caveat/precedent about posting slanderous information on the web. ESPECIALLY when the poster remains anonymous but cites the name and personal details of the person she is accusing. If someone is going to slander someone else in print, shouldn't they at least be obliged to do so openly, using their own names?

    Re: 'Don't Date Him Girl' Lawsuit Update (none / 0) (#18)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 07:20:41 PM EST
    Where's Jenny Jones when we need her?

    Re: 'Don't Date Him Girl' Lawsuit Update (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 08:02:08 PM EST
    deleted, TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

    Re: 'Don't Date Him Girl' Lawsuit Update (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 04:20:29 PM EST
    I was one of the lucky guys who was maliciously posted on Mrs. Joseph's Web sight " Don't Date em Girl . Com " There for I have an opinion about this whole thing. First of all Mrs. Joseph's intentions are noble and yes there are a lot of jerks out their who deserve to be on this sight. But on the other hand this sight allows anybody to post any thing about any body ells anonymously, whether it be fact or fiction. What's wrong with that ? This leaves many guys like myself victims of angry women. Whets my only option? This would be to explain "my side of the story and post it on the internet" Well guess what I don't think that my personal life should be public record, it should remain personal. And wile some guys may be getting what they deserve there are many others paying for their broken plates thanks to this tasteless website. And yes Mrs. Joseph my hide behind the first amendment, but here is something to think about: our founding fathers crafted our most precious document, the highest form of law in the United Stats not to be used so that someone can hide behind it, thus to be able to harm others. Furthermore Benjamin Franklin once said that " A mans rights end where the next mans rights begin " Meaning that no American has the right to step on another's rights. their are many people that think that this website should be taken down. This is not my opinion although their should be more accountability on the part of the person who what's to post something derogatory about any one ells. Rick Fuentes

    Re: 'Don't Date Him Girl' Lawsuit Update (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Sep 27, 2006 at 08:50:18 PM EST
    But what if she alleges criminal activity?? And you can prove beyond all doubt that it is untrue?? Esquires??

    Dont Date him girl lawsuit (none / 0) (#21)
    by paragirl7 on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 01:00:32 AM EST
    First, I would like to say that its in all of us to see the one who broke our hearts suffer in some way. I have seen the website and I must admit I got a kick out of some of the postings. However, when some of the postings started to post the mens numbers, state that some of the men had sexual and deadly diseases, I started to question the validity of what the website owner's original intention was? I believe the website owner's counterclaim  of 50,000 'for showing her face on Television' is frivilous because she has appeared on numerous TV shows .In addition, it didnt benefit the plaintiff to have her there she benefited by the publicity and if I was the plaintiff's laywer that is what I would claim. When the Dr. Phil show appeared about this website I expected to see a mature, confident woman who was ready to challege the claim that the site is malicious. Instead, I saw a woman acting like a giggling teenager who had no remorse or took no responsibility for what is blogged on her site. I think the plaintiff can bring a claim of defamation on the website owner or the person who wrote the blog on the website. I think in this case, the plaintiff is doing some head hunting and going after the owner of the website. I think that even if the comments blogged on that page even if they were true and they damaged he career, his emotional being or his living she will have to satisfy the cuase of action


    Can this be???? (none / 0) (#22)
    by karenswettk on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 09:31:02 PM EST
    OK, my MINOR daughter had a profile listed about her at datingpsychos.com - and worse yet, because of it, all of her personal information is available at google if one does a google search for her name.

    How can this be legal?  Someone can defame a MINOR on a host's website, and the host is not responsible for the contents?

    Please...tell me it ain't so!!

    Who do you talk to ? (none / 0) (#23)
    by BBol on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 12:49:41 PM EST
    If your on this page, who do you contact to try and get those lies that are on there OFF ? Who do you talk to that is handling the class action lawsuit ?

    What Can I Do? (none / 0) (#24)
    by 4justice on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:21:18 PM EST
    My brother was listed on dontdatehimgirl.com. His full name was listed as well as his nick name. We found out when one of my friends called me about it. There are several derogatory and defaming remarks about me. Anyone who sees the post will know that it is me being talked about. My brother's fiance made the post, yes he is marrying her. My issue is I am a female being blasted on this site. Don't get me wrong I do not believe anyone should be made public this way. How do I get this information removed?

    How this could effect you that posted it ladies.. (none / 0) (#25)
    by your rights on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:06:22 AM EST
    I DIDN"T POST IT BUT PUT THESE SHOES ON IF YOU THINK THIS IS OKAY. With out saying names I will explain how this selfish B*t&@ couldn't deal with a broken heart and it caused me issues. Excuse me for the cursing but this is just to much this web site. I had meet my boyfriend years ago but much of my family didn't know him as I meet him while living out of state. Well wedding bells where in the air and we decided to relocate back to my home town. The story begins:

    Just in the last few weeks the headlines hit about this new website dontdatehimgirl.com.
    I had bigger things going on but someone in my family didn't. Interested family member went to the website to check this out..not just some younger person in my family..one of our older ladies ..our rock if you will..really just to play when she put in my fiance' name all in great fun..but heck she didn't know him..
    OOOO boy...
    Well lets say no one wanted to c us together..I didn't know about this posting but I did know about this girl..Just a girl..that girl..He's just not into you..Your not for him. But the biggest thing is this website was slander. It made issues..waves in the pool for a wonderful man by defamation of character. Look ladies ..Just like Beyonce said..I am a Survior..
    " won't put you on the internet because my mom taught me better than that."et over your selves. A few years ago ..a man that I was with for about 1.5yrs. cheated on me did all kinds of crazy things got married ..had two kids and is the best husband to his wife..I wasn't for him..and My baby wasn't about her. People make mistakes that's life..it wouldn't make us human otherwise but it shouldn't be laid out for the world to see. Point is I had to deal with skeptics forever about him when he is really an amazing disease free person...It is just wrong. Desprite women..do desprite things..real women move on..and in your face..with him.

    So before you do anything check your moral..think about the shoe on the other foot..even before all the law stuff..

    But I would love to get his info off there..how. THx!

    Don't Date Him Girl (none / 0) (#26)
    by confidential on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 06:46:21 PM EST
    I am the victim of a man now on DDHG. Had someone put him on there before I would not have married him, would not have been physically abused, raped, been conned out of my 401(k) and life savings. This man also defrauded me out of the home we purchased together (he is a real estate agent) and has been stalking me for the last 18 months. He and his girlfriend (another agent at our company) have booked trips using my identity and travel account, opened credit cards and stolen my mail. I checked with my attorney and as long as you tell the truth...they really don't have a leg to stand on. Sites like this are necessary because of the number of con men and sociopaths out there. Studies have shown that 1 in 25 people are a sociopath (also known as psychopaths). Personally, I think it is more like 5 out of 25 in displaying varying degrees of sociopathic behaviour. I believe sites like this (and liars, cheats and bastards; Peep Sheet; Rip Off report and SCAMclub) are necessary to protect men and women against evil people.
    To further explain the depth of evil displayed by my ex...he has a friend on the police force that I originally reported the abuse to (in 23 days I made over 30 calls for help...they never filed a single report. He broke into the house we used to share on May 17, 2008 after getting drunk. That was the last time he raped me. The police department has STILL refused to file a report (I have move three times in 10 months trying to escape him. My ex also broke into our house when I was moving out, took possession and my property was either stolen or destroyed. There are photo's on Facebook of his girlfriend wearing what looks like some of my missing jewelry. Women need to protect themselves, especially when our legal system and police don't do anything. I was actually told by one officer that they can't do anything until he hurts me again. Good to know how important my life is.