How to get rid of a roommate?
Marsha
does anyone know what she has to do to get rid of a roommate
(boyfriend)? She owns the home outright. He's a verbal abuser and
plays mind games, like hiding her jewelry and undoing a couple small
improvements he's made to her home. She owns the home outright. He has
never paid anywhere near an equal share of the bills. I'm thinking she
may have to formally give him 30 days notice and then just evict him,
probably with the help of some law enforcement.
Marsha
Marsha
does anyone know what she might have to go through to get rid of this
former boyfriend? She owns the home outright. He has been there about 5
years and has never paid anywhere near his share of the bills. She has
asked him to leave several times, but he just plain refuses. He's a
have to give him a formal 30-day notice and then just evict him, with
the help of law enforcement probably.
Marsha
Rod Speed
> My milktoast sister does plan on consulting an attorney finally, but does anyone know what she has to do to get rid of
> a roommate (boyfriend)?
Shotgun, poison, glock, rotweiller.
> She owns the home outright. He's a verbal abuser and plays mind games, like hiding her jewelry and undoing a couple
> small
> improvements he's made to her home. She owns the home outright. He has never paid anywhere near an equal share of
> the bills. I'm
> thinking she may have to formally give him 30 days notice and then
> just evict him, probably with the help of some law enforcement.
Varys with the juridiction. In some you cant get rid of a defacto that easily.
watcher
One way might be for her(or you, or some agressive friend of hers) to wait
until he has to go out of the house for a while. At that point, she gets the
locks changed and throws all his stuff out into the front yard. At that point,
he might get the message.
W.
Al
Seems like a legal tenancy has been created and a formal eviction will
be needed to do it legally.
Your sister might find a replacement boyfriend that is not a milk
toast and he could be more persuasive.
Why not try this question on one of the legal groups? Mentioning the
state and city would also be a big help.
Marsha
> On Oct 11, 4:14 pm, Marsha <m...@xeb.net> wrote:
>> My milktoast sister does plan on consulting an attorney finally, but
>> does anyone know what she has to do to get rid of a roommate
>> (boyfriend)? She owns the home outright. He's a verbal abuser and
>> plays mind games, like hiding her jewelry and undoing a couple small
>> improvements he's made to her home. She owns the home outright. He has
>> never paid anywhere near an equal share of the bills. I'm thinking she
>> may have to formally give him 30 days notice and then just evict him,
>> probably with the help of some law enforcement.
>>
>> Marsha
>
> Seems like a legal tenancy has been created and a formal eviction will
> be needed to do it legally.
I think so, too.
> Your sister might find a replacement boyfriend that is not a milk
> toast and he could be more persuasive.
Unfortunately, she is a magnet for this type of guy, but this one is
especially bad and, in my opinion, is apt to do far more damage than any
previous one. Hopefully, she has seen the light.
> Why not try this question on one of the legal groups? Mentioning the
> state and city would also be a big help.
Thanks.
Dave C.
Marsha <m...@xeb.net> wrote:
> My milktoast sister does plan on consulting an attorney finally, but
> does anyone know what she has to do to get rid of a roommate
> (boyfriend)? She owns the home outright.
Has she asked him to leave? If she's asked him to leave and he refuses to leave, then he is a trespasser. Depending on how long they've been living together though, she might have a bigger problem. That is, she might have to formally file for divorce before she can ever get married to someone else. Check common law marriage statutes for the state she's living in.
But if she hasn't inadvertently married him (by common law) then he's a trespasser. Call the cops. Let the guy try to verbally abuse the cops. See how well that works out for him. :) -Dave
Dave C.
>
> Seems like a legal tenancy has been created and a formal eviction will
> be needed to do it legally.
How do you figure that? Has he ever paid rent? Has she ever asked him to pay rent? There is no need for an eviction of a trespasser. Just asking him to leave is enough. If he refuses, let him explain to the cops why he thinks he has a right to trespass on private property. I'll bet the cops convince him otherwise, fast. -Dave
--
Dave C. <no...@nohow.never>
Marsha
She has asked him to leave several times, though not very forcefully.
He just refuses and plays the mind game stuff. They have lived together
4 or 5 years, but I don't believe they can be considered common law,
since she never divorced her husband in California, though she says they
would be considered estranged since they haven't lived together for
nearly 13 years. I usually stay out of her self-created problems, but
this guy's personality has totally changed in the last couple years and
he has the potential to do some damage. Personally, I would like to use
him for target practice, but I understand that's illegal in most places.
Marsha
Dave C.
> > But if she hasn't inadvertently married him (by common law) then he's a trespasser. Call the cops. Let the guy try to verbally abuse the cops. See how well that works out for him. :) -Dave
>
> She has asked him to leave several times, though not very forcefully.
Well she doesn't have to be forceful. She's the owner, her will is law. Let the cops enforce it.
> He just refuses and plays the mind game stuff.
So it's time to let him play mind games with the cops then.
> They have lived together
> 4 or 5 years, but I don't believe they can be considered common law,
> since she never divorced her husband in California,
WHAT?!? She might be a bygamist by now then. One husband the usual way, one common law. Yikes.
> though she says they
> would be considered estranged since they haven't lived together for
> nearly 13 years. I usually stay out of her self-created problems, but
> this guy's personality has totally changed in the last couple years and
That wouldn't happen unless there was some kind of self-induced chemical imbalance. In other words, has he started using drugs recently? If not, then he's always been exactly what he is now.
> he has the potential to do some damage. Personally, I would like to use
> him for target practice, but I understand that's illegal in most places.
I'm sure that would be satisfying. But you don't need to go to such extremes. Just call the cops and be done with him. -Dave
Marsha
>>> But if she hasn't inadvertently married him (by common law) then he's a trespasser. Call the cops. Let the guy try to verbally abuse the cops. See how well that works out for him. :) -Dave
>> She has asked him to leave several times, though not very forcefully.
>
> Well she doesn't have to be forceful. She's the owner, her will is law. Let the cops enforce it.
She's has no self-esteem and doesn't like confrontation. Part of her
problem is that she's never lived alone and she's afraid.
>> They have lived together
>> 4 or 5 years, but I don't believe they can be considered common law,
>> since she never divorced her husband in California,
>
> WHAT?!? She might be a bygamist by now then. One husband the usual way, one common law. Yikes.
>
Seriously?
>> nearly 13 years. I usually stay out of her self-created problems, but
>> this guy's personality has totally changed in the last couple years
>
> That wouldn't happen unless there was some kind of self-induced chemical imbalance. In other words, has he started using drugs recently? If not, then he's always been exactly what he is now.
We figured he's bipolar - all the symptoms fit perfectly. He's never
been diagnosed or on meds for it, though, and it's gotten much worse
recently. He also smokes marijuana on a regular basis, but that's not new.
>> he has the potential to do some damage. Personally, I would like to use
>> him for target practice, but I understand that's illegal in most places.
>
> I'm sure that would be satisfying. But you don't need to go to such extremes. Just call the cops and be done with him. -Dave
If he pulls the same crap he did yesterday, I won't hesitate to call the
cops. He usually doesn't mouth off to women like me, though, so I was a
bit surprised. He targets weaklings. He will probably keep harassing
her after he moves out and she'll have to go through the whole
restraining order stuff. We all know how well those work. She may even
give in and let him move back in, but she says she won't.
Marsha
Rod Speed
> Dave C. wrote
>> Marsha <m...@xeb.net> wrote:
>>> My milktoast sister does plan on consulting an attorney finally, but does anyone know what she has to do to get rid
>>> of a roommate (boyfriend)? She owns the home outright.
>> Has she asked him to leave? If she's asked him to leave and he refuses to leave, then he is a trespasser. Depending
>> on how long they've been living together though, she might have a bigger problem. That is, she might have to
>> formally file for divorce before she can ever get married to someone else. Check common law marriage statutes for
>> the state she's living in.
>> But if she hasn't inadvertently married him (by common law) then he's a trespasser. Call the cops. Let the guy try
>> to verbally abuse the cops. See how well that works out for him. :)
> She has asked him to leave several times, though not very forcefully. He just refuses and plays the mind game stuff.
> They have lived together 4 or 5 years,
Then she has a problem. He isnt just a trespasser in most jurisdictions.
> but I don't believe they can be considered common law, since she never divorced her husband in California,
Thats not relevant to common law/defacto relationships.
> though she says they would be considered estranged since they haven't lived together for nearly 13 years.
And thats the critical part.
holarchy
> Dave C. wrote
>>>> But if she hasn't inadvertently married him (by common law) then he's a trespasser. Call the cops. Let the guy
>>>> try to verbally abuse the cops. See how well that works out for him. :)
>>> She has asked him to leave several times, though not very forcefully.
>> Well she doesn't have to be forceful. She's the owner, her will is law.
Its MUCH more complicated than that in many jurisdictions.
>> Let the cops enforce it.
They may well not be interested in getting involved.
> She's has no self-esteem and doesn't like confrontation. Part of her problem is that she's never lived alone and
> she's afraid.
>>> They have lived together 4 or 5 years, but I don't believe they can be considered common law, since she never
>>> divorced her husband in California,
>> WHAT?!? She might be a bygamist by now then. One husband the usual way, one common law. Yikes.
> Seriously?
Nope, not in a legal sense.
>>> nearly 13 years. I usually stay out of her self-created problems,
>>> but this guy's personality has totally changed in the last couple years
>> That wouldn't happen unless there was some kind of self-induced chemical imbalance.
That is just plain wrong. Plenty with significan mental illness do get that sort of onset effect.
>> In other words, has he started using drugs recently? If not, then he's always been exactly what he is now.
Tell that to the schitzophrenics.
Dont be too surprised when they just laugh in your face.
> We figured he's bipolar - all the symptoms fit perfectly. He's never been diagnosed or on meds for it, though, and
> it's gotten much worse recently. He also smokes marijuana on a regular basis, but that's not new.
>>> he has the potential to do some damage. Personally, I would like to use him for target practice, but I understand
>>> that's illegal in most places.
>> I'm sure that would be satisfying. But you don't need to go to such extremes. Just call the cops and be done with
>> him.
> If he pulls the same crap he did yesterday, I won't hesitate to call the cops.
Its unlikely the cops will get involved unless there is physical violence.
> He usually doesn't mouth off to women like me, though, so I was a bit surprised. He targets weaklings. He will
> probably keep harassing her after he moves out and she'll have to go through the whole
> restraining order stuff. We all know how well those work. She may even give in and let him move back in, but she
> says she won't.
Most do.
Dave C.
> >
> > Well she doesn't have to be forceful. She's the owner, her will is law. Let the cops enforce it.
>
> She's has no self-esteem and doesn't like confrontation. Part of her
> problem is that she's never lived alone and she's afraid.
Ok, someone else suggested she should wait until he's out of the house, change the locks and leave his stuff on the lawn. I'd go a step further. Lock up the house tight and have sister move in with you for a few weeks. Your sister shouldn't have to be driven out of her own home. But, this might be the easiest way to get him to move on. If he's faced with an empty house that he can't get into, and nobody around to protest to?
>
> >> They have lived together
> >> 4 or 5 years, but I don't believe they can be considered common law,
> >> since she never divorced her husband in California,
> >
> > WHAT?!? She might be a bygamist by now then. One husband the usual way, one common law. Yikes.
> >
>
> Seriously?
Hey, you can only have one husband at a time. If you are living with someone long enough, he becomes your common law husband. If you were already married before then, you'd have two husbands. That's a no-no.
>
>
> >> nearly 13 years. I usually stay out of her self-created problems, but
> >> this guy's personality has totally changed in the last couple years
> >
> > That wouldn't happen unless there was some kind of self-induced chemical imbalance. In other words, has he started using drugs recently? If not, then he's always been exactly what he is now.
>
> We figured he's bipolar - all the symptoms fit perfectly. He's never
> been diagnosed or on meds for it, though, and it's gotten much worse
> recently. He also smokes marijuana on a regular basis, but that's not new.
That figures. Frequent marijuana use causes certain mental conditions like bipolar disorders and schizophrenia. As I said before, he's got a self-induced chemical imbalance. Marijuana is not safe. It may be safer than certain other drugs, but it's still dangerous.
>
> If he pulls the same crap he did yesterday, I won't hesitate to call the
> cops. He usually doesn't mouth off to women like me, though, so I was a
> bit surprised. He targets weaklings. He will probably keep harassing
> her after he moves out and she'll have to go through the whole
> restraining order stuff. We all know how well those work. She may even
> give in and let him move back in, but she says she won't.
>
> Marsha
If you do call the cops, don't mention his behavior. That will cloud the issue and the cops likely won't give a damn. Just complain that he's trespassing. KISS principle applies. She owns the house, she wants him to leave, he won't leave, he's trespassing. Cops will respond to that, as it's less of a domestic issue and more of a black/white legal issue. He's breaking the law, the cops will handle it. -Dave
Marsha
> If you do call the cops, don't mention his behavior. That will cloud the issue and the cops likely won't give a damn. Just complain that he's trespassing. KISS principle applies. She owns the house, she wants him to leave, he won't leave, he's trespassing. Cops will respond to that, as it's less of a domestic issue and more of a black/white legal issue. He's breaking the law, the cops will handle it. -Dave
That makes sense - just let him hang himself, which he would. He
doesn't respect authority, so I can picture him yelling at the cops and
making no sense at all. I just hope she can follow through and break
free from this jackass.
Marsha
phil scott
unless she as a written lease agreement she can simply change the
locks and leave
his stuff in plastic sacks on the front law, notify the police of
potential issues, and have
someone stay with her until the dust settles.
Phil scott I am not an attorney
phil scott
the dirt bag would have to sue if there is any question, if there is
not a signed lease
agreement, chances he'd win approach zero... and he probably wouldnt
invest the money
to sue.... and for what 'damages' Id just change the locks, put his
stuff on the front lawn in plastic bags and rent a rotweiler, borrow a
shot gun and invite a friend or two to stay for a while
phil scott
good advice.
those types though are camelions. pro's at being so nice you wouldnt
believe it when its in their interests... Id just change the locks
myself.... he'd have to win in court if he fights it... with 5 or 10k
to lose in attorney fees, and damn little to gain,
Phil scott
holarchy
>>> Well she doesn't have to be forceful. She's the owner, her will is
>>> law. Let the cops enforce it.
>>
>> She's has no self-esteem and doesn't like confrontation. Part of her
>> problem is that she's never lived alone and she's afraid.
>
> Ok, someone else suggested she should wait until he's out of the
> house, change the locks and leave his stuff on the lawn. I'd go a
> step further. Lock up the house tight and have sister move in with
> you for a few weeks. Your sister shouldn't have to be driven out of
> her own home. But, this might be the easiest way to get him to move
> on. If he's faced with an empty house that he can't get into,
Very unlikely that he cant get into it with no one around to call the cops when he trys.
> and nobody around to protest to?
>>>> They have lived together
>>>> 4 or 5 years, but I don't believe they can be considered common
>>>> law, since she never divorced her husband in California,
>>>
>>> WHAT?!? She might be a bygamist by now then. One husband the
>>> usual way, one common law. Yikes.
>>>
>>
>> Seriously?
> Hey, you can only have one husband at a time.
Yes, but that is marraige. Not illegal to fuck around with more than one at a time.
> If you are living with someone long enough, he becomes your common law husband.
Yes.
> If you were already married before then, you'd have two husbands.
Nope, you're separated from the first one.
It isnt even illegal to have someone else move in with a married couple
and to have them fuck one of the married couple in that house.
> That's a no-no.
Wrong. Its only illegal to marry more than one at a time.
>>>> nearly 13 years. I usually stay out of her self-created problems,
>>>> but this guy's personality has totally changed in the last couple years
>>>
>>> That wouldn't happen unless there was some kind of self-induced
>>> chemical imbalance. In other words, has he started using drugs
>>> recently? If not, then he's always been exactly what he is now.
>>
>> We figured he's bipolar - all the symptoms fit perfectly. He's never
>> been diagnosed or on meds for it, though, and it's gotten much worse
>> recently. He also smokes marijuana on a regular basis, but that's
>> not new.
> That figures. Frequent marijuana use causes certain mental
> conditions like bipolar disorders and schizophrenia.
Another pig ignorant lie. It does produce mental illness in a small subset of individuals.
> As I said before, he's got a self-induced chemical imbalance.
You don't now that.
> Marijuana is not safe. It may be safer than certain other drugs, but it's still dangerous.
So is alcohol and caffiene.
>> If he pulls the same crap he did yesterday, I won't hesitate to call
>> the cops. He usually doesn't mouth off to women like me, though, so
>> I was a bit surprised. He targets weaklings. He will probably keep
>> harassing
>> her after he moves out and she'll have to go through the whole
>> restraining order stuff. We all know how well those work. She may
>> even give in and let him move back in, but she says she won't.
>>
>> Marsha
>
> If you do call the cops, don't mention his behavior. That
> will cloud the issue and the cops likely won't give a damn.
In spades when she admits she shacked up with him and is now sick of him.
> Just complain that he's trespassing.
And he will say that he's not.
> KISS principle applies. She owns the house, she
> wants him to leave, he won't leave, he's trespassing.
Wrong when she chose to shack up with him.
> Cops will respond to that, as it's less of a domestic
> issue and more of a black/white legal issue.
Only until he mentions that she chose to shack up with him.
> He's breaking the law,
Like hell he is.
> the cops will handle it.
Bet they dont.
Dave C.
>
> unless she as a written lease agreement she can simply change the
> locks and leave
> his stuff in plastic sacks on the front law, notify the police of
> potential issues, and have
> someone stay with her until the dust settles.
>
>
> Phil scott I am not an attorney
I like your approach. But as I wrote earlier, I'd modify it a bit. Instead of having friends stay with her, I think she should stay with friends. Leave the house empty and locked up tight for a while. The advantage of this approach is that she doesn't have to put up with the ex-boyfriend's crap for a while. I think it would be better if he didn't have access to her AT ALL for a while. Friends in the house might be able to keep the guy out or modify his behavior so that it isn't so bad. But he'll still find a way to abuse her probably. At the very least, there will still be drama and head games to deal with.
That's why I think you deny the ex-bf access to the house AND the girl, by locking up the house tight and having the girl stay with friends or the sister for a while. -Dave
Dave C.
Y'know, I shouldn't mention this, but someone should probably speak up and say something.
This situation, as you describe it, has all the earmarks of a future headline news story. You know, the kind where the reporters talk to the neighbors, who invariably remark, "She was such a nice person...I just don't understand how anybody could DO that to her..." (wiping tears away)
I wish I was joking. -Dave
frie...@zoocrewphoto.com
Depending on the location, that could have him winning a lawsuit
against her. We had to take people to court, which took more than a
month for the court date, and THEN, they had 30 days to get out. And
since they were broke, they took the whole 30 days. So, from beginning
to end, we lost another 2 months of rents and utilities in addition to
the amount that they were behind (the reason we were evicting them).
In a situation like this, it would be ideal if there were a way to
make him want to leave sooner than that. But not in a way that would
be considered harrassment.
Bill
laws).
Also check with your county health department or state health or human
services department or even a hospital. I've seen pamphlets in these places
which on the front say; "Are you in an abusive relationship?" Then it gives
a number to call. I don't know what they can do for you when you call???
Then when moving day arrives and it is legal to make him move out that day
(whatever depending on your state laws), and if the police department will
not help get rid of him, a "show of force" will encourage him to get going.
That is 6 or 8 people all arrive and inform him he is moving out RIGHT NOW.
Place his stuff on the sidewalk if necessary and change the locks. Get a
restraining order. (whatever is legal to do in your area.) Also you can hire
an off duty police officer. One for a couple of hours should do the trick!
These guys don't put up with any crap, know the laws, and will call their
buddies with a quickness.
But most important is that with a "show of force", persons who are combative
suddenly become meek as a lamb and will do as they are told.
"Marsha" wrote in message
Dave C.
Balvenieman <balve...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> "Dave C." <no...@nohow.never> wrote:
>
> >If you are living with someone long enough, he becomes your common law husband.
> Strictly speaking that simply is not the case in most, if not all,
> jurisdictions in the U.S.A. A narrow set of conditions must prevail in
> order for a judge (the only person who can do so) to declare persons to
> be "common law" spouses. "Common law" spouse just as "fiancé" is, in
> common parlance, simply PCSpeak for "cohabitant", "live-in" or
> "shackup".
> In my view, OP's most constructive and civilized course of action
> is to butt out and let her sister live her own life in return for the
> same respect and regard.
> --
And when the sister ends up dead? Will it make the OP feel better to know that she took the civilized course of action and let her sister die? -Dave
Dave C.
"holarchy" <hola...@nospam.com> wrote:
Damn Rod, that's about what, nymshift number 20 or so?
� Jeem �
<balve...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>"Dave C." <no...@nohow.never> wrote:
>
>>If you are living with someone long enough, he becomes your common law husband.
> Strictly speaking that simply is not the case in most, if not all,
>jurisdictions in the U.S.A. A narrow set of conditions must prevail in
>order for a judge (the only person who can do so) to declare persons to
>be "common law" spouses. "Common law" spouse just as "fianc�" is, in
>common parlance, simply PCSpeak for "cohabitant", "live-in" or
>"shackup".
> In my view, OP's most constructive and civilized course of action
>is to butt out and let her sister live her own life in return for the
>same respect and regard.
Only a handful of states recognize Common Law Marriage:
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4265
If the OP's sister resides in the majority of states which do not
recognize Common Law Marriage, then she has the right to allow her BF
to stay or tell him to leave, if his name is not on the deed to the
home.
� Jeem �
Agreed. If there is no rental agreement or lease, she has no
obligation to allow the BF to live with her. She is doing this just of
her own free will. She had a romantic interest in the man and now she
does not. That does not obligate her to allow him to live in her home.
If they were renting an apartment or house and both names were on the
lease, that would be a different story.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
<91533472-e414-4e7e-af51-6ac841bb221f@h4
0g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"frie...@zoocrewphoto.com"
<frie...@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:
Not that he's likely to accept it, but
offering him a lump sum to leave is
often a viable solution. Just get a
signed document that clearly states the
terms and what the money is for.
Then he becomes a trespasser legally
Rod Speed
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:59:35 -0500, Balvenieman
> <balve...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Dave C." <no...@nohow.never> wrote:
>>
>>> If you are living with someone long enough, he becomes your common
>>> law husband.
>> Strictly speaking that simply is not the case in most, if not all,
>> jurisdictions in the U.S.A. A narrow set of conditions must prevail
>> in order for a judge (the only person who can do so) to declare
>> persons to be "common law" spouses. "Common law" spouse just as
>> "fianc�" is, in common parlance, simply PCSpeak for "cohabitant",
>> "live-in" or "shackup".
>> In my view, OP's most constructive and civilized course of action
>> is to butt out and let her sister live her own life in return for the
>> same respect and regard.
> Only a handful of states recognize Common Law Marriage:
> http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4265
Heaps more do recognise defacto relationships.
> If the OP's sister resides in the majority of states which do not
> recognize Common Law Marriage, then she has the right to allow her BF
> to stay or tell him to leave, if his name is not on the deed to the home.
Utterly mangled all over again. It isnt even that simple with shared houses.
frie...@zoocrewphoto.com
It can get complicated though if any of the utilities are in his name,
or if he has proof of payments. And since he has lived there multiple
years, his ID will have that address on it. So, the police may not be
able to make a decision that he doesn't have legal right to be there.
And that means sending it to the court system, which will take time.
We've had renters admit in court that they are more than 6 months
behind on rent and have no money to pay. Yet they still get 30 days to
move out while we have to keep the utilities on or risk being sued.
The system in our state favors the renter and not the homeowner. We
couldn't even turn off the cable or wireless internet. The guy was
spending all day playing games on the internet. If we could have
turned off the internet (which we were paying for), he would have had
a reason to leave sooner.
� Jeem �
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>� Jeem � wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:59:35 -0500, Balvenieman
>> <balve...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Dave C." <no...@nohow.never> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you are living with someone long enough, he becomes your common
>>>> law husband.
>>> Strictly speaking that simply is not the case in most, if not all,
>>> jurisdictions in the U.S.A. A narrow set of conditions must prevail
>>> in order for a judge (the only person who can do so) to declare
>>> persons to be "common law" spouses. "Common law" spouse just as
>>> "fianc�" is, in common parlance, simply PCSpeak for "cohabitant",
>>> "live-in" or "shackup".
>>> In my view, OP's most constructive and civilized course of action
>>> is to butt out and let her sister live her own life in return for the
>>> same respect and regard.
>
>> Only a handful of states recognize Common Law Marriage:
>
>> http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4265
>
>Heaps more do recognise defacto relationships.
De facto relationship is just another term used in Australia and New
Zealand for Common Law Marriage in the US.
>
>> If the OP's sister resides in the majority of states which do not
>> recognize Common Law Marriage, then she has the right to allow her BF
>> to stay or tell him to leave, if his name is not on the deed to the home.
>
>Utterly mangled all over again. It isnt even that simple with shared houses.
Utterly mangled? Crystal clear to me.
>
� Jeem �
I like the rottweiler idea. The shotgun, I dunno. If she is not
willing to use it in a situation which arises where she would have to
use it, he may just take it from her and who knows what could occur
after that. Having people stay with her for a while is a good idea. It
would help her feel secure and would also help secure the home. Change
the locks.......without a doubt! Maybe add some deadbolt locks as
well. Buy some pepper spray for the times she is away from the home.
Rod Speed
>>>> Dave C. <no...@nohow.never> wrote
>>>>> If you are living with someone long enough, he becomes your common law husband.
>>>> Strictly speaking that simply is not the case in most, if not all,
>>>> jurisdictions in the U.S.A. A narrow set of conditions must prevail
>>>> in order for a judge (the only person who can do so) to declare
>>>> persons to be "common law" spouses. "Common law" spouse just as
>>>> "fianc�" is, in common parlance, simply PCSpeak for "cohabitant",
>>>> "live-in" or "shackup".
>>>> In my view, OP's most constructive and civilized course of action
>>>> is to butt out and let her sister live her own life in return for
>>>> the same respect and regard.
>>> Only a handful of states recognize Common Law Marriage:
>>> http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4265
>> Heaps more do recognise defacto relationships.
> De facto relationship is just another term used in Australia
> and New Zealand for Common Law Marriage in the US.
Wrong. Even in the US, shacking up isnt identical to Common Law Marriage.
>>> If the OP's sister resides in the majority of states which do not
>>> recognize Common Law Marriage, then she has the right to allow her
>>> BF to stay or tell him to leave, if his name is not on the deed to the home.
>> Utterly mangled all over again. It isnt even that simple with shared houses.
> Utterly mangled? Crystal clear to me.
Says he ignoring shared houses.
� Jeem �
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>� Jeem � wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> � Jeem � wrote
>>>> Balvenieman <balve...@invalid.net> wrote
>>>>> Dave C. <no...@nohow.never> wrote
>
>>>>>> If you are living with someone long enough, he becomes your common law husband.
>
>>>>> Strictly speaking that simply is not the case in most, if not all,
>>>>> jurisdictions in the U.S.A. A narrow set of conditions must prevail
>>>>> in order for a judge (the only person who can do so) to declare
>>>>> persons to be "common law" spouses. "Common law" spouse just as
>>>>> "fianc�" is, in common parlance, simply PCSpeak for "cohabitant",
>>>>> "live-in" or "shackup".
>
>>>>> In my view, OP's most constructive and civilized course of action
>>>>> is to butt out and let her sister live her own life in return for
>>>>> the same respect and regard.
>
>>>> Only a handful of states recognize Common Law Marriage:
>
>>>> http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4265
>
>>> Heaps more do recognise defacto relationships.
>
>> De facto relationship is just another term used in Australia
>> and New Zealand for Common Law Marriage in the US.
>
>Wrong. Even in the US, shacking up isnt identical to Common Law Marriage.
You are correct. Shacking up is not identical to Common Law Marriage
in the US. States differ on their definition of Common Law Marriage.
But in OPs case, that is where the difference between a husband and a
BF is relevant. As a husband, he would have more rights in the
situation than opposed to being a BF.
>
>>>> If the OP's sister resides in the majority of states which do not
>>>> recognize Common Law Marriage, then she has the right to allow her
>>>> BF to stay or tell him to leave, if his name is not on the deed to the home.
>
>>> Utterly mangled all over again. It isnt even that simple with shared houses.
>
>> Utterly mangled? Crystal clear to me.
>
>Says he ignoring shared houses.
Actually, I don't even know if the OP is in the US. There is alot of
evidence in the headers that it may be originating from Germany (.de).
But I'm more inclined to think she is in the US.
>
Marsha
> Not that he's likely to accept it, but
> offering him a lump sum to leave is
> often a viable solution. Just get a
> signed document that clearly states the
> terms and what the money is for.
>
> Then he becomes a trespasser legally
She is considering giving him some money to help move out. I think she
should just tell him to go to hell and let the law handle it, but she
says it's worth it to her just to be rid of him.
Marsha
Marsha
Yeah, I wish you were, too. Unfortunately, I have had the same morbid
thoughts...
Marsha
Marsha
According to that website, she doesn't qualify for common law marriage.
Marsha
Rod Speed
>>>>> http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4265
But dont differ on what constitutes shacking up, the situation actually being discussed.
> But in OPs case, that is where the difference between a husband and a BF is relevant.
Yes, but whether its a common law marraige or not isnt.
> As a husband, he would have more rights in the situation than opposed to being a BF.
But someone she shacked up with doesnt necessarily have no rights at all in most US jurisdictions.
>>>>> If the OP's sister resides in the majority of states which do not recognize
>>>>> Common Law Marriage, then she has the right to allow her BF to stay or
>>>>> tell him to leave, if his name is not on the deed to the home.
>>>> Utterly mangled all over again. It isnt even that simple with shared houses.
>>> Utterly mangled? Crystal clear to me.
>> Says he ignoring shared houses.
> Actually, I don't even know if the OP is in the US.
Sure, but it is likely given where the OP is posting from
and her comments about having been verbally abused
by the individual that her sister is trying to get rid of.
> There is alot of evidence in the headers that it may be originating from Germany (.de).
Thats just where the news server is.
> But I'm more inclined to think she is in the US.
She does appear to have confirmed that now with the comment that common
law marraige does not apply given what you posted about US states.
� Jeem �
Then the BF is just a BF. Nothing more. No sense even discussing
Common Law Marriage any longer since they do not reside in a state
where it is recognized. I do honestly wish the best for your sister.
No woman (or person for that matter) should be subjected to abuse of
any form. Because he is probably bipolar does not excuse him for his
verbal and emotional abuse. She deserves better than him and the
sooner he is out of her life, the better off she will be.
� Jeem �
I'm glad that we have agreed on some of the dynamics of the situation
and also despite our disagreements, we did not allow our emotions to
control our thinking (i.e. flame wars). But I am not aware of any
rights as a BF that he may have aside from retaining his personal
possessions. He did not pay any rent to her nor did he pay his part of
the living expenses from what I have read. It was through her
generosity that he lived there rent free because she was romantically
involved with him. He lived there rent free which is a privilege, not
a right. I do not see how he can have any rights except for the
aforementioned right to retain his personal possessions. Perhaps you
can elaborate on what other rights the BF may have?
Rod Speed
>>>> Dave C. <no...@nohow.never> wrote
>>>>> If you are living with someone long enough, he becomes your common law husband.
>>>> Strictly speaking that simply is not the case in most, if not all,
>>>> jurisdictions in the U.S.A. A narrow set of conditions must
>>>> prevail in order for a judge (the only person who can do so) to
>>>> declare persons to be "common law" spouses. "Common law" spouse
>>>> just as "fianc�" is, in common parlance, simply PCSpeak for
>>>> "cohabitant", "live-in" or "shackup".
>>>> In my view, OP's most constructive and civilized course of action
>>>> is to butt out and let her sister live her own life in return for
>>>> the same respect and regard.
>>> Only a handful of states recognize Common Law Marriage:
>>> http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4265
>>> If the OP's sister resides in the majority of states which do not
>>> recognize Common Law Marriage, then she has the right to allow her
>>> BF to stay or tell him to leave, if his name is not on the deed to the home.
>> According to that website, she doesn't qualify for common law marriage.
> Then the BF is just a BF. Nothing more.
That is just plain wrong legally.
> No sense even discussing Common Law Marriage any longer
> since they do not reside in a state where it is recognized.
Yes, but that does NOT mean he has no legal rights at all.
> I do honestly wish the best for your sister. No woman (or person
> for that matter) should be subjected to abuse of any form.
That is just plain silly, most obviously when she has been abusive herself.
> Because he is probably bipolar does not excuse him for his verbal and emotional abuse.
Legally that is just plain wrong too.
> She deserves better than him and the sooner he is out of her life, the better off she will be.
If he actually is a schitzophrenic etc, the shit could hit the fan very comprehensively indeed.
Rod Speed
>>>>>>> http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4265
Surely you must realise that someone who has shacked up with someone
else for years has more rights than that in plenty of US jurisdictions ?
In spades if he is now mentally ill.
> He did not pay any rent to her nor did he pay his part of the living
> expenses from what I have read. It was through her generosity that
> he lived there rent free because she was romantically involved with him.
He did however do some stuff that 'Marsha' claims he has undone now.
> He lived there rent free which is a privilege, not a right.
No one said anything about rights.
> I do not see how he can have any rights except for the
> aforementioned right to retain his personal possessions.
He does anyway in quite a few US jurisdictions.
> Perhaps you can elaborate on what other rights the BF may have?
Read up on palimony sometime.
� Jeem �
Then please do tell how that is plain wrong legally. The BF is a BF.
what else more can he be?
>
>> No sense even discussing Common Law Marriage any longer
>> since they do not reside in a state where it is recognized.
>
>Yes, but that does NOT mean he has no legal rights at all.
What legal rights does he have then?
>
>> I do honestly wish the best for your sister. No woman (or person
>> for that matter) should be subjected to abuse of any form.
>
>That is just plain silly, most obviously when she has been abusive herself.
Was she abusive to him in response to his abuse? (i.e. the book "I,
Tina") If you kick a dog and the dog bites you, is it the dog which is
at fault?
>
>> Because he is probably bipolar does not excuse him for his verbal and emotional abuse.
>
>Legally that is just plain wrong too.
Please provide authoritative criteria to support this statement.
>
>> She deserves better than him and the sooner he is out of her life, the better off she will be.
>
>If he actually is a schitzophrenic etc, the shit could hit the fan very comprehensively indeed.
Until he has a psychiatric evaluation, there is no diagnosis from any
physician stating he is schizophrenic, bipolar, etc. Therefore, his
medical history would not indicate he has a mental disorder.
Hypothetically speaking, if he had a psychiatric evaluation, that
would not mean that the GF has any obligation to keep him in her home.
Why would his mental condition make him exempt from being evicted from
her home? There are plenty of people here who have mental disorders
and who are homeless and no one has a legal obligation to take them or
keep them in their homes.
� Jeem �
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> He did not pay any rent to her nor did he pay his part of the living
>> expenses from what I have read. It was through her generosity that
>> he lived there rent free because she was romantically involved with him.
>
>He did however do some stuff that 'Marsha' claims he has undone now.
>
>> He lived there rent free which is a privilege, not a right.
>
>No one said anything about rights.
>
>> I do not see how he can have any rights except for the
>> aforementioned right to retain his personal possessions.
>
>He does anyway in quite a few US jurisdictions.
>
>> Perhaps you can elaborate on what other rights the BF may have?
>
>Read up on palimony sometime.
Palimony laws vary state to state.
>
� Jeem �
>My milktoast sister does plan on consulting an attorney finally, but
>does anyone know what she has to do to get rid of a roommate
>(boyfriend)? She owns the home outright. He's a verbal abuser and
>plays mind games, like hiding her jewelry and undoing a couple small
>improvements he's made to her home. She owns the home outright. He has
>never paid anywhere near an equal share of the bills. I'm thinking she
>may have to formally give him 30 days notice and then just evict him,
>probably with the help of some law enforcement.
>
>Marsha
You know, Marsha, I think a very effective way of your sister getting
her BF out of the house is to cheat on him. I mean have a short-term
affair and don't even try to hide it. Let herself get caught, like
letting him "accidentally" see a love letter in her email or witness
her kissing holding hands with another guy. If her infidelity will not
get him out of the house, I do not know what would.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
<hb0dg7$9pr$2...@news.datemas.de>,
Marsha <m...@xeb.net> wrote:
If she just gives him money without some
legal document, he'll never leave or
leave her alone.
Personally, I'd tell her to run her face
into a wall while he's there and then
call the cops
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
<e647d5d0n30f3av76c912ntmfjap9rmfhp@4ax.
com>,
� Jeem � <n...@thebeach.now> wrote:
Of course if his name is on any of the
utilities...
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
<e28ff199-0096-49d8-84f0-c0fb4c772e05@g1
g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
"frie...@zoocrewphoto.com"
<frie...@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:
Wow, internet access has finally made it
to the list of necessary utilities
Rod Speed
>>>>> http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4265
I already did. Shacking up with someone for years isnt the same thing as a BF.
> The BF is a BF. what else more can he be?
A shackupee
>>> No sense even discussing Common Law Marriage any longer
>>> since they do not reside in a state where it is recognized.
>> Yes, but that does NOT mean he has no legal rights at all.
> What legal rights does he have then?
Read up on palimony.
>>> I do honestly wish the best for your sister. No woman (or person
>>> for that matter) should be subjected to abuse of any form.
>> That is just plain silly, most obviously when she has been abusive herself.
> Was she abusive to him in response to his abuse? (
Irrelevant. I was commenting on your much too sweeping claim there.
> i.e. the book "I, Tina") If you kick a dog and the
> dog bites you, is it the dog which is at fault?
Irrelevant to your much too sweeping claim there.
>>> Because he is probably bipolar does not excuse him for his verbal and emotional abuse.
>> Legally that is just plain wrong too.
> Please provide authoritative criteria to support this statement.
Countless cases where insanity has been argued etc.
>>> She deserves better than him and the sooner
>>> he is out of her life, the better off she will be.
>> If he actually is a schitzophrenic etc, the shit
>> could hit the fan very comprehensively indeed.
> Until he has a psychiatric evaluation, there is no diagnosis
> from any physician stating he is schizophrenic, bipolar, etc.
That is just plain wrong too. If she has not lied about
his behaviour, that is evidence of a mental problem.
> Therefore, his medical history would not indicate he has a mental disorder.
You dont know that either.
> Hypothetically speaking, if he had a psychiatric evaluation, that would
> not mean that the GF has any obligation to keep him in her home.
Never said it did.
> Why would his mental condition make him exempt from being evicted from her home?
Never said that either.
> There are plenty of people here who have mental disorders
In fact the absolute vast bulk of them do.
> and who are homeless and no one has a legal
> obligation to take them or keep them in their homes.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
What I said in different words.
And it aint necessarily black letter law thats relevant anyway.
Rod Speed
> Marsha <m...@xeb.net> wrote
>> My milktoast sister does plan on consulting an attorney finally, but
>> does anyone know what she has to do to get rid of a roommate
>> (boyfriend)? She owns the home outright. He's a verbal abuser and
>> plays mind games, like hiding her jewelry and undoing a couple small
>> improvements he's made to her home. She owns the home outright.
>> He has never paid anywhere near an equal share of the bills. I'm
>> thinking she may have to formally give him 30 days notice and then
>> just evict him, probably with the help of some law enforcement.
> You know, Marsha, I think a very effective way of your
> sister getting her BF out of the house is to cheat on him.
He may not give a damn. Plenty of married people dont.
frie...@zoocrewphoto.com
bug...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <e28ff199-0096-49d8-84f0-c0fb4c772e05@g1
> g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
When you rent rooms in a house and internet is either included in a
situation of utilities bundled with the rent, or the cost of internet
is divided by the renters, then yes, it would be considered a utility.
It was mentioned in the ad and the rental contract. So, shutting it
down when they don't pay rent is counted as harassment. We were told
by our lawyer that we could not shut it down without facing a lawsuit
from the deadbeat who was already 4 months behind on rent.
This is a situation where one house is shared by 3-4 renters. So, it
isn't a whole house or apartment being rented to one person who would
choose to get internet or not.
Coffee's For Closers
hola...@nospam.com says...
> Dave C. wrote:
> >> We figured he's bipolar - all the symptoms fit perfectly. He's never
> >> been diagnosed or on meds for it, though, and it's gotten much worse
> >> recently. He also smokes marijuana on a regular basis, but that's
> >> not new.
> > That figures. Frequent marijuana use causes certain mental
> > conditions like bipolar disorders and schizophrenia.
> Another pig ignorant lie. It does produce mental illness
> in a small subset of individuals.
Yeah, I would have figured that you know plenty about that
subject, Rod.
> > As I said before, he's got a self-induced chemical
> > imbalance.
> You don't now that.
So what's your excuse, Rod?
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
Coffee's For Closers
> My milktoast sister does plan on consulting an attorney finally, but
> does anyone know what she has to do to get rid of a roommate
> (boyfriend)? She owns the home outright. He's a verbal abuser and
> plays mind games, like hiding her jewelry and undoing a couple small
> improvements he's made to her home. She owns the home outright. He has
> never paid anywhere near an equal share of the bills. I'm thinking she
> may have to formally give him 30 days notice and then just evict him,
> probably with the help of some law enforcement.
On a practical level, it is very simple. Here what she can do:
Call police, reporting a "domestic dispute."
When they arrive, point out that she is female, and he is male.
Say, "I'm scared of him." Preferably in a whiny tone.
No evidence needed. Not even any specific allegations of any bad
behaviour.
Just: "I'm the delicate little girl, and he's the big bad man,
and I'm scared."
The cops will (not "might" - WILL) order the boyfriend to
immediately leave, with whatever of his own possessions he can
carry in hand. This will create a situation where, if he
refuses, he will be committing a crime something like, "Refusing
An Order From A Police Officer." Which will also apply if he
tries to return after the cops are gone.
He is out right now. Not in 30 days. Not after an eviction
hearing. Now.
If actually doesn't matter who owns the house, or who pays the
bills. Even if, hypothetically, HE owned the house (or paid the
rent), and paid all of the bills, he would STILL be thrown out.
The next step is a restraining order. Which also isn't affected
by ownership or bill-paying, and doesn't require any evidence of
any kind.
This happens all the time. It isn't politically correct to say
it in the above terms, but that is the honest, practical reality.
And, while it sounds like your sister has legitimate grounds, the
process works just as efficiently in situations where the male is
innocent, and the accusations are false.
Dave C.
>
> You know, Marsha, I think a very effective way of your sister getting
> her BF out of the house is to cheat on him. I mean have a short-term
> affair and don't even try to hide it. Let herself get caught, like
> letting him "accidentally" see a love letter in her email or witness
> her kissing holding hands with another guy. If her infidelity will not
> get him out of the house, I do not know what would.
I don't think that would work. The original relationship with the
houseguest is over. He's getting something other than sex from the
girlfriend now. I think it is an abuser/abusee relationship. The girl
fucking another guy would just infuriate the ex-boyfriend and give him
a good reason to really go ape-shit. It certainly wouldn't convince
him that it's time to leave. -Dave
Dave C.
> > This situation, as you describe it, has all the earmarks of a
> > future headline news story. You know, the kind where the reporters
> > talk to the neighbors, who invariably remark, "She was such a nice
> > person...I just don't understand how anybody could DO that to
> > her..." (wiping tears away)
> >
> > I wish I was joking. -Dave
>
> Yeah, I wish you were, too. Unfortunately, I have had the same
> morbid thoughts...
Don't ignore them. -Dave
Marsha
Yep. She's already "forbidden" from talking to the neighbor (a friendly
male).
Marsha
Dave C.
>
> Yep. She's already "forbidden" from talking to the neighbor (a
> friendly male).
>
> Marsha
Yikes. Just yikes. -Dave
ra...@vt.edu
> > fucking another guy would just infuriate the ex-boyfriend and give him
> > a good reason to really go ape-shit. It certainly wouldn't convince
> > him that it's time to leave. -Dave
> Yep. She's already "forbidden" from talking to the neighbor (a friendly
> male).
Your sister needs to call a domestic abuse hotline. They are available
everywhere, and the people there will have information about who to call
and how to proceed. They will have the information that is pertinent to
her local area and state. She should not wait until he gets violent, she
should call now! At the least they'll be able to give her some perspective.
She will probably make excuses, "he's not that bad," etc. Try to convince
her that she doesn't have to take any of the advice she gets, but they
will know about the legal issues and it won't cost her anything to just
find out what her options are.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
>> Seems like a legal tenancy has been created and a formal eviction will
>> be needed to do it legally.
>
> How do you figure that? Has he ever paid rent?
In California, at least, they don't have to have paid rent; they just
have to be receiving mail at the address.
But if he has been stealing her things, I would sure hope that she would
be able to get a restraining order or something like that against him
and levy civil or criminal charges.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
>> Well she doesn't have to be forceful. She's the owner, her will is
>> law. Let the cops enforce it.
>
> She's has no self-esteem and doesn't like confrontation. Part of her
> problem is that she's never lived alone and she's afraid.
Ahh, might a domestic violence charge (emotional abuse) be pursuable?
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
>
> If the OP's sister resides in the majority of states which do not
> recognize Common Law Marriage, then she has the right to allow her BF
> to stay or tell him to leave, if his name is not on the deed to the
> home.
In California, which does not recognize common-law marriage, she still
has to evict him, unless there is a domestic violence issue, which
honestly sounds like the most reasonable solution and the best bet.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
>
> Agreed. If there is no rental agreement or lease, she has no
> obligation to allow the BF to live with her. She is doing this just of
> her own free will. She had a romantic interest in the man and now she
> does not. That does not obligate her to allow him to live in her home.
> If they were renting an apartment or house and both names were on the
> lease, that would be a different story.
I know from personal experience that this is not true in California.
Marsha (are you the same Marsha I know from SMT?), you could call your
sister's local police department and given them details and ask what her
options are -- or have her call.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
>
> Yep. She's already "forbidden" from talking to the neighbor (a friendly
> male).
That in itself is good starting grounds for a domestic violence case.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
sr
Even I could hook it up.
Caught a man that had worked here before: Snooping around., after I had
left the homeplace.
Just saying,
When he breaks in, you need the evidence
I don't have spell ck. please excuse
"Dave C." <no...@nohow.never> wrote in message
news:20091011233243...@nohow.never...
>
>>
>> unless she as a written lease agreement she can simply change the
>> locks and leave
>> his stuff in plastic sacks on the front law, notify the police of
>> potential issues, and have
>> someone stay with her until the dust settles.
>>
>>
>
> I like your approach. But as I wrote earlier, I'd modify it a bit.
> Instead of having friends stay with her, I think she should stay with
> friends. Leave the house empty and locked up tight for a while. The
> advantage of this approach is that she doesn't have to put up with the
> ex-boyfriend's crap for a while. I think it would be better if he didn't
> have access to her AT ALL for a while. Friends in the house might be able
> to keep the guy out or modify his behavior so that it isn't so bad. But
> he'll still find a way to abuse her probably. At the very least, there
> will still be drama and head games to deal with.
>
> That's why I think you deny the ex-bf access to the house AND the girl, by
> locking up the house tight and having the girl stay with friends or the
> sister for a while. -Dave
Marsha
> � Jeem � wrote:
>>
>> Agreed. If there is no rental agreement or lease, she has no
>> obligation to allow the BF to live with her. She is doing this just of
>> her own free will. She had a romantic interest in the man and now she
>> does not. That does not obligate her to allow him to live in her home.
>> If they were renting an apartment or house and both names were on the
>> lease, that would be a different story.
>
> I know from personal experience that this is not true in California.
>
> Marsha (are you the same Marsha I know from SMT?),
Yep - Hi there, "Samantha"
you could call your
> sister's local police department and given them details and ask what her
> options are -- or have her call.
That's an option. She's supposed to see an attorney on Monday, but just
talking to the police would be less expensive. Thanks.
Marsha
clams_casino
>
>
>
>So what's your excuse, Rod?
>
>
>
>
pig ignorance