Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Jason and Melissa: In published papers

4,464 views
Skip to first unread message

Icebreaker

unread,
Apr 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/8/99
to
The CBS soap group has been discussing Scott Reeves on the cover of
SOD and how lame the inside story was (just like me). And as usual,
there were the typical bedwetting pansies who refused to face the
facts. Someone named Colleen posted this:

"FYI in published papers Executive Producer of
DAYS, Ken Corday, validated that Melissa Reeves
called him in tears one night and admitted to
sleeping with Jason Brooks. She told Corday that
in order to save her marriage Scott demanded she
quit the show. That was it. Melissa never showed
up at the DAYS Studio again and thus the lawsuit.
Melissa has never given an interview since this
time and Scott has blocked the whole incident out
of his mind acting like his married life has always
been perfect and that nothing inappropriate ever
happened."
----------------------------------------------------
Icebreaker
Nobody gets closer to James Bond than...
"http://www.007forever.com"
------------------------------------
'In my job, when I come up against a man like this one,
I have another motto. It's 'live and let die.'.
------------------------------------

S. Murray

unread,
Apr 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/28/99
to
>"FYI in published papers Executive Producer of
>DAYS, Ken Corday, validated that Melissa Reeves
>called him in tears one night and admitted to
>sleeping with Jason Brooks. She told Corday that
>in order to save her marriage Scott demanded she
>quit the show. That was it. Melissa never showed
>up at the DAYS Studio again and thus the lawsuit.
>Melissa has never given an interview since this
>time and Scott has blocked the whole incident out
>of his mind acting like his married life has always
>been perfect and that nothing inappropriate ever
>happened."
>----------------------------------------------------

Actually, I have seen several opportunities that she had to talk with the
press about this situation, but Scott was right there blocking every
question. Even in interviews with Scott, he shoots right past the issue.

Personally, I get the feeling that Melissa has become nothing more than a
"Stepford Wife" and letting her husband talk for her. Grow your backbone
back Missy, and tell Scott to shove it!

Shan

Michele

unread,
Apr 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/28/99
to
Ok where is the proof of the affair. And please dont tell me
about a disgruntled boss or a tabloid mag.

Michele

Kirstenfg wrote:
>
> >Personally, I get the feeling that Melissa has become nothing more than a
> >"Stepford Wife" and letting her husband talk for her. Grow your backbone
> >back Missy, and tell Scott to shove it!
>

> Some people value the institution of marriage and want it to work out, even
> when it is messed up. It is not about growing a backbone, but about living up
> to your marriage vows--even after, especially after--an error has occurred.
> They loved each other enough to work it out, and who are we to condemn them for
> that?
> Kirsten

--
MZ

Kirstenfg

unread,
Apr 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/29/99
to

Janloves

unread,
Apr 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/29/99
to
>Subject: Re: Jason and Melissa: In published papers
>From: "S. Murray" <smu...@2xtreme.net>
>Date: 4/28/1999 5:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <k8LV2.200$YY6....@news-west.eli.net>

>
>>"FYI in published papers Executive Producer of
>>DAYS, Ken Corday, validated that Melissa Reeves
>>called him in tears one night and admitted to
>>sleeping with Jason Brooks. >>>>

What published papers? Funny, people always mention that a rumour about an
actor or actress was in a published mag or a paper, but they never can quite
pinpoint where to give complete information.


She told Corday that
>>in order to save her marriage Scott demanded she
>>quit the show. That was it. Melissa never showed

>>up at the DAYS Studio again and thus the lawsuit.>>>>>>..

IMO she should sue them, for having her act out that garbage.


>>Melissa has never given an interview since this
>>time and Scott has blocked the whole incident out
>>of his mind acting like his married life has always
>>been perfect and that nothing inappropriate ever
>>happened."
>>----------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>

Even if it did happen, it's no one's business. It is up to them to work out
their marital problems, and IF they have, good for them.


>Actually, I have seen several opportunities that she had to talk with the
>press about this situation, but Scott was right there blocking every
>question. Even in interviews with Scott, he shoots right past the issue.
>>>>

That's his private business and I can't blame him for that. What effects her,
also effects him. He also has a career to think about. But more importantly,
they also have children to consider.


>Personally, I get the feeling that Melissa has become nothing more than a
>"Stepford Wife" and letting her husband talk for her. Grow your backbone
>back Missy, and tell Scott to shove it!
>

>Shan
>>>>

No, I think she did the right thing in telling DAYS to shove it. I don't
condone infidelity, but it isn't my business.

@-Janloves-<-<-<
http://members.aol.com/Janloves/Poetry.html
Revised 4/23/99
"The dome of thought, the palace of the soul"
Lord Byron
also,
http://members.aol.com/Mooredays/memorys.html

Judi Sohn

unread,
Apr 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/29/99
to
In article <19990429103317...@ng14.aol.com>, janl...@aol.com
(Janloves) wrote:

>>>"FYI in published papers Executive Producer of
>>>DAYS, Ken Corday, validated that Melissa Reeves
>>>called him in tears one night and admitted to
>>>sleeping with Jason Brooks. >>>>
>
> What published papers? Funny, people always mention that a rumour about an
>actor or actress was in a published mag or a paper, but they never can quite
>pinpoint where to give complete information.

Normally, I'd agree with you 100% but in this case it was part of the
court documents in Corday's lawsuit against Melissa Reeves. A filed
lawsuit is a matter of public record, and that is where this information
officially comes from. Once it was in the lawsuit, the soap mags reported
it as fact (at least from Corday's point of view, since it was his
lawsuit), when before it was just rumor. We never heard Melissa's side of
things, or even Scott Reeves or Jason Brook's side of things.

I'm sure that now that the case is settled, no one can get their hands on
the documents anymore. It was reported back when the suit was still
active.

--
Judi Sohn
jud...@home.com
<http://members.tripod.com/juderi/home.html>

Janloves

unread,
Apr 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/29/99
to
>Subject: Re: Jason and Melissa: In published papers
>From: jud...@home.com (Judi Sohn)
>Date: 4/29/1999 10:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <juderi-2904...@cv400317-a.stmfd1.ct.home.com>
Thanks. The original poster did not mention it was in court documents hence
my comment...which anyway from the information you gave, was "Ken Corday's"
view on it, because as you said, we haven't and I suspect will not hear from
the other parties.

TresBonBon

unread,
Apr 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/29/99
to
> Thanks. The original poster did not mention it was in court documents hence
>my comment...which anyway from the information you gave, was "Ken Corday's"
>view on it, because as you said, we haven't and I suspect will not hear from
>the other parties.
>@-Janloves-<-<-<

Which was exactly what Icebreaker's point was...that Melissa has not made any
comment nor has Scott, who is seemingly "censoring" her. Therefore, the only
opinions we can form have to be based on Corday's side of the story. I assume
there has been no comment from Jason because he didn't break his contract and
walk out.

Bonbon

Janloves

unread,
Apr 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/29/99
to
>Subject: Re: Jason and Melissa: In published papers
>From: tresb...@aol.comNoSpam (TresBonBon)
>Date: 4/29/1999 11:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <19990429113123...@ng-fi1.aol.com>
I had no contention with what Icebreaker said. I responded to the orignal
poster about the validity of the source. My point is , they are married. He has
a career, they have children, and it really is no one's business, whether a
matter of "public" record or not. He may well be in denial, but he also well
may be thinking of his family, which if this whole situation is true, is more
that we can say for the actions of his wife.... However, since we are not here
to judge, then why do we?

TresBonBon

unread,
Apr 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/29/99
to
>However, since we are not here
>to judge, then why do we?
>@-Janloves

Human nature.

BB

JaneAnne Peterson

unread,
Apr 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/29/99
to
Judi Sohn wrote:

> I'm sure that now that the case is settled, no one can get their hands on
> the documents anymore. It was reported back when the suit was still
> active.

Unless there was a request that the file be sealed, the documents should still be
a matter of public record.

JaneAnne


Bonnie Mcfadden

unread,
Apr 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/30/99
to
Bon

Judi Sohn

unread,
Apr 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/30/99
to
In article <3728BA1D...@birdke.com>, JaneAnne Peterson
<jane...@birdke.com> wrote:

>Unless there was a request that the file be sealed, the documents should
still be
>a matter of public record.

I know when the case was settled, it was said that the terms of the
settlement were not disclosed. But I don't know what happened to the
original papers. I never cared enough to look. <g>

0 new messages