Emotions Running High

[Yankee626]

I personally went to the Orange County Clerks web page and saw the charges AmEx is bringing against PW. J has claimed via his attorney that DU had no knowledge that PW took out that credit card in the company’s name. AmEx is suing to re-coop nearly (if not more) than $900,000. J and company have probably been advised not to speak on this. J via DU have asked for a jury trial to protect himself and his company from PW’s alleged unlawful acts. A jury will decide the verdict but J probably has more than enough evidence to back up his claim. This lawsuit has been ongoing since March 2023.

It’s not “he said she said.” PW has not disputed the (alleged, for legal purposes) victim’s claim. I’m not a believer in “if he/she said they’ve been abused, believe it” since the trial of a famous movie pirate, but in this case, I viewed the video’ed statement of the victim, saw the video’ed statement of a co-worker, read first person accounts of people familiar with those involved, and I personally believe the victim to be telling the truth. The victim, in this case, isn’t asking for criminal charges against PW. Whatever charges could have been brought are past the statute of limitations. He’s looking for healing, and did what he felt he had to do. PW could have responded, but didn’t. The above financial misconduct charges are what’s going to trial.

Like I said lets let the Jury decide. I didn't know there was a video of the SA . I haven't seen it. That would be horrific. A video statement means nothing more than a written statement. Maybe less because these people are all entertainers anyway.

 

[EllieJedi]

There are a million reasons he could have left and of course one of them is he's guilty. Other reasons could be he was bought out, pushed out, bullied out or he's just sick of it all. He also has other problems he's dealing with. Substance abuse etc. It doesn't look good at this point but what do we really know for sure except he's gone.

900,000 reasons sure…but a million might be a bit of a stretch.

 

[patmcnamar]

There are a million reasons he could have left and of course one of them is he's guilty. Other reasons could be he was bought out, pushed out, bullied out or he's just sick of it all. He also has other problems he's dealing with. Substance abuse etc. It doesn't look good at this point but what do we really know for sure except he's gone.

Respectfully after reading and watching all of the available content from the alleged victims and seeing how the Company has responded, and the way both current and past employees came forward or discussed this, I really on this case believe where there is smoke there is fire, and default my support to the victims. There are some insightful comments from one current employee in Patreon on this topic. On the last point, the alleged person is NOT gone. He stills owns the DIS and still has ownership in DU as far as we know. All the official statement said is there is a process underway to divest him...and in my own personal read of it that's likely a longer one given the AMEX suit and the fact that he needs to be bought out somehow. All the challenges in moderation earlier this week really targeted blame to John, but I think some were trying to remind us in a very subtle way that PW has not fully stepped away even from these moderation debates.

This is an awful situation and any response would have been criticized, but there is a framework to respond to crises like this and I don't think the Company handled it as well as it could have. The person we are talking about would never go quietly. I don't wish harm upon anyone but I also don't think those trying to minimize it or compartmentalize it are helping.

ETA: the reason I don't think vloggers or other outlets are giving this much play is because a) nothing has been said publicly by one side of this fight and b) people in glass houses don't throw stones. This can happen anywhere and it's video they may not want to have out there forever.

 

[JimmyV_2.0]

First the money allegations are just that until its resolved in court.

The Orange County Complaint against DUT appends the credit card statement as an exhibit. If you think that Amex photoshopped that or made it up, well, go ahead and live in ConspiracyLand. The amount incurred on that card is verified, and the failure to pay is stated right there on the statement. If you want to conjure up reasons for the failure to pay other than an inability to pay, go ahead. But don't expect the rest of us to move to the beat of your drum.

As for the SA allegations that is all he said she said nonsense until its brought in front of a Jury with all evidence and both sides being able to present a case.

If you have been paying attention, you would know that there aren't going to be charges filed. There is never going to be a trial where both sides present a case. Statute of limitations preclude pursuit of the matter and the victims have stated their desire to just move on. So like it or not, WE are the jury. If you are going to wait around for some other jury to make your conclusion, then you will never draw a conclusion. If you are at all familiar with Pete, you would conclude that his resignation, agreement to divest, and his unwillingness to refute the allegations against him with some patented "rant" speak volumes. If you think that Pete is one to slink off into the sunset bullied by false charges, then, well, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Yankee626]

The Orange County Complaint against DUT appends the credit card statement as an exhibit. If you think that Amex photoshopped that or made it up, well, go ahead and live in ConspiracyLand. The amount incurred on that card is verified, and the failure to pay is stated right there on the statement. If you want to conjure up reasons for the failure to pay other than an inability to pay, go ahead. But don't expect the rest of us to move to the beat of your drum.

If you have been paying attention, you would know that there aren't going to be charges filed. There is never going to be a trial where both sides present a case. Statute of limitations preclude pursuit of the matter and the victims have stated their desire to just move on. So like it or not, WE are the jury. If you are going to wait around for some other jury to make your conclusion, then you will never draw a conclusion. If you are at all familiar with Pete, you would conclude that his resignation, agreement to divest, and his unwillingness to refute the allegations against him with some patented "rant" speak volumes. If you think that Pete is one to slink off into the sunset bullied by false charges, then, well, I don't know what to tell you.

I didn't say he was innocent ! I just said lets get all the facts first . Lets let this play out in court where it belongs.

 

[GAN]

If you are at all familiar with Pete, you would conclude that his resignation, agreement to divest, and his unwillingness to refute the allegations against him with some patented "rant" speak volumes. If you think that Pete is one to slink off into the sunset bullied by false charges, then, well, I don't know what to tell you.

I'm by no means defending the man, but it's totally possible he's retained an attorney who is helping him develop a strategy to confront the issue of SA -that is the most concerning in my opinion. It's also possible that he's run for the hills ...unlikely, but possible. The AMEX bill is something, that honestly, isn't all that uncommon(although it sounds like a good amount to me) and will probably be settled.

 

[BooToYou7]

The Boards are not a court of law so there is no requirement that we view this with an innocent until proven guilty mindset.

The SA abuse allegations are unlikely to ever go to trial due to statute of limitations and how long it has been since the offenses took place (even if SOL was not an issue, sufficient evidence for a trial would be difficult to gather). We can, and should, use our own common sense to assess the credibility of the alleged victims, the credibility of the accusations, and the credibility and history of the alleged perpetrator. We can also assess possible motives and how others who were closely associated with both parties assessed everything.

You can make your decision about whether you are comfortable supporting PW with all that. I choose not do so.

 

[JimmyV_2.0]

Lets let this play out in court where it belongs.

What is it going to take to get you to understand that the SA accusations are never going to be heard in a court of law? It's not going to "play out" there. It is only going to play out here (and on the other site where the victims post more frequently). Sorry if that upsets you, but this is all we have.

 

[JimmyV_2.0]

The AMEX bill is something, that honestly, isn't all that uncommon(although it sounds like a good amount to me) and will probably be settled.

Of this I have no doubt. The bigger suit is against both DUT and Pete, so DUT has the authority to make this go away. Unless the company is in dire financial straits (which the recent the CA Trip would seem to put to rest), DUT will no doubt try to work out a payment plan with Amex and the suit will get dismissed.

 

[Yankee626]

There are a million reasons he could have left and of course one of them is he's guilty. Other reasons could be he was bought out, pushed out, bullied out or he's just sick of it all. He also has other problems he's dealing with. Substance abuse etc. It doesn't look good at this point but what do we really know for sure except he's gone.

Didn't Sean say he was a prostitute and a customer of his. Maybe there's sour grapes if Pete stopped giving him gifts during their relationship. Who really knows the truth here. A jury would throw this out in a minute. Dustin says that he was drunk and allowed it to happen. After he felt abused. This is probably why they didn't file charges. Also Sean went into business with Pete and it didn't go well; the other Loved being on the Dis but hated Pete. This is all very strange. Maybe some gaslighting or Drama Queen stuff happening here. One fact is for sure they could both have beaten the hell out of that old man if they wanted to. I sure as hell wouldn't take an unwanted SA from a short Old Man well without a fight. He would be the one crying not me. These are not innocent little women getting abused by an overbearing ogre.

 

[OKW Lover]

DUT will no doubt try to work out a payment plan with Amex and the suit will get dismissed.

Why would DUT work out a payment plan with AMEX when they say it's not their debt?

 

[ainswokp]

Didn't Sean say he was a prostitute and a customer of his. Maybe there's sour grapes if Pete stopped giving him gifts during their relationship. Who really knows the truth here. A jury would throw this out in a minute. Dustin says that he was drunk and allowed it to happen. After he felt abused. This is probably why they didn't file charges. Also Sean went into business with Pete and it didn't go well; the other Loved being on the Dis but hated Pete. This is all very strange. Maybe some gaslighting or Drama Queen stuff happening here. One fact is for sure they could both have beaten the hell out of that old man if they wanted to. I sure as hell wouldn't take an unwanted SA from a short Old Man well without a fight. He would be the one crying not me. These are not innocent little women getting abused by an overbearing ogre.

I love how your take was "don't speculate until it all plays out in a court of law" and then you speculated so hard.

 

[john7994]

Didn't Sean say he was a prostitute and a customer of his. Maybe there's sour grapes if Pete stopped giving him gifts during their relationship. Who really knows the truth here. A jury would throw this out in a minute. Dustin says that he was drunk and allowed it to happen. After he felt abused. This is probably why they didn't file charges. Also Sean went into business with Pete and it didn't go well; the other Loved being on the Dis but hated Pete. This is all very strange. Maybe some gaslighting or Drama Queen stuff happening here. One fact is for sure they could both have beaten the hell out of that old man if they wanted to. I sure as hell wouldn't take an unwanted SA from a short Old Man well without a fight. He would be the one crying not me. These are not innocent little women getting abused by an overbearing ogre.

Intoxication is not consent - so if you accept that part of Dustin’s story - you should also accept the law’s view that it is SA. You are undermining your own arguments for whatever motivations suit you.

 

[GAN]

Didn't Sean say he was a prostitute and a customer of his. Maybe there's sour grapes if Pete stopped giving him gifts during their relationship. Who really knows the truth here. A jury would throw this out in a minute. Dustin says that he was drunk and allowed it to happen. After he felt abused. This is probably why they didn't file charges. Also Sean went into business with Pete and it didn't go well; the other Loved being on the Dis but hated Pete. This is all very strange. Maybe some gaslighting or Drama Queen stuff happening here. One fact is for sure they could both have beaten the hell out of that old man if they wanted to. I sure as hell wouldn't take an unwanted SA from a short Old Man well without a fight. He would be the one crying not me. These are not innocent little women getting abused by an overbearing ogre.

I'm sorry, but I must correct you. Pete is a lot of things, but he is NOT an old man! He's younger than me(but just doesn't look as good)!

 

[DonMacGregor]

Didn't Sean say he was a prostitute and a customer of his.

And there it is...

Surprised it took as many posts as it did.

 

[john7994]

So @GAN - another theory to ponder - send in a “contrarian view” to mix it up - draw fire and anger - then shut the thread down as “inappropriate” and not productive to the “going forward conversation”

 

[GAN]

So @GAN - another theory to ponder - send in a “contrarian view” to mix it up - draw fire and anger - then shut the thread down as “inappropriate” and not productive to the “going forward conversation”

Okay ...I'm in!

 

[GAN]

And there it is...

Surprised it took as many posts as it did.

I'm just glad I wasn't the one to say it . And no -I didn't take up a new UserName as Yankee626

 

[JimmyV_2.0]

Why would DUT work out a payment plan with AMEX when they say it's not their debt?

Lots of reasons. First and foremost, when they said it wasnt't their debt, they did so in an Affirmative Defense which is pretty much a boilerplate response to any suit of this nature. Using a [bad] analogy, if you were to go into a bar and unprovoked, punch someone in the face and got sued by the injured patron, your lawyers would 100% add an Affirmative Defense to the Answer that you file stating that you acted out of self-defense. It's just what lawyers do. So saying that this isn't their debt is a reflexive response and has to be given little weight.

Second, irrespective of fault, DUT is sued jointly and severally with Pete. That means that Amex can collect against either of them, and in so doing, Amex could make life miserable for DUT. They don't want that. The way this would typically play out is that Amex is blameless here, and as the blameless party, it is entitled to get paid by whomever from whatever source. So Amex gets its money from the entity most easily able of making payment. That would be DUT. If DUT then believes that it was done dirty by Pete, it would pursue what is called a "contribution action" against the joint tortfeasor (Pete) so that the debt ultimately rests with the person or persons most culpable. If DUT is actually without fault, it would win its contribution action against Pete and get reimbursed 100% for the money that it paid to Amex. So when the dust settles, Amex gets all its money back and DUT gets paid back from Pete the money it paid to settle the case. The big "if" in all of this is whether Pete has the funds to repay DUT. But that is not Amex's problem.

Now, all that said, DUT could have a complete defense to payment if it could show that it was completely defrauded by Pete but in financial transactions and suits, that is a very, very high bar. Bernie Madoff was a crook. But many other innocent people suffered financially because of what he did. With a small business like DUT where the spending is pretty much right in the open, DUT is going to have rough sledding proving that it didn't know ANYTHING about the card in question which was registered to Dreams, or of the spending patterns of the holder of that card. And if Amex issued multiple cards for that account such that John had one in his wallet as well as Pete, well then it is pretty much game over. Again, the law seeks to compensate the blameless. If Amex is blameless here, the law wants to compensate it and let the cardholders fight amongst themselves.

Bringing us back to why they would work our a payment plan. Even if you didn't think that you did anything wrong but your choices were to spend a solid 6 figures on lawyers fighting this with the risk of having your business ripped away from you, or save the legal fees, avoid the collapse of the business and work out some sort of payment plan to keep the business going, you'd have to seriously consider that. And remember, doing so does not terminate the contribution claim against the ultimate wrongdoer. DUT can work out a payment plan with Amex and still seek reimbursement from Pete. Or, perhaps more likely, it will triangulate the resolution by working out a payment plan with Amex with Pete being part of (or most of?) that solution whereby he liquidates some assets to make payments on a structured basis. I don't know the details, but I doubt Pete has $900k lying around to make a lump sum payment.

Hope that helps. (And I hope that you do not consider my reply to be "mansplaining" by a condescending poop. )

 

[PUSMMA]

Lots of reasons. First and foremost, when they said it wasnt't their debt, they did so in an Affirmative Defense which is pretty much a boilerplate response to any suit of this nature. Using a [bad] analogy, if you were to go into a bar and unprovoked, punch someone in the face and got sued by the injured patron, your lawyers would 100% add an Affirmative Defense to the Answer that you file stating that you acted out of self-defense. It's just what lawyers do. So saying that this isn't their debt is a reflexive response and has to be given little weight.

Second, irrespective of fault, DUT is sued jointly and severally with Pete. That means that Amex can collect against either of them, and in so doing, Amex could make life miserable for DUT. They don't want that. The way this would typically play out is that Amex is blameless here, and as the blameless party, it is entitled to get paid by whomever from whatever source. So Amex gets its money from the entity most easily able of making payment. That would be DUT. If DUT then believes that it was done dirty by Pete, it would pursue what is called a "contribution action" against the joint tortfeasor (Pete) so that the debt ultimately rests with the person or persons most culpable. If DUT is actually without fault, it would win its contribution action against Pete and get reimbursed 100% for the money that it paid to Amex. So when the dust settles, Amex gets all its money back and DUT gets paid back from Pete the money it paid to settle the case. The big "if" in all of this is whether Pete has the funds to repay DUT. But that is not Amex's problem.

Now, all that said, DUT could have a complete defense to payment if it could show that it was completely defrauded by Pete but in financial transactions and suits, that is a very, very high bar. Bernie Madoff was a crook. But many other innocent people suffered financially because of what he did. With a small business like DUT where the spending is pretty much right in the open, DUT is going to have rough sledding proving that it didn't know ANYTHING about the card in question which was registered to Dreams, or of the spending patterns of the holder of that card. And if Amex issued multiple cards for that account such that John had one in his wallet as well as Pete, well then it is pretty much game over. Again, the law seeks to compensate the blameless. If Amex is blameless here, the law wants to compensate it and let the cardholders fight amongst themselves.

Bringing us back to why they would work our a payment plan. Even if you didn't think that you did anything wrong but your choices were to spend a solid 6 figures on lawyers fighting this with the risk of having your business ripped away from you, or save the legal fees, avoid the collapse of the business and work out some sort of payment plan to keep the business going, you'd have to seriously consider that. And remember, doing so does not terminate the contribution claim against the ultimate wrongdoer. DUT can work out a payment plan with Amex and still seek reimbursement from Pete. Or, perhaps more likely, it will triangulate the resolution by working out a payment plan with Amex with Pete being part of (or most of?) that solution whereby he liquidates some assets to make payments on a structured basis. I don't know the details, but I doubt Pete has $900k lying around to make a lump sum payment.

Hope that helps. (And I hope that you do not consider my reply to be "mansplaining" by a condescending poop. )

Damnit Jimmy stop lawersplaning everything. Is that better