• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Ex-Subway pitchman Jared Fogle is suing his victim's parents

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dynasty

Member
Frozenprince said:
Pedophiles are monsters. There's a special spot in hell waiting for this dick.
Click to expand...
Yep and people who talk at the movies
91b9876455f67965fe0127561a8d3b04.jpg
 
P

Pizoxuat

Junior Member
Cairax said:
Also, those of you that are downing subway for getting involved with Jared, they started the partnership ~20 years ago. His actions were within the last 10 or so years. Unless Subway knew and were supplying him with victims, they are innocent.
Click to expand...

I stopped eating Subway because an employee who was having an affair with him started having wild sexting sessions where he would ask her to lure her underage niece to his home so he could have sex with her. She showed these texts to corporate and the whole thing got squashed, no one did anything.
 
H

hey_it's_that_dog

benevolent sexism
I know the real important issue here is which sandwich places are better than subway but can someone shed some light on whether a private citizen can sue a stranger for criminal behaviour that doesn't involve said citizen? Is he trying to connect the victim's mental state to her involvement with him or is he just role playing a district attorney?
 
Demoskinos

Demoskinos

Member
Wait what... like even if his claims are true that the parents weren't very involved in supervising their daughter like... how the hell does he have any basis to go forward with this lawsuit? You're responsible for your own actions buddy. =|
 
J

Jill Sandwich

the turds of Optimus Prime
"I fuck children because I think they have bad parents. I'm not a monster though."
"Also, I think your child is a slut so that should absolve me from fucking children."
 
M

mre

Golden Domers are chickenshit!!
Is he suing them or is he bringing them into the lawsuit as indispensable parties to be his co-defendants? From reading the excerpts in the OP, it seems as if he's not leveling claims against them, but rather saying that the parents should have also been sued by their child. Doesn't seem like anything quoted in the OP has to do with him, but their actions/inactions towards their child.

I mean, good luck to him with that and all, but if that's the case then that's entirely different from him suing them and Yahoo! really fucked that article up.
 
L

legbone

Member
Demoskinos said:
Wait what... like even if his claims are true that the parents weren't very involved in supervising their daughter like... how the hell does he have any basis to go forward with this lawsuit? You're responsible for your own actions buddy. =|
Click to expand...

Not when you are a millionaire in the glorious United States of Avarice. The nerve of some people.

As for sandwiches, Firehouse or bust.
 
Ron Mexico

Ron Mexico

Member
mre said:
Is he suing them or is he bringing them into the lawsuit as indispensable parties to be his co-defendants? From reading the excerpts in the OP, it seems as if he's not leveling claims against them, but rather saying that the parents should have also been sued by their child. Doesn't seem like anything quoted in the OP has to do with him, but their actions/inactions towards their child.

I mean, good luck to him with that and all, but if that's the case then that's entirely different from him suing them and Yahoo! really fucked that article up.
Click to expand...

It's the latter. He's trying to essentially avoid paying out the $100k on the grounds that it was the parents' fault.
 
tkscz

tkscz

Member
I mean, even if what he says is true and she has super shitty abusive parents, that doesn't make him the better person for coming to her "defense". You still fucked a minor dude. You are still a rapist. Also why go through this. The only reasons I can think of is saving image, or he actually fell for the kid, both which are sick.
 
D

daveo42

Banned
852.gif


I mean, come on dude.

Fat4all said:
also, Jimmy John's is average at best
Click to expand...

I can agree with that. Best toasted subs are from Penn Station. Also their fries are the bomb diggity. One place I wonder why still exists is Quiznos. Their subs are subpar and are like 70% bread. I'd eat at Subway over Quiznos if those were my only two options and just not eating wasn't an acceptable choice.
 
M

mre

Golden Domers are chickenshit!!
tkscz said:
I mean, even if what he says is true and she has super shitty abusive parents, that doesn't make him the better person for coming to her "defense". You still fucked a minor dude. You are still a rapist. Also why go through this. The only reasons I can think of is saving image, or he actually fell for the kid, both which are sick.
Click to expand...
People get so emotional over court filings. He's not saying any of this with his filings. Essentially, he's saying that at least some part of her alleged injuries ("severe, traumatic and permanent injuries and mental anguish") are attributable to the parent's actions/inactions, and that in order for the claims to be completely satisfied, the parents must be joined as defendants. However, his angle in this is not to protect her interests, but to protect his own. Assuming his allegations are true, arguendo, then the parents would be in some part responsible for the injuries alleged in the complaint ("severe, traumatic and permanent injuries and mental anguish") and the amount of money he would owe would be reduced.

To use a non-pedophile example, say you're hit by a car driven by John Smith on Monday and you break your arm, and then on Tuesday you're hit by a car driven by Suzie Brown and you break your leg. If you sue only Suzie Brown for your injuries, she can bring John Smith into the litigation as he bears responsibility for part of your injuries as well, and (look at the rule below) not having John Smith be party to the lawsuit means that you would "leave an existing party (Suzie Brown) subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations (i.e., paying for the medical bills related to your broken arm) because of [not also suing John Smith]."

Fogle's saying that, assuming a jury finds he caused the plaintiff "severe, traumatic and permanent injuries and mental anguish," he wasn't the only one who did so, and that her parents contributed to part of those injuries and should therefore be held legally and, more importantly, financially responsible for compensating her for those injuries.

This hasn't been a commentary on the merits of this filing, just trying to explain what's going on from a legal perspective.

Here's the relevant federal rule (FRCP 19):
Rule 19. Required Joinder of Parties
(a) Persons Required to Be Joined if Feasible.

(1) Required Party. A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if:

(A) in that person's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or

(B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence may:

(i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest; or

(ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.
Click to expand...
 
S

Slayven

Member
tkscz said:
I mean, even if what he says is true and she has super shitty abusive parents, that doesn't make him the better person for coming to her "defense". You still fucked a minor dude. You are still a rapist. Also why go through this. The only reasons I can think of is saving image, or he actually fell for the kid, both which are sick.
Click to expand...

Ron Mexico said:
...or it's about the money.
Click to expand...

I say it is none of that, it is punishment and striking back the only way he can. Hopefully the judge tells him to get the fuck out
 
K

Krejlooc

Banned
EightBitNate said:
I'm honestly surprised he's in a healthy state right now. Unless he went to one of those celebrity prisons, I would've thought he'd be beaten to a pulp by now.
Click to expand...

He isnt in a healthy state. He has been beaten up a few times already and has gained all his weight back from stress eatings.

The first time got beaten up, he apparently had the shit slapped out of him. His prison nickname is chimo, short for child molester.
 
D

Discotheque

Banned
it's very gross in this context for sure but isn't a countersuit one of the more common things to do to combat a lawsuit? like this is legally the "smart" move to do in this case isn't it? dude wants to get out of forking over his money.
 
The Chosen One

The Chosen One

Member
Tobor said:
Firehouse and Jimmy Johns are better than Subway, but still average.

Jersey Mike's is the best around.
Click to expand...

Yeah JM is the best but I don't like their incessant play for tips. Just make my sandwich please. I'm tired of telling them where I work and what I do for the umpteenth time.At least the Subway workers know to mind their business unless there is a legit reason to chat.
 
C

Chmpocalypse

Blizzard
EightBitNate said:
Meatball sub isn't bad if you're in a rush.



Bread tastes factory made. Steak comes in a brick and is mashed apart by employees wearing gloves. Chicken is just microwaved and pre-packaged. Most vegetables are limp and taste like ass. Sauces are too strong.

Go to Jimmy John's and treat yourself to a good sandwich.
Click to expand...

But JJ is run by an anti-worker Big Game Hunter douchebag. : (
 
C

Choppasmith

Member
Tall4Life said:
Even if that is all true and the victim was "damaged" before Fogle, that doesn't give him free reign, or any reign really, to take advantage of her. I hope he rots.
Click to expand...

What I don't get is why he thinks HE'S entitled to anything. I mean what's next, victim shaming "She wore really short shorts, it's like she was seducing me". I mean that would at least make more sense as far as entitlement goes. What, does he think he "saved" her or something?

Ugh, FUCK this guy!

*ahem* Speaking of places to get subs. I think Subway is fine in a pinch, but I recently had a Firehouse Subs open near me, and I must admit, they're pretty much better in every way. Never even heard of Jimmy Johns until this very thread.
 
R

rjinaz

Member
Jesus Christ. Take the loss dude. Get out of jail and move out of country and retire with your no doubt millions you still have in the bank. Nobody in the US wants to hear about you again.
 
tkscz

tkscz

Member
mre said:
People get so emotional over court filings. He's not saying any of this with his filings. Essentially, he's saying that at least some part of her alleged injuries ("severe, traumatic and permanent injuries and mental anguish") are attributable to the parent's actions/inactions, and that in order for the claims to be completely satisfied, the parents must be joined as defendants. However, his angle in this is not to protect her interests, but to protect his own. Assuming his allegations are true, arguendo, then the parents would be in some part responsible for the injuries alleged in the complaint ("severe, traumatic and permanent injuries and mental anguish") and the amount of money he would owe would be reduced.

To use a non-pedophile example, say you're hit by a car driven by John Smith on Monday and you break your arm, and then on Tuesday you're hit by a car driven by Suzie Brown and you break your leg. If you sue only Suzie Brown for your injuries, she can bring John Smith into the litigation as he bears responsibility for part of your injuries as well, and (look at the rule below) not having John Smith be party to the lawsuit means that you would "leave an existing party (Suzie Brown) subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations (i.e., paying for the medical bills related to your broken arm) because of [not also suing John Smith]."

Fogle's saying that, assuming a jury finds he caused the plaintiff "severe, traumatic and permanent injuries and mental anguish," he wasn't the only one who did so, and that her parents contributed to part of those injuries and should therefore be held legally and, more importantly, financially responsible for compensating her for those injuries.

This hasn't been a commentary on the merits of this filing, just trying to explain what's going on from a legal perspective.

Here's the relevant federal rule (FRCP 19):
Click to expand...

Wow, thanks. I didn't know any of this honestly. Makes a lot of sense.
 
L

Liquid-San

Member
What's he suing for exactly? Whatever led to him watching the tapes and her background, do not exonerate him of his crime. At the end of the day, whether her insufficient level of parental guidance or multiple sex partners played a role in the tape is irrelevant. The fact remains that he was knowingly in possession of child pornography. The fact that he would go out of his way to sue the parents makes it seem as if he thinks that there is no wrongdoing on his part, and only furthers the case that he is a disgusting human being.

mre said:
People get so emotional over court filings. He's not saying any of this with his filings. Essentially, he's saying that at least some part of her alleged injuries ("severe, traumatic and permanent injuries and mental anguish") are attributable to the parent's actions/inactions, and that in order for the claims to be completely satisfied, the parents must be joined as defendants. However, his angle in this is not to protect her interests, but to protect his own. Assuming his allegations are true, arguendo, then the parents would be in some part responsible for the injuries alleged in the complaint ("severe, traumatic and permanent injuries and mental anguish") and the amount of money he would owe would be reduced.

To use a non-pedophile example, say you're hit by a car driven by John Smith on Monday and you break your arm, and then on Tuesday you're hit by a car driven by Suzie Brown and you break your leg. If you sue only Suzie Brown for your injuries, she can bring John Smith into the litigation as he bears responsibility for part of your injuries as well, and (look at the rule below) not having John Smith be party to the lawsuit means that you would "leave an existing party (Suzie Brown) subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations (i.e., paying for the medical bills related to your broken arm) because of [not also suing John Smith]."

Fogle's saying that, assuming a jury finds he caused the plaintiff "severe, traumatic and permanent injuries and mental anguish," he wasn't the only one who did so, and that her parents contributed to part of those injuries and should therefore be held legally and, more importantly, financially responsible for compensating her for those injuries.

This hasn't been a commentary on the merits of this filing, just trying to explain what's going on from a legal perspective.)
Click to expand...

Was not aware of this, perhaps I should read the OP more closely next time. Still, I don't see as to how viable of an argument this will be considering that divorce can't nearly be as traumatizing as being subjected to filming yourself for child pornography. Then again, I have not had to witness the divorce process, so I can't say.
 
D

Demoncarnotaur

Member
What the fuck.. the fucking nerve of this guy (and the lawyer that backed it)

EightBitNate said:
Bread tastes factory made. Steak comes in a brick and is mashed apart by employees wearing gloves. Chicken is just microwaved and pre-packaged. Most vegetables are limp and taste like ass. Sauces are too strong.

Go to Jimmy John's and treat yourself to a good sandwich.
Click to expand...

Nah, Jimmy John's also sucks.
 
E

EightBitNate

Member
Liquid-San said:
What's he suing for exactly? Whatever led to him watching the tapes and her background, do not exonerate him of his crime. At the end of the day, whether her insufficient level of parental guidance or multiple sex partners played a role in the tape is irrelevant. The fact remains that he was knowingly in possession of child pornography. The fact that he would go out of his way to sue the parents makes it seem as if he thinks that there is no wrongdoing on his part, and only furthers the case that he is a disgusting human being.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say convicted pedophiles probably don't have the best judgement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Chris Barrett (ex Bungie lead) sues Sony for "falsely destroying his reputation".
2
56
3K
DeepEnigma replied
Vince McMahon / Brock Lesner Accused of Sex Trafficking and other weird shit
2 3
149
19K
Grildon Tundy replied
What actually happened to Warren Ellis?
14
2K
CGNoire replied
Microsoft and Epic Games Sued Over Video Game Addiction
News 2 3
104
8K
SmokedMeat replied
Activision Blizzard Receives Another Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
News 2
56
5K
Topher replied
Top Bottom