Home › Crime, Courts & Public Safety › Crime on the Streets
Fayed called suspect in wife's death
Attorney says James Fayed's credit card linked to car leaving scene
Download this story as a podcast!
RELATED STORIES
STORY TOOLS
More from Crime on the Streets
A Moorpark man whose wife was killed in a Century City parking garage last week was described as a prime suspect in the case by a federal prosecutor on Monday, and his credit card was said to have been linked to a car seen leaving the scene of the slaying.
During a bail hearing in a case separate from the murder investigation, Assistant U. S. Attorney Mark Aveis said in U.S. District Court that the car used by the suspect in the stabbing death of Pamela Fayed on July 28 had been rented from an Avis in Camarillo using a credit card in the name of her estranged husband, James Fayed, and the couple's company. The same credit card was found in Fayed's wallet.
Fayed, 45, appeared in U.S. District Court in downtown Los Angeles on Monday afternoon for a bail hearing related to an indictment on one charge of running a money transmitting business without the proper license.
District Court Judge Ralph Zarefsky set bail at $500,000.
The charge relates to the gold-trading businesses Fayed, 45, owned with his estranged wife, Pamela Fayed. The charge is not related to the death of his wife, an FBI spokeswoman said.
But Aveis argued Fayed was a flight risk. Fayed's bond should be no less than $2 million, he said.
"This defendant has every reason not to want to be here," Aveis said. "This defendant is a prime suspect in a murder for hire scheme."
Detective Mike Pelletier with the Los Angeles Police Department said Monday evening that Fayed is a possible suspect in the case.
Zarefsky said the prosecution had failed to prove its argument. But he did add a number of conditions to the bail including home detention, restricted travel, wearing a monitoring bracelet and intensive pre-trial supervision for Fayed. The judge also postponed the bail from going into effect until Wednesday in order to allow Aveis to appeal the decision.
Fayed's attorney, Mark Werksman, said his client was not a flight risk and he had extensive ties to the community, including a 9-year-old daughter with his deceased wife. Werksman added his client owned two properties in the county, including a home in Camarillo where his wife had continued to live after the couple separated, and a 286-acre working ranch in Moorpark with $2.5 million in equity.
"This case shouldn't be taken out of context," Werksman said.
Fayed was arrested at the remote Moorpark ranch four days after his wife's slaying. The single-count indictment was unsealed late Friday night. However, it had been filed on Feb. 26 under seal.
Werksman said Fayed and his previous attorney did not know the FBI had been investigating him and the company, Goldfinger Coin & Bullion Inc. for months. An affiliated company, E-Bullion, was not named in the indictment. Investigators continued to search Fayed's home on Monday.
Pamela Fayed had accused her husband of violating money transfer laws, according to court documents.
Pamela Fayed was stabbed to death July 28 after leaving a meeting with her attorney, James Fayed and his attorney regarding the companies and the indictment, Aveis said, reading a statement by FBI Agent Timothy Swec.
Aveis said that Pamela Fayed was stabbed to death by someone lying in wait and that surveillance video captured a vehicle leaving the scene.
The couple was scheduled to meet the following day with their attorneys to discuss the divorce case, and Fayed was going to be required to disclose the businesses records.
"He was resisting turning over those business records," Aveis said.
Aveis argued that the business records that were part of the divorce support the government's case. He also alleged Fayed ran two Ponzi schemes, routing $20 million through a number of accounts owned by Goldfinger.
The judge said his argument fell short. "I would say the evidence to obstruction is pretty thin," Zarefsky said.
Pamela Fayed had told a friend that her husband buried $60,000 that was hermetically sealed on the ranch, according to Swec's statement. Under cross-examination Swec said investigators had not found any money.
Fayed's wife had also told the friend that during a July 15 meeting with her husband, Fayed allegedly told her, "I can have you killed and my hands would be clean," according to Swec's statement.
At the ranch in Moorpark, FBI agents found 20 to 25 assault rifles and handguns, according to Swec's statement. Werksman questioned Swec about the type of guns found, saying his client owned eight long guns.
On the stand, Swec, who has been with the bureau for four months, said the information in his statement came from two detectives with the LAPD and several FBI agents.
"They could be four-month rookies on the LAPD just as you are four-month rookie on the FBI," Werksman said.
Fayed's indictment comes amid increased federal scrutiny of the industry. Last month, three principal directors and owners of an unrelated Internet currency business without a license, E-Gold Ltd., pleaded guilty to money laundering and operation of an illegal money transmitting business.
Fayed's arraignment is scheduled for Aug. 18 at the Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles.
— Staff writers Adam Foxman and Charles Ellis contributed to this report.
Posted by robert_s_hunter on August 5, 2008 at 5:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sounds like a typical "Ninth Circus" job...
Posted by SpiderWoman on August 5, 2008 at 6:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Channel 5 News this morning is reporting that he has been arrested for her murder. They found he rented a red SUV from Avis.
Posted by SpiderWoman on August 5, 2008 at 6:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
L.A. Times has it: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedit...
Posted by Ms_California on August 5, 2008 at 6:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok... what a bold character this guy is. I mean to rent a RED SUV that would be used in the committion of a murder... keep the credit card used to rent the RED SUV in your wallet and to basically be at the scene of the crime. Is this guy stupid? I mean what part of his hands did he think would be clean? I hope this guy gets what he deserves.
Posted by SpiderWoman on August 5, 2008 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ms_Cali, he is definitely stupid. How could he do that to the mother of his own child? Then look what else they found;$60,000 in a plastic bag - you think that was payoff money for the "job'? And all those guns and ammo, scary stuff.
Posted by Ms_California on August 5, 2008 at 7:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well I don't understand is why a stabbing... I mean hell he had plenty of guns present! I am not sure that the $60K was pay off money but rather escape money. Or maybe just some cash for a rainy day haha! What a shmuck!
Posted by rebel123 on August 5, 2008 at 7:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
With that much gold at his fingertips and 16 million dollars in checking and savings accounts, I'd say the guy is an enormous flight risk. I hope they do a no bail if they arrest him. I feel so bad for the daughters. How horrific.
Posted by Hueneme_girl29 on August 5, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
He had her knocked off.........no doubt.
Posted by senorbriar on August 5, 2008 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Defense attorneys like Mark Werksman work for thier clients, not the public. Mark Werksman is one of the most prominent criminal defense attorneys around. Unlike state court where bail is set pursuant to a schedule, in fed court each bail amount is set on a case by case basis. Plus bail bondsman are not use. Meaning this guy actually has to post $500 grand. In state court you pay 10% of the bond amount to a bondsman, then you are set free.
Posted by daugtherofimmigrant on August 5, 2008 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
one word - PEN_DEJO!
Posted by Amazon on August 5, 2008 at 7:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It will be interesting to see the car receipt and if it is signed by Fayed himself. If it is, looks like his little accomplice screwed up his plans! Thank God for witnesses and surveillance cameras!
Posted by Hueneme_girl29 on August 5, 2008 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
More info from another site:
The Associated Press and Los Angeles Times are reporting that a federal prosecutor Monday linked a Ventura County man to his wife's stabbing death last week in a Century City parking structure. At a bail hearing for James Fayed in a case related to the couple's precious metals business, Assistant U-S Attorney Mark Aveis said that a credit card found in James Fayed's possession when he was arrested Friday night at his Moorpark ranch was used to rent he SUV believed driven by Pamela Fayed's killer. He said a security camera video shows the vehicle and its license plate and it was traced back to the rental company and Fayed's credit card. Fayed's attorney was quoted as saying Aveis was using "uncorroborated hearsay." Aveis was trying to convince a Federal judge to keep Fayed in custody without bail on the case alleging that he failed to obtain the proper permits and licenses to conduct money transfers relative to the couple's business, Goldfinger Coin and Bullion Incorporated. The judge, however, set bail at $500,000, but gave prosecutors until Wednesday to appeal the ruling. James and Pamela Fayed had gone through a bitter divorce which centered, in part, on their precious metals business. Aveis' statements at the bail hearing were the first public acknowledgment by the authorities that they believe Fayed was involved in some way in his wife's murder.
What a dumb A$$!
Posted by 805grl on August 5, 2008 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
He was afraid of losing it all!! typical...he didnt want to man up-he knew he would have to pay support and split everything with her, so he killed her! Now he will loose everything, including his freedom and his child.
Posted by venicementor on August 5, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Has anyone considered that the "slender 20 years old, seen fleeing the murder scene", may be a woman?
Posted by NavalAviator on August 5, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Why stabbing?" No gun shot residue; and stabbing is personel, very up close and personal. Likely left the knife at the scene so no blood drippings would get in the red SUV. They had better find blood evidence in that red SUV he rented, or he is off.
"How could he have done it?" Oh, I understand that one perfectly him wanting to kill her. The question is, "You simply cannot get away with it, so why do it?" Many women in divorce are saved by that realization.
Now they have to prove that the red SUV he rented is the one used as the get away vehicle. License plates? License plates can be changed. A red car is the perfect color, it draws attention and people record its false license plates. Could a witness pick out the correct vehicle from a line up of 10 red SUVs? I doubt it.
In murder as the rest of life, the devil is in the details.
Posted by Hueneme_girl29 on August 5, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
CatInAhat-
You said " "How could he have done it?" Oh, I understand that one perfectly him wanting to kill her."
You can understand perfectly him wanting to kill her?
How can you understand perfectly wanting to kill someone?
Scary............
Posted by ca4ever on August 5, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ms_California - It was a stabbing because Guns have to much forensic evidence. They can trace the gun, the Gunshot residue, etc.
What a stupid man. We all called it from day one. Didnt he think it was too obvious. I swear some people might have money but they forgot the brains.
My heart aches for Pams children. How can someone be so cruel and greedy to take her away from them and rob them of a normal childhood?
Posted by ca4ever on August 5, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why have they still not shown a picture of this horrible man? Scott Peterson was on the news from day one.
Posted by hotwildflower on August 5, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
CatInAHat Never stops amazing me with his sick comments...I hope some of the nurses you are importing are psych nurses to inject your meds!
A person with a soul could never imagine killing someone.
It's amazing that this guy was so controlling that he would rather risk losing his freedom than just settle this like a man and give her her fair share. I do believe they were partners in the business, partners in marriage and partners is parenting...she earned her half.
Posted by BeaHappi on August 5, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The only way that I'd ever feel enough rage and hatred to kill someone is if they did something to my children.
It's amazing what a lot of money does to some people. How the "stuff" and the money becomes more important then leading an honest and good life.
Now their daughters have to live with this tragedy for the rest of their lives. And for what? Money?
Stupid, stupid man.
Posted by Ms_California on August 5, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
CatInAHat & ca4ever,... you're giving him too much credit. This man is sick and he should have no right to a child!
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hueneme_girl29 - You asked, "You can understand perfectly him wanting to kill her?"
Actually, I can. This was the kind of divorce you hear about on talk shows where the wife decided to take as much as possible from the husband on her way out the door simply because the court allows it - even though he made all (or most at least) of that wealth possible. It feels like authorized theft to most men, and it's absolutely not fair.
So, I can understand the feeling of wanting to her dead. Many, many men have had this same feeling at least once in their lives, because the divorce courts are rarely fair to them.
However, it is usually no more than a feeling for most men, because they realize that: (a) murder is a horrible crime that affects many more than just the victim; (b) the perpetrator will almost always be caught, tried, and convicted nowadays, so two lives will be effectively taken, not just one; and (c) they realize that, although they really hate the soon-to-be ex-wife at the time for what she's done, she does not deserve a death sentence for her action.
So, yes, some of us do understand the feeling. No one is condoning murder, though. Maybe a rigorous workout at the gym or a one night stand is more in order.
Personally, I would just go on a shopping spree and spend every dime of which the courts had knowledge.
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Pogmothoin - Words to live by, as always.
Posted by Amazon on August 5, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Catinahat made another post on a story about this issue saying that the dead wife is another woman who ratted her husband after benefiting from the marriage. Kinda like she should've kept her mouth shut and deserved to be killed. After reading that and reading CatInaHat's comment here, I can only conclude that CatInaHat is a bitter male who has some serious issues with women.
Posted by missing805 on August 5, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Popel just have to realize that when its over its over. There is no need to kill your ex, if they dont want to be with you. Someone I knew had their car Completely keyed by their immature ex girlfriend. This girl does not get that when its over its over. Just let it go
Posted by ca4ever on August 5, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ms_California - What are you talking about, I am referring to their life with their mother, not taht crazy man. He should rot in hell.
Posted by jbees805 on August 5, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
what a dumb jerkoffface...poor daughter is going to have to live with this for her rest of her life. my thoughts and prayers to her.
as for the father fayed character, this dude belongs in a muggy cell somewhere taking justice with his hands clinging to the bars for life!
Posted by Amazon on August 5, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
freethought, I'm sure there are a lot of women disgusted by what their husband's do as well. There are many men that screw over women---I have been screwed over financially by a guy when I was in my 20's. My friend was recently screwed over by her ex-husband--she was the breadwinner in that family. Look at the Kevin Federline's of the world. It's not just one way. You're just perpetuating a stereotype---In the past, women predominantly stayed home and raised children. Today that is not the case. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Pamela Fayed owned the business too and probably made a lot of the smarter and legal business decisions that made them rich. You automatically assume he was running the business and she was just profiting.
Posted by Hueneme_girl29 on August 5, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Amazon----- lol!
Posted by ca4ever on August 5, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You people crack me up with the "she wanted everything" how do you know that? She was obviously having serious issues with him and his family and he was horrible to her. She probably did not even care about the money but knew what he was hiding and if things werent handled legally like licensing, she is also repsonsible for that, not just him. She was trying to make it right.
Posted by Latina_805 on August 5, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Although he was wealthy this guy was not very smart. You can tell who was the brains in the company. With his actions you can only assume he was a controlling husband, I hope he gets life in prison, as Mrs. Fayed too was probably a prisoner in this marriage. KARMA!
Posted by hotwildflower on August 5, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bea, I agree about protecting our children.
Amazon, I was thinking the same thing. I am the breadwinner in our family. Although, if my husband didn't want to be with me any longer, I wouldn't think to kill him (omg, that is hard to even type) even if wanted everything because I know I am capable of more and "stuff" doesn't define me as a person.
So What about the women who have spent their youth raising a family and taking care of a home only to learn their husband wants to trade them in for a younger version? Do they not deserve half? I mean, they kept up their end of the partnership...
Posted by ca4ever on August 5, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Latina_805 - amen! you hit the nail on the head
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 5, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The article states that she had accused him of violating money transfer laws.....AND she was divorcing him. I think the ideas of "offing" his wife came witht he first accusation and possible loss of freedom and lifestyle associated with it. The divorce just kind of sealed the deal, but I'm sure the prior weighed much heavier. Don't under-estimate "greed".
While I can't say I could imagine getting someone killed, I could see how he might have saw it as the only way to avoid the inevitable case and prison time and loss of lifestyle.
A person can say that they can see how it would happen without endorsing the act of killing someone or murder for hire. Quit bashing people that are saying this.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 5, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hotwildflower:
There was more too it than a simple divorce: I get one car, you get the other, we split the two dogs up and split the $100K in savings. Done...there was A LOT of money involved here and a evidently a very tangled web of lies running the various schemes and businesses. Not to speak ill of the deceased, but if either party was smart, they would have avoided those problems by not getting themselves involved in them. IF, she played such a vital role in the business and making the money that they did, then she must have also known and allowed for those illegal actions to occur (again, what she was accusing him of). Otherwise, how could the claim stand up that she helped him make it and deserves half through the divorce (as stated by another poster)? Both points can't be true.
Posted by Frankie on August 5, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't you think that new discovery is a bit strange? For an extremely wealthy, clever business man who wanted to off his wife, he rents a car to the person to do it..so that all fingers point back to him. I think he was set up. By whom, well that's another story that will remain a mystery. He will go down for it or he will pay back for it. Both he and his wife were up to no good and made a lot of people and investors angry, including this country. How dare them allow terrorists to use their business to funnel funds and then claim they know nothing about it. Come on, I don't think so. Only when their love for money has become greater than the love they have for each other, that's when things got messy. Was he / she that blindsighted by money?
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 5, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hotwildflower:
To your second point, ONLY if she upheld her end of the partnership. Just because you worked at Microsoft since it's inception and you happen to retire this year with Bill Gates does not mean that you ALSO deserve HIS retirement package.
Unfortunatley, courts aren't always fair.
Posted by hotwildflower on August 5, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Not to contradict you, Babyzdaddy, but she could have played a vital role in the company and not been aware. If her role was to ensure other duties were fullfiled while his job was finance, I am sure she trusted that he was doing his job properly.
Listen, I am not going to speculate back and forth over this, I don't know who did what but it appears fairly clear that he killed her/had her killed and that is just a HUGE no-no under any circumstances.
Posted by hotwildflower on August 5, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I love how you equate marriage to business in the sense that the spouse should be looked at as an "employee" rather than a partner.
An employee wouldn't get the same benefits package as an owner, but thankfully...my husband nor I see marriage as an employer/employee relationship.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 5, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Federline was like an employee to Britney. No? It works both ways, not being sexist.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 5, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The scenario you (or another poster) mentioned was that of a primary breadwinner. How is that an equal partnership when only 1 person earns the majority of the income? Don't kid yourself and re-define the term "equal".
Posted by Frankie on August 5, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My theory: Their company has a F Rating with the BBB. They screwed a lot of people, wealthy, out of the country people to be where they were at. And quite frankly, she seems pretty smart, after all, she was going for the gold when she was killed. She knew exactly what was going on there. The BBB quoted that she was the contact for many complaints against the company. It's crystal clear it's a set up. What better way to screw someone up for life than to off his wife, during an acrimonious divorce and plant the seed so that it's looks exactly like he did it. He was set up and most likely will take the fall. You don't have to be a rocket scientist, a detective or an FBI agent to put the puzzle together.
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Amazon - I never said men can't be horrible to women or do something that would disgust them. I was commenting on the divorce itself and how the overwhelming rulings in divorces are in favor of women (not all, mind you, but most). That is not a sterotype, but simple fact. If you don't belive me, check the stats for yourself. And using K-Fed as your example only strengthens my point. He's the EXTREME exception, and exceptions only serve to prove the rule (very simple science).
As for Pamela Fayed owning E-Bullion - that was simply on paper. She was rarely involved with the company's operations. The company, an extension of james Fayed's company - Goldfinger Bullion Reserve - was founded by James Fayed. Probably, Pamela was named owner to diversify James' business portfolio for tax purposes. So, before you throw angry words my way, you might want to do a couple of minutes worth of research first.
hotwildflower - You said, "So What about the women who have spent their youth raising a family and taking care of a home only to learn their husband wants to trade them in for a younger version? Do they not deserve half? I mean, they kept up their end of the partnership..."
In my opinon, no. Men have a financial obligation to their children, not their wives. Also, what does that say of the woman who decided to marry and procreate with a man who's such a jerk?
And before anyone asks, I have been married for 20 years. My wife doesn't look like she used to, but neither do I. We plan to spend the next 100 years together, if we live that long, because we still get along wonderfully after all these years. I chose a top quality woman character-wise (dated and dumped many before I met her).
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 5, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You cannot play a VITAL role in the business and not be suspicious of activities that yield A LOT of money and assets while you're living the lifestyle...but when the marriage is nearing it's end you were "unaware this was going on." If you're THAT vital to the operation, you know about how or why your company is generating that much revenue/profit, otherwise, you're not as vital as you thought.
Posted by ca4ever on August 5, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ok you two, you are getting way off base when none of us even know the facts about their marriage or business realationship. I know we all like to speculate but you both are going way off base and fighting over unknown truths. So with that said "Cant we all just get along"
Posted by Amazon on August 5, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Kudos to all your posts hotwildflower!
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So that no one gets me wrong here, I believe the man is guilty of hiring someone to kill his wife, and he deserves the most extreme punishment allowable. He was apparently a criminal before he escalated to murder, and probably doesn't deserve the wealth he has.
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Amazon - "Kudos to all your posts hotwildflower!"
Of course. We all love those who agree with us.
That is, until they disagree with us on a different thread.
BabyzDaddy_01 can agree with me on this one (and hotwildflower, for that matter).
ca4ever - "Cant we all just get along" - Actually, we're all the best of friends. These debates are all in good spirit.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 5, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
FreeThought:
You're right (just go indigestion for typing that) the obligation is to the children (if the union is considered a PARTNERSHIP) not the partner as they too have the same obligation to the children. The legal committment is not: if we don't make it together to some "future" that we planned on, then you owe me that "future" in terms of $s. If that's the case, then what's the incentive to getting married in the first place?
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ca4ever - Actually, since they were going through a somewhat publicized divorce, and all established U.S. businesses (whether public or not) are a matter of public record, we can know what's going on with their marriage and business relationship. All you need to find most of the facts is Google.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 5, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All in good spirit.
If I had to choose from what is known now, the guy is most likely guilty. He's also guilty of trying to "out-think the room" by believing that he could have her killed and come off clean.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 5, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
FreeThought:
Hey maybe you can pick up some extra cash if you follow up your posts with: "-this posting has been brought to you by GOOGLE.COM" ?
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Absolutely BabyzDaddy_01. I am starting to think the whole idea of marriage is a bad one. It no longer signifies love and commitment in this country, but a business partnership in which the lower wage earner benefits - especially when that person earns nothing. By not getting married (or by getting a pre-nump.), the only obligation is to any resulting children, as it should be.
Oh, and Pepto-Bismol might help.
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BabyzDaddy_01 - I'm not sure Google would want to be associated with a troublemaker like me. Thanks for the idea, though.
Posted by Amazon on August 5, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Freethought, times are a changing and the stats are most likely changing as well. Unfortunately, your original post sounded very sexist and that's what I responded to. Federline is not an exception; I'm seeing this more and more. Even to my own female friends. Look at how many more men are stay at home dads. At one time, that was practically unheard of. I hate using celebrities as examples, but look at all the men hooking up with actresses who are more successful and have a lot more money than the men they are with (Uma Thurman, Reese Witherspoon, Madonna, Demi Moore, Tori Spelling and on and on).
How do you know Pamela Fayed didn't have her own money and was well off when she entered into marriage? He had a business and she joined in to help run it. If I read correctly, she was also killed while going to a meeting for the business, so it appears she was no slouch. She may have found out fishy stuff later on. And even if she profited from it, she knew that going to the authorities now would cut into her own finances and put her at risk for being arrested as well. Maybe she wanted out of the marriage because she came to her senses and wanted to do the right thing?
Posted by hotwildflower on August 5, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Freethought, for the record...I have been with my husband for 17 years and also plan on spending the next 100+ years with him. Neither of us look like we did back then, in fact...I think he looks ever hotter.. ;) I agree with you that marriage does not hold the same value as it used to in many people's eyes, however in my eyes...I made a promise and I will keep that promise.
Thanks, Amazon. :)
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Amazon - You have what seems to be an exteme feminist view. I'm guessing you would absolutely loathe someone like Tom Leykis if you ever heard him.
Yes, there has been a bit of a trend in the direction you mentioned, but it is still pretty slight. Most American men do not live with their parents. Most married American men make more money than their wives by a huge percentage.
And don't get too comfortable with the stay-at-home dad trend. More men have recently been moving back the other way, as the idea of being "feminized" is unsettling to them. I know how sexist this might seem to you, but it is simply the facts. The truth does not require your belief in it.
And yes, K-Fed WAS an EXTREEEEEME example. Your use of his name for the sake of strengthening your aregument is tantamount to me using Ivana Trump as mine. (actually, there are way many more "Ivanas" out there than "K-Feds".
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hotwildflower - I'm glad you found happiness. So did I. Many don't.
Posted by Latina_805 on August 5, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
anybody seen "Diary of a Mad Black Woman?" I believe she is entitled to half of everything. They have an 18 yr old, so at least have been married for that long. I doubt he started the company before he met her.
Posted by hotwildflower on August 5, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Marriage shouldn't be about yours and mine, but ours. I am not talking feminist here, like I said...I am the breadwinner but my check is direct deposited into our joint account for my husband to pay the bills. He works too and the money is OURS. I don't say...I make more money, so you need to earn your keep here. I still do the cooking, cleaning and laundry...It's a great honor to me to care for my family. That's not say my husband sits on the couch like Al Bundy (visual) he handles all the maint. on the house, mows the lawns, weeds the flowers, etc. It's a FAIR partnership that is shared in a family.
I am really bothered by the men's assertion that there is a mine and yours with the money. If the wife isn't making enough...that's tough?
Posted by Relvd98 on August 5, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Latina_805, clarification: the 18 year old is from her first marriage; they had the 9 year old together.
Posted by Amazon on August 5, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually freethought, I believe men and women are not created equal. There are some things women and men can't do equally. It's sad that you feel that me stating that women are changing roles and making more money (which women can do as well as men) nowadays as "extreme feminist views".
Tom Leykis doesn't appeal to me--I listen to broadcasters with more intelligence. You obviously find him entertaining. It's weird that you brought him up in this discussion. Must I listen to him to understand your views?
I know it must be very uncomfortable for you to know that women can be just as successful or more successful than men! I'm glad my husband doesn't share your viewpoint--He actually likes that quality in females--and he is extremely successful himself!
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Latina_805 - That's not correct (about the 18 year old). The 18 year old is from a previous marriage (Pamela's duaghter). They have a 12 year old together, bt even that doesn't mean they were married that long, only that they knew each other that long. As far as when the first business was started in comparison to when they were married, you need to know when they were married first. Otherwise, you're just assuming based on your view of what you believe women deserve.
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hotwildflower - "I am really bothered by the men's assertion that there is a mine and yours with the money. If the wife isn't making enough...that's tough?"
Only when divorce time comes around. However, thankfully for women and K-Fed, the courts don't agree with me.
Posted by swtnsassy on August 5, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
this is off subject of the article...Freethought - Amazon is not so far off it is becoming more and more that the woman in a divorce has to pay more. The courts do not care if you are a Man or Woman it is whoever makes more will pay the other. This I can speak from experience, unfortunately my marriage didn't make those 100+ years, and I had to pay spousal support, sell my house (pay him half), as well as settle my "future" retirement benefits with my ex-husband - oh by the way as well as supporting & providing for our young (2yr old) too, because child support was out of the question.
hotwildfire I do value marriage, however in my case it didn't work out, I do hope your marriage is based on love the comment you made about a promise that is not the only reason to remain married, believe me I tried.
Oh by the way freethought I do listen to Tom Leykis sometimes too..
Posted by Latina_805 on August 5, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
thanks for the clarification Relvd98. Your right freethought I am assuming. We don't know how long they have been married, so why don't you do us a favor and google that up for us. We can argue all day who deserved what and how much but one thing is for sure Mrs. Fayed did not deserve to die. If Mr. Fayed did commit the crime we can only hope that he gets what he deserves.
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Amazon - Talk about stereotyping. I didn't any of what you incenuated I said.
I didn't say your viewpoint was an extreme feminist one, but you obviously think so (now, I am).
I also didn't say say that your satnce on the whole changing roles thing was extreme. I only said it was not as much of a difference (percentage-wise) as you seem to think. I did say the K-Fed example was EXTREEEEEME, and I still stand by it.
As for Tom Leykis, he doesn't appeal to you because you are not the target demographic. I do agree that many of his topics are for a younger, less successful male crowd. I catch his show from time to time. Sometimes it's entertaining, other times I find it boring and repetitive. It depends on the subject (I love the occasional "ask the atheist" segment). Like him or not, he makes many valid points.
Also, he has a great wines and spirits show, called "The Tasting Room", on Sundays.
Finally, you have projected the following statement on me - "I know it must be very uncomfortable for you to know that women can be just as successful or more successful than men!" If you're like this with him, he must be a very tolerable man. You have a problem with projecting your judgmental view onto others. I don't feel uncomortable about it at all. I would welcome it if my wife could bring in more cash. Why wouldn't I. I am much more open than you think. You, however, have shown yourself to be close-minded.
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Latina_805 - "We don't know how long they have been married, so why don't you do us a favor and google that up for us."
Already tried. I didn't find anything, or I would've posted it.
If you read my previous post on the act of murder itself, you'll see that I agree with you on that subject. She did not deserve to be murdered.
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Latina_805 - If I do find anything, I'll post it. I'm here to serve.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 5, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SWTNSASSY:
The trend is not changing THAT much. True there are cases for both sides (women being the primary breadwinners too), but for a long time now, the trend is that men get screwed by the court system in divorces granting half of "future" earnings. I'm all for splitting half of what you made together if you accumulated together(unless you got a pre-nup)....but come on...the whole "what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine" BS and spousal support for the future you didn't get to live together? Move on. The lower earner spouse (man or woman) should not expect for the higher earner to fund their future and the courts should not support that.
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
swtnsassy - Sorry for your experiences.
Maybe someday, women will be the majority of the top wage earners. However, that is still nowhere near the reality today. Yours is an extreme case. What happened to you happens more often to men. It's not fair, not for them and not for what happened to you. Would you agree that, in your case, the court system was not fair?
Posted by janabanana71 on August 5, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok...so nowhere in the article did it say that this man committed the crime himself. Clearly, a wealthy man such as himself would have no problem, if it was what he wanted to do, renting a car from Avis (pocket change) and hiring someone to do the dirty deed. So, by arresting him and charging him with the murder, yes, he is the main guy,and should be punished to the FULLEST extent of the law, but I really doubt that he was the guy lying in wait to stab her. That was probably some lowlife who needed some kind of drug fix and was willing to get HIS hands dirty in the commission of the crime. He, too, should also be prosecuted to the fullest and not get any kind of break because he was "just doing what he was paid to do" and cutting a deal with the Prosecutors.
Posted by Amazon on August 5, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh brother Freethought. You said I have "what seems to be an exteme feminist view" and brought in the word feminist again in your post. Now you're trying to play the good guy after I've made you look bad.
You say that I'm judgmental? For disagreeing with you? You were the one judging Pamela Fayed from the get go!!! Of course you don't feel comfortable with someone going against your opinion. You even had a problem with me giving a kudos to another poster. So please reread your posts before calling me judgmental and close-minded. That's all your posts have been...especially toward women!!
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BabyzDaddy_01 - Wow! We could be friends!
Let's hang out sometime.
(Looking feverishly for the Pepto-Bismol right now, I bet.)
Posted by swtnsassy on August 5, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Babyzdaddy - dont know if you understood I paid him spousal support to stay home because he quit his job. I have my own life and am supporting "our" son on my own thank you very much. I have moved on... I was showing freethought that normal women other than Britney have to pay their exs too.
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Amazon - I judged pamela Fayed based on the facts. I also judged her husband based on the facts. You were extrapolating from warped ideas floating around in your head.
You didn't make me look bad. You made yourself look bad.
Nice try, though.
You're correct about one thing, though. I did say you had an extreme feminist view, afterall.
And you do.
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
swtnsassy - Britney's not normal (I don't know anyone who thinks she is).
I'm sure you are quite normal, but your situation isn't. No one suggests that it doesn't happen (you are proof otherise). It's just not the norm, or even close to the norm.
Posted by rebel123 on August 5, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)
freethought: California is a no fault divorce state. Black letter divorce law gives each party half of what the court deems community property. It's pretty simple...whatever is earned by either or both parties during the marriage is community property. You seem to think the courts favor the wife. Not true. They go by the law. Don't like the law, don't get married. To suggest that homicidal thoughts are understandable because the net worth is getting split according to the law is, frankly, more than a little scary.
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
janabanana71 - We (most of us posting, anyway) agree with your assessment. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that he was behind the crime. Time will tell.
Posted by Amazon on August 5, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
swtnsassy, kudos to you. I admire you. My friend was in the same boat after her husband of 20 years decided to mess around with her best friend and get divorced. She made a lot more than him and ended up having to pay him a lot in the divorce.
Anyways, time for me to put the focus back on my work today and earn a living!
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rebel123 - ??????????????
Who said murder was understandable? Here's my previous post:
______________________
"Hueneme_girl29 - You asked, "You can understand perfectly him wanting to kill her?"
Actually, I can. This was the kind of divorce you hear about on talk shows where the wife decided to take as much as possible from the husband on her way out the door simply because the court allows it - even though he made all (or most at least) of that wealth possible. It feels like authorized theft to most men, and it's absolutely not fair.
So, I can understand the feeling of wanting to her dead. Many, many men have had this same feeling at least once in their lives, because the divorce courts are rarely fair to them.
However, it is usually no more than a feeling for most men, because they realize that: (a) murder is a horrible crime that affects many more than just the victim; (b) the perpetrator will almost always be caught, tried, and convicted nowadays, so two lives will be effectively taken, not just one; and (c) they realize that, although they really hate the soon-to-be ex-wife at the time for what she's done, she does not deserve a death sentence for her action.
So, yes, some of us do understand the feeling. No one is condoning murder, though. Maybe a rigorous workout at the gym or a one night stand is more in order.
Personally, I would just go on a shopping spree and spend every dime of which the courts had knowledge."
________________________
Nowhere did I say I understand or condone the act of murder itself. I said quite the opposite of carrying out a murder, in fact. Try a course in reading comprehension.
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rebel123 - You said, " It's pretty simple...whatever is earned by either or both parties during the marriage is community property. You seem to think the courts favor the wife." And they do, since usually the husband is the one to earn the majority of the income and purchase the majority of the community property. Show me statistics to the contrary.
Posted by Amazon on August 5, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And freethought, you're an uneducated sexist old man. I'm sure your only action is flash friday, eh?
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So you DO listen!
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Amazon - Planning to go out in three days, drive around on the 101 (or 405), and look for headlights?
Posted by opns on August 5, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My husband will have cancer for the rest of his life, he just called me and told me he had a bad bloody nose that lasted 5 minutes. Then I come to this site, and it makes me utterly sick how people treat each other. This story just like so many others are so upsetting. This just does not make sense, my husband and I take care of each other like there is no tomorrow.
So sorry, just feel a bit upset right now. Thanks for listening and my venting. When I think of marriage, i think of, commitment, love, respect and honor, loyalty.
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
opns - I hope he recovers, no matter the chance of it.
Just to let you know, many of us don't take much stock in what others say about us or what we say to each other.
As far as mariage being about love, commitment, respect, honor, and loyalty - unfortunately you (and me) are a dying breed. I wish it weren't so. Marriage has become a scary business venture anymore.
Posted by caskier on August 5, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BabyzDaddy_01, you need to understand something about alimony and maybe I can help you. Lets say we met in college and marry. You go on to medical school and I support you as well as take care off all the domestic duties. I give up my promising career to raise our children. Then twenty years into the marriage you dump me - perhaps for a much younger woman. I am accostomed to a certain lifestyle and income. You chose not to hold up your end of the deal. Of course I am entitled to alimony. Its only fair! That's what the courts say too.
And it does not matter if you are a woman and I am a man - no difference whatsoever. The fact is that one spouse gave up a lot for the sake of the marriage, the children and the spouse - and is accostomed to a certain lifestyle that should be preserved.
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
caskier - Why would you:
1. Put your career on hold for ANY reason?
2. Marry someone who would ask you to put your career on hold and support him?
3. Marry someone who will be vain and thoughtless enough to "upgrade" after many years of marriage?
These sound like a full line of bad lifestyle decisions. What what does that say about the person who picked this guy as a life-long partner? Also, it seems you didn't address the reason why the man is upgrading. It could be that he's a self-centered pig to begin with, or it could be that he's tired of his wife who now nags incessantly and has gained 200 lbs in the last ten years. How about the mental stress that has caused him? Does the court take that into consideration? No, not ever (at least not in California).
Sorry, but realistically, the spouse who "gave up" a career deserves nothing if they split up. That was a bad decision on his/her part. The children deserve to keep their current lifestyle, but not the spouse. And don't give me that "value of raising a child and keeping the home clean" line. No one asked you to procreate, least of all your children. And you (or he/she) would be cleaning house whether or not you're married.
This is why I reinforce the idea to my kids that they need to finish college and establish themselves nicely in their chosen career paths before even thinking about marriage. Doing it any other way is just foolish for most nowadays.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 5, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Caskier-
In that scenario: that would be your choice right? You always have a choice. I agree I would owe something from the fact that I would have gone on to medical school. Lumpsum upfront pro-rated for the years you sacrificed prior to the divorce date...not moving forward. I would understand that each would have a obligation with providing for the children as they are an obligation to both parents from day 1. However, you being "accustomed" to a certain lifestyle is BS. That's an excuse to get more money out of the other party (again, not matter if that person is the husband or the wife).
It's a partnership that didn't work. Just because you and I go into business together and one of my ideas (which you were ok with at the time) eventually sends the business down the drain, does not mean that I owe you for what you expected to make in the future. That's BS to even think that's fair and just. Maybe the law favors such decisions (for that I'm not sure as I have not gone through that), just what those around me who have, have told me.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 5, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with FreeThought...that scares me evertime I type it. (kinda feel like I'm getting corrupted or something)LOL
Besides, when you think about it...the reason having kids is an obligation is because choosing to have kids is a selfish act in and of itself on the part of the parents.
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BabyzDaddy_01 - Join the dark side, Luke!
Ditto on the obligation to kids statement. Children don't ask to be brought into this world. It is, mostly, a selfish act between at least one consenting adult (no, I am not referring in anyway to rape for those who might suggest it - rather a woman who does not inform her man that she decided not to take her usual contraceptive). It is for that reason that I believe that we owe our children absolutely everything.
Posted by mechele28 on August 5, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
opns, I like your style.
Sorry about the spouses cancer, I am going through the same thing with my spouse. His is rare, just diagnosed, no possible cure.He is very ill.I hope and pray your situation is different. I too see people saying cruel things and its hard. However, I think some of these people probably know eachother and dont think much of it, thats fine ( free speech)It does show how some people really feel and this blog became very scary.Luckily most posts were about the welfare of those children BUT EVERYONE REMEMBER FAMILY AND FRIENDS could be reading this Very Public forum and its hurtful and prevents any healing from starting and the anger continues. I just try not to veer off the facts and wait. Someones mother is dead and did not deserve it regardless of what she knew, what she did etc...its irrelevent.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 5, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mechele28:
I think most if not all of us on this post agree with your position on this story. Sometimes the discussions veer off to another close topic, but I don't think anyone's opinion differs from yours with this story that it's a sad situation for the kids that lost a Mom and the turmoil the rest of the family must be going through is understood and has been acknowledged. No offense is intended to the family and those direclty affected by this loss of life.
Posted by mamaof2 on August 5, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
wow this is like something u would see in a life time movie. what is up with this world today and why is there so many people being stabbed to death? i get the chills reading articles like this.
Posted by mechele28 on August 5, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, I believe that too. I cant imagine someone trying to hurt others inadvertantly. That was my point. When it veered off into the personal marriage discussions that was interesting to read. I just felt bad for the comments about her that were personal and not even profoundly relevant to her death and family reading it.
I guess once if affects you personally you read the blogs in a different light. Maybe I am too sensitive.
Posted by BeaHappi on August 5, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mamaof2 - it probably will turn into a movie!
Gosh, the saying "money is the root of all evil" certainly rings true here, doesn't it?
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BeaHappi - Actually, it's not "money" that's the root of all evil, but the "love of money". Considering money the absolute highest priority, like Mr. Fayed seemed to have done, almost always leads to a severe downfall. Preservation of life becomes a distant second for these people, their own lives included.
Posted by BeaHappi on August 5, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I stand corrected...the money never meant to hurt anyone, that is true.
Love of money or need for money or not having someone else to have the money...I can't help but wonder if Mr. Fayed thinks that it was all worth it now.
I'm sure the daughters don't think it was.
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Probably not worth it to him now. In a year or so, he'll be willing to give it all away just to take back his selfish and brutal decisions. There's no going back, though.
Posted by opns on August 5, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Freethought – I do take much at heart of others opinions, because for the most part I see that all here are concerned citizens. And peoples opinions and concerns are very important, I did veer of due to my sensitivity. There’s nothing wrong with being sensitive, otherwise we would not have feelings, such as the Fayeds. And you are so right when you say we owe our children absolutely everything. You couldn’t of stated that better.
BabyzDaddy_01 – its okay to be scared, I just need to say, lets not become numb to it.
Mechele28 - I appreciate your reading between my lines, I know you understand. Be strong, the thought of loosing someone is unbearable. I grieve for the children involved in this horrible mess.
To all – I’ve learned recently, that there is a lot of good support in the posting stuff, I am new to it. I have strong convictions, and it’s okay to disagree and vent with one another. All of you for the most part are good hearted persons.
Regards
Posted by freethought on August 5, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"To all – I’ve learned recently, that there is a lot of good support in the posting stuff, I am new to it. I have strong convictions, and it’s okay to disagree and vent with one another. All of you for the most part are good hearted persons."
opns - I totally agree.
Posted by NavalAviator on August 5, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well ladies and Kate, before you get your lynching party together, you had better hope they find blood evidence in that red SUV. You will note, conspicuous by the absence, that the prosecutor while boasting of his “evidence” of the credit card receipts, did not say that he had blood evidence found in the SUV that the gentleman rented. Other wise him renting a red SUV and the get away car allegedly being a red SUV, could just be a coincidence.
As always, a pleasure to stir you up.
Posted by senorbriar on August 5, 2008 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
you guys should all be deported!
Posted by achsfamily on August 5, 2008 at 9:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It makes me sick to hear about this man and his daughter, he was not even called his daughter, she is staying with wonderful family. Thank god for them. What kind of father doesn't call his daughter after hearing her mother was murdered? I think a guilty one! I live in the neighborhood where they lived and it makes we so sad for the girls! They didnt' deserve to have there mother taken away. My heart is breaking for them!
Posted by themaxwellclan on August 6, 2008 at 12:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Reading these comments....this is better than cable!
Posted by ReadMyLipsNoNewTaxes on August 6, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All I want to know is how much is the 200+ acre ranch on the market for? I want to buy it in a short sale.
Who knows, there could be another couple of million buried on the property and it would pay for itself....
Posted by LivinInPoorMansPV on August 7, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
caskier
yah remember that woman in san diego that murdered her husband. she put hin through law school and as soon as he was succesful, he started messing around with a younger lady, then she off'd em!
oh an Oj & Nicole, she was a nothing nobody c---tail waitress, then he turned her into a princess and gave her fake boobs, and she started partying with all the youngins, getting nakey in the jacuzzi etc.
controlling/jealous/possesive
Love is great!
Posted by lushlife on August 9, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Guys I haven't been here in 6 days or so, because I've been reading the updates on a blog by some private investigator and former police officer. Includes court files you can view.
http://www.crimefilenews.com/search/l...
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
There are 109 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.