Disgrace: RadiumOne Allowing CEO To Remain After Beating His Girlfriend
from the say-goodbye dept
There's been a lot of talk on various tech sites over the past few days concerning the disgraceful situation involving internet ad giant RadiumOne and its CEO Gurbaksh "G" Chahal. Chahal was arrested last year and charged with 45 counts for apparently beating his girlfriend -- hitting her 117 times over the course of half an hour, all caught on a security camera in his home. The legal case more or less fell apart when the judge said that police seizing the video violated the 4th Amendment (they did so without a warrant). Without that evidence, and with the woman refusing to cooperate, prosecutors worked out a deal and Chahal plead guilty to two charges -- one domestic violence battery and one battery -- and got three years probation and a mandatory 52-week domestic violence training program.Having covered many, many stories in which law enforcement violates the 4th Amendment and piles on charges on someone, there isn't much to comment on in the legal case. Police should have had a warrant to get that video, clearly -- and it's on them that they did not do that. You can't fault the judge for tossing out illegally seized evidence. But, at no point has anyone denied that the video exists or that it shows Chahal hitting his girlfriend 117 times. Given that, plenty of people are reasonably wondering (1) why Chahal is still CEO of a giant ad company that's expected to IPO soon and (2) why his board/investors has refused to respond to questions about Chahal.
There has been plenty of talk recently about how welcoming (or not) the tech industry is to females. Some of the stories of "brogrammers" or "bro" culture strike me as exaggerating reality. It exists in some cases, but it is far from true everywhere. Plenty of startups that I've spent time with not only seem to create diverse and welcoming environments, but often go out of their way to create such supportive cultures. But, at the same time, it's clear that not every tech company is like that, and many engineers -- both female and male -- have been turned off by such cultures (though not enough speak out when they see it). The industry itself needs to do a much better job of creating welcoming environments and one obvious and important way to do so is to not condone abhorrent behavior, such as that which Chahal engaged in. Leaving Chahal in charge of RadiumOne is an implicit statement that such behavior is somehow acceptable. That, by itself, is unacceptable.
The fact that the board and RadiumOne's investors have not spoken out creates not just a huge blackeye for the company, but for the wider tech industry as a whole.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: domestic violence, executive leadership, gubaksh chahal, tech industry
Companies: radiumone
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Really, are they all deathly allergic to court papers or something? You'd think for a case like this at least one of them might have thought, 'You know, having all this solid evidence tossed because we were too lazy to get a warrant to gather it probably wouldn't be a good thing, we should maybe ask a judge for one of those first.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you seriously arguing that no person has a right to take a stance that something is disgraceful beyond what a court decides?
Interesting. I disagree and find your position morally questionable, though it is your decision.
To be clear -- as I was in the article -- I don't have a problem with the results of the legal case. I'm not suggesting that anything else need be done on the legal front. But it is perfectly reasonable to argue that it is inappropriate for such a person to be leading a company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The legal avenue where a conviction could not be given based on faulty procedures or evidence has stated that this person is NOT guilty of the alleged offenses.
On the other hand you have supposedly (it's just hearsay since it was not shown in court and proven to be authentic) a video showing the actuality of the offenses being committed.
Maybe the guy did it, maybe he didn't. Maybe his girlfriend is a victim of DV but who has that psychological problem (that most people do) of thinking that love conquers all and "he will change" so refused to testify [sadly a standard situation in DV cases]
Though to then turn around and state he should be removed from a position of whatever no matter how wrong YOU think it is is being a bit hypocritical in respect to other major cases you are and have followed over the years.
Also playing devils advocate on the boards behalf, this guy probably has a very specific contract that if they removed him based on allegations (because that's what they are) or the court ordered probabation (it's a minor matter) they would be in breach of a hell of a lot and the payout plus damages they would need to recompense the guy, however wrong that seems, would be excessive and a HUGE risk if they are coming into an IPO.
PS: The video in question doesn't need to be denied one way or the other since it was stopped before it's authenticity could be shown. that's why no one denies or otherwise its existence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> since it was not shown in court and proven to be authentic)
> a video showing the actuality of the offenses being committed.
Hearsay is a legal term whose definition contains the element that it be asserted in court in order to qualify as hearsay. Since there is no court case due to a failure to secure a warrant, the video cannot, by definition, be hearsay. Outside of a court, it's just a video, and people are free to judge its authenticity (or lack thereof) based on their own common sense and experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also it's hearsay of what people have alluded to of what is on the video or would that be double hearsay.. ack.. truthfully I hate hearsay rulings and try to stick with admissibility concerns re documents and devices and let the case solicitors deal with those orrible human witnesses ;)
Maybe I should of stated more clearly
"On the other hand you have a court ordered inadmissible video showing the actuality or not of the offenses being committed which is not a public document nor most likely will it ever be"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police screw up and allow a wealthy person to go free -- again!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Police screw up and allow a wealthy person to go free -- again!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The recidivism rate among those who beat women is quite high. The law will get another chance to take him down. Let them handle it. Let people vote with their wallets and then the company be forced to out him. Taking action on their own in relation to a case that was dismissed could open them up to lawsuits that tank their IPO entirely. Right now its still up in the air as to whether it happens or not, they are playing it safe.
The guy is awful, he deserves to be in prison or worse for this, but his company still sees him as a valuable resource. Until that changes, they won't dismiss him. Paying his contract out may be too expensive, they may even be hoping he gets busted and convicte4d again in order to get out of his contract, revoke his shares and other financial awards. We just don't know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think the viewpoint is not about punishment, but representation. Would you want this guy running a company you had money in? And and IPO comming?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Removing him as CEO is neither vigilante justice, nor will it "ruin him financially." Beyond the fact that he's sold two companies in the past for a combined $325 million, he still own significant shares in RadiumOne, which are probably worth a similar amount.
Saying that it's unacceptable for him to be CEO is not "vigilante justice." It's saying that it's inappropriate for someone who beats his girlfriend to be CEO.
The guy is awful, he deserves to be in prison or worse for this, but his company still sees him as a valuable resource.
And that's a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What about when he finishes his probation & classes? What if he makes an apology?
I think what he did is very wrong, but I struggle to see a clear line on what the appropriate consequences should be when the legal system protected his rights, yet the tainted evidence points to the crime.
You often advocate for the protections of the 4th amendment to protect cell phone & privacy. The courts did exactly that in this case, yet you advocate ignoring that result to judge him in the court of public opinion.
To dial up the contrast, if you're going to advocate firing him, what about a quick lynching too? Where is the line?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The biggest issue on the companies plate is the IPO. The better question is 'What does the board/investors think the impact of the widespread knowledge of his guilt, and escape from punishment will be, on the marketplaces decisions?'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are confusing 2 separate points. Mike clearly states that he agrees with the courts in rendering the evidence inadmissible and that he has no problem with the end result of the legal action. He is saying that it is irresponsible for the board of directors to allow someone who is known to have struck his girlfriend 117 times within 30 minutes to be the public face of the company. I think it says a lot about the moral character of the board of directors that they would knowingly allow an individual with a clearly demonstrated propensity for abuse and violence to be their representative voice.
No one disputes that this guy committed a heinous crime. He got off on a procedural technicality due to law enforcement incompetence, but again, no one is denying that he actually committed the crime. He simply can't be prosecuted for it. Mike is simply rendering the opinion that he finds it disgraceful that this company would allow him to publicly represent them, and I have to say that I agree with him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Streisand effect just before the IPO...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If that is the case, then they should just say that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
California is a at-will employment state. He can be fired. http://www.business.ca.gov/StartaBusiness/AdministeringEmployees/EqualEmploymentOpportunityLaws/AtWi llEmployment.aspx
There is no breach of the law firing someone, especially for pleading guilty to a crime. The exceptions are things like being fired for discrimination or union organizing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
...and because he plead guilty to domestic violence battery. You and a bunch of others seem to be forgetting that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But if he's served the punishment officially meted out by the judicial system, what exactly are the grounds for firing him (unless the contract says he can be fired for having a criminal record) ? Does the law say convicted criminals can never work again ?
I agree he's repugnant, but what legal status does that have in this case ?
If, however as Mike points out, you can just sack him anyway in California, then I agree fully with Mike, they should have fired him instantly. But I'd be amazed if a CEO on that level leaves themselves vulnerable to at-will sacking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, let's wait until there's another victim to bust the guy, because one just isn't enough...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please, the guy was rail roaded, he says so himself...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
as for the board members? they're probably only worried about reaping the benefit from a well-producing company. we all should know that there is nothing more important than green backs and women fall way down the list that they're on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The company can move forward without him as CEO. In fact, you'd think that it would speak more strongly for the company that it thinks it's best to move forward with a CEO who has more integrity. It seems likely that having a girlfriend-beater as CEO may negatively impact the company's ability to IPO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no "implicit statement" that violence against women is acceptable in the tech industry. It is clearly *not* acceptable (and, in fact, illegal if the police hadn't botched it up). But this incident has nothing to do with "bro" culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blank 3:39pm comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Blank 3:39pm comment
And I can guarantee you that if any of us had ever found out that our boss was beating his wife or his kids, he'd have had about 20 angry employees (of both sexes) making trouble for him any way we could. "Bro culture" has no place in a programming office where almost every developer (male and female) is married with children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Blank 3:39pm comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Blank 3:39pm comment
See also: racism in the USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blank 3:39pm comment
You don't mean to suggest that racism has been solved, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blank 3:39pm comment
Racism is solved by even more racism.
That's why it's been very difficult for someone in the white, able-bodied male category to get a job at many US government agencies for decades -- the government fighting racism by applying racism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Blank 3:39pm comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's all it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The true test of whether or not someone really believes in the law, is when they find themselves dealing with someone they really want to see behind bars and/or punished, but the only evidence available was illegally gathered.
The strong, much as it pains them, toss the evidence and therefor the conviction, whereas the weak, the 'The ends justify the means' type people, allow it, or justify it after the fact, like some judges have done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No problem here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No problem here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No problem here
(Probably necessary slime, but still slime.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No problem here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No problem here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cultural insensitivity?
Like an American family visiting Sweden that would be shocked to learn that they've broken the law by spanking their children, maybe Gurbaksh is just doing something that is considered perfectly normal in his culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cultural insensitivity?
> perfectly normal in his culture.
If he wants to act like an animal and claim it's part of some barbaric cultural imperative, then he needs to get the fuck out of the US and go back to whatever primitive backwater spawned him in order to celebrate his sick 'culture', 'cause that shit ain't tolerated here. Not tolerating it is part of *our* culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: cultural insensitivity?
I think we're the exception, not the rule, otherwise the situations above wouldn't have happened. Rapists wouldn't have paternal rights in 31 states. It seems to me that those of us who consider abuse to be abhorrent are fewer than we care to admit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: cultural insensitivity?
He doesn't still have his job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cultural insensitivity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: cultural insensitivity?
In the US, it was long established in common law that a husband had a right -- if not a duty -- to beat his wife as he saw fit. (this was an era when public floggings were common) But wife-beating was never sanctioned by law, even if it wasn't illegal.
In the late 19th century, courts started challenging that ancient custom. Though oddly enough, the chief issue was not about questioning this "husbands prerogative" -- but over technical details, such as the maximum diameter of rod that should be permissible in such a beating.
An 1868 North Carolina case, State v. Rhodes, said this:
"It is not true that boys have a right to fight; nor is it true that a husband has a right to whip his wife. And if he had, it is not easily seen how the thumb is the standard of size for the instrument which he may use, as some of the old authorities have said; and in deference to which was his Honor’s charge. A light blow, or many light blows, with a stick larger than the thumb, might produce no injury; but a switch half the size might be so used as to produce death. The standard is the effect produced, and not the manner of producing it, or the instrument used."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[rubs neck]
the thing is, Mike, once when I was a small boy my mother forced me to lie down in front of her on the filthy floor of a movie theater, with her foot on my neck to keep me there, because she was "ashamed to be seen with me".
Oh. That's why I had that physical impulse up there. Heh, funny how we are sometimes, eh?
Yeah, well, anyways, I was wondering, how many hits out of 117 do you think that's worth?
The point being, we know nothing about whether she deserved it, let alone how much.
My own mother certainly did. And the reason I bring it up is because if she had gotten the crap beat out of her for it back then, she probably wouldn't have tried to gut me about a decade later.
So. . .yeah, I do think you're rushing to judgement here.
No, wait. I just checked the bizjournals article myself, and:
"Lassart also drew out from police testimony that Chahal’s girlfriend told police during an interview that the fight with Chahal happened after he learned she had gone to Las Vegas and had sex with another man who gave her $2,500. She said the money was to cover 'expenses' and was not a payment for sex."
The fact that Mike left this part out and that Techdirt's other commenters have not addressed it or his failure creates not just a huge blackeye for the community, but for the wider journalism industry as a whole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The fact that Mike left this part out and that Techdirt's other commenters have not addressed it or his failure creates not just a huge blackeye for the community, but for the wider journalism industry as a whole.
You're honestly arguing that she deserved to be hit because she cheated on him? Please seek help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I understand that in Iran, the *proper* punishment for cheating wives is death by stoning, so by that yardstick, she certainly didn't "deserve" a mere beating.
But seriously, on the topic of "what is an appropriate punishment for xxxx" there can never be any agreement, because there is no "correct" answer that everyone can agree on -- people just regurgitate their own cultural bias, and insist that other people's culturally-biased opinions that conflict with their own are simply dead wrong ... and that they should therefore "seek help".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And Mike. . .
[tired smile]
. . .I *am* seeking help.
From you.
Right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Go get some professional help. Your not gonna get therapy here, from Mike or anybody else. Therapy does not work that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If the individual was willing to go that far over being 'embarrassed' by you, what makes you think she wouldn't simply have taken the hits and repaid you ten-fold for them, either immediately or at some point in the future? If anything, a 'punishment' like that(her getting hit) would have been likely to have made your situation worse, not better.
No, as I noted below, the best response for something like that is a name and shame, make their actions visible and public so people know what they've done, and assuming it's a long term problem(which it sounds like it was), psychological help or even incarceration in a mental institution, should the person prove to be so far gone that they've become a threat to those around them(as apparently happened.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Between the theater bit and the 'gut me' comment, sounds like your mother was a pure sociopath/psychopath, and while that's certainly horrifying for anyone who has to deal with them, you should be careful not to let it turn you into something similar.
That out of the way...
The point being, we know nothing about whether she deserved it, let alone how much.
Quick question: if you do something that annoys and/or angers me, would you 'deserve it' if I started beating you? How angry would you have to make someone feel before they're justified hitting you, say 5 times? How about 10? 15? 100?
Also, just to point out a little bit of hypocrisy you seem to be showing, if anger is enough to justify beating someone, would you not also say that embarrassment is enough to justify humiliating them, like you say happened to you?
If you're going to claim that the first is justifiable, but the second isn't, then you seem to be saying that causing physical/psychological damage is acceptable, but causing emotional/psychological is not.
Assuming your story is accurate, you mother wouldn't deserve a beating, she would deserve a public name and shaming, and I can guarantee you that would be far more effective at keeping something like that from ever happening again. To someone willing to do that to a child because the kid embarrassed them, having their reputation torn to shreds is far more 'damaging' than any physical harm, and leaves a much longer lasting impression.
The fact that Mike left this part out and that Techdirt's other commenters have not addressed it or his failure creates not just a huge blackeye for the community, but for the wider journalism industry as a whole.
Hardly, it doesn't get mentioned because it's irrelevant. Someone does something that makes you angry, you might be tempted to take a swing at them, that's human nature, striking back at a source of pain.
However, most adults are mature enough to restrain themselves, and hold back.
Sometimes the anger is enough to push a person past that self-control, and it's treated as an attack, again, because most people are mature enough, and have enough self-control, to keep themselves from violent acts in response to non-violent 'threats'.
117 strikes in the course of an hour though? That's not some minor slip-up of control, some temporary loss of self-control, that's beating someone because it feels good. You don't beat someone for an entire hour without knowing, and intending, exactly what you're doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Violence usually doesn't prevent violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...or not!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excessive fine?
(Poor, poor millionaire, having to pay $500 for battering hs girlfriend. Governments are just so cruel and unfair!)
ThinkProgress: Millionaire Who Allegedly Beat His Girlfriend 117 Times Complains That He Recieved A $500 Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why is the tech industry so special ? ? ?
really, i DON'T think the tech sector is any more of a sparkle pony than 'regular' businesses (HINT: under unrestrained, rapacious capitalism, they are ALL going to oppress us, only you get to play beer pong at the tech companies), and why tech companies are supposed to be 'special' is beyond me...
lastly, i wonder at the reaction the moral scolds would have if they found out their grrlfiend/wife went to vegas and had sex with someone else for $2500...
'oh, that's what you were up to ? you go grrl ! ! !'
is THAT their metrosexual reaction ? ? ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why should they fire him? Do you really believe that they should fire people for something they do in their private life? Im sure he had his reasons to beat her but over 100 hits is way too much. But even that is not enough reason to fire someone who is doing his job properly.
You guys are a disgrace, because you would want justice to work on emotions instead of logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You don't think this situation reflects on his ability to manage a company?
Why should they fire him?
Because it shows someone who cannot lead and has no business running a company.
Do you really believe that they should fire people for something they do in their private life?
Yes, absolutely. Especially if those actions will have real world impact on the running of the business. Given the allegations, many companies will be less interested in doing business with RadiumOne (I know that we will no longer consider RadiumOne ads on our site, and I'm sure we're not alone). Furthermore, I imagine this will further lead to many good people (both female and male) not wanting to work at RadiumOne. It makes the company toxic.
Im sure he had his reasons to beat her
There are no reasons that are acceptable.
but over 100 hits is way too much
Over zero is too many.
But even that is not enough reason to fire someone who is doing his job properly.
He cannot do his job properly after this.
You guys are a disgrace, because you would want justice to work on emotions instead of logic.
No, I explained the logic above. Not only does this show a massive lack in character and integrity from senior leadership, it impacts the entire company and the business.
Remember when HP fired its CEO because he apparently propositioned a PR woman working for him? That was a much smaller deal, but HP reacted quickly. RadiumOne has a much more serious issue on their hands. And they've done nothing, just as the company wants to IPO. I don't see how they can trot this guy out on a roadshow when the whole point is to show how trustworthy management is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The internet being what it is, does anyone really believe that this beat-down artist will actually remain the face of a multi-million-dollar company? If he still wants to be in the public eye, I'd suggest he marry Tonya Harding and they can co-star together in a reality TV show named Trading Punches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take a Pass, Anyway.
There are already abundant reasons to take a raincheck on RadiumOne, whether the boss beats his girlfriend or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RadiumOne
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look who's whitewashing Gurbaksh Chahal's Wikipedia page
Let's see now, posted-from IP addresses such as 128.177.7.70 go to ... ~~drumroll please~~ RadiumOne Inc., San Francisco, CA.
Now that's some major chutzpah!
... or is this guy a complete idiot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The situation that resulted in my legal case began when I discovered that my girlfriend was having unprotected sex for money with other people. (She testified to this in her interviews with the cops.) I make no excuse for losing my temper. When I discovered this fact and confronted my girlfriend, we had a normal argument. She called 9-11 after I told her I was going to contact her father regarding her activities. And yes, I lost my temper. I understand, accept full responsibility and sincerely apologize from the bottom of my heart for that. But I didn’t hit her 117 times, injure her, or cause any trauma as the UCSF medical reports clearly document. This was all overblown drama because it generates huge volumes of page views for the media given what I have accomplished in the valley.
Thee tape in question that was thrown was also bullshit. If anything, it actually made the SFPD look bad because they violently assaulted me as I opened my door despite my being fully cooperative.
The girl in question here, was herself so appalled by the false allegations made by the police, that she agreed to be photographed to demonstrate that there were no bruises or injuries. She could have left my apartment at any time during the argument. She felt safe and chose to stay. Those pictures she agreed to take would have been entered into evidence had my case proceeded, and they would have proven that the police claims were egregiously misleading.
Celebrities in sports, entertainment and business, and high net worth individuals in general are all potential targets. It was only a matter of time when I would fall prey.
I have to accept that many will still want to hate me no matter what I say to bring clarity to my legal case which is now over. But the fact of the matter is that they are jumping to conclusions based on falsified allegations. My case could not have settled in the way that it did if the allegations were true. Trust me, the DA’s were like a pack of rabid dogs coming after me. If they had a case, they would have stuck with it."
This, BTW, matches my own personal experience with being falsely accused of stalking and harassment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beat a woman, be CEO. Donate to an anti-gay marriage cause, out the door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]