LOS ANGELES (CBS) — A California woman claims she was sexually assaulted by a man she met on the popular online dating site Match.com, and now she’s suing the site, saying they need to do more to prevent similar attacks.

CBS2 spoke to the attorney representing the suspect in the case, confirming he has had problems with laws in the past. The alleged victim said because of that, he and other people like him should be banned from using sites like Match.com.

On Thursday, attorneys for the woman announced they were filing a civil lawsuit against the site. The woman, a Hollywood executive who wants to remain anonymous, said she was sexually assaulted by a man she met through the site, and she wants the site to stop adding users until a sexual predator screening process is installed.

“If somebody uses their credit card to pay, then they basically run their name through a federal sex offender data bank and through a local county registration bank,” said attorney Mark Webb.

The suspect in the case, Alan Wurtzel, is facing felony charges in LA Superior Court. Police said he is a previously convicted sex offender for assaults on women he met on the Internet.

Webb said the woman met the alleged assailant last year at the Urth Cafe in West Hollywood. After a second date, the attorney said the man, who has been convicted six separate times for sexual battery, followed her home and attacked her, KNX 1070’s Chris Sedens reports.

Robert Platt, the attorney for Match.com, said it would have been impossible to weed him out when he signed up and the company is standing by its practices.

“We don’t have their Social Security numbers. It would create so many problems by trying to get background information on all these people,” said Platt.

Annette Larner met her husband-to-be online and tells CBS2 that she did her own background check on him.

“We were chatting for a while. We were chatting for about five months,” she said.

Larner’s story has a happy ending, but she warns those who use online dating services.

“Definitely be critical, make sure everything he says is absolutely true. And try and ask the same questions again a few days later to see if you get the same answer,” she said.

Wurtzel’s attorney said the sexual contact was consensual and that he’s pleaded not guilty to two felony charges against him. His trial is set to start April 26.

Comments (102)
  1. Joe says:

    Why didn’t she use better judgement when she “screened” him herself?
    Just asking……..

    1. jimjim says:

      Use your head people. Its the INTERNET!!

      1. OBAMA = FRAUD says:

        I’d like to report an ASSAULT taking place on the U.S. Constitution.

        A USURPER is our President He has a CONNECTICUT S.S. Number (042-68-4425) even though he never lived there. MUST READ – http://www.cashill.com/intellect_fraud/another_look_at_obamas.htm

      2. Anthony Madrid says:

        This has absolutely nothing to do with the internet, fact your probably safer there than anywhere else. Truth is there are more abduction and kidnapping statistics from people met in person than there are from people met online. We just don’t want to see it that way cause its too scary and it doesn’t give us something to blame.

    2. Fanny Forbes Franklen says:

      Does this mean if you meet your rapist at your church that you can sue the church? Sounds like a whole new avenue for under employed lawyers and bureaucrats.

      ——– http://911essentials.com

  2. Scott says:

    Was this person a registered sex offender? If now, how can match.com be liable?

  3. tom held says:

    That is so wrong , She went to meet them HELLO OUT THERE it is the internet = what do you expect ! Some people have no sense or are nieve.

  4. You Cant Sue says:

    You cannot sue a dating website for interaction that happens off the site. I run a dating website and its clearly in the Terms of Use Agreement which every member has to acknowledge prior to completing their profile.

    The terms of use clearly states that match.com is NOT responsible for interaction between members both on or off their site.

    1. jaided says:

      wow we can sue for just about anything. i ordered some frys at mcdonalds and they were cold. i wanna sue can i?

      1. imintrouble says:

        you can sue, doesn’t mean u will win….

      2. JDUDE says:



    2. commhealy says:

      Unfortunately, in our system of justice, a judge and jury decides who can and cannot sue. Anyone can write a disclaimer about anything. It does not make it law nor does it help much even if it is law. Law can be changed or ignored by a jury on a whim.

      1. LarryTheLawyer says:

        And then they are overturned on motion notwithstanding the verdict (that is, if under the law, the jury could not have made the choice they did based on the evidence before them). Juries are the last say in criminal trials, not civil.

    3. She has a case says:

      Clearly, you are not a lawyer. Terms and agreements on websites are considered adhesion contracts due to the “click or you can’t use our service” nature that excludes the ability to negotiate the terms, and thus are viewed very suspiciously by courts. The waiver of liability clause will likely be found unconscionable, or be read to not include foreseeable harm, or be found invalid on public policy grounds. Furthermore, she did not just meet this guy on the internet, he was “matched” to her by a dating service. This creates a contractual duty in the service to her exercise reasonable care in the provision of its service so as to not unreasonably place her in harm. Things they will look at will include whether this has happened before, what their screening practices include, the cost of doing more in depth screening (i.e. a simple and inexpensive criminal background check would have revealed the past charges), and whether the woman had any notice of his status as well (this is because if she did, there may be comparative fault, which would significantly reduce any amount she could recover). While it’s not a sure fire win, she undoubtedly does have grounds for a lawsuit against the company in negligence.

      1. jimbo says:

        and you are the face of the problem. In this particular case, where a jury of reasonable people or a judge should say ‘lady, you are meeting a stranger, life is risky, take precautions.” SHE should do the inexpensive background screening. She isn’t intelligent enough to use a high level dating system… she should stick to meeting men at PTA meetings, or church. An invasive background screen is what is now required for match.com to do business? this is LOVE and SEX we are talking about lol. I certainly hope she has to give plasma for the rest of her life to repay any litigation charges for this nuisance suit.

      2. David says:

        The entire content of your text is absurd- a hard up woman goes on a cheap dating site and you expect the Marines to protect her bad judgement.

        Why are lawyers hated? Read your text

      3. pashley1411 says:

        I agree with the others who are in horror at what lawyers do to our society. But the guy is correct, that’s the law as I understand it. “Grounds for a lawsuite” means commission-hungry lawyers pounding the web-site owners with depositions and request for discovery on all their clients until the websites cry “uncle’ and pay the lawyers off.

        My bet is that internet sites will go up $40 or more a month while internet dating sites are sadled with criminal background checks, the clerks to work them, and liability insurance for everything that could happen wrong on the date.

        Its neither a fair, or sane, world.

      4. Isabella says:

        Your legalese bs does not negate the fact that she should have used resonable caution and done her own background check on the guy. I did that when I was on dating sites and you would not believe the stuff I found about some of these guys.
        So now can people sue if the other person is married? Is into S and M? Didn’t tell you he has kids? Where does it stop? If he was a convicted sex offender, all she had to do was look him up on the national database: http://www.nsopw.gov/(X(1)S(0k3ekkewrb0dsw45gdl3m22f))/Core/Conditions.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

      5. Isabella says:

        And furthermore….you don’t meet a guy online and take him to your place or go to his or anywhere something could happen until you have known him long enough to get information to check him out.
        She’s a studio exec and hasn’t the brains or the resources to do this?
        So would you meet a guy in a bar, go home with him, cry rape and sue the bar?
        Stupid woman, stupid sue happy society.

      6. Robb says:

        How was she “matched” by the dating service? On the times I was on Match.com, I had to tell their computer what characteristics I was seeking. Thus, I was responsible for what profiles I looked at and which profiles I responded to. Match.com was no more responsible for her assault than a bar, church, school, bus station, or any other place two people meet each other. And yes, that includes a law firm or attorney’s office.

      7. dydx says:

        Arrogant. No morals or scruples, either, evidently. Also sorely lacking in common sense and always looking for a way to game the system. Looking to blame others and not the client. 5% culpability, 100% liability mentality.

        Clearly…you ARE a lawyer!

    4. Santa Cruz says:

      she’ll loose. for sure.. she should sue that prick not dating site..

      1. A woman on searching for love says:

        It’s so hard to judge sometimes….I always do my own little homework before meeting the guy, but they don’t tell their real name sometimes…..what if they used a faked name….
        Once I was chatting with this guy on the online dating site, then I got suspicious, he used his full name on the yahoo chat and asked me to join him on the chat on yahoo….once I saw his full name, and googled him, I figured out he was there to steal money from women and sadly some women went with his BS…..
        What he was saying was so obvious that he’s a real fraud, I’m not sure why others can’t figure out these types of people…..I reported him to the site and I find him in another site and reported him there too….hmmm…..I can work for police department….hehehe….
        however, I think the online dating sites can write a simple program to read from the national sex offender site (database) or whatever and exclude the person from their site….that’s really a simple job for them to do to make an extra protection level for their customers…..

    5. Frank Anthony says:

      Just because you say you are not responsible for something doesn’t make it so.

      If that were the case everything you buy would come with a piece of paper stating that the manufacturer is not responsible for injury from this product and consumers would never win a lawsuit.

      If match.com ultimately wins the case, It won’t be because they absolved themselves of responsibility in their terms of use. It will probably be more along the lines of… a reasonable person should not expect members of a dating site to be pre-screened unless explicitly told that they are by the website.

    6. Go to law school says:

      I hope you aren’t the attorney for your site also. Take a first year law class on contracts. Terms of use agreements absolutely do NOT bar lawsuits. NOTHING is that black and white. Waiver clauses like the one you’re referring to are usually only valid if they waive negligence claims, and even then they usually still don’t apply if the negligence is inherent in the defendant’s mode of operation. A court will decide whether or not the agreement is valid, and it could very easily find that it is unreasonable for match.com to allow people to set up these blind dates without screening the participants or taking some other sort of precaution. Don’t try to state the law; you obviously don’t know anything about it.

      1. Tolly says:

        Neither do you. This is a tort case, not a breach of contract case. She will need to prove that the website had a duty to pre-screen the participants. If the terms of service explicitly state that this is not offered as part of the membership, and they further caution all participants of the website that a risk of harm may be present, then no duty exists.

        Liability waivers and disclaimers are legally binding. The language contained within them is part of the agreement between the parties and can not be discarded or amended by either party. Only those protections extended to the user as part of the agreement are binding. If there is a foreseeable risk which one can prove was such that a reasonable person could ascertain and mitigate, this would be a valid cause of action. This situation does not meet that standard unless and until the women can prove that she was guaranteed protection from that risk as a part of the agreement.

  5. gto says:

    This lady is an idiot.

    1. jddue says:

      it was more than likely the lawyers idea, not the ladies…

  6. RJ says:

    That’s ludicrous. The site can’t EFFECTIVELY screen for sexual predators, I suppose if she picked the same man up at a bar, and the same thing happened, she sue the bar. It’s a dating site, so there are going to be inherent risks. But not in California. Everybody is “sue happy…”

    1. Eduardo Garcia says:

      So if they did screen for predators, what if they gave a false name and ss number and a stolen credit card? There would still be some greedy dumba** suing them for not screening enough.

  7. Dr, Phil says:

    Obviously poor judgement on her part since she met him for a second time. It’s sad that she was followed and assaulted but maybe she needs to screen her dates better. There is no way she can with this law suit. Only thing she can do is to file charges against her attacker if she hasn’t done so already.

  8. hubba says:

    I’m sure match has a disclaimer when you sign up that states you searching and moving forward at your own risk. What a dumb ass lawyer and lady.

  9. Duh! says:

    Why sue Match.com???
    She should be suing the man that attacked her. She obviously knows who he is and has contact information for him.

    It’s not Match.com’s fault she cannot exercise good judgment.

    1. TruthMeister says:

      In America, you ALWAYS sue the one with the deepest pockets. Your kid misbehaving in Walmart and slips and pokes another kid’s eye out? Yeah, you sue Walmart. Sure, you also sue the other party as a co-defender, but you ALWAYS include someone with deep pockets, even if their relationship to the incident is tenuous at best.

  10. Greg Wilsen says:

    A signed disclaimer only encourages predatory attorneys because they know judges don ‘t respect the law. Think of all the overturned prenuptual agreements.

    1. Read a law book, for god's sake! says:

      That’s because of a LEGAL doctrine where courts can declare certain patently unfair and one-sided clauses as unconscionable. While a fairly new doctrine, it is well grounded in the common law. Also, there are strong public policy arguments that support the use of this doctrine, especially with adhesion contracts like internet “terms and agreements.” It has nothing to do with predatory attorneys, and has even less to do with judges that don’t respect the law.

  11. Ernest says:

    Lady Sue the Person Not the Site This is a dating Site if y’all made a Mistake is a Mistake When you Lose Don’t lose the Lesson don’t make the same mistake lady sue the guy but not the site.Thank y’all

  12. Barbara Elie says:

    Here we go again. It is the mans fault for the sexual assault, not Match and especially not the woman. I hope she brought charges against him, and that she will drop the suit against Match.com

  13. Jeff Nalin says:

    On her SECOND date, give it rest Webb


    most people who sign up for internet dating, dont usually give there real name. Why you ask???? Hellooooooo!!! Most are already married, or sexual predators! mainly man who are tired of the same sex. So if your looking on the internet for a man or a women, well anyone then is taking the risk of this happening to them. Nothing on the internet is scared, or information is not truley out there. Its your responsibility to check the site out befor you sign up.
    Not I am not saying this lady deserved this…For gods sake she did nothing wrong to deserve what happened to her, and the man should pay it fullest!!! price!!!! Im just saying when you search the internet for a date….You must likely will get the date that no one wanted in the first place….be carefull what you wish for…I know she did not wish for this to happen…and I feel very sad this happened to such a nice person

    1. fun fellow says:

      I disagree profoundly with you. Ten years ago today I met my wife on Match.com. I had been using the site for about two years. I agree that most first meetings were disappointing. I always insisted on meeting in public with a lot of people around.

      What alternative do you propose? Can you guarantee that this wouldn’t have happened if she had met this guy at a bar? at a charity auction? at a church social? No! of course not. She went out with him a second time, so he couldn’t have been that creepy. After meeting him in person the first time she was in a position to know more about him than any dating site possibly could.

      Match.com can’t settle this lawsuit or lose otherwiise they would be out of business, along with every other internet dating site, an entire industry wiped out for no good reason.

      I for one am absolutely sick of the victimhood mentality in this country where everything that happens is somebody else’s fault and personal responsiibility is nonexistent. For all we know this could be a setup. She could have staged the thing to get a big pay day. In any case it’s not match.com’s fault and this case is totally without merit.

  15. Jeanine says:

    No dating website should allow rapists to be in their dating pool. People join in good faith, that the people who are writing them and that they are meeting are not violent predators. I believe there should be some way to shield people from that level of harm, internet dating is basically new, in the big scheme of things. The rules and protocol still needs to be worked out. This is a valid lawsuit.

    1. krg says:

      Internet dating is 20 years old and the rules have been spelled out for years. The article says he followed her home. How is Match (or any site) responsible for that? I have dated online and I am VERY careful when I meet someone. For starters even on a second date I wouldn’t leave and go straight home for this reason. One of my best friends is a guy I met on match four years ago.

      Californians want to sue someone every time they stub a toe. It’s ridiculous. While I”m sorry that she was assaulted it’s noones responsiiblity except the guy who did it Of course she’ll get a jury from California who love to hand out money and she’ll get some sort of settlement just because there is NO self responsibility in this state..

    2. Will says:

      Valid lawsuit? How can match.com and other dating website be 100% sure that no rapists signs up? What about those that haven’t got caught? People should know the risk when they submit to these sites. I’m sure a lot of people out there join in good faith. But they should also know the risk without anybody telling them. Is call common sense…….

  16. ILLEGALS says:

    She is a Gold Digger. How can Match.com screen ALL of it’s applicants?

    Just goes to prove that you can sue anyone for almost anything..

  17. dave says:

    Its not match’s fault, but you have to admit its not a bad idea to screen out sexual offenders. Hey thats a good idea for a new dating site:

  18. ILLEGALS says:

    Next thing we’ll see lawsuits flying all over the place claiming the men on Match.com aren’t really what they said to be..

    They’re not really 6’2″, own their own place, drives ferrari & porsche, live by the Beach, have many businesses & vacation homes, etc..

  19. plentyoffish.com says:

    What a waste of time and money. She obviously is just looking to get paid from a website that she took the risk of joining. Match.com just like many other dating sites have disclaimers and warnings. It was her poor judgement that lead to the attack. Not her fault but she’s got no chance in this case.

  20. suzy says:

    I want to know if she’ll go on the THIRD date????? !!!!!!!!

  21. jaided says:

    i met a girl on match.com who said she was 110 lbs and she ended up being 210lbs? i 2 wanna sue.

  22. Online Dater says:

    Here’s a good one and a true story too. I met someone online who turned out to be a totally different person when we met. She was using her sisters pic on her profile. I should sue too!!!

    1. LearnTheLaw says:

      Well, you’d have to prove that you were harmed in some way, and if you weren’t (which you weren’t) the lawyer in taking your case, and you, could be slapped with sanctions under FRCP. You know it’s a frivolous case, you weren’t harmed in any tangible way (shock/disappointment/etc is not enough). Then, you’d also end up paying attorney’s fees for the other side.

      I hope you have deep pockets, because your lawsuit would go nowhere, and you would only go deeply into debt.

      1. EduardoGarcia says:

        What about all the people who sue for “emotional distress?”
        Face it, you can sue for just about anything if you find a greedy lawyer.

  23. alan hart says:

    This is a great example of why we need tort reform in this country. This foolishness should never come before the courts. Make it a loser pays system and frivolous suits like this immediately go away.

  24. http://catholic-bulletin.blogspot.com/ says:

    Same old story, the winner is the attorney again. bravo.

  25. Nameless Person says:

    You could see this lawsuit coming from a mile away when CBS2/KCAL first reported this.

    I would love to be the juror in this case. Match.com would be found not liable for her stupidity. I would also make her pay all the attorney’s fees if they requested it.

  26. Chris Hansen says:

    Why don’t you have a seat?

  27. aahhhh says:

    I have to poop.

  28. Rick says:

    Just looking for free money you dirt bags.

  29. Brother Chuck says:

    It’ll never get to a jury. They’ll drag it out a bit and then settle for an amount less than what it would cost Match.com for defense in the long run. It’s simple economics. You don’t have to be justified, just patient.

  30. zef says:

    Sue me, sue you, let’s all sue, all together

  31. Checkmoot says:

    She liked him well enough to make a second date, if she had met the guy in church, I guess she’d be suing the church and if he met her in a park, well, sue the city. Not her fault if bad people go to the park, right ???

  32. TexasForever says:

    How about suing this woman for being STUPID?
    Try meeting people actually interacting with them in public.
    Smile & say hello to people….it works wonders!

  33. Bobby Mayberry says:

    What is the most common lie in the world?

    Yes, I have read and accept the terms of this website.

  34. ladyforever says:

    Amazing in sexual cases the female is always the one at fault and drug through the mud!! In all of the above comments that is what I read! What is wrong with holding the service accountable? They are so eager to take the money.

    1. Isabella says:

      I’m a woman, and I don’t believe in blaming the victim, but Match.com is NOT the PERPatrator. I have met men, including my wonderful husband of 16 years, online. I always met them in a public place, did not let them walk me to car or see my plates, until I had time to truly check them out through court records etc.
      Interesting how everyone explains rationally why the suit is ludicrous, yet your paranoia reads it as blaming the woman. Get real! Get the guy for rape, but don’t sue the internet service. She could have met the guy anywhere, and there is no way they can be sure the information given to them when signing up is for real, so there is no way they can truly screen out the predators. And what about the predators who have never been convicted?

  35. Elleh says:

    This suit will go nowhere. First of all, does she expect Match.com to conduct background checks on all of its members? What crimes should they screen for? Should they do a credit check and post credit scores? Would she herself have agreed to such an invasion of her privacy? I doubt it. Besides, the alleged attack occured on the SECOND date. Obviously, she didn’t pick up on anything. Obviously, she didn’t bother doing a background check on him or even Googling him for public arrest records. Apparently, her desperation for a date outweighed her common sense.

  36. Betty says:

    This woman is traumatized and angry, but she’s misdirecting that anger. Match.com is not at fault. She can go on all the shopping sprees and nice vacations she wants with any money she may win from a lawsuit against match.com, but it won’t erase the trauma to her body or mind. Place the blame where it really belongs and send the attacker to jail. I met my husband on eHarmony. Before meeting him, I dated some total flakes I met online. It’s your personal responsibility to use caution when dating anyone you have met ANYWHERE. And ladies, please learn self-defense and situational awareness to help prevent creeps from stalking and hurting you.

  37. John Tyson says:

    So let’s see…Jane Doe, a famous entertainment executive who, despite the open judicial process insists on her privacy, gets assaulted by someone to whom she revealed too much information.

    What nonsense; I hope Match.com prevails and does NOT settle out of court; if they do, this will be one more example of big ego and bigger greed costing the rest of us money and freedom.

    1. dennis says:

      Her lawyer must have been a graduate of Emory Law school.

  38. dennis says:

    You can look for the sex offenders on a number of web sites. she needed to do her home work. Ehat did she expect? the guy in a conversation in the coffee house. Oh by the way I am a registered sex offender? People will lie about their height and weight do you think thiis would come up in a conversation?
    This law suit would not make the Judge Judy show. Too cut and dry.

  39. Not Surprised says:

    My credit card information was stolen by a man who immediately used it to buy year-long memberships at multiple dating sites, including Match.com. He downloaded a boatload of BDSM porn at the same time. When I notified each dating websites about the potential danger in his actions, I was ignored. It was really clear this guy was misrepresenting himself, had violent kinks, and was actively (almost frantically) searching to meet women. Match.com and the other websites continued to allow him access despite being provided information that showed very concerning predatory behaviors.

    1. TruthMeister says:

      I see your point, but what is the site to do when someone who hates YOU calls up Match.com or whatever site you’re registered with and tells them the same about you? Is it on the shoulders of the site to investigate each complaint lodged about their members? I suspect that would be very pricy and propably wouldn’t fall under their responsibility in court.

      1. Not Surprised says:

        I know… I get it. I just shared the story to help people understand that the environment isn’t as safe as they might think (or hope). I’m not suggesting Match.com should be investigating everyone. I agree the legal liability is low and think this poor woman should have been more cautious while dating online. As should everyone. Again, I’m just posting the experience so people can see that the system has room for exploitation.

  40. Jeff Meyers says:

    She has the same chances of meeting a predator in a bar. Are bars and nightclubs
    going to have to screen sexual predators before they enter as well? She has bad judgment and that’s all!

  41. farfelbaby says:

    With the right jury of typical American idiots all her lawyer has to do is put the weepy devotchka on the stand for theatrical display and CHA CHING!

  42. justachick says:

    oh goodness… this is sad.. but guess what. there are more people on match.com that are scammers — both men and women –(pretending to love and really wanting to get money). When it comes to love.. i think it best to find them the old fashioned way.. I also suspect every serial killer in the world is on the web and lookin for love on those sites. easy pickings.

  43. Bob Frapples says:

    Durr..She could have checked th Sex Offenders Registry before agreeing to go out..Match does check the Names and Credit Car Numbers to see if they Match..

    Too Bad..so much info..blinded by potential love..

    1. Not Surprised says:

      No they don’t. Some guy signed up using my stolen credit card info on Match.com. His name definitely didn’t match the one on the card. He pulled hundreds of women’s profiles within days of joining. He gave an address that was in a different state from those hot spots. Also different from the address associated with the credit card. They had his computer IP address, the addresses of his internet connections, the IDs of all the women’s profiles he pulled, and his email address. As far as I know, they didn’t shut down his Match.com account until my credit card company determined it was a fraudulent charge three months later.

      People need to be so careful with these types of websites. Even with proactive efforts to identify questionable behavior the dating websites cant/won’t take responsibility for policing their members.

  44. TruthMeister says:

    Can’t anyone nowadays do a criminal background check on anyone for like $20? If I were a woman meeting a guy that I didn’t meet through my own social circle, you bet I’d get him checked out. Certainly an advertising executive could afford it.

  45. APK says:

    Why doesn’t she sue Algore for inventing the internet in the first place.

  46. Mary says:

    Those online dating sites are full of creeps, crooks, and kooks (both male & female). If you believe you may become serious with someone, definitely pay to have a background check done.

  47. Tommy says:

    Perfect example of a woman who has a high rank position, yet has no common sense whatsever.

    She needs to take full responsibity for her action rather than pointing the finger at someone else.

  48. Mary says:

    Something smells fishy. Allegedly, the man followed her home? That’s a huge red flag right there! And upon arrival, how did the man get into her residence? Did the woman willingly allow this man into her home?

    I would NEVER, ever, tell a complete stranger that I met on the Internet where I lived, or invite them into my home. At least not for a few weeks until I get to know them better. And I agree with the above comments; If you intend to be serious with someone you met online, spend a few dollars and conduct a background check. Unfortunately, those Interned dating sites are full of liars and crazies.

  49. Hank Warren says:

    Endless frivolous lawsuits, yet another violation of our rights. Add it to the list of gov’t violations of our right:
    They violate the 1st Amendment by placing protesters in cages, banning books like “America Deceived II” and censoring the internet.
    They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns.
    They violate the 4th and 5th Amendment by molesting airline passengers.
    They violate the entire Constitution by starting undeclared wars for foreign countries.
    Impeach Obama and sweep out the Congress.
    (Last link of Banned Book):

  50. Charlie O says:

    I suppose night clubs and bars should be held liable when someone is assaulted, robbed or scammed away from the business where they originally met.
    Likewise, any other social networking web site or organization, such as LeTip, BizNik, Church, or others should be screening members for past transgressions to ensure they only get the creme de la creme. Of course, all offenders have to start somewhere, so “they” should implement some kind of Minority Report, Pre-Crime style mechanism to arrest people BEFORE they commit any offense.
    Now, if we can just find precognitive triplets we can wire up and keep in a jacuzzi.

  51. Luther says:

    Too bad LA is so tough on carry permits. She could have had the means to protect herself from her own bad judgement.

  52. Scott says:

    With 40% of such sexual assault claims being false (and I am by no means saying that this one is false, btw), why are they STILL divulging the name of the alleged attacker. That should be as protected as the name of the alleged victim is. The double standard at play here is incredible!!!

  53. Muhammed says:

    Need to identify this stupid woman by her real name and plaster it all over the internet.

  54. slim says:

    suing mcdonalds for scalding coffee in the lap as the result of stuipid and suing match for a sexual assault. Well ok then. People need to own their own existence or find a baby sitter and quit whining. If you are on a dating site expect a creep or two. Maybe do some due diligence before saying yes to the date might be something that comes to mind?

  55. KarmaforAmerica says:

    People don’t have money. They can’t rely on Social Security. It’s hard to win the lottery…. so lawsuit is what they come up with.

  56. zsa zsa says:

    I do not agree with this woman suing Match.com. That being said, I can tell you Match.com is very “shady” in how it handles its sight. It seems to me there are many, many, many fake profile’s with the approval of the site. I would also go so far to say I suspect the company itself approves the fake profiles and uses employee’s to corespond with other real match’s . This is to make the sight seem like new people are always being added and keep interest in you high so you continue to subscrible.
    This was my experience on that site for 6 months and it was very shady. Besides all the fake profiles the actual real people with real profiles can be shady, you have to do your research. I had a man who wanted to meet me, I researched his background and he had a girlfriend already and told me several lies about himself. He wanted to meet me at a diner in Malibu @ 7pm and the diner closed at 730. I cut off contact with him. Very strange place Match.com

  57. sean patriot says:

    How do you screen for sexual predators on a web site? She got what she deserved

  58. joe says:

    When two whiers get together no one can win.

  59. Evavita says:

    Match.com is crawling with Nigerian scam artists – I had a profile on there and was contacted by a guy who ended up being a Nigerian scammer – I saw through his BS but when I contacted Match they did nothing – if you search online for Nigerian Scam Artist and Match.com there are whole complaint boards with people who have been taken in by these hucksters. You would think people would know better but the guy who emailed me was very smart – spun quite a story…

  60. Lee Yarbrough says:

    She is going after deep pockets, nothing more.

    Had she met him in a bar would she be suing the bar owner?

    Lack of personal responsibility in this country has turned Americans into nothing more then litigants. No one wants to take responsibility for their own actions. Sue the rapist, he is the one that hurt you.

  61. diplomat says:

    I once attempted to pick up a check-out lady in a busy supermarket. She was cute as a button, but what actually attracted me was her demeanor with a particularly trying customer. She was far sweeter than I would have been. When it came my turn, we talked as she rang up my groceries and as I was leaving I asked her if she would consider having coffee with me some time.

    I was pleasantly surprised when she agreed to meet me at a sandwich shop two doors away in thirty minutes. Her lunch break. I stowed my purchases in my truck and went over there to wait. When she joined me in the booth, her first question was, “I need to see your I.D.” My mouth darn near fell open, but I handed over my drivers license. She copied every bit of pertinent data onto a slip of paper and returned the license. “I hope you’re not offended,” she said. “No way am I offended,” I assured her. Thinking that I had never ran into a girl so careful before. Odds should be good that this one would not come to me loaded with STDs. “Good,” she replied. “The world has turned into a rough place. One cannot be too careful.”

    I agreed and asked her if she would be offended if I asked to see her I.D.. She answered, absolutely not and she would furnish it at our next meeting, if there was one. This would depend obviously on what her security check uncovered and if I was still interested in her, suspicious nature – and all. By then, I was enormously interested. It appeared this was mutual.

    When we left the restaurant, she followed me out to my truck, jotted down the license plate number and asked for my phone number. I gave it and she went back to work. Two days later she phoned me. The romance was on.

    My advice to all ladies meeting men without the benefit of an introduction by someone they know and trust, is to follow a similar pattern.

  62. Android Sensei says:

    I wrote some tips using your Android device which I think all women should follow: Android tips on Dating in NYC. http://exm.nr/l7W0Cd

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s