Post: #1

From Los Angeles (of course):

Via the LA District Attorney's office:
http://da.co.la.ca.us/media/news/dine-an...rand-theft

Quote:A man who has become known as the “Dine-and-Dash Dater” pleaded not guilty today to extortion, grand theft and other charges, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office announced.

Paul Guadalupe Gonzales (dob 2/24/73) faces seven counts of extortion, two counts of attempted extortion and one count of grand theft, all felonies, according to the criminal complaint in case GA103750. He also is charged with two misdemeanor counts each of defrauding an innkeeper and petty theft.

The case was filed for arrest warrant on July 3. Bail was set at $315,000.

A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Sept. 7 in Department J of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Pasadena Branch.

From May 2016 through April 2018, Gonzales is accused of taking financial advantage of women he met mostly through dating apps and websites. He allegedly went to dinner with them at restaurants in Pasadena, Long Beach, Burbank and Los Angeles, where he ordered and consumed food and drinks, then allegedly left without paying any of the bill, according to Deputy District Attorney Michael Fern of the Cyber Crime Division.

Eight women purportedly ended up paying the bill themselves, one in the belief that the defendant was going to pay her back, while in two other instances the restaurants picked up the check, the prosecutor said. Those businesses are among the victims named in the criminal complaint.

Gonzales allegedly defrauded a total of more than $950 from the women, according to the complaint.

In a separate and unrelated incident, the defendant also allegedly received services from a hair salon and left without paying.

Gonzales faces a possible maximum penalty of 13 years in state prison if convicted as charged.

The case remains under investigation by the Pasadena Police Department.

Team "Let them pay for it"?

Post: #2

MRAs should rally to his defense on the basis of his actions being civil disobedience.

Post: #3

Dirty rotten scoundrel.

Post: #4

Legally I'd say he's responsible for his portion of any unpaid expenses.

Post: #5

(08-28-2018 03:30 PM)MKDAWUSS Wrote:  Legally I'd say he's responsible for his portion of any unpaid expenses.

Why
There was no contract between the parties outlining each party's financial obligation
Unless Paul had made a prior agreement to pay all or half the bill, Id say the case against him is flimsy
Societies expectation that the male pays the bill (as supported by two restaurateurs financial claim on him) doesn't make him legally responsible either
Paul obviously knows his sexual market value (expecting the woman to pay) and the women involved have trouble accepting the role reversal
Give the man a free drink!

Post: #6

(08-28-2018 04:05 PM)Bazzwaldo Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 03:30 PM)MKDAWUSS Wrote:  Legally I'd say he's responsible for his portion of any unpaid expenses.

Why
There was no contract between the parties outlining each party's financial obligation
Unless Paul had made a prior agreement to pay all or half the bill, Id say the case against him is flimsy
Societies expectation that the male pays the bill (as supported by two restaurateurs financial claim on him) doesn't make him legally responsible either
Paul obviously knows his sexual market value (expecting the woman to pay) and the women involved have trouble accepting the role reversal
Give the man a free drink!

Well, you don't know what was discussed; the terms of a contract can be implied and a contract can be wholly oral. I doubt that the women agreed to pick up the tab for the both of them.

Not wanting to de-rail this thread, but this story reminds me of the famous Hungarian- Australian, Paul Charles Dozsa. He was a real character, having defected during the cold war, with pretensions of being a nobleman. A great chess player, apparently. He spoke with a very affected accent, and he was famous for eating and then not paying....

Here is footage of his arrest on one memorable occasion:

Post: #7

I wish he'd declare he self identifies as a lesbian.

If I was his lawyer this would be my opening statement

"Your honor my client pleads not guilty on the grounds that he/she identifies as a woman and therefore was only adhering to social norms of not paying for a date. Furthermore my client identifies as lesbian and feels that as a member of a protected minority involuntarily trapped in the body of a person who physically embodies the oppressive patriarchy my client feels is being persecuted by this prosecution. Ergo Ipso facto equality and shiznit. Moreover e pluribus vaginum, therefore even if the pussy pass doesn't fit you must still acquit. The defense respectfully rests...bitches"

Post: #8

^
Yup.
Always use there own bullshit against them.

Post: #9

Can't he just claim those women all started grabbing at his cock under the table and then he felt unsafe so he left?

Post: #10

You can argue about the other charges, but where the hell is the extortion?

Post: #11

A guy who non-violently "stole" $950 is facing up to 13 years in prison. I know the US is big on prison sentences, but isn't there a constitutional amendment that says the punishment should fit the crime?

Post: #12

@Atticus Paul Charles Dozsa has coined the ultimate pickup line.

"And you sir, Are you waiting to receive my penis?"

Post: #13

(08-29-2018 02:32 AM)Running Turtles Wrote:  A guy who non-violently "stole" $950 is facing up to 13 years in prison. I know the US is big on prison sentences, but isn't there a constitutional amendment that says the punishment should fit the crime?

Look. Typically I'll give the boys in blue the benefit of the doubt. But this is socialist California we're talking about where men are already at a severe disadvantage when it comes to legal matters such as this. So all I gotta say here is...

Post: #14

If the hair salon thing is true, then this guy is a thief.

Right?

Oh look, it happens to women as well

https://eu.theadvertiser.com/story/news/...798134002/

WB.

Post: #15

Quote:From May 2016 through April 2018, Gonzales is accused of taking financial advantage of women he met mostly through dating apps and websites. He allegedly went to dinner with them at restaurants in Pasadena, Long Beach, Burbank and Los Angeles, where he ordered and consumed food and drinks, then allegedly left without paying any of the bill, according to Deputy District Attorney Michael Fern of the Cyber Crime Division.

Post: #16

Let's start out with the fact that what he did was wrong and rather shitty behaviour. Secondly, with no direct evidence I would suggest that women as a group do this to guys on a fairly common basis: go to dinner, make an early exit and the guy gets stuck with the check. I suspect that the men don't call the police even if they specifically discussed going dutch. And it remains to be seen whether the cops would charge a woman at all, let alone with a felony.

Having said that, framing it as multiple felonies is just overcharging. Secondly, this smacks more of a civil tort rather than a criminal offence (with the exception of the charges laid by the restaurants given that there appears to be a criminal statute that covers the situation). Maybe it's the USA and maybe it's California in particular, but I've seen it happen in Canada several times where someone goes after a neighbour or whomever for something mickey-mouse and the cops won't touch it but rather tell the (alleged) victim to pursue it in civil court (generally small claims).

In this case, even if there was no legally binding agreement between the guy and the women, the law of equity would step in and make him pay for his share of the bill.

Post: #17

(08-29-2018 02:32 AM)Running Turtles Wrote:  A guy who non-violently "stole" $950 is facing up to 13 years in prison. I know the US is big on prison sentences, but isn't there a constitutional amendment that says the punishment should fit the crime?

The way we're headed, holding eye-contact with a woman over 5 seconds will net you the death penalty.