David Shupe-Roderick, 25, and Ryan W. Dupree, 21, are suing the State Of Wyoming — “The Equality State” — over its law defining marriage as “between a male and a female person,” which sounds so much more clinical than just “a man and a woman.” They applied for a marriage license three times at the Laramie County Clerk’s Office, and were denied each time; they claim such discrimination is unconstitutional. Oh wait, they’re representing themselves? Ugh. See you when you’re dismissed. Or when the state adds a constitutional amendment just to put you in your place.
hail marys
Wyoming 20-Year-Olds Sue State Over Marriage Ban. They’re Doomed
Help make sure LGBTQ+ stories are being told...
We can't rely on mainstream media to tell our stories. That's why we don't lock Queerty articles behind a paywall. Will you support our mission with a contribution today?
Cancel anytime · Proudly LGBTQ+ owned and operated
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
Best of luck to these two guys………I wasn’t exactaly sure there actually were two Gays in Wyoming prior to this news…
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
PS: How ironic is it that the motto “The Equality State” is on their quarter??
Rick Brannon
Didn’t the folks in Wyoming kill their gay?
Bobby in Seattle
Let’s just hope these two guys are safe. Just one county over resides the city of Laramie, WYO, where Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered.
Jeff
Screw you Queerty. At least these guys are trying. Imagine if there were 1000 lawsuits in wyoming at the same time.
Devon
@Jeff:
Are there even 1,000 people in Wyoming?
Paula Brooks
Hey lets get them a lawyer….
We can look at this like we are old time OSS agents send aiding to a resistance movement far behind enemy lines….
And with the right aid these two can tie up resources that the haters would use someplace else….
I think with the rassistance…. these guys are good for keeping at least 4 Panzer Division of homophobes busy.
Martin Murray
Good for them.
Screw Queerty’s negative attitude. At least they’re doing something.
Andrew
Fuck you, Queerty. Can’t you try being supportive for once? No wonder there are so many trolls commenting now – they’re following your lead.
DR
Wow. So they proceed pro se and all Queerty can do is make fun of them? At least they’re trying. Hell, how many of us remember Gay, Inc trying to stop the Prop 8 case from moving forward and look how wrong they were… Do I recommend pro se plaintiffs in a case like this, no. So where is Lambda Legal or Shannon Mintner or the other so-called A-List gay legal geniuses to help help these guys out?
Mountainword
Seriously, Queerty, where the hell do you get off being so cynical?
For a website that likes to think it challenges gay stereotypes, you certainly are doing your best to uphold them! Shame on you.
I live in West Virginia – quite possibly one of the last places that will ever legalize gay marriage – but goddammit I’m still going to fight for it. You need to support the community, not be such cunts over it.
HATERS.
Queer
So, who in this story is a 20-year-old?
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
~ Gerald D. Shupe-Roderick, 25, of 1412 S. Greeley Highway No. 69 for felony filing false documentation at 11:43 a.m. Saturday at the Cheyenne Police Department, 2020 Capitol Ave.
~ Plaintiff: Gerald David Shupe-Roderick
Defendants: Wyoming Child Support Services, Robert E Skar, Jodie A Thompson and Angie M Holden
Case Number: 2:2010cv00033
Filed: February 25, 2010
When you first read this case one may have high hopes that a state like Wyoming may actually suprise us by allowing the Gays to get hitched like Iowa did. Don’t know how high we should get our hopes on this one….. If ya do a simple googles search on him, seems Shupe-Roderick has quite a few legal balls in the air at the same time………….
Joe
Queerty, please stop acting like a bitchy, bitter old sarcastic queen.
dave
@Jeff:
Unfortunately, their case is going to set a precedent that others will have to overcome.
Let’s hope it’s dismissed on something procedural and doesn’t become an impediment to people who actually know what they’re doing.
The legal system is not a toy. Your actions can easily impact the lives of others with similar standing.
Dave
@DR:
Most attorneys won’t even represent themselves—I know I wouldn’t.
Pro se representation is usually reserved for nutcase conspiracy theorists and self-educated inmates filing nuisance suits. Even though courts go out of their way to cure pro se litigant’s technical deficiencies, most pro se litigants lose on procedural grounds early into the case.
In this case, that’s probably for the best. A loss on the merits would set a precedent that would need to be overcome.
I’m guessing they can’t find representation for a federal suit right now because most organizations are waiting to see what happens with the Prop 8 decision. There’s really not much point in throwing more money at the issue at the federal level when you’ve already got a great case which could potentially establish a national precedent on appeal
John Culhane
Snark is so very easy. How about some useful input instead? I look into the suit, and how it fits in with the litigation that’s going on (and the suits that have gone before) in my column tomorrow at 365gay.com.
DR
@Dave:
This guys seems well-spoken enough, and it seems to me this is just another case of Gay, Inc trying to avoid getting their hands dirty. They can’t afford a lawyer, one of the plaintiffs has some basic background knowledge of the legal system, and sees a major victory in the Prop 8 case and decides to ride the wave of that. Hardly sounds like the pro se litigants you describe (and which I am used to dealing with).
Quite frankly, this ought to be happening is ALL states with anti-gay marriage laws and amendments, and yet it isn’t. I repeat what I said before, the A List legal teams ought to be helping these guys, period.
Dan
Remember the Nebraska amendment (which bans all recognition of gay couples including domestic partnerships) was struck down at the federal trial level, and then reinstated at the appeal level by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals out of St. Louis – putting it back into effect. The U.S. courts are stacked with 8 years of extreme rightwingers being appointed. Don’t hold your breath for justice in the USA. As a nation founded on slavery, the genocide of Native Americans, and wracked by Civil War, corruption and crime, the USA does not have a good track record of justice. Less than a third of Americans can even explain what the Constitution is, let alone what purpose the three branches of government serve.
JD
Yes, those nonprofit LGBT legal organizations are obligated to exercise absolutely no legal judgment about what may move marriage equality forward. Whenever anyone in the U.S. wants to file a lawsuit, those organizations should take on representation of them, regardless of the consequences! Who do they think they are, anyway? People with decades of legal experience and victories galore, like convicing the Supreme Court to strike down all the sodomy laws in the U.S. and Colorado’s constitutional amendment barring sexual orientation antidiscrimination laws? People who brought and won well-planned marriage cases in Massachusetts and Iowa? Oh yeah, I guess that is them. If you don’t like what they are doing, give money to some other organization. Those organizations are supported financially by people who like their smarts and their track record (like me) and want them to keep on doing that rather than ceding all judgment to non-lawyers who don’t understand the lasting and damaging consequences of bringing unwise litigation. Hey, while we’re at it, let’s insist that free clinics provide whatever medical procedures anyone asks for, regardless of whether it’s medically wise or not. I mean, we shouldn’t have doctors exercising medical judgment either.
Melanie Nathan
DAMN RIGHT they are doomed check this out. Lezgetreal exposes a jailhouse lawyer and arrests and prison of Plaintiff in Wyoming of Lawsuit coupel see my article at
http://lezgetreal.com/2010/08/wyoming-wyoming-marriage-equality-probably-does-not-need-a-jailhouse-lawyer/
Cam
@dave:
Yeah Dave, this is the same kind of thing that HRC and GAY Inc were telling the plaintiffs in the Iowa and MA. Marriage cases, and in the recent case that overturned Prop 8 in CA. They were all against the cases, saying “No, don’t, if you lose you will make things worse.”
If those plaintiffs had listened there would be no legal same sex marriage in any state in the country.
DR
@JD:
The problem with your pompous and holier-than-thou post is that the same feelings were espoused by the gay establishment about Iowa (ooh, we won!), California (yup, won there, too, both in state AND federal court!), and in numerous other states.
This cry of “oh, crap, we might lose” tells me these plaintiffs ain’t sexy enough or the forum isn’t, and either way, that smacks of the elitism preventing middle-America gays from getting the same rights as those on the East and West Coast.
@Melanie Nathan:
Way to eat our own, mudslinger! Instead of encouraging Gay, Inc to get behind these guys, you decide to slam them publicly, releasing information on the web which will most likely be irrelevant to their case. Character assassination, the last bastion of the legally stupid. With friends like you, who needs enemies?
JD
@ CAM and DR
Get your facts right, rather than just attacking organizations you apparently know nothing about. The LGBT nonprofit legal groups did not try to dissuade people from filing suit in Massachusetts or Iowa or in state court in Califoria. To the contrary, the ACLU, Lambda Legal, NCLR, and GLAD were the lawyers who brought and won those lawsuits, which were brought there because of a detailed assessment of the precedent in those states, the judges on the state supreme courts, and the means of amendmening the state constitutions.
Lambda has offices in Chicago, Dallas, and Atlanta and the ACLU has offices in most states. They and NCLR bring lots of cases in the middle of the country (such as the Iowa marriage case and hundreds of cases involving parenting rights, employment nondiscrimination, health care, and rights of youth). It’s just that they bring cases that have a good chance of winning rather than a scattershot of bringing cases wherever, which has more chances of doing harm than good. That’s not coastal elitism, it’s called being strategic and savvy, which is the only way we have a chance of winning in the courts.
Melanie Nathan
Everyone has a right to litigate for themselves or otherwise. By the same token the activists such as myself – who have personally sacrificed in a fight for the collective all of the LGBT community have as much of a right to express our views and point out the dangers. This expose by me, has nothing to do with rights or felonies – via demonizing the players – but has everything to do with questioning purity in motivation – keeping our community fully informed before the BIGOTS do it for us and asking the community to think things out with the collective good in mind. I spoke to David and he told me he did not call a single organization. I believe that he should have done so before filing. My first article called on the groups to help represent him. I called and asked him if he wanted help and he said yes. However he was not forthcoming with me enough to tell me he had been at this in pro per thing for a while. So you can all criticize me for my expose as much as you want – I have as much right to inform my readers as they do to file on their own!!!
DR
@JD:
You’re rewriting history. They gay groups all opposed the litigation, especially in California, at the outset of those suits. And don’t even get me started on all the disrespect heaped upon the lawyers in the Prop 8 trial; some even accused Boise and Olsen of trying to throw the case and create bad law!
I volunteered with the ACLU many many years ago, and found that cherry-picking forums was very common. That needs to stop and it needs to stop now. Citizens shouldn’t have to wait until Gay, Inc thinks it’s the “right time” to file lawsuits, these laws need to go and we’ve got great momentum right now. That’s like the Obamabots talking about him not wasting his political capital because “now isn’t the right time”.
Grow some spines, please, it’s ridiculous to expect every citizen in the US to wait because Gay, Inc is fueled by a bunch of cowards. The worst that happens is that this case goes nowhere, not like it would be the first legal setback for the GLBT community.
@Melanie Nathan:
Whether or not one of the plaintiffs has been involved justice system is IRRELEVANT. There was no need to demonize him to make your point. You have now turned someone willing to actually stand up for his rights into the bad guy, and that’s unforgivable in my opinion. You can hide behind the veneer of “he wasn’t honest” all you like, but whether or not he represented himself in the past in child custody proceedings or a proceeding against the DOC has no bearing on the fact he’s willing to do the right thing and stand up for himself in his home state. It’s none of your business, it doesn’t make him any less of a victim of the law in this case.
It’s nonsense like this which is a total embarrassment to the GLBT legal community.
Melanie Nathan
@JD the difference between being a coward or not is one’s willingness to stand up for Truth and put their name on it. I note you have failed us. That said its easy for you talk down to those who are true activists – those who believe in the collective good rather than that of the individual. If you look at my work you will see I too have been critical of GAY Inc. The problem in my opinion is that we are striving for piecemeal legislation with no unifying benchmark such as an amendment to the Civil Rights Act. Do a search with my name on LezGetreal and you will see where my head is at.
I take each instance in its context and have done the same here. You seem to opine with one great big unproductive generalization.
Answer this question:- If someone believes -not if its right or wrong in itself- but that the course taken by an the individual permeates and hinders that of the larger collective minority – based on analysis of experts OUTSIDE of GAY Inc. and reports the fact which draws suspicion of motivation within the realm of collective consciousness- does one NOT have the DUTY to report and speak out. Remember I am a BLOGGER not a Journalist. MELANIE NATHAN
JD
@ DR — Excuse me, but you’re the one rewriting history. The LGBT legal groups absolutely did not oppose the cases in Massachusetts or Iowa or the original California suit. They FILED them. This was not because others were there at the outset. The legal groups planned them on their own. Sure people can file any suit they want — but the reality is that if they lose they will hurt other people, not just themselves, since legal precedent established in losing cases negatively affects other people’s future cases. You’re just ignoring the way the legal system actually works.
And what is wrong with cherry-picking cases best calculated to win? That is not cowardice, it’s being smart.
@ Melanie — I think you meant to respond to DR, not to me.
Patrick in Wyoming
@PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS:
To all responding to this posting. One things needs to be said first. There are many many gay people in our state of 503K. I myself am born and raised in this state, went to UW (during the time of Laramie’s wonderful time of hate and murder,) I have never had an issue with anyone other than people who have never been to or lived in Wyoming. All anyone can see is a gay man tied to a fence 12 years ago. Can’t a place where crime is rare move away from its bad past. I know many people like second chances, so where is Wyoming’s?
I have moved away, seen the world, and chose to live my life back in Wyoming. The fact this case is making noise is fantastic. However these young men go about it is not the case! They are doing it! They are attempting something which is getting attention in a positive way. Not in the way Wyoming was so shamed for. Can we rest the whole Wyo hates gays thing. There is an amazing large community here. Do understand its not a city based state, its still part of the USA and should be respected as such. I applaud these men, and hope things go well so myself and any other of my Wyoming “family” can be on the forefront of the positive gay movement.
Syl
Why are you all so surprised? It’s well-known that a lot of cowboys are gay! It’s like, an unspoken reality of cowboy culture! Especially the rodeo cowboys!
Best of luck to these two! I hope they get a sympathetic judge. They’ll probably lose at first but win in appeal. I have a hunch that the higher up you go the liberal the judges are in pretty much any state. Plus, if they’re lifetime appointees, they might say “Hey, we can see the writing on the wall, that’s the way the trend is going, bitches”.
Melanie Nathan
Note Fresnobee has added to the uncertainty about shupe:
“”I’ve tried to kind of not rock the boat, so to speak, but there comes a time in everyone’s life when there are things that are wrong and you have a moral duty to stand up and you have to advocate for what’s right,” Shupe-Roderick said Tuesday. “I think Ryan and I agree that this is something that is wrong, and it’s something that needs to be changed.” This statement does not make any sense for someone that has already conducted 3 in pro per plaintiff litigation cases.
then perhaps some doubt about his claim that he applied 3X for a marriage license:-
However, Laramie County Clerk Debbye Balcaen Lathrop said she never met with Shupe-Roderick or Dupree on the issue and could find no one in her office who knows anything about denying a marriage license to the men.
We’re totally in the dark about this,” Balcaen Lathrop said, adding she didn’t know how her office would respond if it received such an application. It hasn’t happened in the nearly 16 years she’s been in office, she said.
DR
@JD:
Let’s refresh your memory.
In May 2009, Boise and Olsen were hired to challenge Prop 8 in Federal Court.
In May 2009, the Human Rights Campaign, Log Cabin Republicans, PFLAG, the ACLU, Freedom to Marry, Lambda Legal,National Center for Lesbian Rights,the Equality Federation AND GLAAD openly denounced the lawsuit, claiming that the lawsuit was premature. Here’s the PDF link from the ACLU:
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/lgbt/ballot_box_20090527.pdf
Don’t sit there and lie about the willingness of these groups to work with these lawsuits, because a simple Google search shows that they did not. They didn’t file anything, they openly opposed the Prop 8 suit!
In June of 2009, AFTER the suit had been filed, there were grumblings from these groups that maybe this was ok. Over the next couple of months, some of them even had the audacity to demand they be allowed to join in the lawsuit they previously denounced. Olsen and Boise smacked them down real quick after being told they’d get no support when the suit was filed.
http://www.queerty.com/remember-when-hrc-aclu-bashed-the-perry-prop-8-lawsuit-20100804/
http://www.queerty.com/is-filing-a-lawsuit-against-prop-8-actually-the-worst-idea-ever-20090527/
As for cherry picking, it’s not smart unless you have no balls. I’m fed up with Gay, Inc’s lack of courage to proceed in courts. There are almost 40 states with laws or constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage, and Gay, Inc is sitting on its hands actively discouraging lawsuits until they realize the plaintiffs might win, then they think it’s a good idea. Gay, Inc speaks with a forked tongue.
@Melanie Nathan:
With the exception of one state, all the marriage equality victories have come through the courts. Piecemeal lawsuits can work; this idea that we have to wait for the US Supreme Court to hand down one big glorious ruling giving all us fags the right to marry is flawed on multiple levels:
1. The USSCT could limit the holding to California only, then we’re back at square one and only one state gets the rights we all deserve.
2. The USSCt could distinguish Loving versus Virginia on the grounds that same-sex marriage is NOT a fundamental right as hetero marriage is.
3. We have no idea how the court will swing on this case; we probably have Breyer, Ginsburg. Sotomayor is a likely vote as well. Kagan is totally untested except for her pointed opposition to GLBT equality while working for Obama. Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts will be “no” votes. Kennedy is a swing vote.
In my jurisdiction, PA, the Senate Judiciary Committee just tabled a proposed constitutional amendment which would bar same-sex marriage. We do, however, have a law on the books which should be challenged BEFORE this amendment can be passed. But no, the so-called legal experts, who totally dropped the ball on the Prop 8 case, are sitting on their hands hoping the USSCt will come down from on high and fix everything.
PATHETIC. This is why we have no rights, we have no leadership and too many apologists rewriting history and justifying the utter lack of leadership.
DR
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/lgbt/…..090527.pdf
This says it all about the willingness of “Gay, Inc” to support the Prop 8 lawsuit. They openly opposed it.
DR
@JD:
Let’s refresh your memory.
In May 2009, Boise and Olsen were hired to challenge Prop 8 in Federal Court.
In May 2009, the Human Rights Campaign, Log Cabin Republicans, PFLAG, the ACLU, Freedom to Marry, Lambda Legal,National Center for Lesbian Rights,the Equality Federation AND GLAAD openly denounced the lawsuit, claiming that the lawsuit was premature. Here’s the PDF link from the ACLU:
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/lgbt/…..090527.pdf
Don’t sit there and lie about the willingness of these groups to work with these lawsuits, because a simple Google search shows that they did not. They didn’t file anything, they openly opposed the Prop 8 suit!
In June of 2009, AFTER the suit had been filed, there were grumblings from these groups that maybe this was ok. Over the next couple of months, some of them even had the audacity to demand they be allowed to join in the lawsuit they previously denounced. Olsen and Boise smacked them down real quick after being told they’d get no support when the suit was filed.
http://www.queerty.com/remembe…..-20100804/
http://www.queerty.com/is-fili…..-20090527/
As for cherry picking, it’s not smart unless you have no courage. I’m fed up with Gay, Inc’s lack of courage to proceed in courts. There are almost 40 states with laws or constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage, and Gay, Inc is sitting on its hands actively discouraging lawsuits until they realize the plaintiffs might win, then they think it’s a good idea. Gay, Inc speaks with a forked tongue.
@Melanie Nathan:
With the exception of one state, all the marriage equality victories have come through the courts. Piecemeal lawsuits can work; this idea that we have to wait for the US Supreme Court to hand down one big glorious ruling giving all us the right to marry is flawed on multiple levels:
1. The USSCT could limit the holding to California only, then we’re back at square one and only one state gets the rights we all deserve.
2. The USSCt could distinguish Loving versus Virginia on the grounds that same-sex marriage is NOT a fundamental right as hetero marriage is.
3. We have no idea how the court will swing on this case; we probably have Breyer, Ginsburg. Sotomayor is a likely vote as well. Kagan is totally untested except for her pointed opposition to GLBT equality while working for Obama. Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts will be “no” votes. Kennedy is a swing vote.
In my jurisdiction, PA, the Senate Judiciary Committee just tabled a proposed constitutional amendment which would bar same-sex marriage. We do, however, have a law on the books which should be challenged BEFORE this amendment can be passed. But no, the so-called legal experts, who totally dropped the ball on the Prop 8 case, are sitting on their hands hoping the USSCt will come down from on high and fix everything.
This is why we have no rights, we have no leadership and too many apologists rewriting history and justifying the utter lack of leadership.
(sorry for the double post, I think the first one was autoflagged due to the sarcastic use of a word Queerty don’t like)
Melanie Nathan
issues & cases > case docket > prop 8 legal challenge > about the prop 8 legal challenge
Banner Prop 8 Legal Challenge
About the Prop 8 Legal Challenge
On May 26, 2009, in a 6-1 decision, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, the ballot measure that eliminated the right of same sex couples to marry. At the same time, all of the 7 justices ruled that the more than 18,000 marriages that took place between June 16 and November 4, 2008 continue to be fully valid and recognized by the state of California. All of the 7 justices also affirmed the Court’s prior holding that sexual orientation is subject to the highest level of protection under the California Constitution.
On November 5, 2008, NCLR, the ACLU, Lambda Legal, Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP, the Law Office of David C. Codell, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP filed a petition asking the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8. Our petition argued that Proposition 8 is invalid because the California Constitution does not permit the constitutional rights of a minority to be stripped away by a simple majority vote.
A record-breaking number of religious organizations, civil rights groups, and labor unions, along with numerous California municipal governments, bar associations, leading legal scholars, and others filed briefs urging the Court to invalidate Proposition 8.
The Court heard oral argument on March 5, 2009. http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issue_caseDocket_prop8legalchallenge_About
DR
Melanie, that’s the case from the state court, NOT the appeal court. If you don’t know the difference, you shouldn’t comment. The ACLU, among others, was in total opposition to the Prop 8 federal case, please stop trying, along with others, to rewrite history.
Paula Brooks
DR…. Mel and LGR is doing some serious journalism here… We have talked first hand to the couple once…. and after we uncovered all the other suits and Mr Shupe-Roderick somewhat shady background… We contacted them again to ask them about what we uncovered…
While Mr Shupe-Roderick was quite willing to answer our initial questions… he has not been so willing to explaining the other details we have found…. including the filing fraudulent documents charge in May and why the Laramie County Clerk’s office is saying they have never heard of this couple before.
We are currently waiting to hear from the local DA on the filing fraudulent documents charge.
All Mel is trying to do is say slow down folks… because this may not be what it appeared on the surface to be at first look.
we’d love to call these guys hero’s… but we are not going to do that till we know this is not some kind of a scam.
DR
Gee, I wonder why they don’t want to speak with you any more? I would certainly advise my clients to avoid you like the plague!
Seems to me with the way you and Melanie are commenting on every blog you can, I have wonder who’s really trying to make a name for themselves?
JD
@DR
Yes, the natlional legal and political LGBT groups originally opposed going into federal court. I didn’t say differently. I said you were wrong that they opposed the filing of the Iowa and Massachuetts state cases and the California state cases, all of which they filed and won.
They opposed going to federal court because of concern about the risk of a losss, issuing the statement you referenced BEFORE public announcement of the Perry case. After the Perry case was filed, they urged developoment of a factual record (which Judge Walker agreed should be done but which Olson and Boies, and the lawyers for the Prop. 8 proponents originally opposed) and sought to intervene to help create such a record — which they thought was the best way to proceed given that the case was going forward and which they had done in the Romer v. Evans case and in the state marriage cases in Iowa and Hawaaii. While their intervention was opposed, they thereafter worked to help the Olson-Boise team identify experts and prepare the factual case Judge Walker insisted on, they filed friend of the court briefs in suppaort of the case (available on NCLR’s website), and they have been on good terms with the Perry lawyers and plaintiffs. This is not hypocrisy — it is exercising good judgment about what to do to bring about the best outcome possible when a case is proceeding even if you originally had concerns about it.
In any event, the LGBT legal groups are hardly sitting on their hands. There are scores of suits pending filed by them advancing LGBT rights. They have amazing track records of successes because they proceed strategically, understanding that just because something is wrong, a lawsuit may not be the best way to try to fix it, since losses — like a ruling that gay people do not have a right to marry and that discrimination against them is okay — could set the movement back decades.
Melanie Nathan
DR I have a name – don’t need to make one! How about you reveal yours? But keep hiding if that makes you feel better or if that is what gives you license to be confrontational.
Paula Brooks
DR… I propose that if your so sure we are wrong…. that you send them a check…. to get them a lawyer…
Till then its you who talking out of your ass
Paula Brooks
Our initial intention was to try to help theses guys…. but before we jumped, we did some due diligence… just like any of the attorney’s we were going to ask to help these guys would do before they would take the case….
I can’t help you have a big mad on for Big Gay Inc…. but DR your being very irresponsible in trying to defend these guys in light of what we have turned up.
Melanie Nathan
Okay more exposed see lezgetreal
we persisted and now more facts emerge
http://lezgetreal.com/2010/08/wyoming-gay-couple-con-exposed-by-lezgetreal/
This guy may not even be gay… please read
DR
Wow, what support. At least we know who the real dangers to the cause are. Good to know. Cowards, quislings, and kapos, oh my.
Melanie Nathan
DR, Your comments have no relevance – because you are nameless. At least we the gals at Lezgetreal are willing to put our names to everything we do or say. True cowards hide behind initials. What or who are you afraid of? Hopefully one day you will have the courage to stand behind a name – right now you are letters of the alphabet with no voice other than to give us an additional forum… Best, mel
DR
You can say what you want about the irrelevancy of my comments, but that doesn’t make you any less a traitor to GLBT causes, nor does it make my comments any less true from a legal standpoint.
I can only hope that one day you realize that it’s muckrakers like yourself who are doing just as much, if not more, damage to our movement as the folks over at Westboro.
Videe
Health only: http://vitom.freehostia.com/
VITOM
Vitom
Michael Ejercito
@dave:
Whe Luis Melendez-Diazwas was convicted of drug trafficking, he did not refuse to appeal because a court decision in his favor could serve as precedent for overturning convictions of murderers on death row, or a possible court decision against him would inhibit other criminal defendants from making that claim.
@DR:
Yes, they did.
Of course, at the time the cat was already out of the bag, as there was then a similar pending case in Oklahoma .
kitty martin
just wanted to give you some insight on david shupe roderick .i am the employer/roommate that he filed suit on. i hired david to work at my company and gave him a place to live when he got out of prision.he seemed so sincere about wanting to get a fresh start.i trusted him enough to put him on my co.check book to pay my bills.by the time it was over, i lost my home,car,bussiness,and reputation in a town i loved living in.he wrote bad checks all over town,forged mine and my husbands sinatures on anything he could get his hands on.i kicked him out of my home and fired him. then he tried sueing us for over$16,000.i had to leave wyoming to try and get back on my feet.my husband and i are still struggling to pay our debts.david is gay when it suits him.if it will make him look like a victim it suits him.or if he is trying to pick his next victim to scam then it might suit him to be gay.all i am trying to say is that people dont need this guy promoting their cause.beware if you have any dealings with him.