HIV problem with dishonest partner

[Flower]

I SAY PROSECUTE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES :-)

 

>I'm not sure what a court would say about a plaintiff that did

>not take any steps to protect himself, when all he had to do

>was insist on wearing a condom. This is basic. If you put

>yourself at risk, should you then be able to ask the court to

>put all the onus on the other party, whether he lied or not.

 

Well, there is some logic in what you say, but the court or jury in a civil case will have to decide:"was there a reasonable reliance on the misrepresentation?" In a committed relationship, I personally think a civil jury would find in the Wisc's favor. Love is blind and this is a lot different than if Wisc had a one night stand and "relied" on a stranger saying he was hiv-.

 

The criminal case would be succesful also, IMO. The question there is whether the poz lover knew he was poz at the time and misrepresented his hiv status. It's the knowledge and the lying that makes both cases meritorious, but in the civil case, the jury has to be covinced that the reliance by Wisc was reasonable. The proof of the lover's knowledge could come from subpenaed medical 'scripts of his drug regimine if he was on meds yet at the time of the misrepresentation, of clinic med records, or simply the fact that he may have told others--it can be hard to prove knowledge, depending on the circumstances, but here it sounds like a good case.

 

As to someone's reference to OJ's case, there is no doubt in my mind it was pure jury exhonoration in the criminal case--they were looking for a way to find him not guilty and the prosecution--Mizz Marsha--did a crappy job of prosecuting the case--IMHO.

[Luv2play]

RE: I SAY PROSECUTE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES :-)

 

Flower, since you are a lawyer, I would like to ask you what a jury might say when, as in this case, the plaintiff has admitted that he continued to be tested for HIV regularly, regardless of the circumstances during his 2 year relationship with his ex. This suggests to me that, although he was in a so-called committed relationship, he was concerned about his own HIV status. And if so, why did he agree to have unprotected sex with his lover. What about his own responsibility not to infect his partner. He has claimed he was unaware of the incubation period before HIV would show up in an antibody test. Yet he was willing to forego the use of condoms. Doesn't this show a disregard for his partner's health rather than the other way around? Just wondering.

[+ Charlie]

I think that the original poster, like many people who ask for advice in emotional situations, does not want advice but reinforcement for what he has already decided to do. That's why his story has changed somewhat as he retells it in response to advice to be cautious. It may give him--and you?--emotional satisfaction to retaliate with a lawsuit against his ex, but when the shit hits the fan, he is likely to be splattered with more than he expects, and he may wish he hadn't listened only to what he wanted to hear.

[Guest in yer face]

I hope you are prepared for what a trial will mean. You will be treated by his defense attorney in the same manor that a rape victem would be. If you think its just going to be you sitting on the stand saying your side, think again:

 

1. Can you prove that you didn't know that he was HIV positive? It was a period of two whole years after all. Wasn't he taking meds?

 

2. Can you prove that you are not simply on the stand as an act of revenge by a jilted lover? His attorney is going to portray you this way, and you will be questioned EXTENSIVELY by him. And you being in Wisconsin is going to make it easy to find a jury that just thinks of BOTH of you as a couple of perverts, and not really care either way. Remember, regardless of the truth, the jury is still the deciding factor.

 

3. Can you even prove that you had unsafe sex? It will be your word against his, no witnesses and you are not positive now, therefore no concrete proof. And your most likely won't be enough.

 

4. Are you ready to be portrayed as a pervert in the right wing Wisconsin media? Are you ready to face the jury again and again as he goes through his appeals.

 

5. Even if you win, he will probably keep on doing the same monstrous bullshit that hes doing now, so you won't stop him.

 

6. You are most likely going to make alot of enimies. I suspect you are in a smaller city, and the gay community is very tight. They are all going to know who you are, and it may make it hard to even get laid. As youve seen on this board, this is an issue that people are very opinionated about. People that you might have thought of as very good good friends could turn you.

 

I don't say this for any other reason than to make sure that you really think it through. Personally, I would just call him one last time, and let hime know how close he came to going to jail, and just leave it at that. You are fine, you are lucky, AND, whether you think so or not, there were 2 people in the room. You could of used protection, or threw his ass out of the bed.

[Guest]

I believe in standing up to bullies, including lawyers. The best you can do is to tell the truth and let the jury decide. Even in the worst-case scenario (you lose both criminal and civil cases), some good will have come of it. Your ex will be exposed as the unrepentant HIV spreader, liar, and cheat he is. He will have to spend $$ on lawyers for his defense. What kind of a society would we have to live in if crime victims were afraid to testify because of possible bullying by criminal defense lawyers (especially in sexually charged cases such as rape).

I don't think you'd be ostracized by the gay community for bringing up these charges. Quite to the contrary, I think you'd gain a lot of respect. Of course, if you're in the closet, the trial will surely bring you out. However, if the poster lived with the ex for two years, I think we can safely assume everybody knows he's gay.

[VaHawk]

>Your ex will be

>exposed as the unrepentant HIV spreader, liar, and cheat he

>is.

 

The last time I looked lying and cheating on a spouse were not criminal offenses. If lying was a crime you would have to lock up the entire advertising industry. Where is it stated anywhere in this entire thread that this "so called criminal" spread AIDS to anyone? Certainly not the author of the thread as he, himself states he has tested negative for the entire two years he has been having unprotected sex, AT HIS OWN DECISION with this guy.

 

>He will have to spend $$ on lawyers for his defense.

 

And so will the "alleged victim" in a civil suit. And if he loses he'll probably have to pay court costs plus the other guy's attorney fees (one can only hope).

 

>What kind of a society would we have to live in if crime

>victims were afraid to testify because of possible bullying by

>criminal defense lawyers (especially in sexually charged cases

>such as rape).

 

What does unprotected consensual sex have anything to do with rape? And btw, rape is a crime of violence, domination, and control and has very little, if anything, to do with sex! This really does sound like a "male chauvinist pig" kind of statement, and implies that you have never personally known a vicitim of rape. And yes, I have known both female and male victims.

 

I'm sorry, but I just can't seem to summon up any kind of sympathy for this "so called victim". It seems that some feel we should get out the rusty nails and a couple pieces of wood to make a cross. x(

[Luv2play]

Unicorn, you really are a piece of work! You say that even if Wisconsin loses his case, he will still have the satisfaction of seeing his ex-lover humiliated. I don't think so. If he loses, it will be Wisc who will be humiliated because the jury will not have believed him. We also have to wonder what role his ex-friend will play, since he has already sided with his ex-lover, and may do so in any trial as well. The jury will take this into account too. And we have no idea what other witnesses the ex-lover might call. I repeat my advice, think long and hard before launching a court case that may backfire.

 

:-(

[Guest in yer face]

I'll be interested in hearing how this turns out. I'll keep my ears posted to the Wisconsin news, and be sure to forward this conversation left on an ESCORT NEWS GROUP to the defense. Perhaps some of the escorts "Wisconsin" most likely hired during the time he was in a relationship will turn up.

 

I'm actually not serious about doing that. Just making one other point that already been made. We don't know shit about this guy, their relationship, or what really happened. I find it supicious that hes on an escort newsgroup trying to talk about this. It seems that hes just looking for some revenge and some drama.

 

For example, their mutual friend turned on him. Why? He acts like he doenst know, but couldnt their have been some harrasment, or even stalking going on? And what about my previous question? How do we know that this guy didn't know that his partner was positive. Perhaps he really did know, and is just using this group as a sounding board to see if he can't make a case out of it. HMMM. See, this is why we have trial by jury. I'd also like to point out to Wisconsin that he can be counter sued for defense lawyer costs if it turns out that his claims are bogus.

 

 

>I believe in standing up to bullies, including lawyers. The

>best you can do is to tell the truth and let the jury decide.

>Even in the worst-case scenario (you lose both criminal and

>civil cases), some good will have come of it. Your ex will be

>exposed as the unrepentant HIV spreader, liar, and cheat he

>is. He will have to spend $$ on lawyers for his defense.

>What kind of a society would we have to live in if crime

>victims were afraid to testify because of possible bullying by

>criminal defense lawyers (especially in sexually charged cases

>such as rape).

>I don't think you'd be ostracized by the gay community for

>bringing up these charges. Quite to the contrary, I think

>you'd gain a lot of respect. Of course, if you're in the

>closet, the trial will surely bring you out. However, if the

>poster lived with the ex for two years, I think we can safely

>assume everybody knows he's gay.

[bluenix]

Best post of the thread, IMHO. Just in case you were wondering if anybody noticed.

 

Sometimes the gas-bagging here can be incredible. I especially like all those fantastic assertions that begin with, "I'm sure...."

[+ Lucky]

Okay, woodie, good point. In San Francisco where the police department brass has been indicted for a coverup, the defense lawyers in fajitagate are already trashing the reputation of the two victims the young cops beat up.

[Flower]

> It was directed to those people

>who opine that someone should be prosecuted on the basis that

>they are HIV+ and continue to have sex.

 

VaHawk, while I know you would NEVER point the finger at lil' ol' flower, please make a distinction between those (if any) that wanted to prosecute "on the basis that the BF was HIV+ and continued to have sex" as opposed to those that were very critical and encouraged prosecution on the basis--NOT THAT HE WAS POS, but that he LIED about his hiv status and encouraged unprotected sex knowing he was pos and KNOWINGLY MISREPRESENTED to Wisc that pos status in order to bare back.

 

That is much worse, IMHO than knowing you are poz and either not saying or even denying, but insist on safe and protected sex, although the latter is still deceitful in that it pevents the partner from making the choice as to acceptable risk.

 

In the original scenario, it is clearly the deceit and misrepresentation that was criticized by Flower :* and most others, and NOT that "an hiv+ person has had the audacity to partake in sex."

 

Just to make my position absolutely clear, I have knowingly had protected sex with 1 HIV+ person and probably UNKNOWINGLY a few others. The HIV+ status is NOT the crime nor the criticism--it is only the deceit and misrepresentation, if the facts presented here are true.

 

Sero discordant couples should be able to, and many do, have a complete and fulfilling sex life without sero-conversion of the negative partner--if they are smart about it :+

[Guest]

>For example, their mutual friend turned on him. Why? He acts

>like he doenst know, but couldnt their have been some

>harrasment, or even stalking going on? And what about my

>previous question? How do we know that this guy didn't know

>that his partner was positive. Perhaps he really did know, and

>is just using this group as a sounding board to see if he

>can't make a case out of it. HMMM. See, this is why we have

>trial by jury. I'd also like to point out to Wisconsin that he

>can be counter sued for defense lawyer costs if it turns out

>that his claims are bogus.

 

I don't believe, and I don't think a jury will believe, that an HIV negative man will have unprotected sex with an HIV positive lover unless he was intentionally misled. If it turns out the original poster is still HIV negative, I think most people would find his testimony more credible than that of his ex. (I do realize that there are some whackos out there who go to BB parties, but the poster had a LTR, so I don't think people will put him in the whacko category). If they end up both being HIV positive and have the same strain of virus, same story. If the ex claims our original poster gave HIV to him, old medical records could document who was infected first. (If the ex refused to release his old medical records, his credibility would be shot).

Although I disagree with the US system (I believe losers should pay legal costs of both sides), the ex would usually have to show the suit was baseless in order to recoup his legal fees. Most personal injuries working for plaintiffs take cases on a contigency basis, meaning the original poster won't have to pay if he loses.

DA's don't take cases unless they think they have a good chance of winning, or at least getting a plea bargain. As for a prior poster's comment in my comparison of this case to a rape, the similarity I alluded to was that in these types of cases defense attorneys try to pin the blame on the victim. The similarity was not with respect to physical force being used in both cases.

[Flower]

RE: I SAY PROSECUTE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES :-)

 

>Flower, since you are a lawyer, I would like to ask you what

>a jury might say when, as in this case, the plaintiff has

>admitted that he continued to be tested for HIV regularly,

>regardless of the circumstances during his 2 year relationship

>with his ex.

 

One thing that Flower :* has learned in dealing with juries, is never ever bet on what "they might or will say" in a particular case, although that is certainly we do when we decide to go to trial

 

That being said Flower :* suggests that these circumstances are just as susceptable to a conclusion that Wisc was sexually active and despite the alleged committed relationship, still wanted to take precautions to the extent testing allowed. Also, it is reasonable to assume that Wisc was also sexually active B4 the relationship, so there is at least a 6-12 month "tail" on prior conduct that might be a concern to both of them.

 

Further, it seems reasonable to me that despite the committed relationship, erring on the safe side is smarter, and testing might be reasonable. Understand, I'm playing the devil's advocate }( in this reply, since juries are so subjective and unpredictable in some cases.

 

Obviously, there are other conclusions that can be drawn and that would really depend on what evidence came up as to both of them, and yours are also reasonable, but not necissarily ones I would draw if I were on the jury presented with the limited evidence we have here.

 

And again, neither the criminal case nor the civil case could get off the ground unless there was evidence of deceit, lying and misrepresentation and that Wisc was BEING REASONALBLE IN RELYING ON SAME.

 

It is the "REASONABLE RELIANCE" requirement that might protect the BF from conviction in states where the laws are not specifically tailored to prosecuting someone "who intentionally misrepresents his hiv+ status for purposes of inducing sex" , as many now provide.

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

>VaHawk, while I know you would NEVER point

>the finger at lil' ol' flower, please make a distinction

>between those (if any) that wanted to prosecute "on the basis

>that the BF was HIV+ and continued to have sex" as opposed to

>those that were very critical and encouraged prosecution on

>the basis--NOT THAT HE WAS POS, but that he LIED about his

>hiv status and encouraged unprotected sex knowing he was pos

>and KNOWINGLY MISREPRESENTED to Wisc that pos status in order

>to bare back.

 

I had been contemplating pointing out the same distinction to VaHawk but was unsure how I could do it without offending him or making him more upset (he appears to be exceptionally passionate about this issue). But you made the point far better than I could have.

 

(I had put additional points here but have opted instead to create another thread.)

[Guest JT]

>I don't believe, and I don't think a jury will believe, that

>an HIV negative man will have unprotected sex with an HIV

>positive lover unless he was intentionally misled.

 

Unicorn,

 

I don't in any way imply here that wisconguy is one of them but the existence of "bug-chasers" and seroconversion parties are well recgnized by the public health communities.

 

JT

[Guest]

>>I don't believe, and I don't think a jury will believe,

>that

>>an HIV negative man will have unprotected sex with an HIV

>>positive lover unless he was intentionally misled.

>

>Unicorn,

>

>I don't in any way imply here that wisconguy is one of them

>but the existence of "bug-chasers" and seroconversion parties

>are well recgnized by the public health communities.

>

>JT

 

The sexual partner at a seroconversion party is not a lover. This is an entirely different situation, which will be obvious to most jurors.

[Guest JT]

>The sexual partner at a seroconversion party is not a lover.

>This is an entirely different situation, which will be obvious

>to most jurors.

 

Maybe...

 

Personally I don't have as much confidence as you regarding:

 

1) what the defense could do to wisconguy's credibility regarding his sexual practices, e.g. if there are people out there who would be willing to become seroconverted by someone they don't even know, would it be too hard to believe someone willingly to become seroconverted by someone whom they LOVE?

2) whether the jurors would believe wisconguy's side of the story since so far, there remains some questions to be answered (see another post of mine above);

 

JT

[Guest in yer face]

Yes, well here is the crux of the argument. You have NO proof that they actually engaged in unsafe behavior. If I was a defense attorney, I would argue that the plaintiff was well aware that he was positive, and they only engaged in safe sex. Then, when the relationship went sour, he decided to get revenge by claiming that he never knew, and that this guy had tried to give him AIDS. Then, I would call in the best friend to say htat the plaintiff did indeed know, because they had discussed it.

 

There is no case here.

 

 

 

 

>I don't believe, and I don't think a jury will believe, that

>an HIV negative man will have unprotected sex with an HIV

>positive lover unless he was intentionally misled. If it

>turns out the original poster is still HIV negative, I think

>most people would find his testimony more credible than that

>of his ex. (I do realize that there are some whackos out

>there who go to BB parties, but the poster had a LTR, so I

>don't think people will put him in the whacko category). If

>they end up both being HIV positive and have the same strain

>of virus, same story. If the ex claims our original poster

>gave HIV to him, old medical records could document who was

>infected first. (If the ex refused to release his old medical

>records, his credibility would be shot).

>Although I disagree with the US system (I believe losers

>should pay legal costs of both sides), the ex would usually

>have to show the suit was baseless in order to recoup his

>legal fees. Most personal injuries working for plaintiffs

>take cases on a contigency basis, meaning the original poster

>won't have to pay if he loses.

>DA's don't take cases unless they think they have a good

>chance of winning, or at least getting a plea bargain. As for

>a prior poster's comment in my comparison of this case to a

>rape, the similarity I alluded to was that in these types of

>cases defense attorneys try to pin the blame on the victim.

>The similarity was not with respect to physical force being

>used in both cases.

[woodlawn]

>Yes, well here is the crux of the argument. You have NO proof

>that they actually engaged in unsafe behavior. If I was a

>defense attorney, I would argue that the plaintiff was well

>aware that he was positive, and they only engaged in safe sex.

>Then, when the relationship went sour, he decided to get

>revenge by claiming that he never knew, and that this guy had

>tried to give him AIDS. Then, I would call in the best friend

>to say htat the plaintiff did indeed know, because they had

>discussed it.

>

>There is no case here.

 

 

You are simply making a bunch of assumptions without having any facts on which to base them. For all you know, questioning of the defendant's friends by the cops would reveal that he bragged to fifty different people that he tricked the complainant into having unprotected sex even though he knew he was infected. You think there would be a case then? There are too many cases to count in which the defendant would never have been convicted if he hadn't shot off his mouth about what he did or what he was planning to do. Happens every day.

 

 

>As

>for

>>a prior poster's comment in my comparison of this case to a

>>rape, the similarity I alluded to was that in these types of

>>cases defense attorneys try to pin the blame on the victim.

>>The similarity was not with respect to physical force being

>>used in both cases.

 

The similarity is far more basic. In most rape trials the issue is either identity (of the rapist) or consent (of the complainant). In either situation the testimony of the complainant and his or her credibility are crucial to a conviction.

[Guest wisconguy]

I've been out of the mix, reading the responses. Here's an update and the answer to some questions.

 

How did I find out he had HIV? He was hiding his drugs from me. When confronted, he admitted his status reluctantly. So, I locked him out(since we were still living together), and after doing research and finding that the drugs were for HIV patients, I went through his stuff and found copies of his medical records, including his T Cell count, etc. I also found the papers from the original diagnosis, which is why I know when he found out. Since we both had Medical power of attorney over each other, I verified the facts with his doctor's nurse( a long process of Proving my power of attorney to them, but it was done).

 

Second, what ended me up on the escort board? I used to hire escorts prior to meeting my ex, as a matter of fact, I met my ex when I hired him from a major Chicago Escort Agency!! A fact I wasn't going to bring up, simply because it adds a whole new issue here. Yes he was escorting, with HIV, before I met him, for several years!

 

Now the update: The DA is presenting me as a witness using my initials only, so my name won't be brought into the public. I presented my privacy concerns after reading many of your helpful and not so helpful advice. The DA is investigating, does have the medical records, and has several videos my partner and I had made of ourselves having intercourse (unprotected). The case is moving forward and they are currently working on the papers to arrest him, which is a little harder than normal, since he is living in another state now. I've been assured he will be arrested very soon. From there, the DA will talk to him and decide how to proceed. They are taking this VERY seriously. The information is also being passed to the Illinois DA's office as well, since they believe he may have put many clients at risk as well. He may be prosecuted more than once.

I'll keep you up to date if anyone's interested, Oh, by the way, no civil suit, since he doesn't have anything of value anyways, and he most likely will be going to jail.

Wisconguy

[Guest]

Congratulations! I, for one, am very interested in the outcome of this case. I hope the DA's successful. (And I hope that mine was among the useful advice).

[Guest in yer face]

Wow, so you went so far as to get power of attorney with each ther, which means you had most likely signed all the contracts to be as maaried as possible, yet you didnt bother to get tested together. Even though you know he had escorted. Not to mention video tapes!

 

I have to admit, its a really fucked up situation. While I for one cant get past the fact that you had some responsibility in this yourself, the guy sounds like a real freak. Im glad to hear that you are not positive, but I gotta tell you, selling thiso ne to a jury is going to be tough.

 

 

 

 

>I've been out of the mix, reading the responses. Here's an

>update and the answer to some questions.

>

>How did I find out he had HIV? He was hiding his drugs from

>me. When confronted, he admitted his status reluctantly. So,

>I locked him out(since we were still living together), and

>after doing research and finding that the drugs were for HIV

>patients, I went through his stuff and found copies of his

>medical records, including his T Cell count, etc. I also

>found the papers from the original diagnosis, which is why I

>know when he found out. Since we both had Medical power of

>attorney over each other, I verified the facts with his

>doctor's nurse( a long process of Proving my power of attorney

>to them, but it was done).

>

>Second, what ended me up on the escort board? I used to hire

>escorts prior to meeting my ex, as a matter of fact, I met my

>ex when I hired him from a major Chicago Escort Agency!! A

>fact I wasn't going to bring up, simply because it adds a

>whole new issue here. Yes he was escorting, with HIV, before

>I met him, for several years!

>

>Now the update: The DA is presenting me as a witness using my

>initials only, so my name won't be brought into the public. I

>presented my privacy concerns after reading many of your

>helpful and not so helpful advice. The DA is investigating,

>does have the medical records, and has several videos my

>partner and I had made of ourselves having intercourse

>(unprotected). The case is moving forward and they are

>currently working on the papers to arrest him, which is a

>little harder than normal, since he is living in another state

>now. I've been assured he will be arrested very soon. From

>there, the DA will talk to him and decide how to proceed.

>They are taking this VERY seriously. The information is also

>being passed to the Illinois DA's office as well, since they

>believe he may have put many clients at risk as well. He may

>be prosecuted more than once.

>I'll keep you up to date if anyone's interested, Oh, by the

>way, no civil suit, since he doesn't have anything of value

>anyways, and he most likely will be going to jail.

>Wisconguy

[VaHawk]

I just love how your story plays out like some kind of role playing scene on an internet chat board. Why else do you let the "facts dribble out" like a leaky faucet? If you're taking this one to a jury, I hope you are more upfront with them, than you have been here, and state all the facts straight up. You may have played us all for fools, but if you are indeed legitimate, I doubt your little games will play well in front of a jury.

 

Imagine, you're willing to showing videos of this guy fucking you in the butt, but are unwilling to use your name in the trial. Kind of like Jesus Christ going by JC. Now, where did I put those rusty nails? :-(

[Guest wisconguy]

some seem to not realize this is NOT my fight anymore. I'm not the prosecutor. It's the state! If they thought a jury wouldn't buy my "dribble" or whatever the fuck you irresponsible fucks (you know who you are) call it; then they wouldn't proceed. Speaking of JC...Jesus Fucking Christ, EXCUSE ME for asking for some advice and input. If I wanted to make up stories, I'd write a fucking book, there's enough of you drama queens who would buy the shit.

Some are so transparent here. I'll even fucking say it...they are pos and don't want to take any responsibility for it, or if they are not pos, they wouldn't want to face the fact that if they were, they might have to put their fucking dick into retirement. I'm a fag, and I've been ashamed of faggots my whole life. And that is only directed at those many who are faggots. That's why I took this to the state, because it's wrong for you assholes to go around killing people. Period.

 

You want to kill people then Fuck yourself with the narrow end of a gun, but leave the decent people out of it.

 

Fuck those insensitive bastards, (duh, who are you?)

[VaHawk]

>Some are so transparent here. I'll even fucking say it...they

>are pos and don't want to take any responsibility for it, or

>if they are not pos, they wouldn't want to face the fact that

>if they were, they might have to put their fucking dick into

>retirement. I'm a fag, and I've been ashamed of faggots my

>whole life. And that is only directed at those many who are

>faggots. That's why I took this to the state, because it's

>wrong for you assholes to go around killing people. Period.

>

>You want to kill people then Fuck yourself with the narrow end

>of a gun, but leave the decent people out of it.

>

I REST MY CASE!!!!!!!!!!!! AS I ADVISED SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP!!!!!!

 

:-(