Lawsuit update #8

American justice series

For someone who is claiming that her case should be dismissed because of the hardship of litigating in Massachusetts, Gina is doing a lot of litigating in Massachusetts.

She and her lawyer are blizzarding us with motions, even without first conferring with my lawyers, as the rules require.

You may remember that in the last such episode, Gina claimed that BlueHost never took down my blog (Lawsuit update #5: Really?) and that Daringhost did not force me to move my blog because of the DMCA violations (Let’s take a look at the documents).

We were able to immediately produce the relevant documents that showed that the claims were false, AND a screenshot of Gina boasting on her Facebook page that BlueHost took down my site.

Now, they’re back again with yet another motion, this one claiming that Gina had no way of knowing that I lived in Massachusetts at the time she filed the DMCA notice with Daringhost, because my address was blocked on the Whois page back in October 2012.

Once again, the documents tell a very different story.

Gina filed her DMCA notice with Daringhost on 1/21/13.

Here’s a screenshot of the Whois page for on THE VERY DAY.

Whois 1-21-13

And here’s a screenshot of Gina’s Facebook page on THE VERY DAY that she claims she was unaware that I live in Massachusetts.


Gina is asking the court to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds because it is a hardship for her to litigate in Massachusetts and because she did not know that I lived in Massachusetts.

Gina has made it abundantly clear that she has no difficulty litigating in Massachusetts, filing motion after motion after motion in the past 5 months. In addition, she admitted in print that she knew where I lived on the very day that she insists to the court that she did not know.

Very strange.

86 Responses to “Lawsuit update #8”

  1. February 13, 2014 at 4:44 am #

    Informative post,thanks for sharing this..

  2. February 11, 2014 at 1:22 am #

    Nice post,thanks for sharing..

  3. Anj Fabian
    July 1, 2013 at 3:47 pm #

    ..waiting on update #9…

  4. Tired Momma
    June 22, 2013 at 7:42 pm #

    If she pulls that “I am so poor” bullshit, ask how she could afford pedicures for her 5 and 7 years old boys. She either has money or has the worse money management skills ever .

    • Eddie
      June 23, 2013 at 2:28 am #

      Or both

      • Tired Momma
        June 23, 2013 at 9:31 pm #

        Well, let’s see. She seems to go the nail salon a lot (We know because she tells us.) Let’s say she goes and spends $100.00 a month for her and her family. Let’s say instead of putting that $100.00 into savings and starts putting that $100.00 into a college savings account for her middle son, instead of on his toenails.

        In 13 years, in time for her middle son to go to college, he will have a college savings account worth almost $18,000. (and that with a 2.0% rate of return).

        But who cares about college, when you got cute toenails when you are 5.

        • suchende
          June 24, 2013 at 8:19 am #

          $100/mo would be a lot. You can score a mani in Chicago for $10 (maybe even less). I had a $100/mo salon budget in Chicago and that was for mani/pedi/waxing up the wazoo (literally).

    • Wishful
      June 23, 2013 at 8:03 am #

      I sorry if this seems I am picking on you, its just I have heard this a lot from people.

      Just because someone is cash strapped doesn’t mean they aren’t allowed to have or do anything ever. Families living in economic uncertainty (poor one day, not so poor a week after that, oh s*** the car broke down so now we are poor again), often worry more and have more money issues then families that are simply low income because planning for anything becomes impossible. When you know that you can expect x amount of dollars over the next month you can plan, budget and get things done. When you expect q and end up with x, or you can never even guess then you run into more problems. You start doing windfall spending (better do something nice for the kids now, because who knows when the wind will change again and we will all eating expired lunch meat from a bargain store for dinner).

      I think that may be the issue she is falling into, not really knowing what the future might bring. Also she is a student, so there is a chance she is living on loans meaning she really has no money, but has loans she can spend.

  5. June 21, 2013 at 6:27 pm #

    ….Credibility seems to be a bit of a challenge for Gina….

  6. Monica
    June 21, 2013 at 12:30 pm #

    I love watching Gina’s ups and downs in this. She goes from feeling like she’s got the case in the bag to she’s trying to bring me to financial ruin and she just might succeed because I can’t afford to fight this in like 0-60 seconds. Gina, if the truth were truly on your side, which it clearly is not with your numerous false claims, then there would never be ever any doubt that you are in the right. You’re grasping at straws trying to cover your ass all while continuing to make a fool of yourself. Someone needs to give her a time out from the internet already. She is not helping her case at all.

    • Amy Tuteur, MD
      June 21, 2013 at 5:34 pm #

      Makes you wonder what’s changed about her financial situation that she is no longer worried about it.

      • suchende
        June 21, 2013 at 5:45 pm #

        I did imagine an interested party like the MPAA would eventually pick up her legal expenses, but if she has the same counsel, now I am less sure.

      • roaddisciple
        June 25, 2013 at 12:30 am #

        She lives in her own world, doc. I mean, seriously. You could not deal with half the crap she does w/o purposefully being oblivious to things…. it’s called disassociation in the psych world. That is what she does to cope with the real world.

  7. roaddisciple
    June 21, 2013 at 12:12 pm #

    She (Gina) is amazingly dense. Keep on with the crazy, girlfriend.

  8. KumquatWriter
    June 21, 2013 at 10:46 am #

    My favorite GCC comment on this:
    “The Feminist Breeder
    Technically speaking, knowingly lying a sworn affidavit is perjury and contempt of court. Will the court recognize this as that? I can’t say. I wish I could be a fly on the wall in the courtroom the day the oral arguments are heard.”

    She REALLY doesn’t appreciate irony.

    (link is in an earlier comment).

    • suchende
      June 21, 2013 at 5:46 pm #

      I don’t understand. Can’t she phone in if she wants to?

    • theNormalDistribution
      June 21, 2013 at 5:58 pm #

      That’s a funny choice of words. Who wishes to be a ‘fly on the wall’ at their own court proceedings? It’s like she’s afraid to be there, but still wants to know what happened.

    • Eddie
      June 21, 2013 at 7:42 pm #

      With apologies to Spider Robinson: If a person who indulges in gluttony is a glutton, and a person who commits a felony is a felon, then TFB is an iron.

  9. SkpeticalGuest
    June 21, 2013 at 10:26 am #

    Glad you have all these screen shots to fight back.

  10. Tired Momma
    June 21, 2013 at 9:49 am #

    Question: Gina is saying that Dr. Amy changed her address after the first take down notice but before the second, right? So, if Dr. Amy changed her address between the two notices, why would it matter? I thought the first takedown notice was “okay”, but it was the ones filed after that, when she knew she had no copy write issue, were the problem. She knew the correct address when she was abusing the law. Or am I as stupid as she is?

    • Bodnoirbabe
      June 21, 2013 at 9:55 am #

      Her defense is that she didn’t know Dr. Amy’s address when she filed the first DMCA claims. She thinks this will negate Dr. Amy’s counter suit on the grounds that she didn’t know Dr. Amy lived in Mass. But the second DMCA claim she filed was on January 21st when she clearly stated on her own Facebook page that she has Dr. Amy’s address. So she continued to file claims AFTER she knew Dr. Amy’s state was Mass, making her request to dismiss the case invalid.

      • Amy Tuteur, MD
        June 21, 2013 at 10:07 am #

        Of course this is the same woman who still believes that the case is about her picture, so I guess it is not surprising that she doesn’t understand that she just once again acknowledged (in print, no less!) that she DID know she was sending the second DMCA notice to Massachusetts.

        It is the second notice that is at the heart of the case because Gina was in possession of a great deal more knowledge about sending abusive copyright claims, and about the fact that her own claim, as the judge has already noted, was almost certainly preempted by the doctrine of fair use.

        Simply put, it is rather bizarre to claim in court papers that you never knew where I lived before sending EITHER of the DMCA notices, while simultaneously admitting that you absolutely knew before sending the second notice.

        • Tired Momma
          June 21, 2013 at 10:50 am #

          To me, she and her lawyer is just throwing stuff against the wall, hoping something will stick.

          She is in such denial. It’s scary. This is the stuff that tears families apart. And she doesn’t seem to get.

  11. jen
    June 21, 2013 at 9:15 am #

    It’s tough with internet cases though. I’m not sure how the First Circuit handles these cases but I know in my circuit knowledge of a person’s address wouldn’t necessarily equate to purposeful availment.

  12. June 21, 2013 at 6:21 am #

    Very useful and supportive article. I wish I can do all of
    that in a short period of time.

  13. Dr Kitty
    June 21, 2013 at 2:32 am #

    Funny, I just assumed that someone who trained in MA, did their residency in MA, and is married to their college sweetheart who has also been working in MA throughout their marriage would still live…in MA.

    No WHOIS needed…

    • Anon
      June 21, 2013 at 7:06 am #

      I didn’t know WHOIS even existed. So her argument is that she actually attempted to find out where dr Amy lives before filing notices but the WHOIS didn’t have her address? And that is the only place she could have looked? Googling ‘Dr Amy Tuteur address’ brings up health grades in Boston, Ma. On the first page. I don’t understand how she even came up with this defense. Smart enough to google how to file takedown notices, not smart enough to google an address?

      • Kalacirya
        June 21, 2013 at 9:22 am #

        Well it’s a matter of jurisdiction. The case is not yet on trial, they are instead arguing whether or not the court in MA is the appropriate court for filing this case. Having the case in a far away state is a great inconvenience for Gina (on top of there being a suit at all). It’s to her benefit to get the case dismissed in that court.

    • Rebecca
      June 24, 2013 at 10:16 pm #

      Geez Louise. Amy’s listed in the phone book. It’s not difficult.

  14. Frequent Reader
    June 21, 2013 at 1:50 am #

    Because a lot of the comments on her page are really naive, such as “do you get in trouble if you don’t show up in person in MA?” let me reply on that level: do you seriously think that one of the top commercial litigators in MA, if not in the US, would let his wife perjure herself in an affidavit… Of course, a side note to it is that he was picked as a good husband material from the front raws of Harvard, not at a pick-up bar ;-)…

    • Certified Hamster Midwife
      June 21, 2013 at 10:38 am #

      Which isn’t to say that you can’t find quality husbands in bars, but Harvard has better lawyer material overall.

  15. Karen in SC
    June 21, 2013 at 12:48 am #

    Does all this mean that I can’t be sued by someone if I don’t know their address beforehand? I feel like I should be pounding the table and saying, That’s irrelevent, incompetent, and immaterial!!

  16. Amy Tuteur, MD
    June 20, 2013 at 11:32 pm #

    This is why the case needs to go forward. In discovery, we will establish exactly what happened.

  17. Frequent Reader
    June 20, 2013 at 11:28 pm #

    The crazy thinks she filed in December. I bet her lawyer is not aware of her pronouncements on FB…

    • Kalacirya
      June 20, 2013 at 11:35 pm #

      She did file in December for bluehost. It could very well be that the WHOIS information did not include address information when she filed the first takedown. But when Dr. Amy switched to Daringhost, that was in January, on the 21st when the WHOIS information definitely did have the address and Gina herself claimed to know where Dr. Amy lived.

      • Amy Tuteur, MD
        June 20, 2013 at 11:39 pm #

        That’s the key point. My claim is that when she filed the SECOND notice, she had this information, and that’s what she denies.

        • Kalacirya
          June 20, 2013 at 11:42 pm #

          Yeah, I don’t see how she is going to argue her way around this. It seems likely at this point that this case will get carried out, if not in MA than in IL. Good luck with it, I hope for your sake you are not stuck filing in IL.

          • Frequent Reader
            June 21, 2013 at 9:48 am #

            Of course, the duffuses on her page whose choice of venue to pick spouses has been the local bar (amazingly how many of her clowns yelled “me tooooooo” when she made the intimate announcement “how I met my husband”) do not realize that there are two DMCA filings, and that during the second one she clearly knew where Dr. Amy lived… Her lawyer realizes that he is no match to the guys and gals at Dr. Amy’s lawfirm and is desperately trying to have the case not go to oral arguments. By now, he should also know that he is getting paid a grand sum of zippo for all the work he did and all the wrenches she threw at him because of her facebook escapades because crazy is destitute… I think the best thing this woman can do to humanity, her family, and herself is stay in therapy for a looooooong time (not show up once in a while at a mental health provider’s office, throw in a fit, and carry on as before)…

          • roaddisciple
            June 21, 2013 at 12:06 pm #

            She met her husband, while drunk, at a bar and KNEW that he had a long-term girlfriend at the time, too. What a classy broad.

        • Bomb
          June 21, 2013 at 2:27 am #

          It’s all bullshit though. Everyone knows she knew where you lived. She has known since the first time you ever wrote about her and she no doubt googled your name. I can remember her commenting on it different times even back in I think July when she said you couldn’t be the ‘Utah caller’ because you were in Mass. What a ridiculous liar.

          • Bomb
            June 21, 2013 at 2:47 am #

            Here she is raising money to sue the Utah caller and saying Dr Amy’s involvement is actionable (what involvement?) So she was going to Sue Dr Amy in Sept but can’t be sued herself because she supposedly did t know where she lived?

            Reading her authoritative posting on legal matters is hilarious given her “I’m just a poor stupid mama” defense. Pretty sure she thought she was a lawyer back in Sept. Things certainly ‘got real’ hahaha.

          • Frequent Reader
            June 21, 2013 at 3:35 am #

            Yep, that is our Gina who knows so much about legal matter… Too bad she could not pass the LSAT much in the same token as she could not pass Epidemiology…

          • Kalacirya
            June 21, 2013 at 9:25 am #

            This is the same woman who considers herself able to do her own research on medical matters, but who literally cried tears of frustration because she didn’t recognize any of notation used in the very, very basic descriptive statistics section of her biostatistics class. She’s somehow capable of being self-educated in science, with a sub-high school level knowledge base of science and mathematics.

          • Susan
            June 21, 2013 at 3:18 am #

            Yes, I think ridiculous liar sums it up. I guess that’s why I keep thinking of Jodi Arias when I read things Gina has written. What’s going on that she doesn’t understand people know she’s lying? Same thought, different people and different situations- but somehow similar.

          • Dr Kitty
            June 21, 2013 at 4:15 am #

            Anyone got screen shots from then? I also have recollections of GCC saying she “knew” it couldn’t be Dr Amy because she didn’t live in Utah…which rather implied she knew where Dr Amy DID live.

          • Kalacirya
            June 21, 2013 at 9:23 am #

            Yeah, now that you mention it, I definitely remember this statement.

  18. KumquatWriter
    June 20, 2013 at 11:24 pm #

    When you’re in a hole, you should stop digging.

    Odds that she ends up on reality TV with Amy’s Baking Company?

    • Kalacirya
      June 20, 2013 at 11:46 pm #

      Hyphenated-husband isn’t a surly Greek mobster, just a mild-mannered school teacher, so ABC still wins the schadenfreude award I think.

      • deafgimp
        June 21, 2013 at 1:22 am #

        Samy is Israeli. Though I could see TFB on a show with ABC just to see who has worse reasoning skills.

        • Kalacirya
          June 21, 2013 at 1:24 am #

          I could have swore he was from Greece. But it looks like you are right, he is from Israel. Either way I thought it was really fascinating how he wouldn’t let the waitresses use the point of sale terminals at all. I can only guess that he used the business to launder money and was filing fake tickets for food that wasn’t sold all day.

          • Antigonos CNM
            June 21, 2013 at 2:21 am #

            Gina’s husband is Israeli? Am I missing something?

          • Bomb
            June 21, 2013 at 2:29 am #

            The husband in Amy’s baking co is Israeli, not HH.

          • Antigonos CNM
            June 21, 2013 at 2:38 am #

            Oh, OK. “Amy’s Baking Company” is not known here in Israel — I take it to be a TV program? I wondered, because “Crosley-Corcoran” or whatever Gina’s last name is, does not sound in the least Israeli.

          • Box of Salt
            June 21, 2013 at 2:42 am #

            I had never heard of it either (although I do occasionally watch Kitchen Nightmares):


          • Bomb
            June 21, 2013 at 3:54 am #

            It is a restaurant that was featured on a television show, and the subsequent social media meltdown we t viral.

          • Pappy
            June 21, 2013 at 10:56 am #

            It’s funny to me how similar the cases are in a way. Both involve an extremely selfish and childish wife who browbeats her husband into doing whatever she wants, while simultaneously whining about how the TROLLS are PERSECUTING her! Maybe Amy B. and Gina could get together and commiserate about how hard it is to be so special and not have anyone appreciate it.

          • Ashley Wilson
            June 21, 2013 at 5:10 pm #

            I don’t think Samy is that browbeaten at all. He obviously has a temper and will defend her to the very last. I think he just doesn’t care. I’m with the group that thinks Amy is a trophy wife and he’s just using the resturant as a front, since he has a criminal history of doing this in other countries, and that he just lets her do whatever as long as he makes money. Indifference ≠ browbeaten

    • Karen in SC
      June 21, 2013 at 11:10 am #

      Oh, Kumquat, that is probably her wish, to take the Feminist Breeder to reality TV!

  19. Kalacirya
    June 20, 2013 at 11:04 pm #

    Also, she’s got something up about it too:

    “More News from the Land of “Being Sued for Standing Up For Yourself By Someone Who’s SUPER Pissed that They Felt Embarrassed by Your Courage.””

    What an outstanding… sentence this one is.

    • Amy Tuteur, MD
      June 20, 2013 at 11:12 pm #

      Mind boggling!

      • Kalacirya
        June 20, 2013 at 11:18 pm #

        Why is she using a screenshot from October 2012 as the “Screenshot of Domain Privacy at the time I began my copyright claims”. To my knowledge she didn’t file any claims that resulted in a take down until January 2013? She really seems to making things up at this point.

        Her screenshots are labeled at the bottom, If I look up on domaintools, they tell me 46 whois records stored in history for the domain. I have to wonder if the October 2012 one is just some random historical one she chose when the address wasn’t there to try to prove her point. I’d confirm it, but I don’t want to sign up for a free trial I have to cancel at this site.

        • Amy Tuteur, MD
          June 20, 2013 at 11:25 pm #

          I bought it and I can tell you that you correct. The report also contains January 21, 2013 (I posted it above) but Gina and her lawyer left that out.

          • Kalacirya
            June 20, 2013 at 11:27 pm #

            Here’s an elaboration of her claim on the dates, for your reference in case she deletes it.


          • Kalacirya
            June 21, 2013 at 12:14 am #


          • Guesteleh
            June 21, 2013 at 12:27 am #

            This is Gina’s explanation. Does this make any sense at all? Not being snarky, just having trouble following what’s going on.

            Aww, I know that reading comprehension is a super big problem for you dramy trolls, but I’ll go ahead and break it down so a kindergardner could understand it.
            I didn’t say I got her address on February 14th. I said I got it when her host gave it to me AFTER she filed the counter DMCA, which was AFTER I filed my DMCA. She’s claiming I had it when I filed the DCMA. Not at all true because it she was paying for a service to make it private during that time period.

            She claimed in her affidavit that her address was public through her her DNS records from at least 2011. Wrong. The two records show that she utilized Domain Privacy in the period of time that she’s claiming I had access to her address.

            This is simple, starting from at least the “Last modified on” date, her domain was under “Domain Privacy Service.”

            Domain Name: SKEPTICALOB.COM
            Created on…………..: 2008-11-16 19:10:43 GMT
            Expires on…………..: 2013-11-16 19:10:43 GMT
            Last modified on……..: 2012-08-20 08:09:32 GMT
            Registrant Info: (FAST-18446881)
            Domain Privacy Service
            1958 South 950 East
            Provo, Utah 84606
            United States

            On February 14th, the record was “Last modified” to be changed to list her home address.

            Domain Name: SKEPTICALOB.COM
            Created on…………..: 2008-11-16 19:10:43 GMT
            Expires on…………..: 2013-11-16 19:10:43 GMT
            Last modified on……..: 2013-02-14 19:01:48 GMT
            Registrant Info: (FAST-18801566)
            Amy Tuteur
            —- Horizons Rd. (removed by me,TFB, so not to be an asshole)
            ——-, Massachusetts 000000 (again, modified by me)

            So, continue to focus on the date the screenshot was taken, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the RECORD modification dates. That’s the only date that matters because it keeps track of the DNS changes.

          • Box of Salt
            June 21, 2013 at 12:40 am #

            It means that Gina cannot comprehend (or is pretending not to) that the “Last Modified” date is the most recent date the information was updated, not the only date.

            If Gina thinks this is slam dunk evidence, I suggest she turn on the “details” for her own computer files, and see what happens to the dates.

            Perhaps she didn’t bother getting and reading the whole report before filing her motion.

          • Kalacirya
            June 21, 2013 at 12:41 am #

            I just noticed she spelled kindergarten incorrectly, cute.

            Gina filled more than one DCMA takedown request. She’s claiming that she had no knowledge of Dr. Amy’s address until after all the requests were given and Dr. Amy had responded. This is not true, and she’s not posting all available records. In between the October 2012 record and the February 14th 2013 record, there is a January 21st 2013 record that does include Dr. Amy’s address. This is important because Gina filed something at that time, when the address was available and likely known to her. I know it was there in January because I recall seeing it myself when checking the domain information when the site kept going up and down.

            It could be that Gina has no idea that the January record exists online already, that wouldn’t surprise me. Or it could be she’s being deliberately obtuse and not posting the relevant record. It is likely that something changed on the domain record in February, Dr. Amy did change up the website hosting several times, but what changed was not the address, that came into play earlier.

          • Sue
            June 21, 2013 at 3:46 am #

            Yes – kindergardner – I LOVE it!

          • Kalacirya
            June 21, 2013 at 9:26 am #

            To be fair, when I was in elementary school, I thought it was kindergarden as well.

          • Ducky
            June 21, 2013 at 12:47 am #

            Gina’s simply mistaken that the home address record was made public on Feb 14.
            The first Whois record that lists Amy’s home address is from Jan 21. It
            states it was modified January 20, 2013. Gina’s correct that there are
            “snapshots” of Whois records taken (I think monthly) even when there are
            no modifications to the record, but snapshots are also taken whenever
            the record is modified.

            As I’ve said it’s oddly
            coincidental that the address was made public then, but those are the facts. And it seems Gina would bring up the Jan 21 whois record if
            she thought it helped her case…

            Anyway, off to bed all.. have a good night!

          • Squillo
            June 21, 2013 at 11:56 am #

            That’s how I read it too.

            It’s possible she didn’t know Amy’s address when the first DCMA was filed, and it’s even possible she didn’t know when she filed the second, if it was filed 21 January and the record states that the WHOIS entry was changed 20 January (assuming for a moment that the change was to remove the address-concealing service), as the notice might have been prepared days before it was actually filed.

            And yet, there’s this electronic trail of her own writings that suggests that she was completely aware of Amy’s address at least on the date the notice was filed. Which leads to the conclusion that she either lied to her Facebook followers or to the court.

          • Squillo
            June 21, 2013 at 11:44 am #

            Gee. Seems to be a pretty good argument for discovery.

          • Bodnoirbabe
            June 21, 2013 at 2:52 am #

            Yeah, I kept pushing the question and she eventually just called me a troll and refused to answer. She’s caught in her own lie, or her own ignorance.

            To steal from Adam Carolla, you’re either lying or you’re stupid, which one is it?

          • Ducky
            June 21, 2013 at 12:04 am #

            The curiosity was getting to me and I signed up for a free 7-day trial . (Well, I hope free… they have my Paypal info), and I can confirm that the January 21, 2013 whois record is there just as Dr Amy shows it. The timing is oddly coincidental since it changed on the same day Gina filed, but Gina omits the January 21 record from her facebook note (and presumably from the motion itself). I doubt she would have omitted it if it helped her case. I think they’re reaching. It strikes me as hand-waving from someone who is freaked out and was ill-prepared to get caught up in a legal battle…

            I can’t find that Facebook comment on the page for TFB, but Facebook is weird about the way it shows content now and not all historical posts are visible to all people. Good reason to document everything as it happens… That’s pretty damning.

    • Eddie
      June 20, 2013 at 11:21 pm #

      To borrow a line from Lewis Black, if they asked me to diagram that sentence, I’d take out a pencil and jab it in my eye.

      And the obligatory “bro” that seems to be making the rounds today. Wow, she’s hip.

      Funny, her evidence that she couldn’t figure out where Dr Amy lived (from WhoIs) is dated 28 Oct 2012.

      • Kalacirya
        June 20, 2013 at 11:24 pm #

        That’s always struck me about Gina, how she writes in a style that screams “19 year old attempting to be edgy.” Her screeds are far more like Thought Catalog rambling than paid blog subscription material.

        As someone in my demographic might say, that’s pretty lamesauce coming from someone her age. (At least she didn’t say lamesauce?)

    • Something From Nothing
      June 21, 2013 at 12:17 am #

      One of the commenters points out to her that she claimed to have dr Amy’s home address on January 21 , yet claims it was changed from private to public on feb 14. It’s too ridiculous for words…

      • Kalacirya
        June 21, 2013 at 12:23 am #

        I think there’s a lot of fudging of the truth going on with this case on Gina’s end, but at the same time I can’t completely dismiss the idea that Gina herself either doesn’t recall correctly or doesn’t actually understand what’s going on.

        The woman is Dunning-Kruger personified, she’s at *best* of some middling level of intelligence and understanding, but she feels that she’s something quite impressive.

        • Box of Salt
          June 21, 2013 at 12:42 am #

          “Dunning-Kruger personified”

          She also seems to project a lot, but that’s only human.

        • LukesCook
          June 21, 2013 at 4:47 am #

          In fairness to her, given the company she keeps, a middling level of intelligence may well be quite impressive by comparison.

        • Lena
          June 21, 2013 at 8:04 am #

          I think Gina honestly believes what she’s saying. That woman is not normal.

    • Bomb
      June 21, 2013 at 2:30 am #

      Wait…what? Now she was valiantly standing up for herself? What planet is she on, seriously?

  20. Kalacirya
    June 20, 2013 at 11:03 pm #

    The address listing is absolutely confirmed. I looked it up myself at the time when it came up back then.

    I have no where close to any obsession with Gina Crosley-Corcoran and what she does from day to day, yet I seem to be able to remember these details better than she can. What a moron.

  21. Squillo
    June 20, 2013 at 10:36 pm #

    She can always claim she was lying in the Facebook post.

  22. hurricanewarningdc
    June 20, 2013 at 10:24 pm #

    lulz. “I didn’t have her address” rebutted with her own post saying that she has it. Awesome.

    Obviously, her lawyer is trying to draw this out, attempting to spend you into either frustration or poverty, in hopes that you’ll drop the case. I can’t speak about the law in MA, but if it’s possible, perhaps your lawyer should ask the judge for sanction against the defendant or her atty for the bad-faith delays. Given the track record (especially with the contradictions in the defendant’s own words), it seems like there’s a good argument for the fact that she’s filing motions that she knows are based on lies. I would think that a judge would have a problem with that.

  23. NICU RN
    June 20, 2013 at 10:16 pm #

    Love it!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.