Jump to content

Quite Possibly the Dumbest Person on Earth


Big Green Valley

Recommended Posts

I like how she said at the end of the video that you can get hit by a bus or a car.... yeah that has happened more than OSU would like to admit. People have bitched so much that we have put up signs warning against texting and walking.

What a moron though. She works in the mall, you would think she would have known it was there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But wait, she's even more of an asshat than we thought:

"In the hours that followed Cathy Cruz Marrero's appearance on 'Good Morning America' today to talk about the fall and its aftermath, she was in court for a status hearing on charges of five felony counts, including theft by deception and receiving stolen property," reports ABC News.

Turns out Marrero's been out on $7,500 bail since 2009, after being charged with running up more than $5,000 in purchases on a co-worker's credit card. No wonder she had a lawyer handy.

Marrero's next court date is April 21, and she's facing about six months of house arrest and electronic monitoring, according to the Reading Eagle. So all y'all talking about how if she just shut up and went on with her life, nobody would know it was her in the fountain —maybe six people recognized her — are more right than you realized. While it's unknown how many people knew about her theft charges, we all sure know about it now.

Article:

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/20/5885523-texting-fountain-ladys-problems-bigger-than-youtube-fame?GT1=43001

It's so impossibly stupid that it must be true. That'll teach her to try the lawsuit cash grab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what makes it better is that shes a thief and a scam artist....shes actually out on bail right now in a case where she stole a credit card from a coworker and charged $5,000 dollars....it says shes hoping for house arrest instead of going to jail

i bet she staged falling in the fountain in hopes that somebody would record it and post it ...although her attorney denies such accusations :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She'll win damages. She can't really do much about falling in' date=' but the security team dropped the ball by letting the footage reach public eyes.[/quote']

I'm having trouble figuring out what the actual "damages" are? Embarrassment? She was in a public place when it happened, so the fact that the footage was public is moot :dunno:

Falling in a fountain is embarrassing, but not as embarrassing as farting in public

http://www.courant.com/community/bristol/hc-bristol-fatal-stabbing-0119-20110118,0,3311130.story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She'll win damages. She can't really do much about falling in' date=' but the security team dropped the ball by letting the footage reach public eyes.[/quote']

how was she damaged?

being embarrassed isn't a collectible "damage" in the eyes of the law. This isn't defamation - it happened. they're not lying about it. Her privacy wasn't invaded. She was on notice that security cameras monitored the mall and had no expectation of privacy.

There was definitely misconduct on the part of the security staff who posted the video online, but nothing illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire suit is civil... there's no criminal case here as far as I'm aware. So, everything about this case is "fat check" only. And there's only so many civil charges that can be filed, and the majority of them, you as the complaintant have to show damages were incurred and what they were so the courts can "make you whole" again.

Plus the whole 'punative' thing, but that's another can o' worms that I don't have enough legal experience or research to know the ins-and-outs of, though that's usually discretionary per the judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's private security footage released by the security team of her employer. If she didn't work there' date=' I'd say she didn't have a case. I am probably not right, legally speaking, but if it hadn't come out that she's a con-artist.. she would have won money. If for no other reason than, "it hasn't been done before".[/quote']

If she actually works for the mall itself (the landlord), she MIGHT have a prayer pursuing that route, but she probably works at one of the stores IN the mall; not for the mall facility itself. That means she works for a tenant of the mall. Her employer doesn't employ the security team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does any of that have to do with winning a civil suit? Honestly' date=' I should have said, "She'll settle and get a big fat check."[/quote']

defamation is a civil suit.

I say she walks away empty handed. The security company should reprimand the individuals who posted the video, denounce the behavior, and hope they don't lose any customers over it.

But they don't owe the fountain lady anything. She's got no case whatsoever. It's not illegal to hurt someone's feelings or embarrass them. And thank God...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

defamation is a civil suit.

She has done more damage to her rep with her con games then a youtube video of a grainy figure of a person falling ever could do. If she would have keep her mouth shut, we would not know who it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ truth, but I'm betting the security company has deeper pockets than the fountain lady.

the American rule is that you pay your own attorney's fees even if you win, so fountain lady is going to have to lay out cash just to initiate the suit. The security company will have a legal department that's used to dealing with MUCH more serious shit than this. It will be an easy (and cheap) case by comparison.

A friend of mine works in the legal department for Tenable Security. I'll see if he's got any insight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We intend to hold all responsible parties accountable" was the words of her "Lawyer".

I guess she is so irresponsible that she doesn't have to be held accountable for her complete and total lack of intelligence...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We intend to hold all responsible parties accountable" was the words of her "Lawyer".

I guess she is so irresponsible that she doesn't have to be held accountable for her complete and total lack of intelligence...

shutup bitch, dont defame her - shes going to sue your ass...im sending her your post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

be clear on who she's suing.

If she's claiming the fountain is a hazard, she's suing the mall.

If she's suing because the video is online, that's the security company - not the mall itself.

the bottom line is that this lady wasn't damaged. Motion for summary judgment. "the plaintiff has failed to state a valid claim."

case dismissed. No lawyer in their right mind would take her case for anything other than publicity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The client has absolute control over whether or not they go to trial or settle.

the lawyer can only advise.

And I don't think there's any insurance company involved here. She's not making an injury claim. In fact, she's not making ANY claim, because she doesn't have one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She still hasn't made any type of claim, or stated the basis for a suit.

After discussing with a couple of classmates (gotta love facebook), my friend Nicki suggested "negligent infliction of emotional distress," which I agree is the most solid suit this lady has.

Even then, it's very shakey.

First, a claim for emotional distress usually (depends on jurisdiction) requires a physical manifestation of symptoms. So she can't just say, "i was embarrassed," she has to say, "i was so embarrassed that I worried all the time, and my hair started falling out," or she can't sleep anymore.

Second, the difference between negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional infliction of emotional distress is largely based on whether they knew she would come forward an identify herself. I think it's reasonable to assume that she would have stayed anonymous forever, and thus their actions were AT MOST, negligent. Even then, they have to reasonably foresee her "damages."

I still say she walks away empty handed. The insurance company will most likely be cheap, but they do this kind of stuff ALL THE TIME - they will settle to save money, but not just for kicks and grins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...