The Canadian woman suing her mobile operator because her husband discovered her affair through her bill says she has gathered evidence from two fellow adulterers who were caught out the same way. Gabriela Nagy, wearing a black wig and dark glasses, told journalists she had affidavits blaming Rogers for ruining marriages by the …
Rogers is an evil, bunch of scumbags, but I don't see how it's Rogers fault that she could not keep her pants on.
Buisiness name of the year?
Rogers - the Telco for adulterers? Quite apt, really!
"she and her husband had asked for their charges to be consolidated into a single bill"
If that's the case, then presumably she's not going to get anywhere with this.
Surely stupidity caused the end of her marriage.
I don't mean by having an affair in the first place, but by not thinking ahead and investing in a PAYG SIM!
Anon for obvious reasons, even though I've got nothing to hide.
Liar, liar, pants on fire
Please prove that you have nothing to hide by publishing every last scrap of information about yourself. Your full name, your blog, your tax returns of the last ten years, account information, credit card numbers, PINs, full medical records, the pictures of last weekend, and so on and so forth.
We of Anonymous will be inspecting, and if we find anything you haven't published before, we'll set you on fire, just to put things even again.
Anon because I do have plenty to hide and I'm not at all ashamed about that. In fact there's still a law on the books that says I have a right to. Wonder how long that privacy law'll last with the likes of you around, though.
I'ts a Joke
Er how is her getting fired connected?
According to the newspaper reports, the "stress" of her being caught out led to her non-performance at work, which resulted in her termination for cause by her employer. Having been divorced, I can believe the stress part.
But it all comes down to her own actions, and her own responsibility, not Rogers...so no sympathy here.
What if someone finds cheating evidence through IM logs that someone forgot to keep hidden? Does that make the IM supplier liable for consequences of someones actions? Obviously no, surely all shes doing is announcing to the world that she is a dim witted ho bag.
"dim witted ho bag", one can only hope the judge will be as concise in his / her summary...
... is someone that has an affair a "ho bag"? It seems some of you are still living in the middle ages here. Would you say the same about a man - and you'd have trouble because I can't think of a derogatory phrase that has the same meaning for a man. Seems to me that there is a lot of animosity to this woman for whatever reason.
I find it hard to disagree that she is dim-witted, though!
Yes, she is.
She is a cheating whore. And also stupid, oh and ambitius too. She is maried and she is a lier. If you want the "modern" aproach, ok, this is indeed the 21th century so open marriage is an option, but and "open marriange" where only 1 of the couple is aware of the openness is not.
If you like to fuk around without caring about your couple dont get married or marry someone who is like minded, otherwise you are a whore in my book, and anyone else with common sense.
Thoroughly idiotic. Of course, people with the same level of reasoning will sue McDonalds for making them fat.
They sue McDonalds for serving them with hot coffee.
Someone already do this and win?
Or maybe it was about broken bones and spilled soft drink from said drink being thrown in her boyfriend's face.
Big brother, because he'll keep us all safe ....
Re: McDonalds Coffee Case
Read up on this: McDonalds kept the coffee at a high temperature purely because thay wanted to increase storage time and maximise profits. They had been warned MANY times befeore that this was unsafe. Orginally the planitiff just wanted an apology. McDonalds chose to fight.
It was a case of a big corporation being made accountable for it's actions. The woman needed skin grafts.
By the numbers
#1. She is an idiot for not buying a burner and stashing it somewhere for her extra-marital communications.
#2. She is an idiot for letting her husband read the bill when she knows what will be on it.
#3. She is an idiot for bringing this to court because the first judge to see this is going to laugh her out of court.
Sow the seeds/Roll the dice/Sleep in the bed etc. etc.
On behalf all intelligent Canadians, allow me to apologize. I only wish that judges were allowed to say "Because you're stupid, that's why!"
(Paris, in remembrance of her lost Sidekick)
"On behalf all intelligent Canadians"
What, BOTH of you?
I kid, I kid, I heart the frozen Yanks.
oh my god...
its not their fault you had an affair is it? Wish i was a judge on that case, i would laugh at her, mock then dismiss the case, and fine her $3,000 for wasting everyones time.
Is she saying that she got fired because she was caught having an affair ? Crikey, that's a tough company to work for!
From the original news story, she claims that after her husband found out, he left her.
This caused her such emotional distress that her work performance suffered.
Then her company fired her for poor performance.
I suspect that the concept of remoteness under law may kick in here for her.
Marriage guidance counsellor? Jehovah's Witness, Politician?
I fucked up my life so I'm going to blame someone else and try to sue them...
Bah, she should just take responsibility for it; "she made her bed...." as the phrase goes.
Its not the phone company's fault she can't hide her affair. Pay in cash and as AC said use a payg sim.
Not that I'm advocating cheating in anyway but if you don't have the courage or the moral fibre to split up from the other half, you might as well do it properly.
it's in there
In keeping with the World Cup Spirit
Her next trick
She'd sue the optician for making her husband able to see her kissing another bloke.
Fed up with people blaming everyone but themselves
"she had affidavits blaming Rogers for ruining marriages" WTF?! Nice way to get out of accepting responsibility for her own fuck up. If anyone is dumb enough to use a phone on a consolidated bill (which they asked for!) to arrange illicit affairs, then they deserve getting screwed by their partner in divorce court.
I don't care if you are male or female - if you can't keep it in your trousers or your panties on, then you deserve everything you get/lose. Hope her (soon-to-be ex) husband gets everything and she gets nothing.
Not totally her fault .... part from being a strumpet.
Nah - She and her husband had separate bills in their own names (and charged separately), but registered at the same address. The husband then asked Rogers to consolidate his bills (land-line & mobile). But Rogers consolidated all phones registered to that address (including hers), irrespective of the fact that her phone was a discrete contract (i.e. in her name, not his).
"Hello World, I'm an Idiot"
I'll skip past the FAIL of cheating on her husband, and move on to the more interesting ones.
* Not using a prepaid mobile to conduct her tawdry affair(s).
* Not considering the consequences of data consolidation
* Trying to blame someone else
* Putting herself before the public as a victim
* Wearing a wig when her full name is known.
In short, we have somebody who is self-centered, greedy, and deeply stupid.
The sympathy meter isn't going to ring very high. That said, if Canada is anything like the US, her best bet is to have a judge decide because a jury is highly likely to say tough shit.
Canada like the US ?
It is not..... Thank God.. (no, not SJ)
Any judge is likely to say "Tough Shit" too though. Short of getting a jury of adulterers, I think she's stuffed.
"two people have signed affidavits claiming their dalliances were discovered because of how the carrier bills its clients."
Lovely old fashioned word. Sounds so much nicer than the truth.
USA better watch out
Or their position as #1 in the world for frivolous, hysterical and bl**dy stupid lawsuits could be under threat from the moose jockeys.
Don't let the truth get in the way
Well from what I read in the local papers, the truth seems to be that her husband went for a consolidation offer with Rogers, and his wife's separate phone account got rolled administratively into the same billing as the new consolidated account presumably because they share the same address.
She did take the proper precautions and had separate phone and billing and I guess Rogers are at fault here.
Having said all that, she should have kept her panties on and she got what she rightly deserved.
Funny story, but I think it raises some interesting privacy implications. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it was her husband who requested consolidated billing and Rogers just assumed it was OK for him to make billing changes to both their accounts. Is that reasonable or not? I'm sure various companies have already considered this kind of thing, but I can't say I'd thought of it before.
It's a tricky question, because I think most people would consider it perfectly fine for their spouse to access their account and deal with routine billing issues and such, and may even be slightly annoyed if they can't. But on the other hand... well you've got cases like this.
RE: Privacy Implications
VERY good point. It would be annoying both if they presumed it was ok and if they had to ask you every time if it was ok. (how affective that would be i dont know, presumibly this is like when I phone up my parent's broadband provider for them because they don't understand what to say and the broadband people wont let me give them all the details, despite me knowing the account passwords, unless im dishonest and say I am my father. How would they know if I am or not?
This whole thing is like Life of Brian -
I'll have two big ones, two little ones and a bag of gravel... and a beard.
If she was paying her own mobile bill, and it wasn't in a joint name, there is no way that they should have rolled the details of her account into the communal bill.
I wonder how much the sanctimonious shits who are desperate to slag this woman off for having an affair would feel if their credit card statement got rolled into one with their partners and their porn buying habits (or worse, world of warcraft you geek bastards) got revealed.
Chill out - feel sorry for this woman, and as for the bloke, his life was better before he found out now wasn't it?
Re: Bang on
My partner knows about my porn-buying so it's all good. Thanks for the concern though!
I don't think she made her bed. I think she rumpled it!
Apparently she's been reading our (US) papers. There is always a story about some bs lawsuit that enriched a pos.
The problem is that insurance companies pay out instead of fighting the case. They consider it more economical to pay a little every time than get hit with an outlandish settlement from some cockamamie jury. Coffee anyone?
I say fight it till the bitter end and drag her through the mud. Lots of pictures, full disclosure of the facts, etc. And then hire a lawyer for her ex-husband so he can sue her for emotional suffering.
It's nearly unanimous...
This woman is a galaxy-class moron, and the world knows it.
She was probably fired from her job due to some ridiculous variation on the whole "emotional trauma" theme; i.e. her husband gave her the boot and she was too busy being angry to do her job, so they terminated her. Again, no one's fault but hers.
This is right up the same alley as those scumbag burglars who sue homeowners because the have an effective attack dog, or because they're a good shot with a pistol. Like they have a right to do wrong or something...c'mon.
Can I officially coin the term "adulteridiot" for this woman?
Lost opportunity for the landsharks?
I can see it now...
This tw[ia]t somehow prevails.
Suddenly a whole new niche emerges: representing people who start having affairs just to get their provider to blow their (supposed) cover and cough up the change for the judgment. Hey, there's a precedent now, right?
Yay for commentards seeing beyond the schadenfreude.
To all you others, imagine if this were bank account statements not phone account statements ... still laughing quite so hard, or begining to see a glimmer of a point?
On Pablo's last point, I fancy the courts in the UK would look rather dimly on what appears to be an infringement of some DPA or other. Just being an adulterer doesn't mean you lose your legal rights.
I'm going to be very old-fashioned...
...and suggest that marriage vows should be brought into the equation.
If they're not married, Rogers should be considering them separately. But if they are married, they have made a solemn and binding promise to love, honour, share all worldly goods, etc...
Under those circumstances the law always used to consider a husband and wife as one legal entity - until a century ago the wife's property was considered to be the husband's - they were "unica persona, quia taro una et sanguis onus".
That would make it quite reasonable for Rogers to assume that any directions about their billing could equally well come from either of them, the default assumption being that, having taken marriage vows, they would be acting together in trust.
Gabriela seems to have secretly broken that compact, and is now claiming that Rogers should not have been treating her as if she was still abiding by it, although she would have been claiming to do so publicly. Trying to have your cake and eat it at the same time springs to mind...
so many lines, so little time...
could decide between;
a) did she enjoy the rogering?,
b) she got well and truly rogered then...
c) another random phrase with 'rogered' inserted in the middle...
(ok so it's Friday.....)
The view from the other side
Having been the husband of a cheating (ex) wife, I only hope her ex is laughing this up and enjoying every moment.
Jeez what a judgemental sanctimonious bunch of bastards
If (as seems to be the case) she had HER OWN ACCOUNT then what right did Rogers have to lump it in with her husband's *without asking her*?
Would you all be happy if your telco did it to you? (And dropped you in the sh*t as a result?) Or maybe for example, just sent your wife/gf/bf a complete illustrated list of all the Internet sites you've been browsing recently?
As for her morals, you know nothing of them. Or her husband's. He might have been bonking half the female population - or not, we really have no information.