It’s a juicy media story, featuring a former prosecutor turned football executive, a roller derby queen, a jilted fiancé and a fire-breathing feminist attorney. But beneath it all is a lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court that may have serious implications for many Lovefraud readers.
Cast of characters:
Matthew C. Couloute: Attorney, former prosecutor, affiliated with the NFL, former VP and counsel of the United Football League.
Stacey Blitsch: Roller derby queen for the Bay City Bombers. She had a relationship with Couloute, and they have a son together.
Amanda Ryncarz: Another woman who had a relationship with Couloute—she thought she was his fiancé.
Gloria Allred: Celebrity feminist attorney now representing the two women.
The Lawsuit
Matthew Couloute filed a lawsuit in federal court in Manhattan against Blitsch and Ryncarz, accusing both of them of making defamatory statements about him on LiarsCheatersRUs.com, a website that allows people to post comments about their exes. Here’s the post:
Matthew C. Couloute Jr. on LiarsCheatersRUs.com
The two women retained an attorney to represent them in New York, but Gloria Allred also jumped into the fray and held a press conference last week to announce the women’s response to the lawsuit.
Stacey Blitsch, in her statement, denied posting anything on LiarsCheatersRUs.com, and says she told Couloute that before he filed suit. But she says Couloute has forced her into court repeatedly over issues regarding their son.
Amanda Ryncarz, in her statement, admitted posting comments about Couloute on LiarsCheatersRUs.com. She said:
Matthew led me to believe that we were going to get married. I was shocked when he called me on the telephone on October 3, 2010 to tell me that our relationship was not working, and I was even more shocked to learn that twelve days later, he married another woman.
Ryncarz also said, “I do believe that women should have a legal right to share information with each other if they feel that they have been betrayed in a relationship.”
According to Allred’s statement in the press conference, Couloute is suing the women for “”˜tortious interference with prospective business relations’ because he alleges that the posting has resulted in his losing prospective clients who read or became aware of these allegations.”
By the way, one definition of defamation per se is making false allegations that injure a person’s trade, profession or business. By claiming that the Internet posting is interfering with his business, Couloute does not have to prove that the statements are defamatory. (For more on defamation lawsuits, my previous post on Exposing the sociopath.)
In the meantime, Couloute told the New York Post why he’s suing:
The point is you should not be able to anonymously defame people on a Web site set up in Panama outside the laws of the United States and get away with it. I’ve had a successful career my whole life, am good at what I do, and have absolutely no recourse against this company. And neither do you. I can sign on to the site and post your name and write anything I want about you. So my voice is the only thing I have, and that’s why I’m speaking out.
Read Fighting Internet insults on NYPost.com
The Argument
In the press conference, Gloria Allred announced that she and her clients have filed a motion asking for the lawsuit to be dismissed. She said in her statement:
We believe that lawsuits of this kind should not be allowed. The public policy of this nation should be that women have the right to exercise their free speech, and should not be silenced and afraid to speak out if they have experiences with men who have lied to them or cheated on them.
Unfortunately, the courts in this country do not protect women against liars and cheaters. In fact, the laws protect men who lie and cheat on their girlfriends.
Every state in this country has enacted laws, typically called Anti-Heart Balm Statutes, which protect men when they tell lies to their lovers even when these lies are fraudulent and even when they cause not only a broken heart but financial ruin to women who believe these lies. They also allow men to cheat on their girlfriends and break promises to them
Indeed, in New York the Legislature has abolished the right to sue for alienation of affection or breaching a promise to marry.
Women have to protect themselves because the Legislatures and the courts certainly won’t and don’t.
For example, in California the law states “A fraudulent promise to marry or to cohabit after marriage does not give rise to a cause of action for damages.” False representations, even fraudulent representations, is not enough to escape California’s anti-heart-balm statutes.
It is bad enough that male Legislators throughout the country have given blanket protection to men who lie and cheat but lawsuits similar to this one seem to be designed to ensure that women are afraid to even warn each other.
Enough is enough! Women must have a voice and be able to at least speak to each other on matters of common interest without fear of being dragged into court. It is ironic that men can look to the courts to shield and protect them when they lie or cheat on their girlfriends and then can resort to the courts once again if a woman tells anyone about those lies.
An important point is at stake in this case—whether someone can expose the actions of a lying, cheating lover on the Internet. This is critical to us here at Lovefraud, because almost all of us were involved with lying, cheating lovers. Sociopaths exploit people because that’s what they do, and they will continue to exploit all the unfortunate people who will become their lovers in the future. Many, many people have contacted me, wanting to expose the sociopath in their lives so that other people don’t have to suffer what they suffered.
Unfortunately, Allred has issued an inflammatory statement to cast this as a sexist issue. The problem is not men who cheat on women, it is sociopaths who cheat on whomever they are with. But because Allred is a “feminist” lawyer, she is painting this as a “feminist” cause. She did, in the press conference, admit that some women cheat, but she said men cheat more.
The importance of exposing liars and cheaters is not a feminist issue, and I worry that Allred’s characterization will do more harm than good.
Heart balm laws
The truly fascinating aspect of this case, however, is the discussion of heart balm laws, or anti-heart balm laws. To confuse matters, both terms refer to the same thing. According to The ”˜Lectric Law Library:
Heart balm laws are state laws that abolish the rights of action for monetary damages as solace for the emotional trauma caused by a loss of love and relationship.
I’d never heard of heart balm laws, so I looked into them further. The history of these laws is fascinating. The laws were enacted centuries ago when women were considered to be the property first of their fathers, then of their husbands. The idea was that if a man’s wife became involved with another lover, he had lost the affections of his wife, which were his property, and he was entitled to file suit against the lover.
Later, women could file lawsuits against former fiancés. If a man proposed marriage, the woman accepted the proposal, and the man reneged on the proposal—well, there was a time when society considered this to be very bad.
Then the laws started being abused. Imagine that! Women would entice rich men to propose marriage, the men would have second thoughts, and the women would sue. Apparently there were some nasty cases of breaking off engagements that invovled blackmail and extortion.
So back in the 1930s, many state legislatures passed new laws—called either heart balm laws or anti-heart balm laws—wiping the old laws that permitted lawsuits off the books. People could no longer sue for broken engagements.
By the way, not all states made these changes. “Alienation of affection” and other laws are still on the books in the following states: North Carolina, Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Dakota and Utah.
Read more here:
An explanation of heart balm laws on Lectlaw.com.
Tort basics, on IllinoisDivorce.com.
Inflammatory
This is what Gloria Allred is referring to in her statement—New York was one of the states back in the 1930s that abolished the right to sue for broken engagements and other marital issues. At the time, it probably made sense.
But back to Couloute suing his ex-lovers. There are important issues at stake in this case: The First Amendment issue of being able to expose the truth about liars and cheaters. The issue of individuals who promise affection in order to exploit others. It’s too bad that Allred is going to the media with this dumb story about women’s rights.
Men or women who knowingly exploit their romantic interests should be subject to penalty. And men or women who have been exploited should be able to warn others—because it’s highly likely that the exploiter will try to pull the same scam on someone else.
Great Article Donna,
The problem is though…many of us (former victims of psychopaths) have also been victims of the SMEAR CAMPAIGN.
I read each of the linked articles as well as the article in its entirety. The news article the man published sounded logical and reasonable.
The “warning” article published by the woman/women sounded unreasonable and rabid.
Allred’s statement sounded outrageous as well…and you are right, it is NOT a feminist issue, it is a human issue.
People do lie to each other, people do cheat on lovers and spouses….and that’s NOT NICE (at best) and it is HORRIBLE at worst. Unfortunately, not every bad act in the universe can or even should be covered by some legal statute that allows people to sue each other or makes it a criminal act.
Our court systems are outrageous enough as it is, with attorneys making hundreds of dollars an hour, such that the ordinary person can’t afford to go to civil court except “small claims” courts in which they can represent themselves, or with an attorney who will sue for a percentage of “damages” which are usually inflated, and if there are no potential “deep pockets” to get huge damages from, there is no attorney who will take the case.
This man may indeed be a creep, a liar and a cheat, but at the same time, the two women may be simply “scorned” women who are out to smear the good name of a good man, who the heck knows?
In your case, you were able to PROVE the majority of the things you said about James with documents, news paper clippings, etc. I do not see any EVIDENCE that these women have offered other than saying nasty things about him on line.
As far as the custody issue, maybe the man is the better parent of the two. At this point, all I’ve seen is a news article written by the man, and a smear posted on a web site mentioning his name. I don’t know if either of them have any validity or both have validity.
To post public information, or evidence is one thing, but to just be able to post nasty comments is another thing all together I think.
Our local newspaper has started publishing a paper with the MUG SHOTS of everyone arrested (not just convicterd, but accused) in the county, along with the charges they are arrested for. Our state prison system publishes a web page with the picture, charges convicted for, and the sentence they were given, as well as the potential parole date of everyone in prison in our state. People who are convicted of sexual offenses are posted on web sites for sexual offenders for the world to see. In Texas they are posted in the newspapers as well when they move.
When charges are brought against someone (a warrant of arrest is issued) the evidence against that person is signed and filed with a clerk’s office as a part of the permanent public record in that county after the judge signs it. That arrest record is there forever unless a judge seals it (which is sometimes done if the person is judged innocent or the charges are dropped, but not always) That information is PUBLIC RECORD, so that could be published I think legally and without violating any laws for liable since it is AVAILABLE PUBLIC INFORMATION. But that is not just “my opinion” that someone is a “creep.”
I am sure that you think personally that James Montgomery is a “creep” but you have EVIDENCE that he claimed valor for which he was not due. The striking down of the US law about “stolen valor” where it was a crime to CLAIM military honors or service which was a LIE is now NOT a crime—it isn’t a crime to LIE unless you are lying to get a pension (fraud) or something on that order, but to just LIE and say you were a military hero in order to get someone’s esteem is not a CRIME, though it is a lie.
Gloria Allred, my guess, is doing this probono for the publicity, but that’s just a GUESS…. don’t want her suing me! LOL
I’m actually more concerned about the First Amendment issues of this case. I do think that people should be able to post information on the Internet about double dealing, cheating, exploitative, violent sociopaths. Why? Because, in my experience, it’s the only thing that works.
I know that the True Lovefraud Stories have been effective. At least 7 women have contacted me from Australia to tell me that my ex-husband, James Montgomery, tried to hook up with them. Luckily, they Googled him, found Lovefraud, and dumped him. I’ve heard similar stories about people who escaped others that are profiled on Lovefraud.
There are many websites which allow you to post anything you want about lying, cheating exes. I have a list of about 10 of them. The problem is that anybody can post anything. So yes, while we may want to post the truth about the sociopaths who exploited us, the sociopaths may be engaged in smear campaigns to discredit us, and it may all be on the web.
The problem with all the liars-and-cheaters websites is that no one verifies who is telling the truth. In fact, it is probably legally unwise for the website owners to try to figure out who is the real lout and who is the victim. There is a law that says website owners are not liable for content posted by their users – just like the phone company is not liable for whatever you say during a phone conversation. However, if the site owners exercised editorial discretion, deciding which info to publish and which not to publish, they would probably be liable to lawsuits.
I think the sites should be held to journalistic standards. Anyone who posts derogatory information about exes needs to be able to prove the truth. But there should be no law or court ruling prohibiting the publication of information.
I didn’t think what those women said was all that bad. Hell, it sounds a lot like my ex in ways. What I found odd and somewhat revolting was the reaction from his “friends”, and that he even posted in there. My gut said that the rude and horrible “friends” were actually this man, and that Rachel woman is probably his wife, but who knows.
The whole thing is stupid, and WTF is he suing over? The lawsuit seems like just a power trip to me.
It sucks this lawyer turned it into a feminist issue. I think that might just blow it all. If this man wins, I wonder what that could mean for all of us? Are we all next to get sued? A lot of us have been more detailed and said worse things about our spaths. I do not have documented proof to prove the things I have said.
I have no proof that my ex-husband cheated on me. Sure, she answered my phone when I called it, but I have nothing documented saying that. I also have no proof of how he was very upset shortly after we separated because his life insurance policy for me was no more. Then he informed me the next day that “it was all okay, because he still had life insurance on MY kids.” WTF! I can go on and on, but I will tell you that anyone who knows him thinks he is wonderful. (until they ‘really’ get to know him, but he is good at not letting that happen much.) He is so charming and sweet, and can do no wrong. When he screws up, his answer is “I don’t know.” He is so friendly and fun to be around. He sucks people in left and right! He is not violent and he works (has a good job). He seems like a good person. BUT he is a SPATH, a con man, a cheater, and a thief! I have no documented proof, and I just feel sorry for the people that get sucked in. It is so unfair, but the burden of proof always lies with the victim or the one who get screwed.
Donna, I was typing away while you posted this. Yes, I agree that the first amendment right is the big issue here!
I wish that there was info on my last ex that was online. I did search all over for him when we were first together to try and make sure he was decent, but nothing came up. Everyone is too worried about getting sued!
I will tell you what made me snap was his ex gf. He had suddenly called her from my phone a couple of times, so I got up enough courage to finally call her. She was not some snarling beast that they had made her out to be, she was actually quite sweet. She told me the one thing that made me snap and starting my journey on learning about Spaths. She said “He never once told me he loved me.” They had been together for 6 years, and I was wondering if he hadn’t just used her for money before she had said this. I asked him about loving her, and he said he never did, and that he never loved any of his gfs (this included me).
Before all of this, I thought Spaths were murderers and really sick people like my cousin, his wife, and my uncle (murderer). My ex fit the profile to a T! Seriously, I am unsure if he got a no on any of the criteria.
If I would have been able to have this info from his ex when I as first with him, he would have been gone right away! I wouldn’t have blew off that gut feeling of run when we were first together. I would have understood that when he called me his gf and I cringed to listen! I just thought it was because I hadn’t been a relationship for years and not used to it. I would have listened had I known better. I would not have listened to his stupid family telling me what a “good guy” he was.
Exes are valuable people when it comes to future relationships. I have exes that were decent and I would never say anything bad about them. Then I have a couple of Spaths. It is an awful feeling to know that they will torture more unsuspecting souls, and I cannot even share my knowledge for fear of some legal crap. I feel sorry for the future gfs and I feel really sorry for my ex husband’s current wife whom he just married to stay in this country. She has been fed a bunch of crap about me, and is has no idea that he talks of leaving her as soon as his conditions are off his Visa at the end of this year. So very sad!
Jen and Donna,
I agree with you both…and many of the psychopaths have very good “masks” that they wear in public. My own egg donor is quite the “sweet, pious little old lady” in public, but I have seen behind the mask.
No one with any sense would trust my son Patrick…he has a long criminal record of convictions and 20+ years in prison…and the Trojan Horse Psychopath has a long series of sexual convictions for crimes against children, but yet even admitting that, he cons people into TRUSTING him, because he “repented” and “found Jesus.” I applaud anyone who does REPENT of a life of crime and finds Jesus, but while I may applaud that step in them turning their lives around, I will NEVER give that person the key to my house or my car!
Knowing someone’s background and past behavior is a definite plus in how much you should be willing to trust that person if YOU ARE WISE.
People DO change. People DO repent and change their ways, stop drinking and drugging or doing crimes….and that is wonderful for them, but while I would hope that every person who has done things in the past that were criminal or just unwise or told lies would change, I do not intend to TRUST someone who has a DOCUMENTED TRACK RECORD of lies, dishonesty, violence, etc.
I have told lies. I have stolen things. I have done unwise and just plain stupid, mean things in my life, but I do not have a long serial history of breaking and entering and criminal stealing, or hurting others. I have indeed pointed a gun at someone in self defense, but I didn’t pull the trigger because the threat of the gun was enough to make the person depart the area. I do not have a long documented history of gun violence, criminal mischief, theft or dishonesty, so I am a person in whom someone could pretty well put their trust that If I had a key to their house it would be UNLIKELY I would go there and steal anything. Even that though is no guarentee that I would not steal from them.
My egg donor is also unlikely to go into my house and steal, but that doesn’t mean I would trust her in other aspects. She has a record in my past experience of untrustworthyness and lying to cover up her intentions and actions. She is also an enabler in my experience, enabling others to engage in bad behavior which she covers it up.
My X boy friend that I dated after my husband died, had a long track record of cheating on his previous wife, and true-to-form, he cheated on me with other women while we were dating. Once I found out about his long track record of cheating on his former wife while they were married, I soon uncovered evidence he was continuing that behavior where I was concerned and probably would have continued that if I had married him. I chose to not marry him and broke off the relationship. I firmly DO believe he burned a woman’s house because she dumped him, she also believes this, but we cannot prove it, so I am not going to go out on a limb and accuse him openly, name him, etc., even though I firmly believe he is capable of doing that again.
My x DIL was arrested and convicted for buying a hand gun for a known felon which is a felony in itself. I have no problem telling someone what she did because there are PUBLIC RECORDS that I can back it up with.
One of the members of my living history group was convicted and served time in a federal prison for kiddie porn. I had no problem getting the public records of this conviction and notifying his employers (resulting in him being fired in jobs working with children). I had no problem making these public records available to people in our group or to anyone else I thought might have a need to know even though they resulted in him losing jobs working with children. In fact, I think I would have been remiss in NOT informing people of his criminal background when he was continuing to work with children. Though, believe it or not, some of the men in our living history group branded me a “troublemaking biatch” for holding this against him…”he had paid his debt to society” and I should “not have persecuted” him.
I did NOT simply say “I don’t like him, he’s a creepy guy.” I had proof that a jury had convicted him of being a pedophile. It so happens that three men I have known that I did not like turned out to have been criminally prosecuted pedophiles, and I didn’t know this about them at the time I formed an opinion that I “didn’t like them.” I am sure that I have disliked others who were NOT pedophiles, so my dislike doesn’t necessarily mean someone is a pedophile, a thief, or a cheat, it simply means that I will not trust that person or be intimate with them.
I have personally been painted (slandered) by my egg donor as trying to “steal her money” and I am sure that there are people who still believe her. I have not sued her, though I could have done so….maybe with some success, maybe not (probably not) but it would have “stirred up shiat” and even if I had “won” in court, would probably have caused me more problems than it solved.
It will be interesting to see what happens in this case and the “freedom of speech” angle as well. I hope we can follow up on this suit and see what the outcome is. Thanks for bringing it up, Donna. Whatever the outcome is, it will be interesting for those of us who have been smeared or have “outed” our abusers.
Wouldn’t it be lovely to have that much time on your hands! It obviously bothers this man for him to go to such extreme measures to further ’punish’ these women. I know through my own experience with my SP that the first sign of guilt is the insistent need they have to try and ’prove’ their point and their innocence! It is always the women who are ’nuts, or obsessed, or stalkers who have rejection issues’. Lol…classic ’passing the blame elsewhere’, which we all know they are so good at doing! Unfortunately for the poor victims of this man, all they were doing at the time was wasting their energy. He is obviously good at what he does and I think if he was the innocent victim, he would have carry on with his ’happy’ life and wife and laugh off the allegations these women made against him. But in true SP style he has to ’prove his innocence’ as they do! My SP’s parents forked over $45,000 in legal fees just so their precious baby (the poor victim) could prove his point in court with his ex wife! Anyhoo… I guess regardless of the outcome here, at least these women have put it out there and women in the future will now be cautious of this Matthew Couloute. He will always have a question mark hanging over him. Hopefully that will provide a little satisfaction for his victims!
Wow Oxy! You really know some pretty bad Spaths!! Mine except my uncle and cousins are pretty mellow compared to that!. My uncle was in prison, a meth dealer, and a murderer. He is a scary man. My cousin and his wife are pretty good at child abuse and animal abuse. The other spaths in my life are more small time, and just seem to get off on destroying other people’s lives. They are great at emotional abuse and exploiting others. My last ex has a criminal record, but it is just stupid crap. The other ones have no criminal record, but they do steal a lot from others (conning) and really hurt people badly. I know what it is like to be part of a slander circle from spaths. Hell, I am the butt of one right now, but my theory is f**k em. I cannot say or do anything to make them stop, and it is not worth my time. The people that are mentally stable and know me do not listen to them. It is just anyone new that does not know me must think I am some horrible person, well, until they get to know the spaths better, at least.
Dear TruthBtold,
I was born into a DNA nest of vipers, but also some few good people as well….excellent people in fact, but the ones that were bad were like ….”there once was a little girl, who had a little curl, right in the middle of her forehead, when she was good, she was very very good, and when she was bad, she was horid.”
My psychopathic son, Patrick, is the only one who has gone to prison…though there are others who SHOULD have gone to prison for their crimes. My son C’s P-wife, though, went to jail for her part in buying the gun her BF used to try to kill him, and it was funny I think, that she was literally shocked at getting caught. She thought she had such a smart plan that it just couldn’t back fire. LOL
The thirst for revenge if they don’t get their way I think is such a P-trait. I know lots of us have wanted “revenge” and that is a normal feeling when you have been injured, but the psychopaths I think are much more likely to nurture that feeling of rage and vengence, to actually carry it out where most normal people, I think, give up that desire for revenge pretty quickly.
BTW I think wanting “justice” is not the same as “revenge.” The way I separate them is if you rob my house, “justice” is me testifying I saw you with my TV, and you going to jail for robbery, but “revenge” would be me burning down your house.
Unfortunately, though, most Ps seem to think that “justice” is the same as “revenge,” so if you “cause” them to go to jail by testifying against them, they want to “get even” with you, because THEY see their going to jail as YOUR FAULT. They don’t see that them being a THIEF is why they went to jail.
TBT,
Even though some spaths don’t kill and rape, they still are soul murderers. I’m not sure that they aren’t equally evil.
The courts don’t favor women as much as people think they do.
This is still a man’s world. I can remember when my spath deserted me to marry his next victim I was in the process of trying to get an annulment from him. I had the goods on him. I had solid proof. Me & my attorney were working on it. I had phone receipts and hotel receipts that could have easily proved adultery.
On top of that my spath had a criminal record for beating up someone in public service. He almost killed the guy and did time in prison for it where he was diagnosed as being a “psycho.”
My ex-husband & his attorney were afraid of a public smear campaign so my ex pulled the rug out from under me & filed for divorce. You can only get a divorce or an annulment but you can’t get both and an annulment is very hard to get. You have to have proof which I was in the process of putting together.
I would still at some point LUV to get an annulment but I realize I may never be able to do it. Thirty years have passed and I remarried but I hate that spath so much I want that marriage stricken from the records.
I would also LUV to call out my spath in public but realize I could never do it. If I had been warned about mine I wouldn’t have touched him with a 10 ft. pole. I agree that women should be allowed to be warned about “sociopathic” men or liars or “cheaters.”Why waste your time with someone who’s “no damn good!”
As far as a smear campaign goes I know my ex has smeared me with everyone who knows me. When I ran into his mother a few months back she gave me a look that could kill and I know he has done a lot of damage more than likely playing the pity play victim thing when in fact I was his victim. But at this point I don’t really care. I’m sure they’ve heard the goods on him from numerous women any way.