Some Thoughts on Ellen Pao’s Marriage
Posted on March 25th, 2015 in Uncategorized | 57 Comments »
I’ve been following the Silicon Valley story of Ellen Pao with interest. Pao is the former partner at venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins who is now suing the firm, alleging sex discrimination. She claims that she was treated differently than male employees were; Kleiner claims, basically, that she wasn’t very good.
The case has attracted enormous interest in Silicon Valley as an avatar for discussion about gender imbalance in the tech world.
It’s certainly interesting, from that perspective. But I’ve been following it closely for another reason: Ellen Pao is married to a man whom I’ve written about in depth. His name is Buddy Fletcher, and and he has a history of filing dubious lawsuits inspired by perceived slights and financial desperation. In my opinion he is, at the very least, a scoundrel; the forces of law may yet prove him a criminal.
I wrote about Fletcher in Boston magazine; he’s a Harvard graduate, an African-American man, who went to Wall Street and tried to make a lot of money. He left his first job at the brokerage firm Kidder Peabody and promptly filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination. Like Ellen Pao, Fletcher charged that he was treated differently from the great majority of employees whose identity did not match his. In my article, I found that the grounds for that lawsuit were thin at best. Fletcher didn’t win it—in fact, he lost the ruling on whether he was discriminated against—but he was awarded back pay of about a million dollars. He claimed that as a victory, and the press played along. So when Fletcher opened a hedge fund that appeared to generate remarkable, almost unbelievable returns, the press proclaimed him a financial genius—an African-American who had taken lily-white Wall Street by storm.
He is broke now, because he is not a financial genius, and there is ample suggestion that he is broke even though he siphoned money from his hedge fund—including retirement money from Louisiana firefighters—to support a lavish lifestyle that included the ownership of three apartments at the Dakota, John Lennon’s old apartment building in New York. (If you don’t know it—it’s pricey.) That didn’t stop him, after he tried to buy a fourth and was rejected by the board after it scrutinized the state of his finances, from suing the apartment building for racial discrimination. That suit trudges endlessly on, even though Fletcher has gone through teams of lawyers because he consistently declines to pay them.
One other fact about Fletcher that’s worth knowing: Until he fled New York, married Ellen Pao and had a baby, he had lived his entire adult life as a gay man. Not bisexual—gay.
The judge in Pao’s case has ruled that none of this is admissible, and I think that’s the right decision; in court, Pao’s allegations should stand or fall on their own merits. The mainstream media seems to have decided that it’s sexist or something to write about her marriage, and so I haven’t seen a single smart article that really explores her relationship with Fletcher and whether it’s had any impact on her decision to sue Kleiner Perkins.
But I can’t help but think that her relationship with Fletcher is relevant, even if you can’t establish that legally. I’ll be honest: First, the fact that Pao married him makes me wonder about her, and not just because of his sexual orientation. It just wouldn’t take much digging to find out that Fletcher’s financial ethics are highly questionable. Either Pao didn’t care—not great—or didn’t know. In which case, you have to wonder what kind of a venture capitalist she is. If can’t do basic due diligence on a marital prospect about whom much has been written, how could you be trusted to give good advice on a company in which to invest millions?
It’s also hard not to wonder if the suit isn’t inspired by Fletcher in some way; until the past couple of years, he had made quite a lot of money off allegations of racism and the use of race as a marketing tool.
And the other way it could have been inspired by him, of course, is due to the fact that he needs the money. He is more than broke; he’s deeply in debt. I don’t know how many lawsuits he’s now defending himself against, but the latest was filed a day or so ago.
Ellen Pao could conceivably make tens of millions of dollars off her lawsuit—the jury is deliberating even as I write this—which probably wouldn’t resolve all of her husband’s financial issues, but would certainly help.
And that’s why Pao’s case, much as some people would like it to be a litmus test of sexism in Silicon Valley, is just a terrible way to air these issues. It—and Ellen Pao—are far too complicated for that.
57 Responses
3/25/2015 4:26 pm
That’s funny, I’d never heard this part before…
3/25/2015 4:38 pm
The press doesn’t seem to cover things like this, do they?
3/25/2015 6:00 pm
Is this guy the new Al Sharpton?
In recent years it’s amazing how these kind of bad cases are seized by activists without doing due diligence:
1. Trayvon Martin
2. Michael Brown
3. Jackie
3/25/2015 7:58 pm
No matter how much Pao manages to get out of this, it does;t appear to me that is going to be enough to fill the hole B.F seems to be in. She might jus be looking to stay afloat herself
3/25/2015 7:59 pm
Kleiner Perkins asked the judge to reconsider not letting them introduce Pao’smarriage into the trial, so it seems they are preserving that as grounds for appeal should things go badly for them.
3/25/2015 11:00 pm
It’s sesame street time on the blog. Let’s all sing the song - “O ne of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn’t belong.”:
>1. Trayvon Martin
>2. Michael Brown
>3. Jackie
Let’s see - a kid who attacked a cop, a woman who lied about being raped. And …
And a kid who was stalked by a gun-wielding weirdo while on the property where he lived, and then shot when he tried to defend himself. If there were any justice in this world, Trayvon Martin would’ve been armed, George I-beat-my-girlfriends would’ve been the one who bit it, and Martin would’ve defended himself on stand-my-ground reasoning, since he was inside his father’s homeowners association when he was murdered.
For all that Mr. Bradley tempers his pieces with wisdom and caution, those with, ahem, retro attitudes about sex and race do seem to find this blog, and quickly to out themselves.
3/25/2015 11:16 pm
And a kid who was stalked by a gun-wielding weirdo while on the property where he lived, and then shot when he tried to defend himself.
That isn’t what happened, Ryan.
3/25/2015 11:16 pm
Richard,
Steve Sailer has written on this before.
3/25/2015 11:50 pm
Fortune has been covering The Gruesome Twosome for a few years. But Clair Cain Miller of the NYT is extremely averse to mentioning that Ellen is married to Buddy Fletcher, even though the NYT has written about Buddy’s lawsuits several times over the years. It’s almost as if the NYT is trying to make their columns as dull as possible to make them a “safe space” so readers won’t have their emotions triggered by reading unwelcome facts.
Heck, I read about Buddy’s lawsuit v. Kidder Peabody in the WSJ over 20 years ago. I think Law & Order back in the 1990s made an episode where they blended Buddy’s lawsuit with a similar one and then added a murder.
3/25/2015 11:51 pm
The equity issue over the judge’s ruling to leave Buddy out of the trial is that Pao was allowed to declare from the witness stand in response to her lawyer’s question that her motives in bringing the lawsuit was fight the good fight for women by punish this sexist institution.
3/25/2015 11:56 pm
(1) How many Dakota units did Fletcher own? In this post, you say three, but in Boston Magazine, you said four. (I think NYT also equivocates.)
(2) You say he “fled” New York when he married Pao. But he attempted to buy a new unit in the Dakota afterwards, indeed, in the name of space for the family.
(3) Pao married Fletcher in 2007. Was it really true then that “It just wouldn’t take much digging to find out that Fletcher’s financial ethics are highly questionable”? Sounds like hindsight bias to me. How long have you been writing about him?
3/26/2015 9:24 am
The basis for the judge’s ruling is that every damages-seeking plaintiff wants money, and the question to be resolved at trial is whether she is entitled to get it, not whether she has any particular reason for wanting it. The judge is on solid legal ground there.
As for what the marriage says about her judgment: I think you can wonder about any woman who marries a gay man, but as far as the money is concerned, people who get married can contractually insulate their finances from one another. No idea whether she did that.
3/26/2015 9:41 am
keypusher -
Isn’t California a community-property state, meaning anything that comes in once you are married belongs to both parties?
3/26/2015 10:23 am
Off-topic:
Richard, could you give an educated guess how the NY Times’ fact-checking likely worked in the apparent mass murder-suicide of the copilot of the Germanwings crash?
Only a few hours after the authorities announced that they had read out the voice data recorder, the NYT reported that an unnamed “high-ranking French military source” told them that one pilot had locked out the other pilot from the cockpit and that the locked-out pilot had unsuccessfully tried to break down the door.
In the meantime, this information has been confirmed officially. It would have been disastrous for the NYT if it had turned out to be wrong. How does a supervising editor go about corroborating this explosive information in a minimal amount of time?
3/26/2015 11:36 am
Thanks for the background on this lawsuit. I’d seen headlines about it, but I was never interested enough about it to read the articles about it.
3/26/2015 11:50 am
I-Roller-That was interesting, wasn’t it? I noticed that all the major papers had that story, apparently from the same source. So my guess is that there was some sort of on-site press conference in which everyone knew who the speaker was, but they were asked not to name him. The White House (every White House) does similar things sometimes….
3/26/2015 11:56 am
Doug-The Boston Magazine piece is right, but if I recall my reporting correctly, one of the apartments he owned was little more than a glorified storage closet. (In the context of the Dakota, though, that was probably more expensive than many homes.) As far as the timing of his marriage versus his financial troubles: The signs were there if anyone bothered to look.
3/26/2015 12:05 pm
I just learned about this today:
http://w ww.librarians.cc/2015/03/teamharpy-faked-sexual-harassment.html
Hasn’t made big news but I’m sure it has a significant internet following.
Basically 2 hipster librarians “called out” a male librarian for being a sexual predator on twitter. Nearly a year later they apologize profusely. Looking into their blogs there seem to be signs of major mental illness.
3/26/2015 12:07 pm
I just learned about this today, hasn’t made big news but I’m sure it has a significant internet following.
Basically 2 hipster librarians “called out” a male librarian for being a sexual predator on twitter. Nearly a year later they apologize profusely. Looking into their blogs there seem to be signs of major mental illness.
Look up #teamharpy for more information.
3/26/2015 12:14 pm
I made false and damaging comments about librarian Joe Murphy for which I would like to apologize. I ask you to please read the following statement for details from my perspective.
On May 3, 4 and 5, 2014, I posted tweets that referenced librarian Joe Murphy implying without a basis in fact that he was a sexual predator. These unsubstantiated statements gained wide attention and caused Mr. Murphy significant damage.
My intention in posting these tweets was to draw attention to the issue of sexual harassment of female librarians in the profession. My statements were made carelessly, and were not based on facts. I have never observed Mr. Murphy sexually harass or exhibit sexually predatory behavior. Ms. de Jesus
relied on my tweets for writing her blog post. My statements should have never been repeated as they were based on gossip and innuendo, not fact.
I was ill prepared for the damaging impact that these unfair statements would have. I wholly retract my statements and unreservedly apologize to Mr. Murphy for the significant damage I have caused to his personal and professional reputation.
I strongly encourage those who aligned with #teamharpy and decided to attack Mr. Murphy to cease to continue to defame or disparage him. Mistakes have been made and we have the opportunity to show good character by apologizing and moving on.”
— Lisa Rabey
3/26/2015 2:49 pm
“My intention in posting these tweets was to draw attention to the issue of sexual harassment of female librarians in the profession.”
Why is it that so many activists (for any cause) are so comfortable with lying? And when they’re caught in their lies, they always say something along the lines of “well, this may not have been true, but we were trying to expose a greater truth.” A lie is a lie, and people should be punished when they lie about others.
3/26/2015 3:33 pm
It is propaganda and it serves a purpose.
3/26/2015 4:41 pm
So all the media had the same info but the New York Times was the first, and only*, publication to break embargo?
That seems unlikely. The March 25th Times’ story headlined “Germanwings Pilot Was Locked Out of Cockpit Before Crash in France” was widely quoted by other media as the source. I believe they all came out later. Can’t imagine one of the notorious British mass-market publications sitting on this item and letting the NYT scoop them.
Instead, I imagine the NYT had exclusive access to the “senior French military official involved in the investigation”, for reasons unknown to me — (strong pre-existing personal relationship? payola? calling in favors? promise of favorable future coverage? NYT picked by contact over competition due to reputation?)
Okay, say I’m manning the world news desk in the NYT building when the reporter calls in with the bombshell from Paris. What sort of drill begins to run through my mind?
(1) Can my reporter be trusted to tell the truth — could he be pulling a Jayson Blair?
(2) Is s/he being hoodwinked by an impostor?
(3) If the official is real, can his/her info be trusted?
Would it be enough to have a second reporter get in touch with the “French military official” to get confirmation? Would that be sufficient to confirm both the accuracy of the information and the official’s credentials?
What other steps should I take? Should I call for an immediate meeting with senior management to get backup? Will that save my job if the report turns out to be wrong after all? Why am I seeing the words ‘You will never work in this industry again’ flashing before my eyes?
*Early this afternoon, some media changed “as first reported by the NY Times” to “as first reported by the NYT and Agence France Presse”, without explanation.
3/27/2015 1:26 am
Forgot to add, naturally I would have attempted to get in touch with the BEA (France’s counterpart to the NTSB which is heading the investigation) for confirmation. But I can only get ahold of an annoyed-sounding subaltern (an hour earlier, Finnish media had made up a tall tale about sounds of windshields being blown out heard on the tape) who declines to comment and tells me to wait for their next press conference.
3/27/2015 1:32 am
In the good old days, Woodward, Bernstein, and their editors had days… weeks… to mull what “Deep Throat” told them and to deliberate what to do with it.
Now, the decision time has collapsed down to a couple of hours.
3/27/2015 8:50 am
Interested Observer — Yes it is. But the doctrine of community property works as a presumption that property acquired during the marriage is jointly owned. It can be contracted around or shown not to apply.
It certainly doesn’t mean that Ellen Pao is automatically jointly and severally liable for any debts Buddy Fletcher incurs.
3/27/2015 8:59 am
@ I-Roller
In the good old days, Woodward, Bernstein, and their editors had days… weeks… to mull what “Deep Throat” told them and to deliberate what to do with it.
Now, the decision time has collapsed down to a couple of hours.
That’s a wild overstatement. Investigative journalism is still practiced. The Wall Street Journal just ran a big piece on Israeli spying in the United States. I can promise you reporting that story took a long time, and the decision to run it was not taken in a couple of hours.
Meanwhile back in Woodward & Bernstein’s time there was no internet to contend with, but there was television and “hot news” that newspapers had to decide every day whether to publish. And physical generation and printing of copy was a much slower and more onerous process than it is now.
Go back before television, even before radio, and a lot of newspapers published twice a day, and there were multiple, highly competitive newspapers in most cities.
As long as we’ve had newspapers, we’ve had crushing deadline pressure.
3/27/2015 9:54 am
keypusher —
Thanks for your reply. When you say these issues can be contracted around, that would be via a pre-nup, correct? And if there isn’t one, does that eliminate the possibility of contracting around them?
Re your reply to I-Roller: Until quite recently, newspapers have produced editions that were substantially different for different markets, even if that is not exactly the same as publishing ‘twice daily,’ and many still remake the front page (and whatever else is required) to accommodate important breaking news, resulting in different editions of the same edition, if that makes any sense. These remakes are typically indicated by some sort of symbol on the masthead, and with the number of symbols indicating how many times the paper has been remade.
3/27/2015 6:42 pm
I read the Boston magazine article. If some investment adviser told me they could predict the winner of dog races based on previous race time and the weather I’d close my checkbook and get away from that person as quickly as possible. That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. No wonder Madoff found so many willing dupes.
3/27/2015 7:06 pm
She lost: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/technology/ellen-pao-kleiner-perkins-case-decision.html
3/27/2015 11:56 pm
I’m taken aback about the comment about her husband’s sexuality. There’s some sort of insinuation being made I realize, but I confess I’m not sure what. There may be lots in his finances or lawsuits that is worthy of criticism but being in a long term gay relationship before marrying a person of the opposite sex just doesn’t qualify in my view.
3/28/2015 8:46 am
Beecham —
Supposing Poo is ignorant of Fletcher’s sexual history/orientation, and that she isn’t willing to allow him gay encounters:
If sexual orientation is genetically hard-wired — not a choice, and if Fletcher is indeed gay, the marriage has no long-term hope quite aside from the normal issues that plague marriages.
If sexual orientation is a choice, and if Fletcher chooses to refrain from gay encounters in deference to Pao’s wishes, then the issue much less likely to cause stress in their marriage.
Of course, if Pao knew what she was getting into and/or doesn’t care about Fletcher’s sexual tastes, the issue is moot.
It’s worth noting that gays and their supporters have always been vocal that being gay is genetic and not a choice…
3/28/2015 9:07 am
keypusher:
As long as we’ve had newspapers, we’ve had crushing deadline pressure.
Point taken, thanks.
Back to the Germanwings leak: I doubt very much the NYT obtained confirmation from the BEA in the space of an hour or two. Seems really reckless to go ahead and publish the leak anyway, even if it turned out to be accurate. True, the decision boosted NYT circulation by thousands of copies and gave them a “win” to recoup some of the ground lost to their perennial rival the WaPo … but the downside would have been so much bigger than the upside if they had been wrong!
Unless … there never was an unnamed “highly-ranked French military official” … or that person existed but was merely a “cut-out” for the real leaker. And who might that be? None other than Airbus, of course. People on aviation forums and general discussion boards speculating about the course of the crash were converging on “computer error” as the likeliest cause; many pointed to the steep dive of a Lufthansa Airbus A320 in November 2014 due to frozen sensors, from which the pilots had managed to recover in the nick of time by switching off nearly all flight-management automation.
Airbus’ reputation was taking a hit. The pro-Boeing trolls were out in full force. If Airbus had to wait months for the BEA to publish its findings, its bread-and-butter business (sales of the A32x family) would be impacted severely. Airbus had its representative(s) in the room when the cockpit voice recording was played. Wasting no time, someone very highly placed (perhaps even their CEO) got in touch with the New York Times to spill the beans.
At least, that’s how I think it went down. And now, rather than the NYT owing one to the leaker, Airbus owes the NYT, big time, for allowing itself to be made Airbus’ undeclared mouthpiece and forcing the hand of the Marseilles prosecutor in his press conference the next day. A favor that is now accruing interest in the favor bank, waiting to be called at an opportune moment for the NYT.
Journalism is such dirty business! No wonder so many journalists are moral scolds and get on their high horse so often … it helps them to forget how morally compromised they themselves are.
3/28/2015 9:34 am
I-Roller —
I’m not sure that I’m with you on your theory of what happened here, but I’m with you on journalists. I’ve long thought that the traditional media has two inter-related problems brought on by the internet and related to your point:
1) The internet allow anyone to find out the truth, as opposed to what the likes of the NYT says it is. (Of course, it also provides a forum for those who make the NYT look in comparison.) Why would anyone spend a dollar for a lie when they can get the truth for free? As a result of this, millions of people have stopped buying newspapers and news magazines (and watching television news), resulting in a much smaller base for the media to sell advertising against.
2) The cost-per thousand (CPM) for internet readers is much lower than is the cost for print readers, resulting in reduced revenues for publishers while their costs for people and associated expenses remain exactly the same.
Either of those things is a revenue (and profit) nightmare on its own, but you put them together and…
3/28/2015 4:19 pm
SO I SEE FEMINIST TYPES PORTRAYING THIS AS SOME SORT OF VICTORY DESPITE HER LOSING: Jury finds no gender discrimination against Ellen Pao in case that captivated Silicon Valley.
But the most likely consequence — which would have been even more likely if she had won — will be for firms to be less willing to hire women in the first place. Doubly so, of course, if they talk about “social justice” a lot.
http: //pjmedia. com/instapundit/204243/
3/29/2015 4:45 pm
[…] she described having “succumbed” to unwelcome sexual advances, and later marries a gay African-American hedge fund owner who has his own share of […]
3/30/2015 6:49 am
The internet allow anyone to find out the truth, as opposed to what the likes of the NYT says it is
Dunno about that, IntObs. Sure, a single Tom Friedman opinion piece can have long-term debilitating effects if you make the mistake of reading it. But the news reporting is mostly O.K. (sometimes infuriatingly wrong, sometimes brilliant and insightful).
If by “the internet” you mean an aggregator like Google News or in-depth research using a variety of search tools, well, o.k. But that will soon show you that the NYT online edition’s reporting compares favorably to competing media. If you mean “alt-right”, conspiracy-mongering, and other nutcase sites, then we’ll have to agree to disagree.
3/30/2015 7:48 am
I-Roller —
I’ve made this point before (you may not have seen it): The NYT’s public editors have said it’s a ‘liberal newspaper’ (direct quote) catering to their primary audience on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Setting aside the characteristics of that particular audience, any news source that has to qualify their perspective on the news isn’t really a reliable news source.
As but one example of their overt bias, they said in both their news and opinion pages that the shooter of Congresswoman Giffords was a Tea Party aficionado, which turned out to be false — his family and friends said he was liberal, if anything — but they never offered a correction or retraction.
The Times also has a policy of not printing anything that take.issue with anything one of their opinion columnists has said, even if the columnist is wrong on the facts or flat out dishonest. James Taranto of ‘Best of the Web Today’ has given examples, including page numbers in his text books, of Paul Krugman saying diametrically opposed things in his columns and in the textbooks he sells to his students at Princeton. Perhaps some of his students should sue him to see which view he defends… my guess would be that it’s the one in the textbooks.
I’ll agree with you that the NYT is perhaps not out of line with most other media outlets, but that’s a low bar to set. It’d be nice if they (the media) would just stick to the facts with no interpretation, instead of presenting them in a way thay comports with their political beliefs. And for what it’s worth, I’m not so naive as to think that this behavior hasn’t always been the case…
3/30/2015 8:10 am
Alyways a good idea to check out foreign news sources, too. On matters not likely to embarrass the Communist Party of China, I find the English-language edition of People’s Daily surprisingly good when it comes to straight-up, facts-only reporting. A kind of gimlet-eyed worldview that appeals to me.
Sadly, haven’t found anything in Russia to compare. Russia Today is incredibly bad.
3/30/2015 10:00 am
>> On matters not likely to embarrass… <<
Unfortunately, that phrase all too accurately describes most of the media's attitude towards the Obama administration in particular and Democrat administrations in general… an attempt to refrain from embarrassing them at all cost.
That's why things like Jonathan Karl of ABC last week mocking WH press secretary Josh Earnest regarding the utter goofiness of Earnest saying the administration's policy in Yemen is working while Yemen was falling apart is so noteworthy… it's an outlier. Another example is the TV news correspondent (I can't recall who at the moment) who recently had the nerve (and the honesty) to call out Obama for lying when Obama said that he and the late King of Saudi Arabia had a special relationship and were friends by pointing out that it was a well known fact that the King hated Obama.
I hate to have to use Jr. as an example because it may seem like I am defending him, but there is no question that the press used a different standard for Bush than they do for Obama, or for that matter, a different standard for any Republican official and administration than they do for the Dems.
We reap what we sow — it's been widely reported that one of the things causing grief to the news industry is that more and more people are choosing sources that they know reflects their own bias… lather, rinse, repeat…
And it's this last phenomenon that makes Richard so unusual. He was able to see how that sort of behavior caused him grief with Stephen Glass (Glass played to his prejudices and so he was prone to believe Glass) and to correct his behavior.
Everyone should be an equal opportunity skeptic.
.
3/30/2015 10:27 am
The fact that she is married to Buddy Fletcher is amazing, one of those weird confluences that makes you think there’s some sort of grand plan it work.
Oddly, I actually don’t think, from what I’ve read, that her case was all that far-fetched. But you’ve got to have a pretty high standard of proof.
That notwithstanding, I realized I’d actually been in one of Buddy Fletcher’s Dakota apartments as the guest of the realtor who was charged with selling it. His suit against the Dakota board is fascinating; had they done due diligence they wouldn’t have let him in in the first place. Not because he was black but because he was a scam artist.
3/30/2015 11:44 am
The fact that she is married to Buddy Fletcher is amazing, one of those weird confluences that makes you think there’s some sort of grand plan it work.
It’s easier to believe they bonded because each thinks - despite their enormous success - society has been outrageously unfair to them. I imagine it’s quite difficult to find people at that level who share this sense of victimization to the degree that each would sue their employer and significantly damage their future employment prospects. But imagine how reaffirming it would be if your closest adviser felt the same way.
3/30/2015 12:46 pm
I think Marshal’s analysis is a pretty keen observation of human nature, and true in Ellen Pao’s case. In Buddy Fletcher’s case, it’s not so clear, given his financial shenanigans which predated their marriage and his sexual history.
I don’t think the premise that Ms. Pao has severely damaged her employment prospects — after all she became the interim CEO of Reddit after she filed suit against Kleiner Perkins. There might be some residual damage to her, but I think it will be less than conventional wisdom seems to have it.
If we give Ms. Pao the benefit of the doubt in terms of going after KP — that is to say that she honestly believed that she was discriminated against — people’s opinions will be all over the spectrum, from those immediately disqualifying her from consideration to those giving her extra points because they believe she was discriminated against, and everything in between.
The interesting questions here are the circumstances of her being made ‘interim’ CEO, and is she being given an honest opportunity to become the permanent one?
Perhaps Ms. Pao is more suited to this type of role than that of a VC… good luck to her.
3/30/2015 4:28 pm
Interested Observer:
When you say these issues can be contracted around, that would be via a pre-nup, correct? And if there isn’t one, does that eliminate the possibility of contracting around them?
I am not admitted to practice law in California or any community property state. So you should not take what I say as authoritative.
But my understanding is that, even after you are married, if you can show that a particular piece of property was acquired by you alone, for example via a bank account that does not contain any commingled assets, it is yours. Also, but I’d assume that if your spouse submits a sworn statement that X asset is yours and yours alone, that would suffice, unless the court was convinced you were trying to hide assets from creditors or something similar.
Normally property that you bring to the marriage does not become joint property, even without a pre-nup.
4/2/2024 8:24 am
As always, Richard, great writing on a sacred cow/s that others fear to BBQ…
Buddy, it should be noted, apart from being gay (I was his Harvard roommate and colleague at Fletcher Asset Management, and he made this clear to me and many of his college friends many times) was also, in the words of one lawyer and lawsuit, a “sexual predator” and settled many cases of harassment of male employees both at FAM and on his numerous properties. This information could have been discovered by Poo prior to her marriage to Fletcher. She chose to ignore it.
(BTW, has anyone EVER found a picture of Ms. Gender-Rights Champion and Mr. Civil-Rights Champion together?)
It does, however, suggest yet another angle in the “Student Become Master” Weirdness of the whole Felcher-Pao relationship. If anyone knew the meaning and possible value of sexual harassment lawsuits, it was Buddy. Just ask a few of his former friends and employees.
As for Mr. Sailer’s comment about the Law and Order episode based on Buddy, yes it did happen. I know because I was the one who negotiated the deal for them to film Law and Order at Fletcher’s office in the then GM Building at 59th and 5th. Any opportunity to bask in the reflected glare of the media, no matter how garish and unflattering, seemed to be welcome in Fletcher’s world…perhaps not anymore.
But the big question remains: why is it taking so long for Holder’s DOJ to go after this apparent fraudster? I know the NY Post have asked the same question, and I look forward to a responsible journalist pointing out all the connections between Buddy-Poo and Obama. For starters, Fletcher was exceeded only by Microsoft and Soros as a donor to Obama’s Inauguration….follow the money 😉
4/5/2024 12:29 pm
Fascinating stuff, Dr. Cass! I’m glad I’m still following the comments here intermittently!
4/10/2024 7:56 am
i am intrigued by this story, although I only heard of Buddy Fletcher last week. I read about him in summary of the Pao case. I feel like grabbing popcorn and refreshing Richard’s articles page every day!
Question foR Richard: did Kidder ever figure out how he made all that money?
4/11/2024 3:17 pm
Looks like Fletcher is going to have to start filing his own frivolous lawsuits again, even the courts in the People’s Republic of California evidently decided this one on the actual merits of the case…Maybe Obama will appoint him as an ambassador, clearly a lack of knowledge of a given area is no bar to that.
4/19/2015 5:59 am
Thanks, Tam. The irony of it all is that while he was my roommate and friend at Harvard in the 1980s, Fletcher was a die-hard Reganite Republican, and often referred to gays as “fudge-packers.” Charming. Indeed, I have a mid-1980s cassette tape of Fletcher and friends singing one of his impromptu “jams” (any visitor to the Dakota who suffered through the interminable Purple Rain singalongs will know what I’m talking about) in which similar references feature significantly.
Perhaps, meeting Pao, Buddy was so smitten that he became a Born-Again Hetero? Certainly, there is a recurring streak of self-loathing in Fletcher, best summed up in his frequent statement “I’m one hurtin’ puppy” although, to be clear, his many former friends were much more hurt by the puppy.
I await the day when Fletcher becomes a Born-Again Republican, although given the glacial speed at which Obama/Holder are trying to recover the lost (spent) pension funds from Fletcher’s funds, that day may be far off.
4/19/2015 6:11 am
…a final note. The real tragedy in all of this is the shaming of Buddy’s brother, the screenwriter Geoffrey Fletcher. He seemed to me to be the only family member not riding on Buddy’s coattails and availing himself of fund largesse. He’s a decent, honorable man who, as far as I can see, refused to compromise in what he wanted to do- and seemed most like Buddy’s father. And even though Buddy helped get him the break that led to Precious, there’s nothing wrong with taking a opportunity presented to you. I feel genuinely sorry for the guy.
5/20/2015 12:20 am
Maybe Pao and Fletcher love each other?
7/3/2024 5:00 pm
Sexuality isn’t binary.
7/9/2024 9:10 am
Can believe that Asian woman marry a nigger faggot. What’s in her head?
7/13/2015 1:54 am
“Can believe that Asian woman marry a nigger faggot. What’s in her head?” Well Anon, no I can’t believe it. She is an outstanding example of a liberal shithead.
7/14/2015 6:20 pm
“Maybe Pao and Fletcher love each other.”
I’m sure they love each other’s Narrative. I’m sure they also loved each other’s cash, and ability to feel victimized despite the extraordinary opportunities and friendships they threw away…
In any case, despite Obama’s apparent best efforts to protect his two little moneybags, the walls do seem to be caving in on The Gruesome Twosome.
7/14/2015 6:35 pm
…and of course, I’m sure Buddy fell in love with the tax filing advantages of being married despite having a long-term gay partner. Felcher never did anything unless he could get a tax break for it- ironic or just hypocritical that he was such a big Obama donor (or was that protection money, Birdy?)
7/16/2015 4:23 am
Seems to me that Ellen Pao got scammed by Buddy Fletcher. Meeting her at Aspen leadership summit, she assumed he was some genius. Little did she know that Buddy got the fellowship because he had “invested” in a friend who had recommended him. She probably also didn’t know at that time how he was operating his “fund”. Plus he knocked her up quickly and while pregnant she didn’t think much to do due diligence on someone who really was a race card player and scam artist.