Sofia Vergara and Joe Manganiello are getting married this month. Their wedding will go down in Palm Beach, Florida, reportedly on November 22nd. Who wants to get married that close to Thanksgiving? But that’s a conversation for another time. Anyway, Sofia’s mind is on her big wedding and the hundreds of relatives she’s flying in and whether Joe is freaked out by the size and scope of this now-gigantic wedding. Sofia does not want to think about her ex-fiance, Nick Loeb. But Loeb keeps turning up. Because he is a douche.
In April of this year, we learned that Loeb had filed a lawsuit against Sofia because he wants “custody” of two frozen embryos they created while they were together. The terms of their embryo situation was and is that both Sofia and Nick have to agree over what to do about the embryos, and Sofia doesn’t want Nick to have “custody.” Nick claims that “life begins at fertilization” and that he wants the embryos so he can implant them in a surrogate and raise their children all by himself. The last time we checked in on this situation (back in May), Nick had won the right to proceed with his lawsuit, because I guess California’s legal system wants to enter into the legal clusterf—k that is IVF/surrogacy/genetic blackmail and more.
Last week, Sofia and Nick’s lawyers had a hearing. According to Page Six, Sofia’s lawyers “brought up a section of the penal code that states that if someone uses genetic material from another person without consent, it’s a criminal offense. But the judge shot down Vergara’s argument and allowed Loeb’s team to move forward with the civil case.” There’s still a lot of legal maneuvering to be done before this case ever comes to trial, but for now, Loeb isn’t being laughed out of court. And now Sofia is “panicking.”
According to documents exclusively obtained by In Touch magazine, on Oct. 27, a judge rejected the actress’ second motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by her ex Nick. In Touch first broke the story in April, that Nick is trying to prevent Sofía from destroying two cryopreserved female embryos they created through in vitro fertilization prior to their 2014 split.
“Sofía is panicking. The last thing she wants is for this case to go to court,” a source tells In Touch.
Sofía is busy preparing for her Nov. 22 wedding, which will include 400 guests at The Breakers Palm Beach hotel in Florida, but suddenly she’s consumed with her past, not focusing on her future. The judge in the embryo case left open the possibility that if Nick wins at trial, he won’t need Sofía’s consent to bring the embryos to term.
“Sofía is devastated,” an insider tells In Touch, adding that the Modern Family star is “terrified” of the court battle that is now looming. “But Nick is committed to saving and bringing these embryos to term via surrogate. He’s going to see this thing through until the end.”
“[Sofía]’s just praying that her legal team finds a way to persuade the judge that this can’t go through without her blessing.”
I seriously don’t understand how any judge could rule that Nick Loeb could or should have “custody” of those embryos without Sofia’s permission. It would be like harvesting a woman’s eggs and using them without her consent. And those are the terms that both Sofia and Nick agreed to when they agreed to create the embryos – that they would both have to give consent for the embryos to be used. How does Loeb have a case?
Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet.
Honestly Kaiser, politics. Someone wants to make a name for themselves and are using the law for the self serving purpose.
I am hopeful that the judge is allowing the case to proceed in order to minimize the chance that his ruling will be overturned on appeal. Dot the i, cross the t, make sure he gets his day in court so that there is no chance the (eventual) ruling against him will be overturned. I hope…
That might be it, since both signed an agreement requiring the consent of both of them before doing anything with the embryos. So the court may simply establish that fact once and for all.
It is a complicated problem, though. I can see why she feels freaked out by it. But he isn’t necessarily doing it to stalk her, he may legitimately not want those embryos destroyed and really want to give them a chance at life and be ready to legally establish that she has no obligation to be their parent or financially support them if they live. The problem will be moot eventually, though, since frozen embryos don’t last forever. And even if an attempt is made to implant them, it’s a rocky road to birth and such attempts may be unsuccessful.
Although usually men don’t seem so attached to the results of their little swimmers making a successful foray into an egg, it’s not impossible that he does in this case since at the time, they both wanted children. She just doesn’t feel the same attachment to something grown outside her body, which doesn’t mean she’s cold and heartless. This is a general problem with such procedures – what happens to the embryos that are not used. But I’m sure this was discussed at the time and it was all covered in the agreement.
“both signed an agreement requiring the consent of both of them before doing anything with the embryos”
That alone should be enough for him to not have a case. I too am hoping this is all just a formality to make him go away for good, and hopefully set a precedent for anyone else who tries this in the future.
I really hope that is the case. Because this case has potential disaster written all over it.
I’m not a lawyer, but I think the judge was perfectly right to shoot down the argument that “if someone uses genetic material from another person without consent, it’s a criminal offense”.
That law sounds like it’s intended to be apply to DNA testing and experimentation, or possibly sperm/egg theft. If you try to apply it elsewhere, the implications are insane.
If an embryo counts as the genetic material of one of the parents, then so would a child. If a child counts as genetic material of a parent, then a grandchild should also count as the genetic material of the grandparent. They had the genes first, right? Suddenly grandparents have the right to veto anything involving the DNA of their descendants. Sorry, can’t test you for the breast cancer gene without signed consent from all your living ancestors. Want to give blood? Sorry, grandma said no.
The only sensible ruling is that once your DNA is combined with someone else’s, then it’s not your DNA anymore. (I’d actually take that a step further, and say that once your DNA is inside someone else, it isn’t yours … no take-backsies on bone-marrow donations or kidney donations.)
(Jut for the record, I think Sofia should have rights over the embryo, but because of the contract, not because it’s her DNA.)
Well, I am a lawyer, and your argument is a very good one (very Elle Woods). I’m ashamed I didn’t think of it myself.
“If an embryo counts as the genetic material of one of the parents, then so would a child. If a child counts as genetic material of a parent, then a grandchild should also count as the genetic material of the grandparent.”
And that may very well be the essence of Sofia’s concern. She is not birthing her child but still her child nonetheless. She wouldn’t be any different that other women who have children through surrogacy. Imagine that in spite of Nick’s declaration that he will assume all responsibilities, Sofia will still be affected seeing her children raised by this man. She won’t have a peaceful life and that may be his ulterior motive. It would be torture for her.
In the end, if the judge rules in his favor, Sofia will have to involve herself and fight for her rights to custody, etc. She will be in Nick’s life, no way is she walking form her kid; his mission accomplished. This should go to court to squash his request once and for all. It’s nuts.
This genuinely makes me feel sick. What is his problem?! If he’s so desperate for children, find a willing partner.
A peson that makes a million dollars a episode might have something to do with it.And I am sure some bitterness too on his part.He needs to move on.
It’s all about trying to control and hurt her. If he so desperately wants children, he can go have them in a number of other ways. She moved on and he can’t.
I’m pretty sure, as the others are saying, that the prospect of 18 years of child support is an enticing one. Bonus points for causing maximum pain and drama in his ex’s life, too, and ensuring she can never fully walk away from him – in psychological terms, if nothing else.
I can’t fathom how he could ever win this one, but it seems fairly clear no decent person would even try.
If he wins and those kids are born, Sofia will have no choice but to fight for half custody. She will be in Nick’s life just as he wanted it. He is doing this to undermine her, no more, no less.
I’m not a lawyer and don’t play one on TV. Maybe this is similar in a divorce where one parents manages to get sole custody of a child after showing the court that the other parent isn’t fit?
But it isn’t a matter of Sofia’s “fitness” as a parent. She and this creep broke up and she has no interest in having children with him. He’s essentially trying to force her to have a child she does not want to have. Remember how everyone was creeped out by the ending of Gone Girl where Amy uses frozen sperm Nick thought was destroyed to get pregnant? And we’re supposed to learn of this and think it’s wrong and despicable and that Amy is beyond the bounds of decency? This is pretty much like that, but in gender-reverse. The fall out from this could be catastrophic for reproductive rights.
Really, how does he have a case at all? I would be terrified, too, if some aggressive a**hole had my biological property.
After nine months, it will be a child. This is psychological terror. Sofia will never have a moment’s rest. She won’t be able to walk away and she will have to fight to share custody with Nick.
I cannot believe the courts are indulging this lunatics pschyotic stalking of his ex. It’s so obvious he’s doing this to try to stay in her life and cause her trouble. He should be in a psychiatric ward until his deranged obsession with her is cured.
As for the potential to legally allow zygotes to be implanted without permission from BOTH future parents, that is outrageous. No court should ever consider such a thing under any circumstances. You don’t have the right to force parenthood on another person who doesn’t want you in their life let alone co parenting their children!!!!!
Exactly this. The potential precedents are terrifying.
It’s not like this is the first case of it’s kind. Judging by precedent, Sofia will win. When it first came up on CB, I read quite a few case studies.
Almost all of the time, the person who didn’t want a child won. There were a few exceptions, but they were generally cases where the initial contract was vague about who owned the embryo and the parent who did want the embryo implanted had no other way of having a child. (I remember being pleasantly surprised that the judges considered adoption as an alternative … the people who were allowed to implant the contested embryo were generally those who’d probably be ruled out from adoption due to age, etc).
To your first paragraph: considering they allow parental rights to rapists who fathered a child through rape, I would have low hopes for a common sense outcome.
and truly wtf is he gonna do later? have some rando Implanted with HER embryos and then sue her for child support?
I would think *if* he *somehow* wins and gets the embryos, the judge would set terms for custody/support that would be pretty strict. Like, fine you can have them, but you won’t get a cent from her because she is not consenting to be a parent with you.
Legally binding like the contract he already entered into and is now trying to break?
I don’t even understand how this is getting through the courts because they already have a legal agreement about what to do. I’m just saying, *if* he is awarded custody and manages to get a live child from it, I hope a judge doesn’t force Sofia to pay him for a kid she didn’t want. That’s basically blackmail.
I don’t think he’ll win, but if he did, this judge couldn’t set terms for child support. That’d have to be a separate case after the kid/s were born.
The horrible part is that the precedent is that if a sperm donor has any contact with the kids (even just sending birthday cards), they’ve usually been found liable to pay child support.
So if Sofia didn’t want to pay, she’d have to have absolutely no contact with the kid/s. I can imagine being in her shoes and wanting some kind of token contact. Obviously the child is going to have questions about his parentage as he/she grows up. Even if I hated the idea of a child with an ex, I think I’d still care enough to want to be available to answer the inevitable “why didn’t you want me to be born?” question.
Add in the fact she’s famous, and would care about her public image and want to avoid “dead-beat mom” accusations, and it just gets worse.
I suspect she’d just end up paying to avoid all the drama. It wouldn’t be fair, but I can easily picture it happening.
@ Lucrezia
Which is exactly why I open this douchebag doesn’t win. He’s basically blackmailing her.
Nick Loeb is such a doucebag he makes my stretchmarks itch 🙁
lmao! you are too much! i love it
HA!!! 😀
Ugh the world dies not need this guys douchetastic genetics in the pool! Rich political agenda attention ho…
It sounds like this was a summary judgment hearing, where the judge can decide that on its face, the case can be thrown out because there are no material issues of fact that need to be decided at trial. The fact that he didn’t throw the case out doesn’t mean that he agrees with one side or the other. Just that he needs more testimony and information before he can decide.
Oh, I can’t with the children stories today. Michael Lohan and Kate Major are holding two children hostage by their sick relationship.
The frozen embryos have to stay belonging to both Nick and Sophia- how are they going to get around that? They should neither be destroyed nor transplanted unless both parties agree. IVF has given many couples wonderful children, but the cost has also been great in terms of lives lost (as yes, I believe life begins at fertilization, but that discussion is not for this bb).
I respect the belief that life begins at fertilization. But I think anyone who believes that should be extremely careful using IVF in the first place.
There are ways to make IVF compatible with the life-begins-at-fertilization view, but you have to be proactive and make plans for every scenario. How many embryos are you going to make, can you avoid creating excess? If there are extras, what is the plan? Donation or indefinite storage? If you’re planning to donate excess embryos, do you have a problem with donating to gay couples? (Is it even legal to discriminate about who you’d donate to?) If you’re using IVF because you’re screening for a nasty genetic disorder, have you stopped to think about the fact you’re almost certainly going to have rejects that no-one is going to want to use? Or what if an embryo doesn’t have the nasty disorder, but isn’t quite as perfect as the other embryos – do they get implanted or not? If the embryos are to be stored indefinitely, who pays the bill? What if one or more of you move out of the country, do you move the embryos too? What if you divorce? What if one partner dies? (That’s the big problem with Sofia’s “we both have to agree” contract. What if they’d been happily married and suddenly one partner died? There seems to be no provision for what happens in that scenario.)
So I’m not particularly sympathetic to Nick here. This should’ve all been addressed before the process started. But more than anything, I’m annoyed at the clinic and the system in general. It’s not like these issues are new. There should be a nice long contract that addresses ALL the potential issues. As new scenarios emerge (what if one partner is in a coma and alive but unable to consent?), the contract should be lengthened to cover that for new patients.
If you can’t agree on this stuff, you shouldn’t be having kids together.
This is truly sickening and to allow this to happen without someone’s consent in a LEGAL situation is even worse.
Yeah, I would panic too. Girl, you really picked a horrible one but we understand. It happens.
I really hope this guy gets crushed, this is beyond ridiculous. Having said that, there is so much legal ground to be covered yet when it comes to all these fertility treatments, IVF etc. This probably won’t be the last time we see something like this.
How much you want to bet this butt hole will hit her with child support if he gets to bring them to term???……Hmmm yeah as vindictive of a person and not a man as he is presenting himself, I see that coming over the horizon down the road, He is DETERMINED to keep attached to her in her life by ANY means, even by force with children conceived to term without her consent…..
I hate to say this but I will compare this one to be careful who you sleep with, and be careful to whom you choose to share eggs with…..
And even if he has zero legal case, he’ll still sue her for support because his real goal is to make her look like a deadbeat, and ruin her career and reputation. He’s quite an asshole.
As for the potential to legally allow zygotes to be implanted without permission from BOTH future parents, that is outrageous.” I’ve come to the very grim, brutal realization that a woman’s body is not her own anymore. What she wants for herself doesn’t matter, not when it interferes with what a man wants. If that man has money and power, she matters even less. Women might as well be less than human, in the eyes of the law.
“I’ve come to the very grim, brutal realization that a woman’s body is not her own anymore.”
Anymore? We’ve never had 100% autonomy over our bodies.
The whole business is doctors selling women’s parts- selling young women’s eggs and renting older women’s wombs. Who’s making all the money? Doctors and lawyers and MBAs. This business is a BIG business.
There’s the monetized side of it, which you’re getting at, but there’s also just the fact that we have to go through so much BS to carry out decisions about our healthcare because politicians are still trying to regulate our wombs. I’m a woman in my 30s in a committed, long-term, monogamous relationship and I’ve decided not to have children. I went to get an IUD and because I’m still young and haven’t had a kid, I have to pay out of pocket for it because my insurance won’t cover IUDs unless you’ve either already had kids or are over 40. WTF? Who cares? Well my employer, who is a religious conservative and doesn’t think young women should be having “consequence free” sex. Meanwhile, same insurance plan is paying for his Viagra and vasectomy. He gets to make this decision for me for reasons I simply cannot fathom.
Okay, I usually get right behind this argument when it comes to abortion, but I simply don’t see how it applies here. It’s not like the embryo would be implanted in an unwilling woman … it’d be a gestational carrier.
So Sofia’s bodily rights aren’t being threatened here. Her right not to be a parent is being threatened, and her pocket-book rights are potentially threatened (because this guy seems like the kind of jerk who’d sue for child support). But not her body.
I don’t see any reason to make this a gendered argument. It’s not like it’s always the man who wants to use a contested embryo, it definitely goes both ways.
This case doesn’t really relate to autonomy of one’s body, however. SV wouldn’t be forced to undergo a pregnancy and she voluntarily participated in the creation of the embryos. Currently, the embryos relate as much to her body as they do to his body.
In her case, the most important aspect is that they had previously agreed that the embryos could not be used without both parents’ permission. Otherwise, I think he potentially would have a case, similar to Sherri Shepherd’s situation.
So…. As an experienced IVF nurse, I’ve seen a lot of crap go down. The worst are the young egg donors, selling their eggs for nothing to God knows who. IVF is completely unregulated and the most appalling things are happening daily. These embryos grow up to be adults who have NO IDEA who their biological parents are, their ethnicities, their medical histories. Laws will change when these kids start suing. Anyhow, Nick doesn’t have a case, and if the judge rules in his favor, it will seriously change how things are done in the future. Steps off soap box.
From the outside, it seems to me there’s a lot of grey area in the IVF realm because no one wants to put a legal definition for when life begins on the record. But if cases like this go far enough, it seems inevitable someone is going to have to determine, legally and finally, what constitutes “life.” That will, of course, have huge repercussions for the abortion debate. This entire Sofia Vergara case smacks of judges not willing to be the one to say, “Tissue cells are not a person,” because it will close the door on overturning Roe v Wade. Maybe I’m talking out my a$$, but it’s always seemed to me that when it comes to IVF and the fate of the unused embryos, everyone talks around permanent definitions.
“This business is a BIG business.” Yeah, no kidding. A little thing like recognizing a woman’s autonomy/humanity should never get in the way of Big Business of Selling Women. We need to step in line, stop fussing and making trouble and stuff.
Rich Ladies are a different breed, though. They get to retain their rights.
Not really. I’m not “rich” but I’m doing well enough and I still run into hurdles regarding my reproductive rights (see my comment about the IUD upthread). The difference is I can afford to pay for those things on my own, whereas lower income women can’t.
I don’t have a problem with IVF, or even the donating/selling of eggs and paid surrogacy, but I also acknowledge that those areas are ripe for exploitation, and I think the whole industry needs to be vastly overhauled and provided with a *lot* more oversight. I support women making the best choice for herself and her family, and if that includes IVF, donors and surrogates, then so be it. But I also think we need to protect vulnerable women preyed upon by promises of “easy” money for donating eggs and the like. There needs to be better balance.
“(see my comment about the IUD upthread). The difference is I can afford to pay for those things on my own, whereas lower income women can’t.”
Algernon,
Are you sure the reason your ins won’t cover the IUD is because of your employer’s beliefs? I am not calling you a liar, I am just curious if that was an assumption, or something you know for a fact? It wouldn’t surprise me if it were true, as there are plenty of similar instances.
I ask because IUDs come with a risk to future fertility. One complication with this birth control is that it has at times caused PID, which can leave the woman infertile. I *thought* that was one reason that many doctors are reluctant to insert one for a younger woman who hasn’t had kids. I can see docs and ins companies being fearful of future lawsuits IF a 25 year old woman finds herself unable to have kids at 33 because of an IUD complication. Of course, this i itself is problematic because plenty of woman KNOW at 22 that they never want kids— and no one will accept that. (just another example of woman not having control over their bodies) Which is BS. And also, what if you have a kid at 23, get an IUD and end up infertile—couldn’t you just as easily sue over wanting MORE kids later? I think if your plan was to wait and have a big family later you would be just as distressed if you couldn’t–whether you had 1 child or not.
I am aware of the risks of an IUD. My doctor covered them with me, and since I am positive I do not want children, it’s a risk I’m willing to take. That was a decision made between my doctor and me. The insurance is specifically about my employer. We used to have a company-wide policy that covered all forms of birth control completely, which was a huge selling point when I came to this company. On the whole, they’re very progressive and supportive of women and families in the workplace. But with all the changes to insurance over the last few years, it became more practical to let each office set up different programs, taking advantage of the different options and breaks in their state. My office is run by a religious conservative, who actually said out loud in an all-staff meeting that the first thing he was doing was dropping BC coverage. There’s a state stipulation that they have to cover a % of the pill, but anything else is on us out of pocket. He’s really proud of making us “live with the consequences of our lifestyles.” Yes, my monogamous, committed lifestyle, what dread consequences it will have.
That’s horrible. I am really, really sorry you have to deal with such idiocy.
If Nick wins in court, he’ll be mortified because then he’ll have to put up or shut up. He will actually have to go through with the whole thing and raise two children. I just don’t see him as the fatherly type. It will certainly put a crimp in his lifestyle.
No, the court can’t make him have and raise these babies. He won’t have to do anything.
Team Unborn Babies. It’s all I care about, the two ‘parents’ can bugger off.
But the thing is that those aren’t unborn babies! At the moment they’re blastocytes, a mass of a few hundred cells, floating in liquid nitrogen, with the potential of making a human baby. Considering the potential father, and the creepy surrogacy there would have to be (who’d want to carry a child for a creep that wants to have a baby out of spite?), I sort of wish that the cells remain in their current stage, I’m not sure that the childhood he’d provide is something I wish for a kid.
All you care about are blastocytes, and the living, breathing, thinking, feeling human beings in the equation mean nothing to you, and can bugger off?
Well, I guess you are at least open about only caring about human beings prior to birth.
I’m going to preface my comments by saying I know this will not be a popular stance, but it’s something I’ve been thinking about since the lawsuit was first filed some time ago.
I find this case interesting from a sociological standpoint. For as long as I can remember, stories of men in a situation not at all unlike Sofia’s have been prevalent: Either she wanted kids and he didn’t, they agree to have kids and he changes his mind, or what have you. In most of these cases men have been ordered to pay child support regardless, even in the case of a few fringe lunatics who decided to impregnate themselves with a used condom. The general attitude is “you lay, you pay.”
This is the first time I can think of where the situation has been reversed. I wouldn’t really count the Sherri Shepard situation because it seemed to me as if she wanted deniable plausibility if things went south all along. Should Sofia be held to the same standard? There’s a part of me that says yes, and a part of me that says no because knowing a parent didn’t want you can and does do irreparable harm to a child.
Legally, I don’t see the contract as totally binding. We often see people challenging contracts in court and having them tossed out for one reason or another. Prenups and rental agreements are challenged all the time. I also don’t think this is a large scale attack on a woman’s reproductive rights. Again, I think in most situations no one would call her decision into question, and even if this blew up into something bigger than just the two of them I think there would be enough opposition to shoot it down. Thoughts?
Lots of interesting points there.
I dunno about “you lay, you pay” being the general attitude. I always got the feeling people were sorry for the men forced to pay child support with no contact. But from the state perspective, it’s generally a case of “someone has to help support this kid – bio dad or the taxpayers. Therefore, make dad pay.” (A recent case comes to mind. 2 lesbians had a friend donate sperm. They split up, wage-earning mum lost her job, custody-mum claimed welfare benefits, state decided to sue the dad for child support instead of paying the mum welfare. The mums are on dad’s side, they don’t want him forced to pay.)
But actually, I find that all rather irrelevant, since we’re talking about an embryo, not a living child who needs supporting. (Even if you consider an embryo “living”, it doesn’t need food or schoolbooks.) No-one has to pay if the child never comes into being. So I have to (respectfully) disagree that this case is anything like sperm-donor or one-night stand cases. I think it can only be compared to contested sperm/egg/embryo cases.
Based on how everyone is describing it, I think this contact should be binding. Most of the cases where this kind of contract has been challenged have had really badly worded contracts (not specifying what happens in divorce). I have no problem with that – if the contract is weak, then it should be challenged. But “we both have to agree what happens” seems pretty solid. The handful of exceptions (where someone has been allowed to break a solid contract and implant the embryo) have usually been cases where the one who wants the embryo has become infertile due to cancer and has no other way to have bio-kids.
I agree it’s not a large-scale attack on women. Either gender can be on either side of this kind of case. It potentially has some implications for abortion law, but that’s just an unfortunate side-effect of judges choose to treat the embryo under the law. It’s not the intent.
I have no idea what you mean in that last bit about “blow up into something bigger than them” etc. You’ve totally lost me. Clarify please?
Very well put! The goal of child support is to ensure that a kid’s needs will be provided until the child becomes an adult. It is not to make one of the parents pay for what he/she considers a mistake but ensure that this living, breathing, eating human being is taken care of. A frozen embryo has no needs except to get a constent refill of liquid nitrogen. The two situations can’t be compared.
It sounds like he has a case up until the point of their co-ownership of these embryos. The judge can order Sofia to consult with him, Nick, prior to doing anything with them and vice versa. I don’t see a problem unless Sofia will want to use them to have children instead of getting pregnant with her current partner.
Say Nick wins, does anybody really think Sofia will stand by on the sidelines and see this guy parade her child all over creation. This child, the child of actress so and so that wanted them not to exists. Rest assure that will be the narrative for those children. Sofia will have to involve herself in the child’s life for the sake of the child and this is exactly what Nick wants, to undermine her and her relationship with Joe or anyone else. He can’t have her back and suddenly, he cares about embryos. I only see evil in this plan of his.
Mental illness is something serious. I think that Nick is ill and people around him are not helping, but taking advantage of the situation. And no one thinks about the “imaginary girls”, who will live a life of mental suffering.
If the case is somehow not thrown out, Sofia shouldinsist on input re choosing a surrogate, and find one who is willing to “miscarry” for big bucks…or even insist she carry them herself. Iffy, I know,but preferable to being tied to a psycho stalker forever.