Ya can’t make this stuff up:
The guy’s in his 40, stayed with his parents for a while after he divorced, yadda yadda.
I’d love to know what his ex-wife thinks of all this.
The article almost makes me sympathetic to the guy. They all sound like pieces of work.
Oh, my lord. Can a mod please fix the title? It’s supposed to be PORN stash, obviously.
Tortious interference with an adult male’s porn stash is a very serious offense. Under English common law, it was for a time considered a form of misprision, bordering on a felony. Indeed, from the reign of Edward I until Tudor times (specifically the Laws in Wales Act 1542) the marcher lords had a special grant from the Crown to punish such interference as a felony in times of war and civil unrest. One unhappy wretch was nearly hanged under such a charge, being spared the ultimate penalty only as the local lord was persuaded that there had to be both war AND civil unrest, not war OR civil unrest to invoke the felony provision.
Yeah, I thought his Mom had somehow invalidated his Air Miles. 
Fixed. I was wondering what this was about.
EDITED TO INDICATE THE ORIGINAL WORD WAS “POINTS.”
Some interesting details:
The guy’s name is Werking. I bet that was fun in high school.
He says the stash was worth $29,000. 
It included works like Big Bad Grannys,
I think I would pay that much to keep that information secret.
Did his Pops also catch him smoking and say “no way”?
Headline writer for the win.
“The parents had kept some materials, described as the ‘worst of the worst,’ in a safety-deposit box, concerned it could be illegal.”
Right. And they visited it every night.
Really, take out the “porn” element and this isn’t a tiny bit surprising. What is surprising about a claimant winning a lawsuit against someone who deliberately destroyed or discarded the claimant’s property?
- So he’s an adult and another adult took and disposed of his property without permission?
- Who cares what his ex-wife or an ex cares about anything?
Best I can come up with is that someone might think that, since the parents forbade him from having ____ there as part of the tenancy agreement and said they’d destroy any if they found it, they might have the right to do so.
But it seems that the most you can do is kick the person out for breaking the rules—you can’t destroy the “contraband.”
Also, there’s the element of him being a 40-year-old moving back in with his parents (after a divorce) that have led some people to call him a bum. But those same people then have no problem kinkshaming him.
I do want to add one thing, though: the implication I got was that the stuff they kept behind was stuff they thought was child porn, since it mentioned stuff about schoolgirls. Hence the line at the end about how they checked it and it wasn’t child pornography.
I didn’t know anyone ever actually fell for the whole “schoolgirl” thing anymore.
Agreed. Mom has the right to set rules in her house and even evict the 40 year if he won’t follow the rules, but you just cannot destroy someone else’s legal property, even if you find it offensive.
Sorry, was that “porn stash” or “porn stache”?
The big mystery for me is what the original thread title was. Can someone share?
“point stash”, IIRC.
Sure, but then it isn’t a tiny bit surprising that our current president is a guy in a suit. It’s the other elements that make it surprising.
It’s not just about porn. It’s always considered unusual and pretty tacky for someone to sue their own parents over something. It would also have been newsworthy if he had sued them for throwing out his enormous collection of Carrottop memorabilia. The porn aspect just gives it added interest.
Yeah, they definitely spent more than 25k raising him. Not that this gets considered from a legal perspective, but it’s part of why it’s tacky.