Unethical Ex Of The Month, Paige Dunham: Hell Hath No Fury Like A Ventriloquist’s Wife Spurned…

The ventriloquist and his spouses. Can you guess which is the ex?

The ventriloquist and his spouses, past and present. Can you guess which is the ex?

I suspect there’s a sad story behind this one that many a betrayed spouse can identify with. Did Paige Dunham stand shoulder to shoulder with her husband, Jeff Dunham in the lean years when he was struggling ventriloquist (and really, what could be worse, struggling accordion virtuoso?) only to have him toss her away like an old shoe once he hit the jackpot and became a rich and famous celebrity, as he sought and won a flashier spouse to match his flashier lifestyle? It sure looks like it.

Nevertheless, what Paige Dunham did to her ex-spouse’s Shiny New Model Audrey Dunham can’t be justified ethically. It is also apparently illegal.

From the complaint in the lawsuit [Audrey] Dunham v. [Paige] Dunham (C.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2015):

7. In May, 1994, Defendant married Jeff Dunham, now a renowned ventriloquist, producer, and stand-up comedian. Due to irreconcilable differences, Defendant and Jeff Dunham subsequently divorced.

8. On or about December 25, 2011, Jeff Dunham and Plaintiff were engaged to be married. Defendant was aware of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s engagement with Jeff Dunham at that time.

9. On or about January 3, 2012, Defendant, without notice to Plaintiff, registered the following domain names through Network Solutions, LLC, a domain name registering company: AudreyDunham.com, AudreyDunham.net, AudreyDunham.us, and AudreyDunham.biz (collectively “Accused Domains”). On information and belief, Defendant concealed her name as the registrant for AudreyDunham.com, AudreyDunham.net, and AudreyDunham.biz domains by employing the services of Perfect Privacy, LLC, a company that specializes in keeping the identities of domain name registrants private. Defendant knew at the time she registered the Accused Domains, that Plaintiff would soon change her name to AUDREY DUNHAM….

12. On or about January 4, 2013, Plaintiff asked Defendant, in writing, to transfer the Accused Domains to Plaintiff and offered to reimburse Defendant for any out-of-pocket expenses associated with transferring the Accused Domains. Defendant refused to transfer the Accused Domains. On or about January 18, 2013, Defendant, through her agent, offered to sell the Accused Domains to Plaintiff in exchange for a payment of tens of thousands of dollars, for each domain name….

Ugh. Hurt, spurned, angry and resentful, Dunham’s ex, who appears to be an otherwise generous and compassionate person, lost all ethics alarms and acted out of pure vengeance and spite…or, perhaps more likely, she knew what she was doing was wrong, and comforted herself with a bushel of rationalizations:

2. The “They’re Just as Bad” Excuse, or “They had it coming”

7. The “Tit for Tat” Excuse 11. (a) “I deserve this!” or “Just this once!”

13. The Saint’s Excuse: “It’s for a good cause”

14. Self-validating Virtue

17. Ethical Vigilantism

21. Ethics Accounting (“I’ve earned this”/ “I made up for that”)

22. The Comparative Virtue Excuse: “There are worse things.”

28. The Revolutionary’s Excuse: “These are not ordinary times.”

32. The Unethical Role Model: “He/She would have done the same thing”

38. The Miscreant’s Mulligan or “Give him/her/them/me a break!”

…and maybe a few others. I sympathize, but she’s strayed into The Unethical Zone. Her conduct is only gratuitous harassment and nastiness that causes someone else inconvenience and harm without accomplishing anything productive.

_________________

Pointer and Source: Volokh

26 thoughts on “Unethical Ex Of The Month, Paige Dunham: Hell Hath No Fury Like A Ventriloquist’s Wife Spurned…

  1. The productive part is revenge and the dollar amount of the domain names. Revenge is sweet. You can’t put a price on revenge, but you can put one on a domain name. At least you could until the regulators stepped in.
    Revenge is suffering setbacks these days. Is it still legal to set fire to a bag of doggie doo on a doorstep? Order 20 pizzas for delivery to someone else? Put your enemies name on a subscription to porn?
    Time for some out-of-the-box revenge thinking.

  2. I feel like I’m missing something… I get it Paige is being vindictive. BUT. There isn’t anything illegal about buying domain names, even of people you don’t like, or in the interest of monetising them… Remember the post a while back about a law firm that bought hundreds of website derivatives on behalf of their client so the websites could not be used against him? Audrey does not have any legal standing to demand those domain names, and if she really wants them, it seems to me that Paige gets to set the price.

    As an aside, I just tried (myname).com. HugeDomains.com is willing to sell it to me for $2195.00 USD. Do I get to sue for it instead?

      • It’s real word parallel is land speculation…

        The mass purchase of western lands for next to nothing knowing that in 10 years or less a flood of settlers would drive the price up.

        What’s wrong with that?

        Except that in this parallel there is an element of identity.

        • “…element of identity.” That was an angle this case had me wondering about. Does what Paige did to Audrey make Paige culpable in any way for identity theft? If not, might this case plus any others like it perhaps pave the way for criminalizing such acts?

  3. Off subject, but it may be the only chance to point out Jeff Dunham’s huge part in getting liberals to question their PC stands. This, for one, in 2008:

    Then, there’s Walter, Nam vet, the definitive curmudgeon; Jose Jalapeno, and others… but Achmed is the key: he even went over big in Abu Dhabi.

  4. “…struggling ventriloquist (and really, what could be worse, struggling accordion virtuoso?)”

    I know what could be worse………….HERBALIFER.

  5. Someone has registered my name and my husband’s and is sitting on the domain names. DH has his own company, and can’t use his own name. It’s a pain but it’s not worth fighting over. We don’t have star value 🙂

      • When I read ” with the specific intent to profit from such name by selling the domain name for financial gain to that person or any third party” I thought it didn’t apply. There have been no efforts to sell us the domain names, they are not being used for websites, unless there was an effort to profit I didn’t think we could do anything.

  6. Paige is a very rich ($ is all she really loves),, vindictive and extremely unpleasant individual who has managed to pull the wool over many people’s eyes.with her “poor little me” rantings. I’m glad she was forced to return the domain names to Audrey. One point for the good guys! But I guess anything for a good story, huh? BTW, Audrey has never lived in Texas, so check your facts, please! Wikipedia is not the best source to quote.

  7. Seems unethical to be messing with a married man, but hey, nobody says anything about a home wrecker because they hid it so well, anyways, he should of not left any unresolved emotional feelings between him and his real wife. Hope his new whore wife stays home, tends to his business, takes care of the kids and he ends up finding hookers for his pastime.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.