Murderer Sues Former Hostage

[Steve_NEPhila]

Seriously, I wish this was made up. The funniest part is what the killer exchanged in the plea deal.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/65957522.html

Murderer makes headway in suit against hostage


Story Published: Oct 25, 2009 at 7:13 PM PDT
Story Updated: Oct 26, 2009 at 11:13 AM PDT
By Susan Harding KATU News and KATU.com Staff

PORTLAND, Ore. - A man convicted of murder is now targeting one of his victims again, and he's winning in court.

An Oregon inmate who killed one man in 2006 is now suing his former hostage.

It all started over an $18,000 order for an ice cream truck.

The hostage victim, Rob Chambers, used to build ice cream trucks and he built one for a customer in New York. That customer turned into a killer, deciding to commit murder when he couldn't get a refund.

Now in prison, the convicted killer - Tremayne Durham - is using the courts to get the refund. And he's having success.

Facing eviction and the loss of his business, Rob Chambers can't afford a lawyer so he's going to fight this convicted killer on his own, in court.

Durham still wants his money back, all $18,000 - even after he confessed to murdering Adam Calbreath. Calbreath was someone Chambers considered as a loyal friend.

"He protected me, and gave the ultimate sacrifice to me," Chambers said. "I don't know how to repay it."

Durham is serving 30 years for murdering Calbreath and taking Chambers hostage while shoving a gun in his stomach.

"He had said, 'Look at what you made me do,'" Chambers recounts. "He said, 'I've been robbing and killing people to get to you.'"

Now Durham is going after Chambers again, only without a gun and with a lawsuit. Durham is even demanding reimbursement for his travel expenses from New York - for the trip he took to gun down Chambers' friend.

Since the murder, Chambers said he has suffered unending guilt and grief.

"I lost my abilities to function; that's what makes me the most angry," Chambers said. "One of these days he's going to get the feeling he won somehow over me."

Chambers escaped from Durham in 2006, but says he doesn't feel alive.

"There are days that I honestly wish he would have pulled the trigger," Chambers said. "He doesn't deserve the satisfaction of knowing this, but he took my life."

Since Chambers did not respond to letters from the court, an arbitrator already has ruled in Durham's favor. But it's not over. Chambers plans to be at a hearing Wednesday to face Durham once again, in court.

"I'm not going to be the victim in this anymore," Chamber said.

Durham made international news for his unusual plea deal in 2006. He agreed to plead guilty in exchange for his favorite foods from KFC and some Haagen-Dazs ice cream.

Chambers said the deal felt like a slap in the face and wishes Durham had been forced to face the family of the man he murdered.

[ChamberedRound]

The details on the exchange make me want to believe this article is bogus, but the link is legit. Un-frickin-believable. Again, another reason why states need to pass self-defense laws which grant civil immunity to victims.

[knight0334]

This is one of those things where getting burn permit and setting fire to everything that you cant hide is worth it.

There is no one, not even a legit and honest collector of a real debt, can get from me that I dont want them to have. ....firehall is next door, burn permits are $10.

[-JD-]

[snip]Again, another reason why states need to pass self-defense laws which grant civil immunity to victims.

It wouldn't matter, this is a contract matter and legally has nothing to do with the assault/kidnapping/murder event.

I don't know, but Durham may have a valid claim against Chambers.

Chanbers should sue Durham for emotional duress, etc. I'm sure that that judgement would far outstrip the $18,000 refund claim if Durham has any money (except the $18K less lawyers fees). This is clearly an "only the lawyers win" situation.

[ChamberedRound]

It wouldn't matter, this is a contract matter and legally has nothing to do with the assault/kidnapping/murder event.

I don't know, but Durham may have a valid claim against Chambers.

That depends on the contract. Last time I checked, in the absence of any contract, or a contract specifying that a refund is possible, our economic system is based on the principle of caveat emptor.

[Steve_NEPhila]

It wouldn't matter, this is a contract matter and legally has nothing to do with the assault/kidnapping/murder event.

I don't know, but Durham may have a valid claim against Chambers.

Chanbers should sue Durham for emotional duress, etc. I'm sure that that judgement would far outstrip the $18,000 refund claim if Durham has any money (except the $18K less lawyers fees). This is clearly an "only the lawyers win" situation.

I agree with the above. Too bad the primitive animal that is the plaintiff decided to kill instead of litigate first.

I know the defendant is screwing himself by representing himself in court. He really should shop this case around hard to find an attorney that wants his name in the news. This is part of the reason why I only do business to business transactions, the public is problematic.

[-JD-]

That depends on the contract. Last time I checked, in the absence of any contract, or a contract specifying that a refund is possible, our economic system is based on the principle of caveat emptor.

I agree 100%. (hence the "I don't know, but Durham may have a valid claim against Chambers." part. There is simply not enough info to even venture a WAG)

[addicted2freedom]

It wouldn't matter, this is a contract matter and legally has nothing to do with the assault/kidnapping/murder event.

I don't know, but Durham may have a valid claim against Chambers.

Chanbers should sue Durham for emotional duress, etc. I'm sure that that judgement would far outstrip the $18,000 refund claim if Durham has any money (except the $18K less lawyers fees). This is clearly an "only the lawyers win" situation.

Was thinking the same thing. Thought I was alone until your post. Didn't consider a counter-suit. Good idea.

[FormerUser123]

Puts a new meaning to "The Customer is Always Right"....

And yeah, my first thought was also that Durham should have litigated first. There's no excuse for robbing and murdering your way from coast to coast to get an $18,000 refund when we have so many lawsuit possibilities.