Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[childoftheking]

So you say but I need examples of what you claim.

[anyman]

So you say but I need examples of what you claim.

No you don't.

I know Q, Q's general position on the subject, Q's connections to the subject . . . therefore I am certain, when I tell you your statement:

You have been quite clear that you are biased in favor of unquestioning loyalty to 3ABN.

is false and thus affects the remainder of your comment.

[childoftheking]

You lost me. Who or what is Q? The only Q I can think of is a character on Star Trek.

[anyman]

You lost me. Who or what is Q? The only Q I can think of is a character on Star Trek.

You responded to "quaddie47" and I have been referencing that comment throughout.

[childoftheking]

Oh Q quadie47. Now I understand. You are a character reference for quadie47 but who are you and how does this help me change my opinion?

[Little Grasshopper]

Amazing!!! to say the least. Here is a website claiming to be "recognized by the American Bar Association as a select legal resource..."

On April 16, 2009 it refers to Goliaths, like 3ABN, fighting a critical website, "save-3abn.com".

Other critical bloggers usually "balk at the first sign of potential legal trouble..." so it seem likely that the 3abn lawyers thought it would be easy to get the men here involved to balk too "against corporate bullies" to cite the MEDIA LAW site.

It is interesting that this document states "additional Davids are needed. It’s going to take more than one stone thrower to bring this legal tactic to its knees."

So it appears like somebody is watching.

It means that the Appeals Court has to deal with the 3ABN case very carefully because any ruling could affect Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs -- as well as every blogger in the United States.

It also means the case could, eventually, could go to the U.S. Supreme Court, if the ruling affects all "bloggers rights" nationally. The Supreme Court gives extra attention to cases of national import when there is a clear Constitutional issue, such as the First Amendment.   I doubt it will matter if the original defendants were "pro se" or not.

[anyman]

Oh Q quadie47. Now I understand. You are a character reference for quadie47 but who are you and how does this help me change my opinion?

I am not here to change your opinion. If something I say does, it's not because I said it.

Nor am I here to be a character reference for Q. And, who I am is of no relevance to my statement that you are incorrect about your assumptions re: Q.

Q and I have dialoged at length over the past few years. I trust Q's thoughts and words to be transparently honest representations of his/her position on the issues. During these conversations we have graciously accepted that at times we are on opposite sides of the divide re: things 3ABN. That, however, has never stopped us from lengthy communications about the issues. Antagonism isn't a requirement when discussing this issue. Thus, I know your statement to be patently false.

[childoftheking]

And how would my opinion of anyone's bias (correct or not) change my statement about finding the article myself (or anything else I have found and posted)?

[quaddie47]

And how would my opinion of anyone's bias (correct or not) change my statement about finding the article myself (or anything else I have found and posted)?

COTK,

If you state that you found it all by yourself with no direction from Bob and posted what you did today with no encouragement from Bob, then i offer my apology that i assumed he was involved.  However, the fact that HE wrote the blogger for permission is amusing to me and the fact it was posted it appears about the same time on his website AND because BOB is notorious for using people to post things for him, his post on the thread let me to the wrong conclusion.  However, I am quite curious why your OP mentions the blog post involved Freedom of Speech and how you came to that conclusion with no input from anyone else.  I am often wrong and will admit.

However, none of this changes my opinion concerning the significance of what you posted or how it should be viewed by those who so want this entire matter to have relevance and meaning beyond those involved.

As to 3abn loyalty, I assure you even the Angels were laughing in surprise......especially mine and if God is watching He might have had issued a loud guffaw Himself as I have no doubt He has a sense of humor too.

[childoftheking]

My take on the article was that using the trademark violation claim was a ploy by some corporations to squelch criticism about them on the internet. So in the case where there was no commercial competition (a competing product or service was not being sold by the "gripe site") the intent was to intimidate them into silence or to cause them to retract their claims. I.E. a freedom of speech issue not a competing commercial enterprise.

[Bob Pickle]

childoftheking,

You are right about bringing up bias. Anyman has to be extremely biased to deny that "Defending Blogger Rights" is about free speech. Bloggers by definition produce "speech."

Thank you for substantiating my point. You're not, nor have you ever been, a blogger.

Irrelevant one way or the other to the point I made. But the author of the article apparently felt we were bloggers, or he wouldn't have used us as an example of bloggers being picked on by corporate bullies.

The semantics here are not subtle, they are obvious. The point of the post is far removed from the reality of your situation. Again, try to focus, the blogger's "speech" was <never> at issue in the case focused on. Thus the falsehood of the statement you make on your web site.

How do you know free speech was never an issue? Have you read the answer to the complaint?

But whether or not the lawyers involved have raised the issue, the author of the article believes free speech is at issue:

"... uses his website as a sounding board ...."

"Media attorney Marc Randazza sums up the absurdity of the Goldman Sachs claims here ...."

Sounding boards and media attorneys are all about free speech, not copyright or trademark law. The corporate bullies simply are using copyright and trademark law to try to circumvent the protections of the First Amendment, since commercial speech can be restricted to a point.

"Why assume the risk, the blogger may ask, when I can simply take the content offline? Though such thinking is understandable given the lopsided display of power, such surrender is only empowering the beast."

Empowering the beast to do what? Knock over your trash cans at night or eat all your dog food? Not at all. Infringe on your American free speech rights? Certainly. That's the clear message of the article.

[Little Grasshopper]

 Infringe on your American free speech rights? Certainly. That's the clear message of the article.

I agree with Bob.  The issue is this: "What resources and tools do corporations have, as big business, to shut down the web sites that they don't like?"  It's clearly a First Amendment "free speech" question.

[Cindy]

 Infringe on your American free speech rights? Certainly. That's the clear message of the article.

I agree with Bob.  The issue is this: "What resources and tools do corporations have, as big business, to shut down the web sites that they don't like?"  It's clearly a First Amendment "free speech" question.

Well I disagree with both you and Bob.

One thing he has never comprehended is that his right to freedom of speech is not absolute. In other words his rights end where 3abn's and Ds' begin. He can't violate their rights or anyone elses and claim it's his legal right to do that. He and Joy have no " freedom of speech" defense which any court would ever take seriously, as you will see.

So put down your kool-aid for a minute and try digesting this.

Freedom of speech is not a license to slander or libel and attack others as Pickle, Joy and you all do. And consider this also, from the beginning your little group has been saying well look at all this smoke that must mean there is a fire, but all your ugly emissions mean no such thing. Your smoke and mirrors and claims of "fire" is NOT "free speech" The U.S. Supreme court ruled long ago that shouting "fire fire!" to a crowd when there is no fire does not fall under the right to free speech which the U.S. Constitution safeguards.

That's all I have to say to you for now, have a good day....

[Cindy]

childoftheking,

You are right about bringing up bias. Anyman has to be extremely biased to deny that "Defending Blogger Rights" is about free speech. Bloggers by definition produce "speech."

Thank you for substantiating my point. You're not, nor have you ever been, a blogger.

Irrelevant one way or the other to the point I made. But the author of the article apparently felt we were bloggers, or he wouldn't have used us as an example of bloggers being picked on by corporate bullies.

What he thinks or thought is not relevant to your case Bob, he was wrong anyway, you aren't a blogger being picked on by corporate bullies.

The semantics here are not subtle, they are obvious. The point of the post is far removed from the reality of your situation. Again, try to focus, the blogger's "speech" was <never> at issue in the case focused on. Thus the falsehood of the statement you make on your web site.

How do you know free speech was never an issue? Have you read the answer to the complaint?

Again that case isn't relevant here, this is all a big strawman argument and waste of time. Your case is pertinent and so what is highly relevant here is your answer to the complaint filed against you which we have read.. Over and over to specific charges against you and Joy for defamation per se, where the only defense you could legitimately offer is that you were telling the truth, you and Joy admitted you didn't even have that defense and couldn't even submit any evidence or proof of the defamatory accusations you had made, as you were admittedly just repeating hearsay from anonymous sources, but were hoping to go phishing during discovery ( in a lawsuit Joy admits he was salivating for and eagerly pursuing, and which you both keep trying to prolong now) to find some kind of justification for your slanderous and libelous activities, after the fact...

Here is what you said repeatedly in your answer to the list of complaints filed against you:

"Defendants are publishing an allegation that is a restatement of a protected source or sources. Plaintiffs have been unresponsive to the allegations or have been factually challenged. Therefore, defendants are without sufficient evidence upon which to state a fact based response and request the right to supplement their response upon completion of discovery. Therefore denied"

That kind of thing is not "freedom of speech" no matter how much you wave your free speech banner here soliciting money to help you keep litigating and trying to vilify 3abn and DS while you suppress and censor those of us here who disagree with you. *******************************

*****************************

laters...


Edited by Artiste to remove inappropriate content.


[snipped the balance of irrelevant arguments]

[Bob Pickle]

One thing he has never comprehended is that his right to freedom of speech is not absolute.

I've always comprehended that.

Freedom of speech is not a license to slander or libel and attack others as Pickle, Joy and you all do.

That never really has been the issue. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Danny Shelton didn't want the truth published. He tried to shut down the publishing of truth. Therefore, the question of defamation vs. free speech is only going to be discussed whenever Danny succeeds in getting someone to listen to his bogus claims.

And consider this also, from the beginning your little group has been saying well look at all this smoke that must mean there is a fire, but all your ugly emissions mean no such thing.

The Remnant documents document fire, not smoke. The stories by alleged Tommy Shelton victims document fire, not smoke. Danny's failure to report hundreds of thousands of dollars of income on his July 2006 affidavit is fire, not smoke. The firing of the trust services whistleblowers was fire, not smoke.