Advent Talk

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

You can find an active Save 3ABN website at http://www.Save-3ABN.com.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: What they are saying  (Read 33941 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Gailon Arthur Joy

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1539
Re: What they are saying
« Reply #45 on: March 14, 2010, 08:09:14 PM »

Now at http://www.save-3abn.com/news-releases-defending-blogger-rights-against-corporate-bullies.htm.

Your linked page contains one of your patented gross inaccuracies or outright lie, depending on how one wants to classify it. On that page you say:

The following article by Justin Silverman likens Save-3ABN.com to David and 3ABN to Goliath, with the battle being over free speech.

First, the author doesn't liken you to David other than by insinuation at best - and your case only receives a cursory mention. Second, Silverman makes no mention of "free speech" in his post, that would be your fabrication/manipulation/manufacturing of a point you will now attempt to pass off as truth. His point is entirely dealing with trademark infringement. In the case he focuses on in his post, free speech isn't an issue, isn't even mentioned:

Goldman Sachs' letter alleges that the sites' domain names and content infringe the "Goldman Sachs" mark, violate other intellectual property rights, and constitute unfair competition.  The letter also alleges that Morgan's use of the mark gives the false impression that Morgan has an affiliation or commercial relationship with Goldman Sachs. http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/goldman-sachs-v-morgan#description

And the defendant in the case doesn't raise the specter of free speech either:

In response, Morgan filed a lawsuit for declaratory judgment in Florida federal court.  Morgan asked the court to declare that Morgan's websites and domain names did not infringe Goldman Sachs' trademark rights.  Morgan's Complaint also asked for declaratory judgment on Goldman Sachs' other claims. http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/goldman-sachs-v-morgan#description

Unlike the RJP/GAJ case, mentioned at the same clearinghouse site, this one has been updated:

7/17/09 - MediaPost reported that the parties settled, with Morgan agreeing to withdraw his lawsuit and Goldman Sachs promising not to sue, provided that Morgan continues to run a disclaimer on the site. http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/goldman-sachs-v-morgan#description

Back to your statement, you are the one insinuating "free speech" into the context of the blog post. This is disingenuous a best, completely dishonest at worst. I don't expect that you will make this right, rather you will rationalize it and afford yourself a sufficient amount of dispensation to ease your conscious.

Sorry, old boy, but must challenge you to find the caselaw to demonstrate your position here. They knew we were ready for that one right out of the gate and avoided a contest on this issue in favor of a host of other issues, with the number one being the effort to sequester the case from public view.

It is safe to assume that if they thought they had a shot at this and the caselaw supported it the effort to sequester would have been followed by amotion for injunctive relief. But, the case law was not there and you will have serious difficulties putting together a brief that would support it.

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
Logged

anyman

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 316
Re: What they are saying
« Reply #46 on: March 15, 2010, 09:51:22 AM »

Now at http://www.save-3abn.com/news-releases-defending-blogger-rights-against-corporate-bullies.htm.

Your linked page contains one of your patented gross inaccuracies or outright lie, depending on how one wants to classify it. On that page you say:

The following article by Justin Silverman likens Save-3ABN.com to David and 3ABN to Goliath, with the battle being over free speech.

First, the author doesn't liken you to David other than by insinuation at best - and your case only receives a cursory mention. Second, Silverman makes no mention of "free speech" in his post, that would be your fabrication/manipulation/manufacturing of a point you will now attempt to pass off as truth. His point is entirely dealing with trademark infringement. In the case he focuses on in his post, free speech isn't an issue, isn't even mentioned:

Goldman Sachs' letter alleges that the sites' domain names and content infringe the "Goldman Sachs" mark, violate other intellectual property rights, and constitute unfair competition.  The letter also alleges that Morgan's use of the mark gives the false impression that Morgan has an affiliation or commercial relationship with Goldman Sachs. http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/goldman-sachs-v-morgan#description

And the defendant in the case doesn't raise the specter of free speech either:

In response, Morgan filed a lawsuit for declaratory judgment in Florida federal court.  Morgan asked the court to declare that Morgan's websites and domain names did not infringe Goldman Sachs' trademark rights.  Morgan's Complaint also asked for declaratory judgment on Goldman Sachs' other claims. http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/goldman-sachs-v-morgan#description

Unlike the RJP/GAJ case, mentioned at the same clearinghouse site, this one has been updated:

7/17/09 - MediaPost reported that the parties settled, with Morgan agreeing to withdraw his lawsuit and Goldman Sachs promising not to sue, provided that Morgan continues to run a disclaimer on the site. http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/goldman-sachs-v-morgan#description

Back to your statement, you are the one insinuating "free speech" into the context of the blog post. This is disingenuous a best, completely dishonest at worst. I don't expect that you will make this right, rather you will rationalize it and afford yourself a sufficient amount of dispensation to ease your conscious.

Sorry, old boy, but must challenge you to find the caselaw to demonstrate your position here. They knew we were ready for that one right out of the gate and avoided a contest on this issue in favor of a host of other issues, with the number one being the effort to sequester the case from public view.

It is safe to assume that if they thought they had a shot at this and the caselaw supported it the effort to sequester would have been followed by amotion for injunctive relief. But, the case law was not there and you will have serious difficulties putting together a brief that would support it.

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

I am not sure why I would find case law to defend a position that has nothing to do with a legal question. I took the sound position that the blog in question was not written for, nor was it presented as an argument involving the Constitutional question of free speech. The blog in question here was written to deal with trademark infringement. Now where in the public documents do either side of the Goldman Sachs case enter the issue of free speech into the argument. The position of Sachs was trademark infringement, violation of intellectual property rights, and unfair competition.

It is also dishonest, as some here have done, to couch Morgan as the "victor" in this case. The dismissal was predicated on his agreeing to the prominent posting of a disclaimer of any connection to Goldman Sachs. This was part of the reason for the law suit in the first place. When people search they do so lazily. If you can tag your site in such a way that it gets spidered to the top of search results you have a chance to surplant the organization you are attacking. Single Google focuses on the content of web pages a search phrase appearing on the anti-Sach's page could theoretically end-up appearing before a legitimate Sachs page. Thus the justification for the claims of unfair competition.

The case was never about freedom of speech. The case you are artificially extending is also not about freedom of speech. According to the Constitution you have a right to speak your mind - no one disputes that. What the law says you don't have the right to do is to exercise this freedom by libel or slander. You have attempted to hide behind the cloak of "press" - which is a stretch at best. RJP is attempting, through this blog post, to now position the two of you as bloggers - which is inaccurate and dishonest. No one seeks to remove your free speech rights - go ahead voice your concern . . . however, the law, American society, and common sense say that when you step over the line from legitimate concern to libel and slander you are going to have to pay a consequence. I understand that you have a problem with suffering the consequences of your words and actions, but that's life in this country and you're going to have to live with it or leave.

I understand that you and RJP will ride this paycheck pony until it collapses (and it will) but you ultimately do a disservice to the Word of God and secondly the Constitution of this country by doing so. This was never about free speech or any other aspect of the First Amendment, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself of that lie.
Logged

Little Grasshopper

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47
Re: What they are saying
« Reply #47 on: March 15, 2010, 12:27:58 PM »


In the case he focuses on in his post, free speech isn't an issue, isn't even mentioned:

Note: The subsequent posts to outside links that were posted, after the original Silverman editorial, do deal with mostly trademark issues. However, these laws can be used as weapons to discourage free speech.  We're looking at individual trees, and we're not seeing a forest.  Separate trees include the mention of the the Goldman Sachs trademark in the domain name.  Obviously, Goldman Sachs would like as few people as possible to see any potentially disparaging web sites as possible. Therefore, these types of lawsuits are often about "appeasing the company"  and avoiding substantial legal fees.

As for Google ranking.  Google uses proprietary ranking systems.  Therefore, if I look for Columbia Journalism, maybe I'll get Columbia University School of Journalism, but if Google chooses, I might get Columbia Broadcasting System --CBS -- journalism.   Google decides decides if I get the CBS  "60 Minutes" as a top ranked result, or not.  So, I'm not sure the "unfair competition" issues are as clear-cut as some would hope when it comes to search terms.

Therefore, I wish to re-focus this on the main editorial -- the forest -- that started this whole topic.  The other links simply deal with the tools -- the saws -- lawyers use to saw away at that forest.  However, free speech remains the underlying issue, since the goal, in part, is often to limit the number of people who will find and read potentially disparaging remarks.

So, to refocus,  here's where free speech is mentioned.  Silverman writes:  "The blogger is either too scared to continue under the legal threats or he is simply without the resource to fight back. The website is modified to appease the company or it is taken down altogether.  "

Anyman, it's the modern-day equivalent to censorship and to book burning.  Since Silverman's site is for lawyers, you're expected to connect the dots, yourself.

Back to your statement, you are the one insinuating "free speech" into the context of the blog post. This is disingenuous a best, completely dishonest at worst.

Silverman goes on to say:  "More often than not, an individual blogger will balk at the first sign of potential legal trouble with a corporation the size of Goldman Sachs. Why assume the risk, the blogger may ask, when I can simply take the content offline?"

Silverman is talking about taking the content "offline."   Get it, Anyman?  When you take content "offline" it's the modern day equivalent of book-burning, because nobody sees that content or those books any more.   That's the point of many trademark lawsuits.


 I took the sound position that the blog in question was not written for, nor was it presented as an argument involving the Constitutional question of free speech. The blog in question here was written to deal with trademark infringement.

Are ideas about free speech and censorship not included, too?  Motivation and goals have to be an issue, too.

It is also dishonest, as some here have done, to couch Morgan as the "victor" in this case. The dismissal was predicated on his agreeing to the prominent posting of a disclaimer of any connection to Goldman Sachs.

If the site is still up, then it is still up. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

You have attempted to hide behind the cloak of "press" - which is a stretch at best.

Yes, but television evangelists use the same Constitution, freedom of religion, to promote their bizarre agendas, which are really a stretch at times, i.e, "Jesus is going to call me home if you don't send me the money."  Or, "Haiti suffered  an earthquake because they all made a pact with the devil."  Or, "If  a gay man looks at me the wrong way I'm going to kill him."

Remember those memorable remarks, Anyman?  See any stretches there?


 RJP is attempting, through this blog post, to now position the two of you as bloggers - which is inaccurate and dishonest.

There is no Federal Bureau of Blogging -- the infamous FBB.  The FBB police are not coming for these two "dishonest" people to drag them away in chains.


 No one seeks to remove your free speech rights - go ahead voice your concern . . . however, the law, American society, and common sense say that when you step over the line from legitimate concern to libel and slander you are going to have to pay a consequence.

And that consequence would be what?


I understand that you have a problem with suffering the consequences of your words and actions, but that's life in this country and you're going to have to live with it or leave.

Consequences, and being forced to leave, too.  You wish.


I understand that you and RJP will ride this paycheck pony until it collapses (and it will) but you ultimately do a disservice to the Word of God and secondly the Constitution of this country by doing so. This was never about free speech or any other aspect of the First Amendment, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself of that lie.

When it comes to the collapsing pony take another look.  All television has gone digital.  That means that for every PBS station, there are now four digital PBS stations squeezed into the same spectrum where there used to be just one analog station.. There are now entire PBS channels that have nothing but lifestyle programming: gardening, cooking, landscaping, home improvement, local politics, geology, geography, astronomy, you name it.  

Generally speaking, any business cannot run a hole-in-the-wall operation and still have money left over to defend themselves in court year after year after year. There's less money left over to go into capital improvements and inventory, etc.  A business can easily become under-capitalized with too much money going to high-paid lawyers.

No, it might not be the Joy and Pickle pony that will collapse for lack of oats.  Surely, you suspect that, by now.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2010, 01:26:47 PM by Little Grasshopper »
Logged

anyman

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 316
Re: What they are saying
« Reply #48 on: March 15, 2010, 02:50:30 PM »


In the case he focuses on in his post, free speech isn't an issue, isn't even mentioned:

Note: The subsequent posts to outside links that were posted, after the original Silverman editorial, do deal with mostly trademark issues. However, these laws can be used as weapons to discourage free speech.  We're looking at individual trees, and we're not seeing a forest.  Separate trees include the mention of the the Goldman Sachs trademark in the domain name.  Obviously, Goldman Sachs would like as few people as possible to see any potentially disparaging web sites as possible. Therefore, these types of lawsuits are often about "appeasing the company"  and avoiding substantial legal fees.

As for Google ranking.  Google uses proprietary ranking systems.  Therefore, if I look for Columbia Journalism, maybe I'll get Columbia University School of Journalism, but if Google chooses, I might get Columbia Broadcasting System --CBS -- journalism.   Google decides decides if I get the CBS  "60 Minutes" as a top ranked result, or not.  So, I'm not sure the "unfair competition" issues are as clear-cut as some would hope when it comes to search terms.

Therefore, I wish to re-focus this on the main editorial -- the forest -- that started this whole topic.  The other links simply deal with the tools -- the saws -- lawyers use to saw away at that forest.  However, free speech remains the underlying issue, since the goal, in part, is often to limit the number of people who will find and read potentially disparaging remarks.

So, to refocus,  here's where free speech is mentioned.  Silverman writes:  "The blogger is either too scared to continue under the legal threats or he is simply without the resource to fight back. The website is modified to appease the company or it is taken down altogether.  "

Anyman, it's the modern-day equivalent to censorship and to book burning.  Since Silverman's site is for lawyers, you're expected to connect the dots, yourself.

Morgan could have populated a site with the same information, but under a domain that did not include Goldman Sachs and probably would never have drawn the attention of the Banking/Investment group. He knew that. He also knew that he could not drive as much traffic to his site as he did, without using Goldman Sachs in the domain. He knew the calculation of the risk and took it. His choice of a domain was an intentional one so as to end up in the same search traffic the real Goldman Sachs. That might very well constitute unfair competition. It certainly could be seen as dilution.

Back to your statement, you are the one insinuating "free speech" into the context of the blog post. This is disingenuous a best, completely dishonest at worst.

Silverman goes on to say:  "More often than not, an individual blogger will balk at the first sign of potential legal trouble with a corporation the size of Goldman Sachs. Why assume the risk, the blogger may ask, when I can simply take the content offline?"

Silverman is talking about taking the content "offline."   Get it, Anyman?  When you take content "offline" it's the modern day equivalent of book-burning, because nobody sees that content or those books any more.   That's the point of many trademark lawsuits.

Again, his content would not have to be taken down, it would have to be migrated to a new domain name. This isn't an example of censorship. Goldman Sachs' complaints were specific to this site. I am sure this is not the only anti-Sachs site, however, it is one that used the name in its domain - that creates an adversarial atmosphere right off the bat.


 I took the sound position that the blog in question was not written for, nor was it presented as an argument involving the Constitutional question of free speech. The blog in question here was written to deal with trademark infringement.

Are ideas about free speech and censorship not included, too?  Motivation and goals have to be an issue, too.

In not one of the filings did Goldman Sachs attempt to stop Morgan from griping about their corporation. They wanted to  minimize the traffic he was surreptitiously gaining by using their name in his domain. So you might argue they wanted to limit his speech, but they never claimed to or tried to end his freedom of speech rights. Their attitude was, "Go ahead and complain, but stop using our name to spread your content." A corporation has this right wen they spend time and money to develop name recognition of the type Goldman Sachs has.

It is also dishonest, as some here have done, to couch Morgan as the "victor" in this case. The dismissal was predicated on his agreeing to the prominent posting of a disclaimer of any connection to Goldman Sachs.

If the site is still up, then it is still up. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

For a corporation like Sachs it became an issue of whether it was worth the time or money. They felt it wasn't however, they felt certain enough of their position that they knew they could force the disclaimer issue, which they won.

You have attempted to hide behind the cloak of "press" - which is a stretch at best.

Yes, but television evangelists use the same Constitution, freedom of religion, to promote their bizarre agendas, which are really a stretch at times, i.e, "Jesus is going to call me home if you don't send me the money."  Or, "Haiti suffered  an earthquake because they all made a pact with the devil."  Or, "If  a gay man looks at me the wrong way I'm going to kill him."

Remember those memorable remarks, Anyman?  See any stretches there?

Not going to argue with you that there is a ton of insanity perpetrated on the world by those claiming to be Christians. Two wrongs however, never make a right.


 RJP is attempting, through this blog post, to now position the two of you as bloggers - which is inaccurate and dishonest.

There is no Federal Bureau of Blogging -- the infamous FBB.  The FBB police are not coming for these two "dishonest" people to drag them away in chains.

I am not going to even argue this point with you. You seem knowledgeably adept enough to know that they have never engaged in blogging. They have been web masters, owners of a static web site, but never have they been bloggers.


No one seeks to remove your free speech rights - go ahead voice your concern . . . however, the law, American society, and common sense say that when you step over the line from legitimate concern to libel and slander you are going to have to pay a consequence.

And that consequence would be what?

Well, the long track record indicates there is a perpetual attitude that they can walk the earth, do as they please, and should never be held accountable for any of their actions. The end always justifies the means, means you are never wrong . . . this is where RJP/GAJ have decided to place their lot.  You can search out the claims against them, but to bring them into this thread would clutter the intent.


I understand that you have a problem with suffering the consequences of your words and actions, but that's life in this country and you're going to have to live with it or leave.

Consequences, and being forced to leave, too.  You wish.

Those would be words you are trying to place in my mouth - please don't lower yourself to that type of debate. I merely stated the two most obvious choices.


I understand that you and RJP will ride this paycheck pony until it collapses (and it will) but you ultimately do a disservice to the Word of God and secondly the Constitution of this country by doing so. This was never about free speech or any other aspect of the First Amendment, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself of that lie.

When it comes to the collapsing pony take another look.  All television has gone digital.  That means that for every PBS station, there are now four digital PBS stations squeezed into the same spectrum where there used to be just one analog station.. There are now entire PBS channels that have nothing but lifestyle programming: gardening, cooking, landscaping, home improvement, local politics, geology, geography, astronomy, you name it.  

Generally speaking, any business cannot run a hole-in-the-wall operation and still have money left over to defend themselves in court year after year after year. There's less money left over to go into capital improvements and inventory, etc.  A business can easily become under-capitalized with too much money going to high-paid lawyers.

No, it might not be the Joy and Pickle pony that will collapse for lack of oats.  Surely, you suspect that, by now.


Well, their paycheck pony is at the first appellate level. This level is granted by the Constitution. The next level is not, it is granted by the pleasure of four of the nine Justices. Don't fool yourself, RJP/GAJ aren't doing this work pro bono. It is safe to say that the appeals court will not find in their favor and you really can't be entertaining ideas that they would be granted cert to the Supreme Court?
« Last Edit: March 15, 2010, 02:58:55 PM by anyman »
Logged

childoftheking

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 358
Re: What they are saying
« Reply #49 on: March 15, 2010, 05:20:12 PM »

When feeling one's power as a "big dog" going after a little dog one might do well to remember that there are always bigger dogs around who could if they chose play the bully toward them. 3ABN might have been but wasn't sued by ABN AMRO. There have been trademark infringement suits brought over names that have as little similarity.

3ABN has also aired programs which could be taken as libeling or slandering a religious system. In fact in were she to live in today's litigious society Sister White would not be able to exercise her religious freedom and deliver the straightforward messages she did without opening herself up to lawsuits for slander or libel. Lawyers in such a lawsuit would surely characterize her as a critical troublemaker.
Logged

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4061
    • Pickle Publishing
Re: What they are saying
« Reply #50 on: March 15, 2010, 09:03:47 PM »

From "Firm To Shut Down Dissident Blogger, Blogger Sues Bank":

Quote from: Huffington Post
In fact, On Monday, the blogger, Mike Morgan, filed a lawsuit in Florida against the bank on the basis the bank is trying to muzzle the blog.

From "Florida Blogger Wages War on Street Giant":

Quote from: New York Post
In a classic case of David vs. Goliath, a Florida entrepreneur is ready to battle Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs over the use of the bank's name in a Web site critical of the company.

Yesterday, Mike Morgan, of Jensen Beach, Fla., filed a lawsuit in Florida against Goldman arguing the gold-plated banking powerhouse was attempting to muzzle Morgan, who recently launched two Web sites critical of the bank, goldmansachs666.com and goldmansachs13, the latter of which automatically directs visitors to the first Web address.

anyman, you don't think the word "muzzle" refers to free speech issues, just trademark? Or do you think the Huffington Post and the New York Post are wrong? Or are you just practicing up to be a lawyer?
Logged

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4061
    • Pickle Publishing
Re: What they are saying
« Reply #51 on: March 16, 2010, 10:15:17 AM »

Don't fool yourself, RJP/GAJ aren't doing this work pro bono.

anyman, or anyone else for that matter, how much do you think our work on this case is worth? How much is a realistic figure to charge?
Logged

Murcielago

  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1274
Re: What they are saying
« Reply #52 on: March 16, 2010, 03:10:17 PM »

Market value is based on many factors including market demand, competition, and how much the consumers are willing to pay. I doubt there is a value that anyone could point to as the going, or set rate for what you are doing.
Logged

princessdi

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 1271
Re: What they are saying
« Reply #53 on: March 17, 2010, 01:50:57 PM »

Typically, when you "do-it-yourself" it is to incur little or no cost. Costs generally being generated by materials used, etc.  You usually "diy" to save the cost of labor.  There is no one to charge for the cost of labor. Is that not correct?

However, I do know that if I had hired an attorney and gotten the result that Bob and Gailon have gotten, I might try my best not to pay him for his labor, either
Logged
It is the duty of every cultured man or woman to read sympathetically the scriptures of the world.  If we are to respect others' religions as we would have them respect our own, a friendly study of the world's religions is a sacred duty. - Mohandas K. Gandhi

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4061
    • Pickle Publishing
Re: What they are saying
« Reply #54 on: March 17, 2010, 03:38:15 PM »

However, I do know that if I had hired an attorney and gotten the result that Bob and Gailon have gotten, I might try my best not to pay him for his labor, either

By mid-2008, a lawyer told me that we were doing an awesome job defending ourselves.

Then after Danny et. al. moved to dismiss, another lawyer told me congratulations, or something similar.

I was chatting with yet another lawyer about one of the questions I had to figure out, and he told me that I was going over his head.

I told that story to a fourth lawyer while asking him something too, and he said that he could grasp what I was talking about, but yes, it was a bit beyond him. That fourth lawyer told me that a lot of lawyers never make it into federal court.

At this point I might not want to hire a lawyer.

If 3ABN has shelled out $1+ million in legal fees, how much would one have to pay a lawyer to do all that we have done thus far? Big, big buckos.
Logged

quaddie47

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 40
Re: What they are saying
« Reply #55 on: March 17, 2010, 07:20:02 PM »

However, I do know that if I had hired an attorney and gotten the result that Bob and Gailon have gotten, I might try my best not to pay him for his labor, either

By mid-2008, a lawyer told me that we were doing an awesome job defending ourselves.

Then after Danny et. al. moved to dismiss, another lawyer told me congratulations, or something similar.

I was chatting with yet another lawyer about one of the questions I had to figure out, and he told me that I was going over his head.

I told that story to a fourth lawyer while asking him something too, and he said that he could grasp what I was talking about, but yes, it was a bit beyond him. That fourth lawyer told me that a lot of lawyers never make it into federal court.

At this point I might not want to hire a lawyer.

If 3ABN has shelled out $1+ million in legal fees, how much would one have to pay a lawyer to do all that we have done thus far? Big, big buckos.

Amazing that you found a group of lawyers that you did not label liars, scoundrels and at risk of losing their salvation for one reason or another.......

Truly amazing how that happens when they tell you what you want to hear, eh?

Logged

tinka

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1495
Re: What they are saying
« Reply #56 on: March 17, 2010, 07:27:50 PM »

Hmmm,
DS shelling out $1,000,000 for attorneys?? How could he do that ??....unless of course the donors from his non profit organization keep paying. !?!?! and he keeps telling his "stories" or His books from non profit??? So if he claims this is a lie. Then where does the money come from....maybe the next ........ has some. :dunno:  
Logged

anyman

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 316
Re: What they are saying
« Reply #57 on: March 17, 2010, 07:56:22 PM »

Hmmm,
DS shelling out $1,000,000 for attorneys?? How could he do that ??

This is <you> believing the unfounded claims of <others> as truth. A perfect example that you are willing to accept and pass along anything that fits your preferred bias without checking for yourself the validity of said claims. You want to believe this, therefore it is truth . . . that doesn't mean it is, it simply means you want it to be, so for you it will be. Now the question arises, "If you haven't checked the validity, you choose to believe it, and pass it along . . . does that make you a liar?" "Can you claim the person who passed it on to you is responsible and not you?" Not in God's eyes.
Logged

tinka

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1495
Re: What they are saying
« Reply #58 on: March 17, 2010, 08:33:31 PM »

Oh, so anyman, your now stating that DS does not pay attorney's fees????
What is the truth....who shall I believe???  does anyone know or show a bill or paid for?? Do the attorney's work for free for DS? Are they under his volunteer group?  Where do I find any of these kind of breaks? I really need to find one of those kind of lawyers. We need their expertise to do all the papers for us and present them in a court of law. We know how to win if we can just get the chance, but just need their expertise in doing the court work.  IF DS has no attorney bills then I am a believer of all the volunteer work he gets done for him. He really must be a super star. Just don't understand how he does it? You know, get all that free stuff! I've only known lawyers that charge for a living. Then their are a few that will stand up for justice, but mostly on one hand and that's if they already made their millions.

I don't think you read correctly, I stated "How can he do that??" then sort of implied "how else?, knowing his source of work-- that could be a possibility. You sorta jumped the gun here in accusations I would say!!!
« Last Edit: March 17, 2010, 08:40:39 PM by tinka »
Logged

anyman

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 316
Re: What they are saying
« Reply #59 on: March 17, 2010, 08:41:01 PM »

Tinka, your response is clarifying. I need say no more.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up