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.
It is, in fact, all about free speech as defined in the First Amendement to the US Constitution. It is also about freedom of press, also found in the first ammendment to the US Constitution. It was argued, SUCCESSFULLY, I might ad, in 3ABN vs Joy and we had a load of First Circuit case law to support the defense. Not to mention that the sitting Judge had been a reporter in his youth and clearly understood the issue.
The fact that you, with your legal background, do not have a clear understanding of the issues is reprehensible.
I would also point out, to clarify the issue, that the allegations were that we had slandered and, since it is set in type as in written, libel. May I also point out that we proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the truth was the perfect and an absolute defense and is why the Plaintiffs ran for the hills to dismiss as we closed in on the bank statements nad the auditors records. For those who are blind to this reality, may I offer you the eyesalve that you so badly have needed and continue to need.
Your hero's were liars and scoundrels that were complicit in a cover-up and by an officers and Plaintiff's hand in the till. And DLS was indeed a biblical adulterer and you are left without a defense on this issue.
Now that is in writing, making it subject to a libel claim, if anyone or anyman has the stomach for a round two. As for me, I relish the thought and must point out that these people still purport to represent and have the three angels messages and will most certainly pay a price in the Lord's good time, despite your blinders.
With the growth of competition for televangelist dollars, a good dose of confession and reformation is in order at 3ABN, and since the sins were VERY PUBLIC, the confession and reformation must be VERY PUBLIC. In the alternative, we wish you and your ilk the very best in your new careers.
One thing is certain, a Leopard does not change its spots nor a tiger it's stripes and one can safely assume that we are far from the end of discovery at 3ABN. Mark my word. As soon as James Gilley is retired, yet again, unless there has been substantial changes manifest by confession and reformation, it is safe to assume that the opportunity to report will become a steady stream of new stories to print as we cover the leopard and the tiger yet again. And rest assured, Jim is getting tired and without a sound continuum, I believe it is safe to assume it will fall back into the hands of the hypocrits and become fertile ground for fresh reporting. We'll be there!!!
Always fun sparing with a deficient legal mind and I welcome your blind response.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
Author
Topic: What they are saying (Read 35270 times)
