Posted by pancho from pool0390.cvx25-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net (220.127.116.11) on Sunday, January 12, 2003 at 6:31PM :
In Reply to: Scratch That...This Was First... posted by pancho from pool0319.cvx24-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net (18.104.22.168) on Sunday, January 12, 2003 at 5:37PM :
+++Here Shawn lays on the cream and butter. Those of us who know Jeff know this IS impressive work.. The guy has held up excellently well againt this attempt to unnerve him...but we don't need Shawn's praise...it's paid for too. It's costing Jeff and I to maintain some principle here...it's been financially rewarding for Shawn to lecture us...and Jackie of course has her work cut out for her saving THAT ass.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Good Work
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 15:00:11 EDT
Excellent research. I only wish that Fred had done the same thing about
"slander per se" (a term which he still does not understand) before he
said all those things about my client.
+++He said the truth...for which people get into all kinds of trouble.
Had he stuck to plain facts and
Fred-centric opinion instead of going ballistic (in a legally actionable
way), none of us would be here today.
+++In court fella, in court.
The problem with your International Shoe analysis is that it does the
same thing lawyers and non-lawyers do all the time. It looks at the
parts of the law that point your direction and grasps firmly onto them
-- good for argument, but not necessarily practical in terms of setting
expectations about what a human judge will do in a real courtroom facing
specific facts (presented against zealous opposition by the other
counsel), and no good for resolving things outside the courtroom.
++++Well look at who's giving himself advice.
It was I who told you that International Shoe, et al. define an
interesting arguement. Should you wish to have that argument in court,
I will do so happily. It is what I do.
+++You can just hear the smarmy kid of your youth saying he'll bring his big lawyer brother with him...if you want to argue.
Further, my client has been
briefed and is prepared that the matter could go either way.
+++Which is more advice than Lincoln ever got before getting married.
for us is we end up re-filing in MI if we lose on CA jurisdication and
if we decide it's that important to us.
++++You wont...trust me. Your convictions are dependent on who, or if, anyone pays you...stop trying to sound like you're on some "high road"...instead of just working the street.
Just for fun, let me point out, the court could agree with you -- no
business relationship directed at making money in CA = no jurisdiction.
Or it could agree with me -- working on a website whose owner is in CA,
whose owner used the site to target and defame CA individuals, when you
were fully aware of what he was doing each and every day, may give the
court jurisdiction over you for the primary purpose I am seeking -- to
get injunctive relief so the court can make sure you destroy all copies
of defamatory statements which may be in your records, and so rules are
outlined so that you do not "participate" (however the court ends up
determining that) in the future.
+++Define "working for" for starters, then define "participate"...next, try to get it into your blow-dried head that I have all the copies of my files I need. I wrote the stuff remember...and can do so again at the drop of a garter belt or a coin in your box.
Anyway, regardless of how enjoyable it is for me to talk to you about
details of jurisdiction and how much fun you have doing a little pre-law
research online, Ms. Bejan's problem as it relates to you is a practical
matter far more than a legal one -- how to establish with certainty that
you are not going to be the person who helps Fred post offshore, open an
"anonymous" forum, or do many of the other things he proposes to do --
many of which require technical skills which I believe are beyond his
ability to do without help.
+++I can get "help" lots of places...or I can spend two hours...get all the support help I need from the friggin web providers...and do that voodoo I doo soo well. You gonna sue my kids next?
Perhaps Fred will force his son to help him
take up his battles. But for now all I care about is having you not be
+++See...they "care" about Jeff.
You daily read what Fred says about people online. Fred is a very very
bitter person who has stepped on the toes of those who would otherwise
help him. You tell me, is if fair or right to call Atour a "runt" and
to attack him at the same time you both beg and challenge to be allowed
to the next Federation event?
+++Atour IS a runt! Measure him! I have been doing this community the favor...not the other way around, putz!
Is that supposed to do anyone any good or
accomplish anything? How about today's comments about Wilfred? Called
for or not? You tell me.
+++You don't know the entire story...but what does it matter...you know only what you need to.
Seriously, I'm not going to recommend that Jackie include Stella or Alli
in her complaint. They're just board participants (Fred might call them
"bored participants"). However, you and they and the other 2.5 people
who look at the board actually do as much to promote Fred's bile by
providing an audience as any individual act of technical support.
+++Oh come ON!!! You gonna sue an AUDIENCE??? Besides putz...there are over 19,000 separate IP addresses reading here...very few post...lots and lots read...and that number will grow the further we get into this...the more you help me publicize this...the courtroom is gonna be jammed...people are already saying they wouldn't miss it for the world.
++If I was bright, like you...I'd paint Jackie's portrait in dog shit...elephant shit's retro already...then I'd wait for you to sue me for "defecation on her character"...and we'd go to court to argue whether shit is a legitimate medium to paint with...a precedent having already been set in the Virgin Mary painting at the Brooklyn Museum...I am an artiste...a lousy, unprincipled and bitter one...but I get to choose what paint I use, NOT a court or Jackie! I get to pick what expresses my subject the best...and as no one would want the damn thing...I couldn't be accused of trying to profit off of the shitty thing. It would be even MORE fun to use something that looked and smelled and tasted like shit...then go to court to prove it was, or was not shit. How much fun do you want? How much money do you need to support this advice column of yours?
really doesn't matter much that you are all so good as to not respond to
him. If a man rants on the Internet and no one reads him, does it make
noise? Is it legally actionable?
Wilfred appears to have done the right thing. He said effectively, "if
you are going to behave as you have, I am not going to continue this
+++What he shreiked was, "You are a scumbag and I never want to see you again". I can take a hint.
By the way, Fred's lawyer, who is a competent and very
reasonable human being who was being paid to advise Fred said the same
thing. Fred won't tell you, but I will. Fred didn't fire his lawyer or
run out of money.
+++Fred will tell you...his lawyer would have continued if Fred had the cash...and YOU would stop this instant if Jackie ran out. Let's talk real here okay?
His lawyer refused to continue representing him when
he proved to be personally and legally unreasonable. Any lawyer
would/will do the same.
+++Fred's lawyer...like most of you, wanted to settle this thing out of court, lawyer to lawyer, and pocket the fees without breaking a sweat...and couldn't understand my persistance...I HAD to get Jackie to sue me...first. I didn't want to settle...didn't want to do it by the book...wasn't about to run back to Mexico, as he also advised...till he could get a settlement...all Fred wants is a chance to defend himself in court.
I'm not going to name other names, but there
are many who have had enough of Fred's type of hate-speech and who
simply choose not to be a party to it -- even as audience. It's not
just a trend, it's the right thing to do.
++++Oh God...I'm NOT a trend setter???
Can I or a court "make" you walk away? Maybe. I think, however, that
it's much more likely that you will come to the decision on your own.
And when you do, we work out a few basic groundrules about the future
that your part of the lawsuit is over. That easy.
++++It's the easiet thing to sell yourself out...also your pals...that's what pissed Jackie off so much...here she went into hyper-"love" status with Jeff...cut to the chase with the dear words and fawning...and it got thrown back at her because she was way too obvious, and it didn't take a genius to figure out she was lying and a snake of a woman...something she proved in spades by even suing Jeff to begin with. Something she thought would make him "reasonable".
[Incidently, I suggested to Fred that we do similarly, working out
groundrules for future behavior so things would stay civilized,
unpersonalized and within the First Amendment (which does not protect
+++I didn't defame her...if I called her a bitch...and prove to 51% of a jury that she acted exactly as a bitch would...that's not defamation...it's telling an unpleasant truth, on the way to explaining a situation.
He said, "no" that it was more important to spend the rest
of his life chasing Jackie so as to ensure she never goes anywhere
politically. As if that was her agenda, and as if that were de facto a
+++It WAS her agenda...and no, it isn't a bad thing to do per se. It's also not a bad thing, in this day and age, to let people know all the relevant things about someone you know isn't what they make themselves out to be. Jackie does enough to promote herself, no need to enlist my help...my goal was to get rid of obstacles that stand in our way...and none more than the people who present themselves as our friends and benefactors, starting with our own people...half-breeds and all.
Fred still needs to be held responsible for what he said
++++Fred is longing to be held responsible!
Legally speaking, it doesn't matter that I forced the board
down. The damage was done and must be compensated.]
+++That's the funny part...even if you should win...win what? You want piss from this stone? She already won a judgement by default cause I had three young children in Mexico and wasn't about to stick around for this nonsense...for which I owe her $140,000...so collect that first...then come get your two million...then sue me for four million and then for ten. Hell...you can name your next five boats after me.
Anyway, the odds of my making Fred change without enforceable court
orders are minimal.
+++The odds you'll get them are even worse. The odds Fred will worry about it are even worse than that. Jackie will win nothing this way...she has won nothing and will lose even more. There is only one way...and that is to be honest and clean from the START, and not try to cover over your dirt with cash and threats.
The odds that you and I will not fixate on
International Shoe and the fun arguments we can have about it, but
instead will move on and focus on what you can do to make this lawsuit
go away are high.
++++Maybe you were when you wrote this?
I am here when you're ready to talk.
+++As long as you get paid...don't forget that little detail...you don't talk to anyone unless cash, a lot of it too, crosses your sweaty palm. I don't want Jeff ought to get hurt if he calls you one day to talk and you hang up cause Jackie hasn't sent her check...not likely I know, but it's good to be ready.
P.S. It seems you show everything I write to Fred and/or discuss it on
the board. That's fine, since I assume it's the case before I write
anything. However, it is much more polite if communications between you
and I remain private and if we don't get ego-involved in showing our
smarts in public on the board. Lawsuits, and their resolution
especially, are best kept to a minimum of publicity. Further, I don't
have the liberty of engaging in debate with you online -- my legal
briefs are presented in court and decided by judges, not by public opinion.
Also, these communications I am having with you are generally in the
realm of "settlement discussions" which are protected from disclosure by
rules of evidence.
++++No they are not...there is no settlement yet and there won't be. These are your tepid attempts to get your client's way...and are under no legal protection whatsoever.
It's your prerogative to take things public or to
take them to Fred. But frankly, it does not help us resolve things.
-- signature .
Post a Followup