Posted by pancho from pool0174.cvx20-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net (188.8.131.52) on Sunday, January 19, 2003 at 4:36PM :
such as it is.
Seems to me there are three things I have to answer to. The first is the obsscenity issue...calling attention to Jackie Bejan's anatomy...in the first place "obscenity" doesn't mean using nasty language. If you yell, "Fuck you"...to someone who cuts you off, the person can't sue for that...no matter how upset you get. Legally "obscenity" means arousing someone's prurient interests INTENTIONALL and for immoral purposes...and it would be a strange duck who got aroused by anything I wrote about Jackie. It was all I could do to keep from laughing...but excited?...never! Obviously I wasn't trying to arouse anyone's interests in Jackie, prurient or otherwise.
There's something in the Law called "sticks and stones", meaning if you blow up and vent steam...it isn't actionable or we'd all be in court all the time. So I think any cuss words would come under that category...repulsive, but not illegal.
Next comes the discussion of her private parts...the boobs, pooter and arse. This was indeed intended to make her sweat, obviously and to cause her a little embarrassment...like I'm going to deny it? But why? Well because she caused me and my family a great deal of it and if two wrongs don't make a right, they make for one happy fellow, who was wronged first and for no good reason.
Then next we come to the allegations of misconduct, sexual and other wise...calling it her club, calling her a woman scorned and the rest of it. This is the "defamation" part. And here all I have to say is that I told the truth. Now imagine a "he said she said" situation. Joe calls Mary into his office, closes the door and begins hitting on Mary...she sues him and there they are, no witnesses, telling their side of the story to the jury. That's okay...you only need 51% of the jury to decide a civil matter.
The jury listens to both sides tell the truth...and decides for itself which side is MORE likely to be telling more of the truth. Nothing wrong with that. It's also why you don't usually find people, unless they are as dumb as Jackie, suing over stuff like this. Who wants to have these things advertised and broadcast...who wants some stray reporter getting a hold of this crap...who wants to have someone have to "prove" that she is a bitch...or a cunt? Jackie, that's who.
Let's take the part where she claimed I came to her house for help feeding or caring for my family. First of all she told two versions of the story..in one she gives me money, in the other she gives me a bag full of groceries. So first we settle which story is true.
Then I produce my taxes from whatever year she claims this happened and ask how likely it is that I went to her door for some groceries. If the groceries story is the true one...how much could that bag of groceries have been worth...$100?
I'm not sure when she says this happened...but the last three years before they put their heads together I was making around $80,000 a year. How likely is it then that I went round for groceries...or for help caring for my family?
Shawn says that I am "mooching" off my mother now...something I'm sure Jackie put in his head. If that's true why wouldn't I have "mooched" $100 worth of goceries from my mother?
Also...in that year...Jackie bought sculpture I believe...why wouldn't I have sold them another piece instead of humiliating myself by appearing at her door asking for groceries? That goes for the supposed loan as well. Why didn't I just sell them a sculpture...they certainly had bought plenty before...why wouldn't I have structured it that way, instead of taking a loan I'd be hard pressed to pay back? And if I did borrow money that I refused to repay...why did she buy more sculpture from me...why not make me pay her back first...or deduct the price from what I owed her...why spend more money with me?
I'm counting on her having answers to all of these...they know what information I'm going to be seeking...why do this? Because I want a good tussle...a very, very good tussle. I'm glad she has the money to get a good lawyer like Shawn...some hack wouldn't do.
The other thing is that I have absolutely no experience at this sort of defense or proceeding...I was involved in crimminal cases, not civil. I know Jackie will be demure and restrained in court...I know she'll dress just this side of a widow...she makes a marvellous presentation...good!
But I'll make a good one too...just by telling the simple truth. The jury will more than likely not be made up of lawyers or wealthy adenoidal businesswomen...none of whom would have gotten into this situation in the first place. Hamlet says we all have a flaw in us that trips up the other sterling qualities. The "flaw" that got Jackie here will be easy to expose to the jury...she and Shawn are going to help me do it...the more they dress her up, the higher they lift her...the farther she'll fall.
Then of course there's the infamous "Naked Warrior" thing...this business of suing Jeff, "for future use". Lawyers aren't very popular, and just for this sort of thing...they use the Law to legally harrass people or avoid responsibility for their irresponsible but well-heeled clients.
I have the letter from Shawn addmitting both Jackie and he knew Jeff hadn't done anything...but were going to sue him and cost him money...just for leverage. They can't seriously maintain that without Jeff's help old Pancho would have been unable to do what he was doing. They KNOW it was a bullshit move...and the jury will see it that way. Jeff will be there...Jeff will testify...whatever you might think about his mug...Jeff has an unparalled track record in our community...we even have Jackie's own praises of him to prove she knew it and felt the same way. You just don't reach out and sue someone for two million dollars without first trying to reason with him...get him to understand your position or explain himself to you...not unless you're trying to scare, intimidate and punish. There are other such instances but Shawn needs to work too.
The jury is going to be made up of people very like me. Being non-Assyrians they'll know how to value a sculptor who creates monuments...there will be some who are out of work...who have children they couldn't get presents for, like I couldn't...there'll be some who've had a boss like Jackie...or a principal or social worker.
I hope Shawn does excellently well...I hope Jackie shines in court. In fact....I hope they win a big settlement. Makes no difference to me. I'm not going there to win any money...and she isn't going to collect any if she wins. Let it be two million...let it be ten million...the more the better.
My "victory" will come about when I'm allowed to defend myself...when I supenis people to get on the stand and tell what they know...decide to perjure themselves or not. My victory comes the minute I walk into the courtroom for the trial...it's win win all the way.
I want our people...and the general public...if I manage the publicity correctly, to understand what kind of people elect themselves our leaders, based on what flimsy and inappropriate qualifications...but more than that...how they set about undermining and destroying anyone or anything that threatens their "status". That's the real story here.
Whatever kind of a rat I may have been...I was a good scultptor rat for the purpose of getting us serious recognition. Nimrod and Jackie and Golani didn't have to like me...and all of them are surrounded by my pieces in their homes or office...they could have just gone on their way and left me alone to do my work. But what they can't control, what they can't subvert...what they can't buy...they will destroy.
That needs to be shown...that's my victory...in the process of getting it I will try like hell to win the jury over...but that's the victory. And that will come about no matter what... and well before any judgement is awarded the Jackster.
I paid my dues...it's time to collect the fees.
-- signature .
Post a Followup