Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: childoftheking on March 09, 2010, 06:00:15 AM
-
Interesting to see what some others are saying about the lawsuit and freedom of speech:
http://suffolkmedialaw.com/2009/04/16/defending-blogger-rights-against-corporate-bullies/
-
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-3anbn.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.
-
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-3anbn.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.
Are you saying that a blog by a 3rd year law student that drew one response in a year is impressive?
What do you think it means that the originating post on another forum has not been updated in two years (including any of the filings)?
-
If what the article was saying supported your bias you would be praising it to the heavens. Its logic is self evident. And your characterization of the writer suggest that your customary answer to anything that doesn't suit you is "if you can't refute the argument, attack and belittle the speaker."
-
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-3anbn.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.
Are you saying that a blog by a 3rd year law student that drew one response in a year is impressive?
What do you think it means that the originating post on another forum has not been updated in two years (including any of the filings)?
Not to mention, Quaddie, that the RJP/GAJ case only gets cursory mention.
No Johann, the author of this blog doesn't call 3ABN a Goliath and those with a modicum of knowledge about 3ABN know that in the grand scheme of television media, it isn't anywhere near being a Goliath. He does use the David/Goliath story as a metaphor to set up his paper. He is also focused on blogging which is not what RJP/GAJ engaged in. Bloggers rights are a completely different issue. As far as it being "amazing" it has become a rather mundane legal reality, happening all the time. People in cyberspace feel empowered by the quasi-anonymity that comes from being able to post whatever you want to on the Internet. It also allows for a wealth of false or misleading information to be passed off as true (ala RJP/GAJ).
In this country Trademark/Patent law is well established and has the backing of a majority of politicians and legal experts. Copyright law is a much murkier area, but still carries tremendous weight. This blog is focused on media law where these three areas of law regularly play out. From their "About" page:
Suffolk Media Law is a Suffolk University Law School student organization, entirely student-run and created in 2009 in accordance with the school’s regulations and those of the Student Bar Association. The purpose of Suffolk Media Law is to provide all Suffolk University Law School students an opportunity to discuss and learn of topics related to communications law and media policy. Through dialogue and sponsorship of relevant events, Suffolk Media Law intends to help further the school community’s understanding of this growing and changing body of law. It is also the intent of Suffolk Media Law to help students with professional interest in this field by creating networking and career advancement opportunities.
As to your final point Johann, this post is a year old, the author is probably preparing to sit for the bar. The linked information, which is nothing more than an entry at a clearinghouse site for such information is almost two full years old, with, as Q pointed out, no updates - even they appear to have forgotten about it. Your finally statement appears ridiculous when measured against the realities. At best someone "took a peek" at the RJP/GAJ case . . . You can stop with the hyperbole.
-
Now at http://www.save-3abn.com/news-releases-defending-blogger-rights-against-corporate-bullies.htm (http://www.save-3abn.com/news-releases-defending-blogger-rights-against-corporate-bullies.htm).
-
Now at http://www.save-3abn.com/news-releases-defending-blogger-rights-against-corporate-bullies.htm (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.
-
If what the article was saying supported your bias you would be praising it to the heavens. Its logic is self evident. And your characterization of the writer suggest that your customary answer to anything that doesn't suit you is "if you can't refute the argument, attack and belittle the speaker."
COTK,
Did my post attack either you or Johann personally contrary to your personal attack on me claiming you know what i think about the article's content or opinions and claiming i am biased? Have I ever once praised any opinion expressed on this board by either side although it is possible i have agreed with one and stated the same?
Pointing out the credentials of the author does not demonstrate bias nor does it belittle him. It is part of the critical thinking and analysis that iMO is so often lacking here.
How many times has Bob called for the troops to contact the media? I presume that many did. Since I have never seen one post that there was any interest, I think it is reasonable to assume there was not. *****************************************************
It is your opinion that "its logic is self-evident". Your opinion and not a fact. Again, you have not a clue my opinion about the content of the blog from my post. It was a suggestion that before you hail the article as proving anything, you look at a few more facts.
And do not accuse me of bias. Just because i refuse to live in the "world according to bob" and accept all he writes in briefs or puts in affidavits as logical and a dozen other adjectives i can think of and IMO most likely causes law clerks to have to pick themselves up of the floor before their hysterical laughter can be heard pealing through the halls of justice, you have no idea what any personal bias i have is.
I do have one question for you though. Now that Bob has admitted he found the post and obviously passed it on to you to post, do you think starting a new thread as if you had found the blog and wanted to share it is just a tad deceptive? Why is Bob unwilling to start the thread himself?
The difference between you and I COTK is that I respect your right to have an opinion different than my own as well as your right to post it. Your post speaks for itself.
Edited by Artiste to remove inappropriate content.
-
Interesting to see what some others are saying about the lawsuit and freedom of speech:
http://suffolkmedialaw.com/2009/04/16/defending-blogger-rights-against-corporate-bullies/
And more interesting to me is the fact that you actually posted this. It turns out your "some others" is just one person from a year ago, who seemed to think Pickle and Joy were "bloggers" and barely mentioned the lawsuit, a lawsuit which has been dismissed for almost 18 mos now.
Moving on.
-
WOW! I must have hit a nerve. Everybody is biased in one way or another. You have been quite clear that you are biased in favor of unquestioning loyalty to 3ABN. And this article went against that. I am biased in favor of openness and transparency and the right of donors to know the facts. I felt that you were attacking and belittling the ability of the writer of the article to comment objectively. Can you not tolerate any dissent or open mindedness? Must you crush any other opinion than your own? If the author were the only one still discussing the lawsuit I wouldn't have said "others" I didn't say that it was broadly discussed online.
I found the article myself, kept it in my "favorite links" and decided to post it here today. I felt the time was right simply because of the lawsuit having been dismissed as long as it has been and because of the appeal process. Bob obviously read it soon after I posted it here and decided to use it. He did not give it to me to post. I don't know if he knew about it but I have known for some time about the article. He did not discuss it with me. I didn't know he was going to post anything at all on the other site.
Look, I personally have hoped and still hope that the usefullness to the church of 3ABN will still not ultimately be outweighed by bad publicity. I have done a lot of investigating myself and it has been a continual challenge to know which things to keep to myself and which things others have a right to know and to consider.
-
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."
-
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. 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.
Sure I am biased. So what?
-
You have been quite clear that you are biased in favor of unquestioning loyalty to 3ABN.
If only you knew how humorous this accusation is. It removes any potential credibility to the remainder of your comment.
-
Please explain how you welcome questioning loyalty to 3ABN. I love a good joke.
-
Simple. There is zero truth to your statement:
You have been quite clear that you are biased in favor of unquestioning loyalty to 3ABN.
-
So you say but I need examples of what you claim.
-
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.
-
You lost me. Who or what is Q? The only Q I can think of is a character on Star Trek.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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....
-
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]
-
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.
-
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...
How many times do we have to address this one before the lie keeps getting repeated? The standard for journalism and the standard for court are different. It is unconstitutional to impose the Federal Rules of Evidence upon the press. If a reporter can corroborate the information from his source, he can break the story. But in court the bar is higher, and so of course discovery would have to be conducted in order to establish the truth of the points made.
If the logic of Simpson and you held sway, then the press in the United States of America would largely shut down.
When the story about Monica Lewinsky broke, could the reporters prove the truth of it in court, without further discovery?
-
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...
How many times do we have to address this one before the lie keeps getting repeated? The standard for journalism and the standard for court are different. It is unconstitutional to impose the Federal Rules of Evidence upon the press. If a reporter can corroborate the information from his source, he can break the story. But in court the bar is higher, and so of course discovery would have to be conducted in order to establish the truth of the points made.
If the logic of Simpson and you held sway, then the press in the United States of America would largely shut down.
How long are you going to hide behind that "freedom of the press" excuse while remaining clueless and crying 'foul" because you were sued.? *If* you and Joy wanted to function as reporters and the press, you should have educated yourselves about journalism and reporting ethics before doing so. Read on...you only violated every single guideline below repeatedly, and got exactly what you deserved for posting and publishing so unethically and irresponsibly.
How to Avoid Libel
The Associated Press Stylebook gives a complete and easy explanation on libel and how and why newspapers face libel charges. New journalists should be educated in proper, ethical reporting methods, and any time you have questions on whether something you write is libelous, check with your editor. If you are an editor, check with the publisher, the editorial board or the paper's legal counsel.
Libel 101
About Libel
Webster's dictionary defines libel as: (1) a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt; (2) defamation of a person by written or representational means; (3) the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures; and (4) the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel. By law, libel comes under the umbrella of defamation. Defamation when written or in the form of a representation such as a photograph is considered libel; when defamation is spoken, it is slander.
Instructions
Step 1
There are some general guidelines reporters and bloggers must follow to avoid libel. It starts with the three A's: According to, allegedly and apparently. Newspapers, TV, radio, Internet--it makes no difference. They are all media outlets, not courts or judges. Headlines and stories should never convict a person, instead leave that for the courts and judges. Stories or headlines also should never draw conclusions that the facts don't prove. That's where the three A's come in. When reporting on crime or alleged wrong-doing by a politician, for example, always source the information. Don't write, "The man shot and killed three people before stealing a Camaro and speeding away." That statement shows a bias against the suspect. Instead, write, "Police said the man shot and killed." This statement provides a source and meets the burden of absence of malice on which courts base libel decisions.
Step 2
Source every statement, conclusion or fact, unless that fact is in the realm of common knowledge. Examples of common knowledge are that the sky is blue, ice is cold and fire is hot.
Step 3
When sourcing, do not draw conclusions. Use statements such as "According to police" or "According to multiple sources."
Step 4
When quoting information from unnamed sources, detail the nature of the source. For example, "According to a firefighter that arrived on the scene 10 minutes after the accident," or "A source in the Justice Department" or "According to a senior government official."
Step 5
Apparently is the second of the three A's. Use "apparently" when there are no facts or sourced available, but observations are. "The shots apparently came from the third floor of a book depository" or "The mayor apparently thought no one would find the accounting error as he allegedly used the missing cash to renovate his home."
Step 6
When there are charges, as in the example above about the mayor, always use alleged or allegedly. Again, the charges remain allegations only until a court convicts the person.
Step 7
Look at and consider your sources. Even Woodward and Bernstein had named sources throughout their Watergate investigation. Always question anonymous sources as to motives and why they want to remain nameless.
Step 8
Libel is extremely difficult to prove in court. However, that should not act as an open invitation to write just anything. Always check facts, get confirmations on anonymous tips and above all remain objective.
Tips & Warnings
* Never guess. If you have any questions whether something you write would constitute libel, check with your editor, publisher or attorney.
* Courts define journalistic objectivity as an "absence of malice." It is vital to always look carefully at your selection of adjectives, especially when writing about a person. Descriptive words can often betray a bias for or against someone or something.
-
And in what way did we "violate[] every single guideline below repeatedly"? Be specific. Back up your unsubstantiated and defamatory assertions.
-
And in what way did we "violate[] every single guideline below repeatedly"? Be specific. Back up your unsubstantiated and defamatory assertions.
I am not going to argue with you about what I see as obvious, Bob.
Anyone else wishing to see for themselves if you published ethically or not only has to look at the list above and then examine your posts here and your website in that light. I have no problem with folks deciding that for themselves.
-
Then let it be clear to all that you refuse to give a single example of where we ever violated any of the above guidelines. Thus, readers will not be out of line to conclude that you are unable to do so.
-
EXCUSE ME? Are you unable to read? Ian said plainly people can decide for themselves by looking at the evidence of what you have been writing on here and on your website. People are able to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions--not everyone follows you blindly.
-
EXCUSE ME? Are you unable to read? Ian said plainly people can decide for themselves by looking at the evidence of what you have been writing on here and on your website. People are able to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions--not everyone follows you blindly.
In fact very few do and they and RJP/GAJ are on our church's prayer list.
-
EXCUSE ME? Are you unable to read? Ian said plainly people can decide for themselves by looking at the evidence of what you have been writing on here and on your website. People are able to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions--not everyone follows you blindly.
Since you, anyman, and Junebug are unable to give any examples, then people who do think for themselves and come to their own conclusions, and who don't follow you blindly, will naturally come to the conclusion that you folks probably don't know what you are talking about.
I'd still like to know why you have such a hard time stating the simple and ethical truth that whether a minor is consenting makes no difference whatsoever. Someone who can't state such a simple and obvious thing despite their profession of high standards would likely find it difficult to acknowledge that payments by Remnant to Danny for sales of Danny's PPPA booklets to 3ABN were kickbacks.
-
Well at least we know you can still be counted on to drag up old and warped accusations and to turn everything said into new accusations and to try and change the subject whenever your own words or actions are called into account.... Not a good thing imo, but you make those choices...
-
Well I disagree with both you and Bob.
Well, that's a surprise.
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.
No, one person's constitutional rights don't necessarily end simply because another person exercises their own rights.
A relevant case is being argued before the U.S. Supreme Court right now. The Westboro Baptist Church wants to picket funerals with their hateful, anti-gay banners and noise-making (citing freedom of speech). However, since a funeral is often a private religious service, the Supreme Court is being asked if the people having the funeral have a legal right to conduct a religious service without interruption (freedom of religion).
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.
A wise trial lawyer told me that any client never has better than a 50/50 chance in court. There's no sure bet, Ian.
So put down your kool-aid for a minute and try digesting this.
Sorry, I don't drink Kool-aid, and certainly not the stuff they might serve at some offshoot, historical cult in Indiana that probably meets in somebody's basement.
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.
You know, when it comes to shouting "fire" I sometimes think of plaintiffs who file lawsuits, and then, never seriously planning to go to court, have the judge dismiss their lawsuit. That's what I call yelling "fire, fire." That is where I see the smoke and mirrors, Ian.
That's all I have to say to you for now, have a good day....
Let me write that on my calendar, March 10, 2010 -- The Day Ian Did Not Have Any More to Say.
-
http://www.webgripesites.com/
-
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.
No, one person's constitutional rights don't necessarily end simply because another person exercises their own rights.
That's not quite what I meant... ---> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." The constitution does not grant those rights it only safeguards them. It isn't necessary to protect them, or to assert your own rights in reaction to someone else words or acts unless your rights are being trampled on or violated. IMHO, as Christians, we should understand that God never gave us any rights which would cause harm to another or cause them to have to exercise their own rights in defense, for if that is the case we are in the wrong. Being that Pickle and Joy have claimed to be doing the righteous thing and are acting on God's behalf, imo, they have no excuse for not understanding that.. This did not begin with 3abn filing a lawsuit. It began with the public attacks and public accusations published by Pickle and Joy.
He can't violate their rights or anyone else's 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.
A wise trial lawyer told me that any client never has better than a 50/50 chance in court. There's no sure bet, Ian.
More pertinent imo would be if that same trial lawyer also told you that any argument or defense has a 50/50 chance in court..
So put down your kool-aid for a minute and try digesting this.
Sorry, I don't drink Kool-aid, and certainly not the stuff they might serve at some offshoot, historical cult in Indiana that probably meets in somebody's basement.
o...kay... well good for you, I guess...
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.
You know, when it comes to shouting "fire" I sometimes think of plaintiffs who file lawsuits, and then, never seriously planning to go to court, have the judge dismiss their lawsuit. That's what I call yelling "fire, fire." That is where I see the smoke and mirrors, Ian.
Understood, you look with your eyes and we look with ours...
FACTS
This case arises from a lawsuit by Plaintiffs Three Angels Broadcasting Network,
Inc. and Danny Lee Shelton (collectively referred to as “3ABN”) alleging trade
infringement, dilution of trademark, defamation, and intentional interference with
advantageous economic relations against Pickle and Joy. (Docket #1).1 The allegations
in the Complaint were that Pickle and Joy had been operating a web site that used the
“3ABN” moniker or logo to attract viewers and then bombarded them with disparaging
and defamatory statements about 3ABN. When Joy filed for bankruptcy protection,
3ABN acquired the offending web site from the bankruptcy trustee and shut it down. It
soon became apparent to 3ABN that no further relief could be obtained by continuing the
litigation. Pickle and Joy controlled no other web sites and had no apparent assets from
which a judgment could be paid. In addition, as their appeal to this Court reflects, they
had an apparently inexhaustible taste for litigation even though they were the defendants
and had asserted no counterclaims.
Therefore, on October 23, 2008, 3ABN moved to voluntarily dismiss this lawsuit
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) because it believed that it had obtained all tangible relief
that could have been gained through this lawsuit by other means and that the lawsuit
could not achieve additional meaningful relief. (Docket # 120, 121). The district court
accepted the evidence and argument in support of the motion and dismissed this case on
October 30, 2008. (Docket #129).
-
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090717/0321105581.shtml
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2009/07/goldman-backs-down-in-legal-battle-with-blogger.html
-
Sounds like Goldman was wiser than Danny Shelton. Goldman backed down, Danny et. al. still hasn't, not really.
How long did it take Goldman to do the right thing?
-
Looks like the whole thing took 2 or 3 months start to finish.
-
Now at http://www.save-3abn.com/news-releases-defending-blogger-rights-against-corporate-bullies.htm (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
-
Now at http://www.save-3abn.com/news-releases-defending-blogger-rights-against-corporate-bullies.htm (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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
From "Firm To Shut Down Dissident Blogger, Blogger Sues Bank" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/12/goldman-sachs-hires-law-f_n_186035.html):
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" (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/item_WYIzxnI84bn7kKf2vmLXKL):
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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:
-
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.
-
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!!!
-
Tinka, your response is clarifying. I need say no more.
-
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
-
anyman
I don't know if it is called clarifying to you or not but it is what I call "reasoning out for common knowledge" on how you get all the legal work done with not some really big payment to lawyers. Lets see, Divorces filed and settlement with 2 wives is a good start, all the motions filed is another hunk, and DS filing against as plaintiff is still another, court costs, and on and on.... I think it is correct to call all the court documents some main facts that you can go by. That for sure is truth. Then there are the divorces(of immediate family) on 3abn that probably took some funds too. unless proof that 3abn does not fund the family too. Wow this is adding up here... But on the other hand seems he is capable of handling it or there would not be lawyers working and non of this would be available for view! Sort of obvious for the outsider.
-
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.
Based on 3ABN's IRS Form 990's, it isn't an unfounded claim. I'm sure you already know that. And I'm also sure you will refuse to publish here the true figure 3ABN and/or Danny has spent on the lawsuit thus far.
-
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.
Congratulations! Good work, Bob!
-
Here, Here!!! I second that congratulations, Bob...you have come a LONG ways since the day you were served by DLS and 3ABN in May, 2007. I told you they would sue us...what other choice did poor Danny have???
I hope he does it again: "I beg of you, Danny, come out and finish the battle!!!"
And I will restate a constant theme: I would serve with you in a trench surrounded by a host of 3ABNers any day...and win, lose or die, it would have been worth every moment whatever the price. The best part would be jumping out of that trench and charging right into the middle of their lines...and watch 'em run again!!!! Wimps, I tell you!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Whatever the price you say? Are you sure? What about the price of your own soul?
Are you really sure it is worth it? What a loss it would be for the Lord Jesus Christ if you were not there when He comes to take His children home.
-
Whatever the price you say? Are you sure? What about the price of your own soul?
Are you really sure it is worth it? What a loss it would be for the Lord Jesus Christ if you were not there when He comes to take His children home.
You would be well served to make this case to Danny Lee Shelton, Founder of 3ABN...and be sure he has made it right with Linda and Brandy, lest their souls be at stake as well, from the sheer Hypocricy. You really need to wake up and Plea for the Soul of Danny Lee Shelton!!! Go look deep into his eyes and ask him for the truth...and come away as disappointed as our Saviour so often did, particularly after challenging the rich young ruler...if it were possible, we would all buy for DLS the eyesalve, but alas, he must search for it and find it for himself.
As for me and mine, we will stand for truth and justice and that comes from the Halls of Supreme Justice, the other side of Orion. And we will survive the atacks of hypocrits and are assured of Victory. And there is no doubt that Robert Pickle shares that love for truth and justice.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Mr. Joy, you could not be more wrong and blinded by it too. I'm sorry to have to say it.
I must leave now but I wanted to appeal to you one last time: it is not too late to make this right with your own heart. The Lord God is appealing to you tonight before it is too late.
Good night.
-
Mr. Joy, you could not be more wrong and blinded by it too. I'm sorry to have to say it.
I must leave now but I wanted to appeal to you one last time: it is not too late to make this right with your own heart. The Lord God is appealing to you tonight before it is too late.
Good night.
Now, I have no choice but to challenge you to prove it...you are dead wrong and I have the evidence, I have spoken to eye witnesses, and have a vast array of documents...so, you can go and run and hide, but I challenge YOU to prove your case!!!
I await your Documented Evidence!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
***EDITED TO REMOVE INAPPROPRIATE AND INACCURATE TEXT PER THE POSTERS REQUEST***