William Kelly Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 John, Don't be intimidated by a threat of a law suit. I've been trying to start a law suit in the JFK assassination for over a decade now, and wish someone would sue me. We will be serving the North Texas Federal Court in Dallas with our JFK Special Grand Jury Petition Request this November, so maybe we'll see you in court, if Gratz follows through. Other researchers have inquired about being sued for libel or other charges, and I tell them the reason why people threaten but don't go to court is because they would have to testify under oath and answer questions that they refuse to answer now (ie. Why were you disbarred? Who do you work for?). It is quite astonishing that TG was involved with Segretti et al., as he does share their style and MO, and their usual mode of operation is to establish or have a Political Action Committee or ostensible non-profit charity "neighborhood improvement" society that can employ such workers who also volunteer to assit on political campaigns. I've recently crossed paths with two other Nixon Dirty-Tricksters - Roger Stone and his protege Michael Caputo, who Peter Dale Scott described to me as "connected." Learning from their MO, I've decided to adopt some of the stragegies and tactics from their game plan. As the recently appointed secretary of COPA - the Coalition On Political Assassintion, I am setting up a special Legal Committee and special Fund, first to assit Dr. Wecht's case and then to initiate some cases ourselves. COPA is a sort of PAC - in that it is a non-profit, but donations are not tax-deductable because we can endorse political candidates, initiate suits (See: COPA v. DOD) and lobby Congress (ie. JFK Act). This forum has indeed advanced the knowledge and truth about the JFK assassination far more than anything other than the JFK Act, and is beginning to realize the potential of the internet as we imagined it as a network of researchers and investigators with common interests and goals. TG is not the biggest threat and others will take up the offensive. If anyone wants to sue me, or donate money to COPA's Legal Fund they can reach me at: Bill Kelly COPA PO Box 772 Washington D.C., 20044 Bkjfk3@yahoo.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 'William Kelly' wrote: [...] If anyone wants to sue me, or donate money to COPA's Legal Fund they can reach me at: Bill Kelly COPA PO Box 772 Washington D.C., 20044 Bkjfk3@yahoo.com ________ ROFLMFAO! gott'a love your style, Bill Kelly! DHealy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 [quote name='Terry Mauro' date='Mar 2 2006, 05:29 PM' post='57114'] The real problem is with the far-right who control the mass-media and have created such an irrational dominant ideology. The internet is gradually changing the balance of power and eventually we will be able to join forces to create a better, more sustainable, society. Unfortunately the internet is becoming rather censored too: I just googled "Project for a New American Century" and when I attempted to open a link promising to expose this group this site had been suspended. And recall the problems John has had publicizing Mockingbird!! Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Terry Mauro' date='Mar 2 2006, 05:29 PM' post='57114'] The real problem is with the far-right who control the mass-media and have created such an irrational dominant ideology. The internet is gradually changing the balance of power and eventually we will be able to join forces to create a better, more sustainable, society. Unfortunately the internet is becoming rather censored too: I just googled "Project for a New American Century" and when I attempted to open a link promising to expose this group this site had been suspended. And recall the problems John has had publicizing Mockingbird!! Dawn _____________________________________________ Hi Dawn, Out of curiousity, I tried Googling "Project for a New American Century" and it worked for me. Here it is: (deleted; see posts #20 and #21, below) FWIW, Thomas _____________________________________________ Edited March 2, 2006 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 [ Thomas: Click on the link that begins with "EXPOSING" and you will see that THIS site has been suspended. Of course sites that say good things about this org are up. That's the idea of neocon propaganda. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 [ Thomas: Click on the link that begins with "EXPOSING" and you will see that THIS site has been suspended. Of course sites that say good things about this org are up. That's the idea of neocon propaganda. Dawn ________________________________ Dawn, I finally "got it." I should have read your post #18 more carefully. Sorry for the mixup. Thanks, Thomas ________________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 John, Don't be intimidated by a threat of a law suit. I've been trying to start a law suit in the JFK assassination for over a decade now, and wish someone would sue me. We will be serving the North Texas Federal Court in Dallas with our JFK Special Grand Jury Petition Request this November, so maybe we'll see you in court, if Gratz follows through. Other researchers have inquired about being sued for libel or other charges, and I tell them the reason why people threaten but don't go to court is because they would have to testify under oath and answer questions that they refuse to answer now (ie. Why were you disbarred? Who do you work for?). It is quite astonishing that TG was involved with Segretti et al., as he does share their style and MO, and their usual mode of operation is to establish or have a Political Action Committee or ostensible non-profit charity "neighborhood improvement" society that can employ such workers who also volunteer to assit on political campaigns. I've recently crossed paths with two other Nixon Dirty-Tricksters - Roger Stone and his protege Michael Caputo, who Peter Dale Scott described to me as "connected." Learning from their MO, I've decided to adopt some of the stragegies and tactics from their game plan. As the recently appointed secretary of COPA - the Coalition On Political Assassintion, I am setting up a special Legal Committee and special Fund, first to assit Dr. Wecht's case and then to initiate some cases ourselves. COPA is a sort of PAC - in that it is a non-profit, but donations are not tax-deductable because we can endorse political candidates, initiate suits (See: COPA v. DOD) and lobby Congress (ie. JFK Act). This forum has indeed advanced the knowledge and truth about the JFK assassination far more than anything other than the JFK Act, and is beginning to realize the potential of the internet as we imagined it as a network of researchers and investigators with common interests and goals. TG is not the biggest threat and others will take up the offensive. If anyone wants to sue me, or donate money to COPA's Legal Fund they can reach me at: Bill Kelly COPA PO Box 772 Washington D.C., 20044 Bkjfk3@yahoo.com ************************************************ "If anyone wants to sue me, or donate money to COPA's Legal Fund they can reach me at: Bill Kelly COPA PO Box 772 Washington D.C., 20044 Bkjfk3@yahoo.com" Billy, you're such a crackup, you blow me right out the door! And, being a member of COPA, if anyone wants to sue me, good luck because it'll already be donated to COPA's Legal Fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 (edited) I didn't mean to hijack a post dedicated to JTG in order to plug and promote COPA, but maybe that's just karma. I also don't think being disbarred is necessarily something to be ashamed of, as I know a few good lawyers who have been disbarred for doing the right thing, including the New York attorney who represented Groden et al., who were publicly slandered. Sometimes it's a badge of honor, and I don't know what the case is with JTG, and he should be given the benefit of the doubt on that count. Being a protege of the Plumbers and Dirty Tricksters is another matter though, and I don't believe its a coincidence that after two very successful Pittsburgh and DC conferences that presented new and hard evidence in the JFK assassination, Cyril Wecht, Jim Lesar and Jeff Morley are under serious legal and ethical attacks by the FBI, Mad Max Holland and the dispicable publishers of Ultimate Sack, which JTG kept citing as a responsible source. I'm glad David and Terry got a hoot out of my "Sue me" post, but I think the law is one thing the ultimate truth has on its side and we've got to use it, so we need all the good lawyers we can get. BK bkjfk3@yahoo.com Edited March 5, 2006 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted March 5, 2006 Author Share Posted March 5, 2006 From his email this seems to be Tim's strategy: John, I guess you now leave me no choice but to sue to protect my honor. I offer you one last opportunity to apologize for your statements that I have lied and posted information I knew to be false. I guess the best time to serve the summons on you is when you attend the seminar in Dallas next November. I can wait that long. So you need necessarily worry about litigation until that time. It is my understanding that once US jurisdiction is acquired you as a party can be required to give deposition testimony in the district in which the suit is filed. Of course, it would be impossible to prove that Tim was not telling the truth. For example, he could claim that he has not read the declassified CIA documents. However, in the UK, the courts would not accept this as being a case of libel. I suspect Tim's strategy is to create stress and to put me off visiting the USA. A few points that might make you rest easier, John. First, if you were to attend a JFK conference in Dallas, it is possible that Tim could have you served with papers, but the motion would have to be filed in Texas. If Tim is the wage slave he claims to be, the chances of his retaining Texas legal counsel are slim, at best. Even a lawyer prepared to act on a contingency basis will ask for sufficient funds to cover the necessary disbursements, which can be considerable, particularly when acting against a "foreign" plaintiff. Those costs alone could prove a disincentive to Tim pursuing the case. Second, even if he could afford to do so, the case might well be dismissed, irrespective of any prospective legal merits, because filing a case in a jurisdiction in which neither the plaintiff nor defendant reside is increasingly frowned upon. It's referred to as "litigation tourism" or "judicial tourism," and is discouraged because it places a burden upon the courts of an inapplicable jurisdiction. If neither party pays taxes in the jurisdiction - and, hence, neither party actually pays for the administration of justice there - it is likely the courts would frown upon being asked to hear a case. Third, let us suppose that the case is heard, but found to be without merit, or a judgement results in court costs being assessed in your favour, requiring the plaintiff to pay the legal fees of both sides, plus the court's costs. If Tim is the wage slave he has claimed to be, this would be a rather formidable hurdle for him, and could leave the Texas courts seeking to garnish his future earnings until the debt is remedied. Any lawyer worth retaining would explain this to Tim before agreeing to undertake the case, leaving Tim to decide whether he really wishes to roll the dice with his future earnings over a case with dubious merits, at best. As you and others here already know, there are a few rather shady details in Tim's past, of which he is likely not terribly proud. Inquiries with the Supreme Court of Wisconsin would disclose the basis for his being disbarred from practising law in that state. This, in itself, strikes one as rather unusual, for the state's Bar Association is usually forthcoming with the basis for such a disbarment. Not so in Tim's case. I don't know whether this is because the protocols in place in Wisconsin are different from other jurisdictions, or because the nature of Tim's offense requires that it be treated differently. However, were Tim aware of the fact that you knew the details that led to his trading in a legal career for that of a hotelier, he may be sufficiently anxious to keep that little secret that he would drop proceedings against you. There is also the small matter of what he stands to gain from such a pursuit. Even if you were a man of unlimited means, in order to help himself to your wealth, he must first prove actual financial damages to his reputation, including earnings lost as a result of your purported libel. If Tim was a desk clerk at the local Motel 6 before this alleged libel, and remains a desk clerk at the Motel 6 at whatever time the case might be heard, just what financial losses has he suffered? In such an instance, there are no negative financial repercussions to Tim as a result of your actions here, no wages lost, no reputation to tarnish. Finally, there is the strongest arrow in your quiver: truth is an applicable defense. Should this hypothetical case ever come to pass, it would be my pleasure to pore over every single one of the forty-seven hundred posts Tim made here and catalogue each and every untrue statement, mischaracterization, misstatement of fact, etc. It is one thing for Tim to have tried to bluster his way through opposition here on a wing and a prayer. It would be another thing to have the courts hear each and every instance of Tim's dissembling and manufacturing of "fact" on this Forum. Again, any legal counsel worth retaining would first wish to plumb the facts of the case in order to divine its merits, or lack thereof, prior to undertaking it. Learned legal counsel may read Tim's contributions here and attempt to dissuade him from proceeding, if only to spare him the world of hurt that would await him should he choose to continue. While Tim is barred from posting here, I assume he can still access the board and read it at will. If so, I hope he reads this post and considers long and hard whether he wishes to open up a can of worms that can only redound against him, to his eternal regret. I have had another legal threat from Tim Gratz. It includes responses to the comments made By Robert Charles-Dunne above: (RCD): First, if you were to attend a JFK conference in Dallas, it is possible that Tim could have you served with papers, but the motion would have to be filed in Texas. If Tim is the wage slave he claims to be, the chances of his retaining Texas legal counsel are slim, at best. Even a lawyer prepared to act on a contingency basis will ask for sufficient funds to cover the necessary disbursements, which can be considerable, particularly when acting against a "foreign" plaintiff. Those costs alone could prove a disincentive to Tim pursuing the case. (TG): A lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a summons and a complaint, not a motion. This paragraph simply shows how little Charles-Dunne knows about the law. Moreover, service of the summons need not be effected in the jurisdiction in which it is filed. I could for instance file the suit in the southern district of Florida and it could be served on you in Texas. You can check with Dawn that I am correct about this. Here is the applicable Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (emphasis provided): Unless otherwise provided by federal law, service upon an individual . . . other than an infant or an incompetent person, may be effected in any judicial district of the United States: (1) pursuant to the law of the state in which the district court is located, or in which service is effected, for the service of a summons upon the defendant in an action brought in the courts of general jurisdiction of the State; Rule 4(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It should also be noted that Rule 4(f) authorizes service upon individuals residing in foreign countries, so I need not necessarily wait until Dallas 2006. (RCD): Second, even if he could afford to do so, the case might well be dismissed, irrespective of any prospective legal merits, because filing a case in a jurisdiction in which neither the plaintiff nor defendant reside is increasingly frowned upon. It's referred to as "litigation tourism" or "judicial tourism," and is discouraged because it places a burden upon the courts of an inapplicable jurisdiction. If neither party pays taxes in the jurisdiction - and, hence, neither party actually pays for the administration of justice there - it is likely the courts would frown upon being asked to hear a case. (TG): Here again Charles-Dunne reveals his ignorance of the law. As noted above, I would file the suit in federal district court in Florida but serve you in Dallas so the alleged problem he recites is not a problem at all. Moreover, he uses the wrong terminology: what he refers to is sometimes called “forum shopping” and it has nothing to do with payment of taxes. (RCD): Third, let us suppose that the case is heard, but found to be without merit, or a judgement results in court costs being assessed in your favour, requiring the plaintiff to pay the legal fees of both sides, plus the court's costs. If Tim is the wage slave he has claimed to be, this would be a rather formidable hurdle for him, and could leave the Texas courts seeking to garnish his future earnings until the debt is remedied. Any lawyer worth retaining would explain this to Tim before agreeing to undertake the case, leaving Tim to decide whether he really wishes to roll the dice with his future earnings over a case with dubious merits, at best. (TG): I am convinced the case indeed has merit. No way you can prove I told a deliberate lie. Charles-Dunne can look through my posts until hell freezes over and he will not find any. (RCD): There is also the small matter of what he stands to gain from such a pursuit. Even if you were a man of unlimited means, in order to help himself to your wealth, he must first prove actual financial damages to his reputation, including earnings lost as a result of your purported libel. If Tim was a desk clerk at the local Motel 6 before this alleged libel, and remains a desk clerk at the Motel 6 at whatever time the case might be heard, just what financial losses has he suffered? In such an instance, there are no negative financial repercussions to Tim as a result of your actions here, no wages lost, no reputation to tarnish. (TG): If the court rules in my favor, damages are recoverable beyond loss of wages. Again, the fact that Charles-Dunne is unaware of it is simply indicative of his lack of legal training. Moreover, the possibility of punitive damages also exist. And frankly, a mere finding that you libeled me by calling me a xxxx would be worth something to me, monetary damages or no. (RCD): Finally, there is the strongest arrow in your quiver: truth is an applicable defense. Should this hypothetical case ever come to pass, it would be my pleasure to pore over every single one of the forty-seven hundred posts Tim made here and catalogue each and every untrue statement, mischaracterization, misstatement of fact, etc. It is one thing for Tim to have tried to bluster his way through opposition here on a wing and a prayer. It would be another thing to have the courts hear each and every instance of Tim's dissembling and manufacturing of "fact" on this Forum. Again, any legal counsel worth retaining would first wish to plumb the facts of the case in order to divine its merits, or lack thereof, prior to undertaking it. Learned legal counsel may read Tim's contributions here and attempt to dissuade him from proceeding, if only to spare him the world of hurt that would await him should he choose to continue. (TG): Sorry, John, you cannot plead “truth” as a defense since there is no way you can prove I told a deliberate lie. Charles-Dunne can look through my posts until hell freezes over if he wants and he will not find any lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted March 5, 2006 Author Share Posted March 5, 2006 I regret that this has come to pass, for all the nobler reasons that John Simkin has cited in his post. Moreover, as an educator himself, I suspect strongly that John has made this decision despite of and against some of his better instincts. I further suspect that this single decision has probably been among the more difficult he's made since starting this wonderful Forum. I was encouraged to join this Forum by an Australian member for whom I have the highest regard. He and I had become cyber-acquainted via another JFK Forum many years back, and he assured me that the level of discourse here was superior to anything he'd encountered elsewhere. He was correct about that, and I did join. However, one of my reasons for signing on here was the presence of Tim Gratz. It well and truly boggled my mind that somebody could seriously propose the Castro-did-it theory - or any theory - without troubling themselves to do the necessary research, and present any substantive evidence to make it persuasive to others. No matter how much I goaded, needled and ridiculed his lack of effort in this regard, he still would not do the yeoman's work necessary to mount an effective argument. No matter how many times I pointed out to him that his source material all originated with CIA, which alone should have called its credibility into some question, he would not be shaken from his firm resolve that Castro did it. However, nor did he seek to elevate the quality level of his argument by finding other sources that might bolster his hypothesis. Those who've been here the past year-plus will know that I went at Tim hammer and tongs on this topic, and soon, on other topics as well. Again, irrespective of the subject matter, the same pattern played itself out: the calibre of what he presented was strictly small-arms... a supposedly damning sentence from this book, a paragraph from that newspaper article, a quote lifted out of context from this or that source, a snippet from a dubious website, all dressed up as something meaningful for our consumption, but nothing remotely compelling to those who didn't already share his views. As is stated in my bio here - and was repeatedly mocked by Gerry Hemming, who seems to have made himself scarce of late - I've been studying this subject for a very long time, and have devoted a goodly portion of my life to acquainting myself with the circumstances of the crime. The same is clearly true for many, perhaps most, of the others who post here, and it shows. Except for Tim. I had really hoped that there was more to Tim's argument than just a crazy quilt of random quotations and bluster. However, along the way, I did also note a few details that raised my suspicions Tim might not be the garden variety JFK-wonk. To wit: Most of the JFK obsessives [by which I mean no offense, since I proudly count myself among their number] who post on web-boards such a this one have devoted a lot of time and energy to studying the crime. Irrespective of which particular theory they may favour, they have done sufficient homework to mount a strong case for their beliefs. Any member here can attest that this is true of Pat Speer, Ron Ecker, James Richards, Tim Carroll and a host of others. Tim seemed an anomaly in this regard, to my mind at least, and I sincerely hope that I'm not misjudging him by damning him with this faint praise. I always got the feeling that a purely superficial level of interest was at play, and that anything that required too much more research or effort just wasn't worth the time it took to achieve. With an average of ten posts per day, and an aggregate of nearly 9 per cent of the total posts on this Forum, Tim was, without doubt, second only to John Simkin in the amount of time and energy spent here crafting posts. However, whereas others have laboured long and hard on many of their posts, a good portion of Tim's were dashed off in seconds, consisted of "jokes," or otherwise contributed little or nothing to the theads in which they appeared. For somebody serious about the topic, he seemed to take it quite lightly, to the point of causing offense with some misguided comments that he was apparently alone in thinking were funny. What makes this output astonishing is that Tim didn't post from home in his spare time, as is true of most others here. All of Tim's posts were made from his place of work, on company time. When he recently seemed to have switched jobs [according to one of his posts], the pattern continued. I don't know what to make of a job where so little work is required that one is free for hours on end to patrol websites and post at will, but I'd sure like to know where one obtains such employment. Then, perhaps, I could also spend all my time on this topic as well. That Tim was lucky enough to find one such job is remarkable, but two such employments, back to back? It does tend to strain one's credulity. John has said in his initial post above that he suspects Tim will soon be contributing his ideas to some other JFK Forum. It will be most interesting to see if this is true, or whether this Forum was Tim's assigned beat and, having been precluded from posting here, he will be forced to seek employment that requires actual work. As an administrator I have access to information concerning people’s visits to this Forum. It might interest you to know that since being denied the right to post, Tim continues to spend most of his working life on the Forum. The pattern of his activity is also interesting. He does not spend all his time on the Kennedy Assassination section. I had to laugh the other day when I caught him reading about the death of Peter Osgood (it was not a conspiracy, the former footballer died of a heart-attack at a funeral). Robert might be right. Tim definitely spends a great deal of time monitoring the website and seems particularly interested in reading member’s profiles (as you can see Tim, it is not only the CIA who spy on us). I have always argued that Tim is so bad at what he does to be a CIA agent. (I do not go for the idea that the CIA is an incompetent organization). However, I suppose it is possible that Tim works for free, sending in weekly reports on what we are up to. I know if I was a CIA officer I would be very interested in what is posted on this Forum. Tim definitely was very keen to defend CIA covert operations. This was the reason why this row first started on the overthrow of the government in Guatemala in 1954. However, his response has always been emotional rather than intellectual. Maybe, like Gerry Hemming, he has always had a fantasy about being an undercover agent. His great hero is of course Oliver North. However, his role model is George Bush. Although a warmonger, he made sure he did not fight in Vietnam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 As you and others here already know, there are a few rather shady details in Tim's past, of which he is likely not terribly proud. Inquiries with the Supreme Court of Wisconsin would disclose the basis for his being disbarred from practising law in that state. This, in itself, strikes one as rather unusual, for the state's Bar Association is usually forthcoming with the basis for such a disbarment. Not so in Tim's case. I don't know whether this is because the protocols in place in Wisconsin are different from other jurisdictions, or because the nature of Tim's offense requires that it be treated differently. However, were Tim aware of the fact that you knew the details that led to his trading in a legal career for that of a hotelier, he may be sufficiently anxious to keep that little secret that he would drop proceedings against you. John: Since Tim is still harrassing you with threatening email, this may be something you wish to look into. I have never heard of a disbarment that is not public, but I have only practiced in two jurisdictions: Mass. and Texas. Here in Tx. all memeber of the bar receive a monthly bar journal. In addition to several legal articles there is a listing of all that month's disbarments and lesser sanctions, complete with the attorney's full name, town and reason(s) for said sanction. This information can also be found online both, here and if the person is under suspension or outright disbarment, the same is true for MA. Finally, there is the strongest arrow in your quiver: truth is an applicable defense. Should this hypothetical case ever come to pass, it would be my pleasure to pore over every single one of the forty-seven hundred posts Tim made here and catalogue each and every untrue statement, mischaracterization, misstatement of fact, etc Truth is an absolute defense in a libel action. .I have had another legal threat from Tim Gratz. It includes responses to the comments made By Robert Charles-Dunne above: (RCD): First, if you were to attend a JFK conference in Dallas, it is possible that Tim could have you served with papers, but the motion would have to be filed in Texas. If Tim is the wage slave he claims to be, the chances of his retaining Texas legal counsel are slim, at best. Even a lawyer prepared to act on a contingency basis will ask for sufficient funds to cover the necessary disbursements, which can be considerable, particularly when acting against a "foreign" plaintiff. Those costs alone could prove a disincentive to Tim pursuing the case. (TG): A lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a summons and a complaint, not a motion. This paragraph simply shows how little Charles-Dunne knows about the law. Moreover, service of the summons need not be effected in the jurisdiction in which it is filed. I could for instance file the suit in the southern district of Florida and it could be served on you in Texas. You can check with Dawn that I am correct about this. ( DM) Since this would be filed in a Federal court, and Tim lives in FLorida, he could file there and serve John anywhere in the US. I do not practice civil law and have not ever practiced in the federal courts, so beyond that I cannot render any legal advice. Here is the applicable Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (emphasis provided): Unless otherwise provided by federal law, service upon an individual . . . other than an infant or an incompetent person, may be effected in any judicial district of the United States: (1) pursuant to the law of the state in which the district court is located, or in which service is effected, for the service of a summons upon the defendant in an action brought in the courts of general jurisdiction of the State; Rule 4(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It should also be noted that Rule 4(f) authorizes service upon individuals residing in foreign countries, so I need not necessarily wait until Dallas 2006. So, he can cut and paste the law here....that does not mean he has a actual legal basis to wage a lawsuit. ALso keep in mind, an attorney would have to be willing to handle such an action. Tim is correct that it is called "forum shopping". But why would he or anyone supect that RC Dunne should know these terms. He has never said he's an attorney. And perhaps in Canada the terms RCD used are the correct ones. FOr exmple a lawsuit is called a Complaint in many juriddictions but not here, it's called a Petition. I am not surprised that Tim still looks at the forum. But that he is still sending John email commenting on what posters say is another matter. It shows a level of rather unhealthy interest, bordering on obsession, imo. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Eldreth Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 From what I have heard Wim Dankbaar can't even see the forum at all. It is blackened out for him if he tries to see the site. I guess it is the same for Bob Vernon. SO, it is surprising to me that Tim can still see this site. I can't see JFK Murder Solved site at all. At first I could but later on NO I can't. I still can see Lancer site, still can get things of interest in, still do get emails from them. Which I am glad that I do and can. So, there must be levels of which a person can be booted off the forums? You are allowing Tim to see the site or it is for a while that he can but later on he will not be able too. Not sure how that works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted March 5, 2006 Author Share Posted March 5, 2006 So, there must be levels of which a person can be booted off the forums? You are allowing Tim to see the site or it is for a while that he can but later on he will not be able too. Not sure how that works. Tim can still see the site. He is just not allowed to post. Some Forums, such as JFK Research, control access to both posting and seeing. Therefore, when I was booted for criticising Bob Vernon concerning his attempts to persuade the UK government to close this Forum down, I was unable to post or see what people were saying. Ironically, administrators of JFK Research are members of this Forum and have full posting rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 ...It is desperately important that a dialogue is created between liberals and conservatives. In reality we are not too far apart. The real problem is with the far-right who control the mass-media and have created such an irrational dominant ideology. The internet is gradually changing the balance of power and eventually we will be able to join forces to create a better, more sustainable, society.Nevertheless, it is always interesting when conservatives raise the cry against the "liberal media." What does all that mean? That the "conservatives" who control the media are "liberal" compared to the conservatives they "undermine;" that the conservatives raising the cry are trying to blame "liberals" who really aren't liberals, but rather other conservatives (a "right-wing conspiracy to blame the Communists," to put it in another context); that "liberals" truly do control the media, but aren't liberal enough for "true" liberals and are therefore "conservatives;" that this is a case where you truly can "have it both ways" ... or what?If the "conservatives" truly "run" the mass media, then why do the conservatives rail against the "liberal" media? Conversely, why do liberals (for whom the media is supposedly writing) decry the conservative bias - and ownership - of media outlets? Does it make sense to anybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 [quote name='Nancy Eldreth' date='Mar 5 2006, 07:02 PM' post='57325'] I can't see JFK Murder Solved site at all. At first I could but later on NO I can't. Nancy: Last time I checked this site was down, so no one can see- or post on- this forum. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now