Fornits
Announcements & Tech Support => Web forum hosting => Topic started by: Anonymous on January 01, 2004, 07:32:00 AM
-
Ginger,
You are making statements, even now that you have been sued, suggesting you will conspire with Carey to make this as expensive a trip as possible for Sue, and your other comment that people are concerned about controlling free speech. These two statements will probably cause Sue's attorney to amend his complaint.
In the first place, I have a copy of the suit. The Florida precedent cited is right on point. There is nothing canned about Sue's lawyer's Memorandum of Law. If this were to be played out, you'll be lucky to avoid losing your house, probably through protection of the Bankruptcy Court.
Second, Sue has sued you in Florida. Good Florida litigators are very, very expensive. If you defend yourself, you will be looking at a legal bill upwards of $50,000 (even in the unlikely event you would prevail). And while Florida Courts have traditionally permitted telephonic appearance for some hearings, you'll be traveling to Florida quite a bit in the upcoming months.
Third, I noticed that Sue is relying on some Federal Law in connection with her suit. If her attorney or yours removes this to Federal Court, you'll need to hit the lottery to pay for your legal representation. Also, Carey's lawyer will in all likelihood file a cross-claim against you for indemnity. That's because your interests and hers seriously diverge.
Now, after that little commentary on the law, let me explain how your comments may serve to harm you and why you should think about shutting your mouth:
1. Threatening or even suggesting to protract litigation to intimidate a Plaintiff to dismiss their or its case is unlawful. Sorry to say, that what you have allowed to be posted to the Fornits website is actionable in every State, not just Florida, and when a Judge reads that you propose to deliberately make this a long, hard road for Sue by having an attorney file dilatory pleadings, you'll may find yourself looking at interim sanctions and you could pay Sue's legal bills as well. Given who her attorney is, I don't think you want to talk yourself into that.
2. You have been wrong about your comments all along, that everyone can post whatever they want and you are just allowed to sit back and watch explosion after explosion take place with no consequence to you. You have been told this time and again, yet you persist in living in a fantasy world, probably to compensate for your admittedly srewed-up childhood.
This society has rules. As adults we have agreed to live by the Rule of Law and the Social Compact. Your website is ruleless (if there is such a word) and that flies in the face of the laws that we as a society have agreed to live by.
Ginger, this would be a very good time for you to shut your hole. Your lawyer is going to tell you this if you get that far. If you don't hire a lawyer, then Sue will get a Judgment by default and you will be very sorry you did not take the sound advice people have tried to give you for months.
Think it over Ginger!
-
Yes, Anon1 is 99.9% correct. He did, however, leave out one thing. Even if Ginger were to comply with the TRO or TPO issued by the Florida Court, it doesn't make Sue's lawsuit go away. A lot of lay-people might misunderstand this point.
When a suit like this one is filed, and the circumstances are emergent, as seems to be the case in this situation, a Motion is filed together with a Verified Complaint, Brief, Proofs and a Proposed Order which covers just the initial application for a TRO or TPO. So, even though you are dealing with one cause of action, there are two separate types of relief being sought. First is interim relief and second is permanent relief together with a money judgment.
Ms. Warbis should consider herself lucky in one respect. If this case had been filed in Escambia County, instead of Broward, I'd rate her chances of winning at about 1%. This is "trouble a brewin" as Floridians like to say.
-
What, exactly, is the difference between this forum and Usenet?
Tough Love: Abuse of a type particularly enjoyable to the abuser, in that it combines the pleasures of sadism with those of self-righteousness. Commonly employed and widely admired in 12-step groups.
--Chaz Bufe
-
And I'll tell you right now, David Pollack said to me on the phone yesterday that this is going to be just a whole lot of litigation, very expensive to me, and that I should just fold. Not in exactly those words, but you get the point.
How is that different from my returning the favor? And what are the sanctions for malicious lawsuits?It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion.
--Joseph Goebbels
-
On 2004-01-01 04:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
In the first place, I have a copy of the suit.
Ok, who the hell are you and how to you come to have a copy of the suit?The legislature is to society as a physician is to the patient. If a physician ignored side effects of medications like today's legislators ignore the side effects of their legislation, the physician would be accused of malpractice. I accuse today's legislators (with rare exception) of legislative malpractice. Many of the ills that are so obvious in our society are a direct result of previous legislation. Their solution? More laws!
-- John A. Bennett, DO
-
This post is actually in reply to Deborah's post on another thread. It's more appropriate to address it here. Oh, and Ginger, in response to your question about who I am, I will simply say you don't deserve to know.
OK, first I want to comment on Deborah's post, which admittedly is a cut-and-paste from a Q and A on another website, but the result is horribly misleading to the readers at Fornits.
Let me first draw a parallel which will help. Everyone knows there are websites where you can buy drugs from Mexico. On those sites, they refer you to a Federal Law which is supposed to legitimize having their stockpile of drugs, either not approved by the FDA/DEA in the US, or otherwise can only be obtained by prescription in the US, shipped to US Citizens in the US. The Federal Law these internet vendors recite does actually exist; however, its meaning legally versus how the website in Mexico interprets the meaning of the law is so different that many of its patrons do not realize they are breaking the Law when they buy drugs from these sites and then have them mailed to their homes in the US. It's exactly what's going on here in relationship to Deborah's careless post.
With all due respect Deborah, chillingeffects.org may not be the place to conduct serious legal research and then use it on Fornits to make Ginger or her readers feel better about what's going on. You may even be hurting people.
Title 47, USC ss230 also known as the Computer Privacy Decency Act provides a type of Statutory Immunity to Interactive Web Service Providers. There are different kinds of immunity. For example, you have Virtual/Full and Qualified (qualified means there are exceptions). So, this Law, which is a Federal Law, not a State Law confers a type of immunity, which does not (repeat, does not)mean that Interactive Webservice Providers, hosts and subscribers can say whatever they want about anyone or anything without consequence. In Ginger's case, privacy laws are said to have been seriously violated, and much of the Law being relied on is Law from the Southeast District. Remember too, that States have laws that conflict with Federal Legislation.
Unlike Deborah, I have done a little research to substantiate this post. In Morrison v. American Online (N.D. Ind. 2001) Docket No. 3:00CV0723AS America Online found itself on the business end of a lawsuit similar to the one Ginger is now involved in. I'll let the curious readers here find and read the text of that case, but keep in mind Ginger is not America Online and does not have even a micro-fraction of its resources and they found themselves bearing the huge cost of a legal defense in the end regardless of the outcome.
Other cases which would make me violently shake, if I were Ginger, are Mitan v Davis (Kentucky) Docket No. 3:00 CV-841-S, Hammer v. Trendl (E.D.N.Y. 2002). This case is particularly on point as Amazon.com was enjoined, again, in a situation most similar to the one Ginger is in. Also, Fischer v. Mt. Olive Lutheran Church (W.D. Wis 2002) Docket No. 01-C-0158-C.
So Deborah, I reassert that chillingeffects.com does not provide the whole picture in terms of unfettered freedom on the World Wide Web. The host and the provider have been found to, in many instances, to have a level of responsibility.
Next Deborah, there won't be any motion granted for severance. I have, in my hand a full copy of the Complaint against Ginger in Carey. Conspiracy is one of the Counts in the Complaint. Conspiracy, as it has been set forth here, means that Ginger and Carey acted in concert. No Judge anywhere will grant a motion to sever when conspiracy is one of the priciple causes of action. As previously posted here, Ginger's lawyer will want her to sue Carey for Indemnity and Carey's lawyer will advise the same. This is a very complicated lawsuit. Also, in a civil conspiracy theory, it doesn't matter if Ginger knew there were private issues that could not be disclosed. The right hand doesn't have to necessarily know what the left is doing.
Finally, Ginger, on your question about what makes yours and Carey's threat on Fornits, to make this litigation expensive for Sue, different from what Sue's lawyer said to you over the phone is that he filed his lawsuit. In other words he took his action than made his comments, which is different than not taking action and conspiring on Fornits to do something expressly prohibited in the Federal Rules of Court.
-
On 2004-01-02 14:01:00, Anonymous wrote:
Finally, Ginger, on your question about what makes yours and Carey's threat on Fornits, to make this litigation expensive for Sue, different from what Sue's lawyer said to you over the phone is that he filed his lawsuit. In other words he took his action than made his comments, which is different than not taking action and conspiring on Fornits to do something expressly prohibited in the Federal Rules of Court.
This comment, in the context of the whole situation, would indicate to me that his intent in filing suit is malicious, not legitimate.
And, btw, there are many different kinds of expense. But I guess you'll just have to wait and see. BTW, is this you David? The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness.
-- John Muir
-
No Ginger, not David. Whoever David is.
Whoever I am Ginger, try to benefit from the comments instead of resisting. I realize that's your nature, but you have no victory to take here.
By the way "than" should have been "then" last paragraph. Also a few other errors, sorry you got the unchecked version cause of my lack of computer prowess.
-
Finally, Ginger, on your question about what makes yours and Carey's threat on Fornits, to make this litigation expensive for Sue, different from what Sue's lawyer said to you over the phone is that he filed his lawsuit. In other words he took his action than made his comments, which is different than not taking action and conspiring on Fornits to do something expressly prohibited in the Federal Rules of Court.
The suit had not been filed at the time of their phone conversation. I have a faxed copy that was faxed to me after their phone conversation and it had not been filed at that time. So, it was a threat. It was a threat just like the threatening phone call made here to my place of employment on Monday.
-
Carey,
If there was a Retainer Agreement in place between the lawyer and Scheff, that would be sufficient in place of the suit having been filed. The threat wasn't idle and that's the standard.
-
"Misleading People". Give it a rest. Sharing information is not misleading people. In fact, you could very well be misleading.
I imagine you're a fraud. I don't believe, based on the posts you've made, that you have Ginger's best interest at heart, and doubt that you are an attorney. I read your messages to be deceptive- attempts to instill fear, not only directed at Ginger but to others here; whom some would like to silence. I trust Ginger to make the right decisions for herself. You should too.
It's pretty obvious to me that she's not interested in your advice, so why don't you hush now and watch this unfold. One thing for certain, we'll all learn.
-
Deborah:
The reason I don't "hush now" is because you don't know what you're talking about. As far as instilling fear, nothing makes people more fearful than the unknown. You posted something which was not realistic, not analyzed and unsupported, so why don't you give it a rest.
Also, I am not giving Ginger advice (would never presume, because Ginger knows everything - even I know that). Just contributing like everyone else here. Why do you want to silence me Deborah?
-
Look, Mr. Intimidation, the threat did not come by way of the attorney. The threat came anonymously. The female gave a ficticious name and would not leave a return phone number. It was not an attorney calling to notify me I was being sued, is was a threat made to shut me up.
-
Carey, maybe I misunderstood you, but I think we're talking about two different things. I was commenting on the call Ginger had with Scheff's lawyer, not a prank call you say you received. Prank calls are annoying and that is not right. I doubt though, that a licensed attorney would engage in anything like that.
Again, perhaps I am not understanding the point you're trying to make.
-
I missed the "Mr. Intimidation" remark (tisk, tisk, tisk Carey)!! No intimidation here, just observation and contribution. It doesn't matter to me what happens to any of the parties.
-
My point is, the suit is an attempt to shut me up. I know, and I have, personal experience where Sue is concerned. I know what she has done. I know what she is doing. I am only trying to provide information that I think is important. I think people have a right to know just how ugly this industry can be and they have a right to know how easily they can be exploited. Why do I think people have the right to know everything, because if I had know everything from the very beginning, I would have done things much differntly.
I missed the "Mr. Intimidation" remark (tisk, tisk, tisk Carey)!! No intimidation here, just observation and contribution. It doesn't matter to me what happens to any of the parties.
What a crock. "It does not matter to me what happens to any of the parties." Then what are you doing here, do you not have anything better to do then to give advice to people you claim "doesn't matter what happens to." How sad, for you that is.
-
Carey, I don't think anyone imagines your mouth as ever being shut. It runs on a continuous basis. It reminds me of a skit that was done on Saturday Night Live a couple of years ago (mouth open/mouth closed).
Anyway, I think Sue is saying (not that I want to speak for Sue) she wants you to pay her $$$ if your mouth remains open on a 24/7 basis concerning issues that relate to her.
-
Fornits is an endless source of amusement Carey, and it's free! How funny that is?!
-
Sounds to me, since you know what Sue wants $$$$, that you do have a personal interest and that it does matter to you what happens.
-
No, I'm just here for the fun. No financial gain to me at all Carey.
-
Were done. I thought I was talking to somebody who really knew something. I was wrong, just another Sue consort.
-
Oh, I'm glad we're done. Please send in the clowns next!
-
Ginger, Carey - Don't listen to the anon regarding Chilling Effects or even EFF. Both these organizations are the premier experts in matters pertaining to free speech on the Internet. They have a roster of attorneys nation-wide who can advise you on the relevant issues. Anon is obviously counting his/her chickens before they are hatched. How smart is that? Not very.
:wave:
-
But will they be personally representing both of them in Court is the question?
-
On 2004-01-02 19:52:00, Anonymous wrote:
"But will they be personally representing both of them in Court is the question?"
Yes, Anon. These are real lawyers who can and do appear in court on behalf of their clients. What in the world makes you think otherwise? Second, should this case progress, it is very likely to generate a landslide of interest and support for Ms. Warbis (and others like her) who find themselves the target of a cyber-slap muzzle machine.
-
Well, in that case I can't wait to see the Defendant's Answer, Counterclaim and Third Party Complaint in this cause. When it's filed, I'll be looking for that High-Profile, $500 per hour attorney's name at the top of the pleadings, you say will represent Ginger gratis.
Another thing, I want to see the lawyer whose going to take this up pro-bono for Ginger after reading the filthy posts that have been attached to this board. Long ago this site crossed the line of "Free Speech" into violating other peoples legal rights.
But I have an open mind, maybe some power-house will represent Ginger for free.
-
Hang on, Anon. Ginger may very well obtain the legal services of a high-priced attorney pro-bono but as it stands, she has already expressed some doubt that this is even a viable lawsuit. Either way, she is a smart lady who appears to have a good handle on the issues at hand.
-
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.
--- Anon
-
***The reason I don't "hush now" is because you don't know what you're talking about. ***
Excuse me, but I did not write the information at CE or provide "legal advice" or opinion. I shared a link to some folks who obviously do know the law and what they're talking about.
***Just contributing like everyone else here. Why do you want to silence me Deborah?***
Not hardly. Wasn't it you first who directed your comments to me, when your comments about the CE site could have been made without the attack on me... accusing me of "misleading" people?
And I don't believe for a minute you're "here for the fun". You are intimately involved in this issue at some level, even if it's a personal vendetta against Ginger or this forum in general.
-
CE and EFF are both must-see websites for anyone interested in issues involving free speech on the Internet. This (the Internet) is the brave new frontier and personally, I think both these orgs are to be commended for the fine work they do. Obviously, there is a need for the wealth of constitutional and legal-based resources they offer.
:wink:
-
This is patently ridiculous. What the hell does anyone have to lose by perusing the information available on Chilling Effects and the Electronic Freedom Frontier? Good God, Anon. Ignorance is not bliss when it comes to issues that impact children who do not have the right to speak for themselves on this forum or anywhere else without the permission of some dipstick program official.
You might think about that next time you feel obligated to accuse people of misleading someone by pointing them to a website that contains information that is anything but meaningless.
:roll:
-
Wow, are you people freaks!
The information is no good if it does not apply to Ginger's situation. In the Complaint, which I think Deborah, and all you other nuts DO NOT HAVE, Ginger is being sued on the following combination of causes:
Injunction, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, Defamation (False Light) and Tortious Interference with Business Relationships.
Which part of the sites you people are reading like the Bible match this exact combination of Counts contained in the Complaint? Let me help you out, NONE! Also, Ginger, tossed in her two cents and took sides (usually siding with a nut), which those sites do not cover.
I'm not saying don't look at the sites (they may have some general information that some might find helpful), what I'm saying is the laws you think shield Ginger don't!
Learn to READ people, and stop living in FANTASYLAND.
-
Whoops, forgot one Count - Civil Conspiracy.
-
Hey Anon, the one calling everybody a nut. Surely you have heard the old adage "it takes one to know one"? Well listen up, nutcase, you are betting on the wrong horse. How smart is that? Go on now, put on your dunce hat and go sit in the corner with the other jack asses.
:wave:
-
Oh yeah, Anon, think you might want to share the details of the preliminary injunction that was court ordered by some judge in Utah against the plaintiff who filed the lawsuit against Ginger? Might help to educate those of us who are not as big a wise-ass as you apparently are.
-
You people are totally mental (ha ha ha). I'm having a ball here!
-
Hmm, I think it is time for the TROLL ALERT. This one is really starved for attention. Poor thing. Must be tough getting through life without a moral compass. (Sorry Anon, but the "mental ones" you find so entertaining aren't putting on a free show for you today.)
::troll::
-
I'm afraid you have been providing amusement to me for much more than one day, yet I have been keeping careful track of posts which seem to be missing, even since the change of hosts (interesting word since there are so many parasites here). The point being, that I am sure this thread or select posts will soon either be missing, IPs will be detected and blocked and so on. I'm beginning to wonder if there is any difference between Fornits and WWASP?
-
Perhaps even some of Ginger's anonymous posts will become the sole attraction to this forum?
-
On 2004-01-04 11:17:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Perhaps even some of Ginger's anonymous posts will become the sole attraction to this forum?"
------------------------------------------------
Jheez, can I feed the troll one little tidbit? Just to save Ginger the trouble of having to defend herself against his/her baseless attacks?
Trollster: I am the author of the posts you find so entertaining and/or attactive. Please give credit where credit is due. Thanks little buddy, now go have yourself a nice day.
:silly:
-
and you as well, Ginger. Oh, how very European of me!
-
On 2004-01-03 19:49:00, Anonymous wrote:
"This is patently ridiculous. What the hell does anyone have to lose by perusing the information available on Chilling Effects and the Electronic Freedom Frontier? Good God, Anon. Ignorance is not bliss when it comes to issues that impact children who do not have the right to speak for themselves on this forum or anywhere else without the permission of some dipstick program official.
You might think about that next time you feel obligated to accuse people of misleading someone by pointing them to a website that contains information that is anything but meaningless.
:nworthy:
The government is much more interested in preserving the purity of its ideology than it is in allowing patients to get effective medicine.
-- Ethan B. Russo, neurologist at Western Montana Clinic
-
Hey, Where's the Litigous Forum? Let the legal experts decide what info should be talked about in public, and what shouldn't. Or at least let all of this legal stuff be relegated to its own place in cyberspace...Zzzzzzzzzzzzz
-
Oh, nevermind. It probably ain't even worth the trouble. But it sucks that all we see here lately is this legal stuff. Not my cup of tea. I wish more survivors of these places would post, and post regularly.
-
We post in the other sections, brother...
this is the first time I have looked at any other..
When I see the little bag head I just skip the post...and I scroll down till I see a nme..like you or Morli...then I read..
Anon people fall on deaf ears with me...
Grow some nuts and Ill listen :skull: :wave:
-
I walked into court confident that I would be allowed to go trial! The Judge had no intention of allowing due process to take place! I am now back in his court sueing Amazon.com! Again based on the merits I look like I am winning! I also filed 2 appeals to 2nd circuit! Bounced Judge Spatt out of jurisdiction! The guy is 78 & a Pres. Bush Sr. appointy! I remained cool calm & collected when he threw me out & violated my rights! He did a little joke about who is a lawyer & who is not! He even said : If I was a laywer he might have allowed my matter to go to trial! What do you think he would have said if a lawyer was present? Hammer
-
On 2004-01-04 14:34:00, Anonymous wrote:
"and you as well, Ginger. Oh, how very European of me!"
I'm a little confused, Anon. Last time I posted to this thread was Jan 2nd. And I didn't say anything at that time to anyone to which your blessing would seem responsive. And it's a Jewish blessing, not necessarily a European one. Give me the youth, and Germany will rule the world.
--Hitler
-
On 2004-02-17 17:17:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I walked into court confident that I would be allowed to go trial! The Judge had no intention of allowing due process to take place! I am now back in his court sueing Amazon.com! Again based on the merits I look like I am winning! I also filed 2 appeals to 2nd circuit! Bounced Judge Spatt out of jurisdiction! The guy is 78 & a Pres. Bush Sr. appointy! I remained cool calm & collected when he threw me out & violated my rights! He did a little joke about who is a lawyer & who is not! He even said : If I was a laywer he might have allowed my matter to go to trial! What do you think he would have said if a lawyer was present? Hammer"
I am confused who wrote this post and what it's about. Sounds fascinating, though!
-
whoever seems to be the "anon" freak attacking ginger with threats sounds suspiciously like a Kenny Z to me. Just an observation. At Elan, the "just noticing, there is nothing here to find" and so on; the abnegations and bizarre renditions of language in pseudo-tactical language are reminiscent of Elanese. So, why Elan? Apparently something is rotten in another TC so why not pick on Florida; I read in Duck that this happened care of a PI care of Ricci. Does Elan have a Florida pipeline or do ALL these louts talk "the same way" and "walk the same" Signed,
Zorro (For a real laugh, watchful, hahahahahaha)
-
I for one, (and I am sure there are many, many othes who feel the same) agree with Ginger's attorney, Phil Elberg: The lady should be thanked, not sued.
-
Dear Ginger et al,
I was going to contact my attorney tomorrow and ask him to review the Fornit's Web Forums, especially the area that pretains to me, and Abundant Life Academy. I was hoping that with some research there would be others who have been hurt by Fornits. That way if there are others who have sued you due to the fact that you allow good people and businesses to be slandered and businesses to be hurt by your forums.
Now I have found this particular forum very interesting. I can easily find out who Sue's attorneys are, and I can have my attorney contact them. I thought that you were responsible for this injustice. I did not know how you could let this go on without some kind of retribution or consequence befall you. You can save yourself a whole lot of hassle by taking the posts and replies about Craig Rogers and Abundant Life Academy off the Fornits site.
I have had several people call me about these postings. If anyone is turned away from Abundant Life Academy because of this I will make sure that my attorney looks into this more seriously. Right now we are just researching our options. However, you can make this much easier on yourself by removing the slanderous statements and the personal attacks against myself and Abundant Life Academy.
My attorney happens to be a partial owner of another academy similar to Abundant Life Academy. I found references to his school on this forum. I dont think I would have a problem getting him to work on this case. I believe in freedom of speech, but I also believe in the laws that protect me from slanderous defamation.
Please consider my offer.
-
Please consider my offer.
Don't you mean "Please consider my threat"?
-
Yes, Kiwi, I b'lieve he did.
Anyway, you'd be wise to just save your pennies and sit back and see what happens. I know it's probably inconceivable to you, given your apparent immersion in totalistic thinking. But I actually am not responsible for controling other people, far less for protecting your secrets.
What are politicians going to tell people when the Constitution is gone and we still have a drug problem?
--William Simpson
-
Hell, I agree with that. :lol:
-
Ginger, I've got a couple ?'s for you.
Please email me. I sent mail to: bill@f******.com webmistress@f******.com and gwarbis@********.com
Thanks, Fr13
-
Posted: 2004-03-30 13:09:00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEAR NOT, Ginger.
You have been looking out for angels flying too close to the ground for a very, very long time.
The power of love surrounds you.
:tup:
-
Preserved for posterity.
On 2004-03-29 20:29:00, CraigRogers wrote:
"Dear Ginger et al,
I was going to contact my attorney tomorrow and ask him to review the Fornit's Web Forums, especially the area that pretains to me, and Abundant Life Academy. I was hoping that with some research there would be others who have been hurt by Fornits. That way if there are others who have sued you due to the fact that you allow good people and businesses to be slandered and businesses to be hurt by your forums.
Now I have found this particular forum very interesting. I can easily find out who Sue's attorneys are, and I can have my attorney contact them. I thought that you were responsible for this injustice. I did not know how you could let this go on without some kind of retribution or consequence befall you. You can save yourself a whole lot of hassle by taking the posts and replies about Craig Rogers and Abundant Life Academy off the Fornits site.
I have had several people call me about these postings. If anyone is turned away from Abundant Life Academy because of this I will make sure that my attorney looks into this more seriously. Right now we are just researching our options. However, you can make this much easier on yourself by removing the slanderous statements and the personal attacks against myself and Abundant Life Academy.
My attorney happens to be a partial owner of another academy similar to Abundant Life Academy. I found references to his school on this forum. I dont think I would have a problem getting him to work on this case. I believe in freedom of speech, but I also believe in the laws that protect me from slanderous defamation.
Please consider my offer."
Now the sanctimonious "Mr. Rogers" can't delete the evidence. God, what a crime! I wonder if the ghost of Fred Rogers will haunt this man. ...to disarm the people (is) the best and most effective way to enslave them...
-- George Mason
-
Now... now... dont get your dress in a huff. Relax and allow me to spend my money the way I want. If I want to hire an attorney and hold you and Fornit's responsible for your violation of the law please allow me to do it. For someone who advocates personal freedom you sure spend a great deal of energy trying to control me. Dont waste your time, I already have a mom. And, you seem to be old enough to be my grandmother. I have a couple of those too!
-
Who's stopping you?
Boy! Some people just can't take yes for an answer! ::noway:: Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.
-- Albert Einstein
-
Jesus, Mary and Joseph ... I am beginning to wonder if Craig practices what he preaches or preaches what he practices?
http://abundantlifeacademy.com/phpbb2/v ... c.php?t=23 (http://abundantlifeacademy.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=23)
-
And, you seem to be old enough to be my grandmother.
And now he is stooping to personal abuse. How "christian"!
-
Ginger, after reading most of the postings under this topic,and not quite getting all the verbal mumbojumbo it seems that one could draw a comparison between any free speach(she said,he said-she did,he did)crap sense the start of time.The question is has the law (rights) been violated? I for one will always stand up for what I believe in! Your quest(fight) in the drug war is apparent in just this web.However, remember there are others with just as much to gain or lose as you and are willing to stop at nothing to gain the win.The general never wins a battle by himself-it takes the power of the people,just ask Art Barker.
TRUCKER
-
I'm not sure what you're getting at, Trucker. But you seem to be saying that I should just cow down before the bullies. Well, it's been my experience that that only encourages them. It took some time and patience to figure this out. When I was a kid, I took endless shit from an older brother of mine till I found his weak spot. As it turned out, he was scared shitless of dogs; even little ones. So I trained my cocker spaniel/wire terrier to tree him on sight. That provided endles hours of entertainment for myself and my friends; more than enough to make up for having been tickled till I peed my pants on numerous occasions for the entertainment of his friends.
Honk if you love Jesus! :rofl: I have found that the best way to give advice to your children is to find out what they want and then advise them to do it
--Harry S. Truman
-
On 2004-03-30 20:31:00, CraigRogers wrote:
"Now... now... dont get your dress in a huff. Relax and allow me to spend my money the way I want. If I want to hire an attorney and hold you and Fornit's responsible for your violation of the law please allow me to do it. For someone who advocates personal freedom you sure spend a great deal of energy trying to control me. Dont waste your time, I already have a mom.
Didn't look to me like she was in a huff at all!! Looks like she was having a good chuckle at your desperate attempt to scare her into trying to control other people. Bring it on Bud!! I haven't seen one time where she, or anyone else here for that matter, has tried to control you. You're free to speak your mind just as anyone else on this forum is. :wave:
And, you seem to be old enough to be my grandmother. I have a couple of those too! "
Is that comment part of your good Christian values??? :roll: :roll:
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark. The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.
--Plato
-
Sheesh, what's the point of christian boarding schools if not to indoctrinate kids with the values and beliefs of THEIR PARENTS? Virtually EVERY community in America has youth-for-christ groups. Why not let teens explore their faith freely? You know, on their OWN TERMS not their parents?
CAN WE SAY CONTROL FREAKS, HERE?????
-
Yeah, what do you suppose that guy was thinking? And what about Karen. She posts here pseudo-anonymously quite often and has not been shy about claiming her unwavering support for Rogers.
What have you got to say now, Karen? Is this guy a crack-pot or what?
Oh yeah, I must be talking to myself since I'm the only one who can post anonymously, huh?
Do you get it yet? The dude is acting radically based on his belief in totally unfounded assumptions. And your kid is apparently drawn in, hook, line and sinker. Does this worry you at all?
I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and give the wrong answers.
-- A Bit of Fry and Laurie
-
This must be the Christian right's idea of faith based smart bombs - verbal crap in the name of Jesus and Brainwashing in the name of Jesus.
Ginger is your intellectual superior - admit it.
-
On 2004-03-30 20:31:00, CraigRogers wrote:
"Now... now... dont get your dress in a huff. Relax and allow me to spend my money the way I want. If I want to hire an attorney and hold you and Fornit's responsible for your violation of the law please allow me to do it. For someone who advocates personal freedom you sure spend a great deal of energy trying to control me. Dont waste your time, I already have a mom. And, you seem to be old enough to be my grandmother. I have a couple of those too! "
Craig, just sue her. By the way, you horribly insulted your poor grandmother -- she has to look a whole bunch better than Ginger. I've seen a picture and Ginger looks like she belongs in "Jim Rockford's" trailer. In other words, Ginger is "trailer-trash".
Fornits falsely represents itself as help to survivors and parents. It's actually a device by which Ginger, who is actually a VICTIM much more than she is a survivor, abuses survivors.
I hear that Sue Scheff is close to getting her judgment anyway, and that, combined with your proposed action, and the other lawsuits in which Ginger will no doubt be named as a defendant should end Ginger's abuse of program survivors.
-
Believe nothing you hear and only half what you see.
BTW, how's Texas, Lee? :wave: As your attorney, it is my duty to inform you that it is not important that you understand what I'm doing or why you're paying me so much money. What's important is that you continue to do so.
--Hunter S. Thompson's Samoan Attorney
-
On 2004-04-02 13:10:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
Fornits falsely represents itself as help to survivors and parents. It's actually a device by which Ginger, who is actually a VICTIM much more than she is a survivor, abuses survivors.
Since Ginger is a victim and not a survivor, she must be dead! Id she is dead, the you are merely typing into the air, and conferring with your self.
I hear that Sue Scheff is close to getting her judgment anyway, and that, combined with your proposed action, and the other lawsuits in which Ginger will no doubt be named as a defendant should end Ginger's abuse of program survivors."
From you statement above, I can only assume that you are classifying survivors as those who have run these programs, and those who were in them, victims.
So in short, you post reads that Craig should sue Ginger, who as being victim and non survivor (must be dead), is harassing those who have survived the travesty of abusing children.
Ya, you got some good intel ::puke::
-
What are you guys talking about I'm from this boarding school and believe me Craig has only helped I would probably be dead right now from drug and alochol overdoses if i hadnt come to abundant life academy craig has done alot and listen no one is perfect i mean why are you juding his life when you need to first take a look at yours. theres a saying and it says Christians arent perfect just forgiven. People make mistakes but Craig is not a bad man and to call him a dishonest one well what do you define as dishonest someone that lies? Well havent you lied so wouldnt that make you dishonest? Craig is a good guy and his relationship with God isnt your business a realtionship with God is personal and everyones is diffrent I was asked to go to this program by my parents i needed it though i would have never accepted Christ if I hadnt gone this program works if you let it quit judging you guys act like 2 year olds arent you suppose to be are rolemodels and people older were suppose to look up to come on get a grip
-
i would have never accepted Christ if I hadnt gone this program
Your parents may have "asked" you to go but do you honestly believe you had a choice? Second, how can you be so sure you would never have "accepted" Christ if not for ALA? This is pure program speak, not a genuine thought or feeling. Think about it, if the only way to find Jesus was through the doors of a locked faith-based program, there would be a hell (no pun intended) of a lot less Christians on the planet.
:smokin:
-
I would probably be dead right now from drug and alochol overdoses if i hadnt come to abundant life academy
Have we heard that somewhere before? Karen, have you heard that somewhere before? Does that not tell you something right there?
-
On 2004-06-28 08:49:00, Anonymous wrote:
Your parents may have "asked" you to go but do you honestly believe you had a choice?
there ya go --- let's let all TEENAGERS make the decisions in their lives. They are so well known to do the RIGHT thing and make SOUND decisions --- yeah - THAT'S the answer. LOL
Please tell me that none of you "survivors" have kids. PLEASE
-
Who is Ginger hurting by providing a free and open forum? She has never to my knowledge posted anything insulting, degrading or even unkind. She doesn't censor anyone.
This is a controversial issue, but even you program fans can surely admit that *someone, somewhere, in some program* must have genuinely gotten abused. I mean, the Catholic Church, public schools, neighborhoods, -- everywhere has some abusive pedophiles but all program are always perfect and all children are always liars? Come on! Surely you must be able to admit at the very least that some bad apples occasionally get in to your hallowed industry?
Given that, how is Ginger abusing anyone? By refusing to say "I believe this kid, but not that one."? Surely those who are proud of the wonderful programs that have saved their kids can recognize that abuse sometimes occurs, even, can you believe, it, parents sometimes abuse their own kids and parents are sometimes *wrong*, no matter how hard that may be for you to comprehend.
To say that it is abusive to allow people to express themselves is to say that America's founding vision was abusive. Surely you patriotic program people don't believe that?
-
there ya go --- let's let all TEENAGERS make the decisions in their lives. They are so well known to do the RIGHT thing and make SOUND decisions --- yeah - THAT'S the answer. LOL
Please tell me that none of you "survivors" have kids. PLEASE
Anon, when it comes to faith-based boarding schools, a teenager is more than capable of deciding for themselves if they want to accept Christ as the answer to pleasing their parents. Remember, these schools target teens who are not court adjudicated and are suffering mainly from a condition called entitlement-itis :smokin:
:wave:
-
On 2004-06-28 15:22:00, Anonymous wrote:
On 2004-06-28 08:49:00, Anonymous wrote: there ya go --- let's let all TEENAGERS make the decisions in their lives. They are so well known to do the RIGHT thing and make SOUND decisions --- yeah - THAT'S the answer. LOL
How do you expect kids to learn how to make good decisions for themselves? Are they supposed to defer to Mommy Dearest on every minute issue till the magical moment when they turn 18 or 21 and then, spontaniously, mysteriously start batting 1000, making perfectly good choices without any practice?
No, humans don't operate that way. We learn from experience, sometimes from our mistakes. But becoming a competent, independent adult takes some practice. We know they're going to make mistakes. That's why we don't let them drive, drink, vote or hold public office till they've come of age. Those are sensible limits. But we (sane people) don't want to lock our children up and remove all of their choices every time they piss us off or frighten us. We remember having been children ourselves and we understand that children are complex human beings and our relationships with them very fragile.
Please tell me that none of you "survivors" have kids. PLEASE"
Actually, some of us are grandparents already, most of the rest of us have teenaged or preteen kids (who will never see the inside of a teen gulag)He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.
--Albert Einstein
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Seed sibling `71 - `80
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
It is wrong to leave a stumbling block in the road once it has tripped you.
-
On 2004-06-28 15:22:00, Anonymous wrote:
there ya go --- let's let all TEENAGERS make the decisions in their lives. They are so well known to do the RIGHT thing and make SOUND decisions --- yeah - THAT'S the answer. LOL
Please tell me that none of you "survivors" have kids. PLEASE"
I have two kids now, girls 18 and 16. Both have experimented with drugs/alcohol (one of them did much more than I did as a teen) but both are now doing very well and have NEVER been in treatment or AA or NA or anything else. My oldest graduated high school last year and is in nursing school and my youngest is taking dual enrollment courses as a sophomore so that she can have a year of college done before she graduates high school. I talked to them about what drugs did to me AFTER I got out of Straight. I talked to them in REAL terms, set REAL expectations and allowed them the freedom to make some mistakes on their own and I helped to GUIDE them through those times.
This is from a letter I wrote a few months back. I get so sick and tired of parents who think it's their God given right/responsibility to force their kids into these places. Adolescence ain't for sissies....for the kids or the parents. Take responsibility. Get and stay involved in their lives. Spend more time teaching them to have a passion in life for something than buried in your own lives or problems. Treat them with respect. That includes respecting their need to begin to cut the apron strings. It's not easy, believe me, but far more[/b] damage was and is done in these places.
-
:roll: That was me.
...the people have a right to keep and bear arms.
-- Patrick Henry and George Mason Debates
-
On 2004-03-30 07:02:00, Antigen wrote:
"Yes, Kiwi, I b'lieve he did.
Anyway, you'd be wise to just save your pennies and sit back and see what happens. I know it's probably inconceivable to you, given your apparent immersion in totalistic thinking. But I actually am not responsible for controling other people, far less for protecting your secrets.
What are politicians going to tell people when the Constitution is gone and we still have a drug problem?
--William Simpson
"
Yeah Ginger, hang in there. If "academies" or "schools" are abusing children we have the right to exercise our free speech and point this out. If you get in trouble be sure to let us know what is going on. Don't forget that rich and powerful children are getting stuck in these places too. I know some names I could contact from my experiences that can muscle these assholes right into the ground.
-
On 2004-02-25 07:43:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I for one, (and I am sure there are many, many othes who feel the same) agree with Ginger's attorney, Phil Elberg: The lady should be thanked, not sued. "
Amen to that one.
-
The nice thing is that your case would be pretty simple. It will be very easy to get tons of witnesses with plenty of horror stories concerning the overall system in the country. Then you get some from this specific academy that can shed doubt on any witnesses they produce. I'm sure there's a wealth of precedents to cite as well. If he asserts that he has been slandered then he will have to prove any information was false. He will probably only prove partial at best so you just remove the bogus posts and leave the rest.
-
The threat to sue is pretty weird. It smells like a bluff to me. If he sues then his academy goes under a microscope. I doubt he will want that. If he was really clean he'd debate the posters rather than threatening lawsuits, don't you think?
-
Is there any hope of soliciting more help from the press in emphasizing the horrors that are occuring in many of these places? I would think the more people know what is going on, the more they would be willing to uphold our rights to free speech.
-
On 2004-01-04 06:02:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Wow, are you people freaks!
The information is no good if it does not apply to Ginger's situation. In the Complaint, which I think Deborah, and all you other nuts DO NOT HAVE, Ginger is being sued on the following combination of causes:
Injunction, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, Defamation (False Light) and Tortious Interference with Business Relationships.
Which part of the sites you people are reading like the Bible match this exact combination of Counts contained in the Complaint? Let me help you out, NONE! Also, Ginger, tossed in her two cents and took sides (usually siding with a nut), which those sites do not cover.
I'm not saying don't look at the sites (they may have some general information that some might find helpful), what I'm saying is the laws you think shield Ginger don't!
Learn to READ people, and stop living in FANTASYLAND."
Out of those counts which ones are still valid if the facility is shown as abusive? (as in the case of Straight)
-
On 2004-06-28 08:49:00, Anonymous wrote:
i would have never accepted Christ if I hadnt gone this program
if you don't believe that you "would have never accepted christ" without ALA, perhaps you don't really accept divinity... the only doorway to divinity is through your soul.
What are you guys talking about I'm from this boarding school and believe me Craig has only helped I would probably be dead right now from drug and alochol overdoses if i hadnt come to abundant life academy craig has done alot and listen no one is perfect i mean why are you juding his life when you need to first take a look at yours.
wow, i feel like i'm back at cedu again.
ok, here's the deal... you keep saying what would have and what would not have happened had you not gone to this program; that's exactly what they wanted from you! it was a manipulative tactic in order to place a sense of urgent obligation onto your guardians. once you left the program, and you're not dead, it must've worked, right? i mean, that was their goal... to keep you alive. but did they REALLY spiritually resuscitate you? i'm inclined to make a judgement, but i won't because i realize that i have no clue who you are.
second, how do you know whether or not we look at our lives? i'm an introspectionalist... that's what i do.
_________________
laura solomon
-
On 2004-01-01 04:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Ginger,
You are making statements, even now that you have been sued, suggesting you will conspire with Carey to make this as expensive a trip as possible for Sue, and your other comment that people are concerned about controlling free speech. These two statements will probably cause Sue's attorney to amend his complaint.
In the first place, I have a copy of the suit. The Florida precedent cited is right on point. There is nothing canned about Sue's lawyer's Memorandum of Law. If this were to be played out, you'll be lucky to avoid losing your house, probably through protection of the Bankruptcy Court.
Second, Sue has sued you in Florida. Good Florida litigators are very, very expensive. If you defend yourself, you will be looking at a legal bill upwards of $50,000 (even in the unlikely event you would prevail). And while Florida Courts have traditionally permitted telephonic appearance for some hearings, you'll be traveling to Florida quite a bit in the upcoming months.
Third, I noticed that Sue is relying on some Federal Law in connection with her suit. If her attorney or yours removes this to Federal Court, you'll need to hit the lottery to pay for your legal representation. Also, Carey's lawyer will in all likelihood file a cross-claim against you for indemnity. That's because your interests and hers seriously diverge.
Now, after that little commentary on the law, let me explain how your comments may serve to harm you and why you should think about shutting your mouth:
1. Threatening or even suggesting to protract litigation to intimidate a Plaintiff to dismiss their or its case is unlawful. Sorry to say, that what you have allowed to be posted to the Fornits website is actionable in every State, not just Florida, and when a Judge reads that you propose to deliberately make this a long, hard road for Sue by having an attorney file dilatory pleadings, you'll may find yourself looking at interim sanctions and you could pay Sue's legal bills as well. Given who her attorney is, I don't think you want to talk yourself into that.
2. You have been wrong about your comments all along, that everyone can post whatever they want and you are just allowed to sit back and watch explosion after explosion take place with no consequence to you. You have been told this time and again, yet you persist in living in a fantasy world, probably to compensate for your admittedly srewed-up childhood.
This society has rules. As adults we have agreed to live by the Rule of Law and the Social Compact. Your website is ruleless (if there is such a word) and that flies in the face of the laws that we as a society have agreed to live by.
Ginger, this would be a very good time for you to shut your hole. Your lawyer is going to tell you this if you get that far. If you don't hire a lawyer, then Sue will get a Judgment by default and you will be very sorry you did not take the sound advice people have tried to give you for months.
Think it over Ginger!"
How'd it work out for you, blowhard?
Let this be a notice to all of you morons who continually threaten lawsuits. Are you as prepared as these folks? Have that much money?
If not, you may as well just forget it now. If so, just look what your money buys - NOTHING. Well, maybe some embarrassment and humility (humiliation?).
Sue me? Fuck you.
_________________
"Compassion is the basis of morality"
-Arnold Schopenhauer
-
Oh, I got dropped. As far as I'm concerned, it's over. And, fwiw, it was probably a smart move on the part of the plaintiff. If I ever have to shut down Fornits, what will ya'll do? Just.... shut up? Cower in fear? Lose each other's email addresses? Or would ya'll just continue the conversation on other forums, maybe setting up a few new ones?
I don't doubt that, eventually, some of these bellyachers will put a hurtin on some of us. I can lose. You could lose. But they can't win. It's as simple as that.
Revelation indeed had no weight with me.
--Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father, author, and inventor
-
On 2005-09-15 13:05:00, Antigen wrote:
"Oh, I got dropped. As far as I'm concerned, it's over. And, fwiw, it was probably a smart move on the part of the plaintiff. If I ever have to shut down Fornits, what will ya'll do? Just.... shut up? Cower in fear? Lose each other's email addresses? Or would ya'll just continue the conversation on other forums, maybe setting up a few new ones?
I don't doubt that, eventually, some of these bellyachers will put a hurtin on some of us. I can lose. You could lose. But they can't win. It's as simple as that.
::troll::
Revelation indeed had no weight with me.
--Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father, author, and inventor
"
-
On 2004-01-01 04:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Ginger,
You are making statements, even now that you have been sued, suggesting you will conspire with Carey to make this as expensive a trip as possible for Sue, and your other comment that people are concerned about controlling free speech. These two statements will probably cause Sue's attorney to amend his complaint.
In the first place, I have a copy of the suit. The Florida precedent cited is right on point. There is nothing canned about Sue's lawyer's Memorandum of Law. If this were to be played out, you'll be lucky to avoid losing your house, probably through protection of the Bankruptcy Court.
Second, Sue has sued you in Florida. Good Florida litigators are very, very expensive. If you defend yourself, you will be looking at a legal bill upwards of $50,000 (even in the unlikely event you would prevail). And while Florida Courts have traditionally permitted telephonic appearance for some hearings, you'll be traveling to Florida quite a bit in the upcoming months.
Third, I noticed that Sue is relying on some Federal Law in connection with her suit. If her attorney or yours removes this to Federal Court, you'll need to hit the lottery to pay for your legal representation. Also, Carey's lawyer will in all likelihood file a cross-claim against you for indemnity. That's because your interests and hers seriously diverge.
Now, after that little commentary on the law, let me explain how your comments may serve to harm you and why you should think about shutting your mouth:
1. Threatening or even suggesting to protract litigation to intimidate a Plaintiff to dismiss their or its case is unlawful. Sorry to say, that what you have allowed to be posted to the Fornits website is actionable in every State, not just Florida, and when a Judge reads that you propose to deliberately make this a long, hard road for Sue by having an attorney file dilatory pleadings, you'll may find yourself looking at interim sanctions and you could pay Sue's legal bills as well. Given who her attorney is, I don't think you want to talk yourself into that.
2. You have been wrong about your comments all along, that everyone can post whatever they want and you are just allowed to sit back and watch explosion after explosion take place with no consequence to you. You have been told this time and again, yet you persist in living in a fantasy world, probably to compensate for your admittedly srewed-up childhood.
This society has rules. As adults we have agreed to live by the Rule of Law and the Social Compact. Your website is ruleless (if there is such a word) and that flies in the face of the laws that we as a society have agreed to live by.
Ginger, this would be a very good time for you to shut your hole. Your lawyer is going to tell you this if you get that far. If you don't hire a lawyer, then Sue will get a Judgment by default and you will be very sorry you did not take the sound advice people have tried to give you for months.
Think it over Ginger!"
(sooooo?????????) Bible -> ::read:: Do you know him?
-
Yes! For I have been touched by the noodly appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! All praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster! And Antipasta is not an apostate, no! Antipasta is one of the many prophets of the FSM, presaging the arrival of pasta!
If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine- but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you've been bad or good- and CARES about any of it- to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.
--Frank Zappa, American musician
-
On 2005-09-15 13:50:00, Antigen wrote:
"Yes! For I have been touched by the noodly appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! All praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster! And Antipasta is not an apostate, no! Antipasta is one of the many prophets of the FSM, presaging the arrival of pasta!
If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine- but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you've been bad or good- and CARES about any of it- to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.
--Frank Zappa, American musician
"
Highest Praise to the Great Noodly One as we welcome our sister to the Pastafarian family!
-