O'Block Sues Bear

[ham]

I know it's a little early in the game (recalling Jerroll Dolphin), but I'm nominating Robert O'Block as DL Man of the Year.

Klempner has gone from teflon to velcro overnight. Who wants to be next? Not the typical keyboard sociopath who emulates the "delightful" Klempner union goon tactics.

The Klempner Klones are going to think two and three times before they launch another asshole swarm against a righteous business. "Tick tick tick" indeed.

Who knows...the old grizzly could offer them flattering entries in his guides as a peace calumet...

[Armando Ramos]

It appears O'Block has grown tired of having his business destroyed by lamers like Klempner offering ill-informed opinions as fact and has launched a slew of civil actions against his tormentors.

O'Block seems to be the only party with any connection to Missouri, which makes Missouri a questionable venue. He already has lost on that issue once in the Tadros case.

Filing multiple lawsuits in incorrect venues is not a good strategy. In fact, among the very few abuse of process claims that courts allow (litigation privilege bars most) are those where, for example, debt collectors file multiple complaints in the plaintiff's home venue rather than the venues of the defendants.

Haven't seen the complaint yet, but even as much as I agree that Klempner's digging up a bogus 12-year old article and saying "tick tick tick" is pretty low, I doubt that alone gives O'Block a cause of action. Where was O'Block 12 years ago when the original article ran?

I wish O'Block all the best, for he and his business certainly have suffered unfairly at the hands of the shit-stirrers. But I'm not at all convinced that he is going about this in the best way. Somebody who preferred to give him a tussle rather than be reasonable (e.g., Tadros) could view this as a gift.

[jamesc1]

It seems to me that Bear has gotten off very light over the years for his sell it and then damn it routine, but the bastard keeps getting away with it. I can only hope that some lawsuit will catch the old fraud and make him pay for all the harm he has caused. If not this one, maybe the next.

[Dickie Billericay]

Gus, your response to my latest email...

...will help us decide which approach to take in our response to the O'Block lawsuit, so it will be very helpful to hear from you as soon as possible. Thank you. John on Sunday at 5 pm.

John Bear

More proof Klempner is senile. Is Gus really the go-to guy when you get sued?

Admittedly Gus does get sued a lot, so he has experience hiring lawyers.....debt collection defense lawyers....in Miami.

But Klempner is being sued for defamation in Missouri. Maybe Klempner figured they both start with the same two letters so it was pretty much the same thing.

I can only hope that some lawsuit will catch the old fraud and make him pay for all the harm he has caused. If not this one, maybe the next.

Kind of like OJ and the memorabilia robbery. He should have gotten the chair for killing two innocent people, but instead he got a walk. Then he tries to steal back his own stuff and winds up doing hard time.

Klempner dodged a bullet when the FBI came calling and he became an "informant" ratting out his competitors. No lazy ass government slugs to buy off this time.

[Ben Johnson]

But Klempner is being sued for defamation in Missouri.

I hope Klempner doesn't think that "I'm from Missouri" means they accept bullshit as if it's fact.

[Albert Hidel]

There has been a bit of a kerfuffle lately in a forum where I don't post about me and a lawsuit. In a nutshell:

1. I was sued.
2. My lawyer talked to his lawyer.
3. This week, the suit was dismissed; no penalties, no apologies, no payments.
4. All is well.

It’s all a matter of public record for those who want to know more, but I’m done with it.

http://www.degreediscussion.com/forums/v...f=6&t=8788


No kerfuffles here, Klempner. You are the one with his knickers in a twist, begging Goose to tell you what to do. BTW, the court's docket entries currently make no mention of a dismissal.

If the illiterate description in the court docket of the "sherriff's" attempt to serve Klempner is correct, the "tennat" at 1337 Henry St. Apt E, Berkeley, CA 94709 told them that Klempner just owned the property but didn't live there.

But somehow a real process server later managed to serve him at that very address.

Did somebody lie to the "sherriff"? Providing false information to a peace officer is a misdemeanor in California. E.g., Penal Code section 148.9; Vehicle Code section 31. Now if somebody directed that to the attention of law enforcement, would that be a kerfuffle?

[Don Dresden]

Notorious JOHN BEAR has been named as a defendant in a civil action brought by ACFEI, the American Psychotherapy Association and Dr. O'Block in Circuit 31, Greene County, Missouri, as case number 1131-CV12347.

Court records show that notorious JOHN BEAR was personally served with the complaint on February 1, 2012, which might account for his "indigestion." Bear's address is shown as 1337 Henry Street, Apt E. Berkeley, CA 94709.

A copy of the complaint against notorious JOHN BEAR in that matter is attached. Plaintiffs sought $70,000 in damages.


  img007.pdf (Size: 1,006.14 KB / Downloads: 23)


The complaint incorrectly refers to the offensive website as "degreediscussions" (plural) instead of "degreediscussion" singular, so the links cited in the complaint are dead.

Below are the correct links. The first two refer to the "Tick tick tick" thread discussed above that since has been censored. The third is a thread titled "The American Board of Nonexistence" that also appears to have had something deleted. The San Diego Reader article referred to in that thread also has been deleted by that site.

www.degreediscussion.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&p=58514

www.degreediscussion.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7754

www.degreediscussion.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6955&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

The complaint alleges that notorious JOHN BEAR made the following false statements about the plaintiffs:

a. are "con artists;"

b. are "a complete scam;"

c. improperly "take people's money;"

d. issues "worthless pieces of papers;"

e. "issues credentials to unqualified candidates;"

f. "funneled $400,000.00 from a not profit [sic] company to a for profit company;"

g. they gave a [sic] organizational degree to a cat.

The complaint also alleges regarding the defendant, notorious JOHN BEAR:

The Defendant wrote such article with knowledge that it was false, or with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false at a time when Defendant had serious doubt as to whether its was true.

---

[lurker555]

bear = lawsuit magnet

gollin = lawsuit magnet

gus = lawsuit magnet

has anybody sued dayson yet?

degreedisgusting = totally discredited, fraud, waste of bandwith

[Martin Eisenstadt]

The complaint alleges that notorious JOHN BEAR made the following false statements about the plaintiffs:

a. are "con artists;"

b. are "a complete scam;"

c. improperly "take people's money;"

d. issues "worthless pieces of papers;"

e. "issues credentials to unqualified candidates;"

f. "funneled $400,000.00 from a not profit [sic] company to a for profit company;"

g. they gave a [sic] organizational degree to a cat.

Typical of the "research" we see from Klempner, Gollum, Goose and the rest of the klones. Repeating total lies from a 12-year old hit piece, which was itself probably just repeating lies received from Klempner, Gollum or Goose or somebody of that ilk.

The keyboard sociopaths' "delightful" pastime of stalking, lying and shit-stirring just took a big step backwards, thanks to O'Block. A few more of these and we can plant the whole vile crew.

[Herbert Spencer]

In a nutshell:

1. I was sued.
2. My lawyer talked to his lawyer.
3. This week, the suit was dismissed; no penalties, no apologies, no payments.
4. All is well.

It’s all a matter of public record for those who want to know more, but I’m done with it.

http://www.degreediscussion.com/forums/v...f=6&t=8788

Typical Klempner hyperbole. As we suspected, he left out the important part:

5. Klempner agreed to remove all the defamatory statements that he had posted to the internet about O'Block and his businesses.

So says a reliable source close to the proceedings. Given the vile and unwarranted assaults against him, it seems uncommonly gracious of O'Block to dismiss his case. I wouldn't expect other victims of the notorious Janus of DL and his klones to be quite so understanding.

Is it written somewhere that "leaving out the bad parts" isn't pretty much exactly the same thing as lying? Too bad Klempner doesn't have access to a professional ethicist.