Charisma Sues RCD, DD, DI
#41
(02-20-2015, 03:21 PM)Armando Ramos Wrote: Doogle files a timely Demurrer.



Interesting that Doogle didn't just have John Bear's magic lawyer call Charisma's lawyer and get the whole thing "resolved in a few days, without cost."  Rolleyes

Typically in defamation actions the only real issue isn't whether the Demurrer will be granted, but rather whether it will be granted with or without leave to amend.  Some judges give plaintiffs a couple bites at the apple just as a matter of policy.  Since this is first demurrer, my prediction is that it will be granted on all counts with leave to amend.  Eventually I'd expect a second demurrer to be granted without leave on the two defamation counts. 

I'd like to see what Charisma comes up with in defense of its two business interference counts. If, as Doogle argues, the only "independently wrongful act" alleged is constitutionally protected free speech then those counts must fall as well.  But a judge might see that the complaint could be amended to allege such additional facts, and probably will give Charisma more than two bites to do that.

I'm surprised that Rich didn't just settle and move on. Must not be growing old gracefully. No matter the chances of success, as old Bear has shown, backtrack, and live to whine another day.  Once you stand before a judge stuff can happen.
Reply
#42
Was wondering where the motion to strike was.  Now we know. 


.pdf   DouglasMotionStrike01.pdf (Size: 1.35 MB / Downloads: 14)

This is Doogle's latest motion, a motion to strike pursuant to the state Anti-SLAPP statute. 

If Doogle can make a prima facie case that his speech is protected (which he seems to have done) then under this statute the burden of proof shifts to the Charisma to show that the complaint is legally sufficient and supported by the facts.  If Charisma fails to meet that burden then their complaint will be dismissed, with attorney fees and costs to defendant.  I would expect all this to happen, if not sooner then certainly later. 

As much as we enjoy seeing Doogle with his tit caught in the wringer, the fact is that free speech still gets some respect in many US courts, particularly when it is (at least superficially) idle internet chit chat.  As I noted before, the clones aren't just innocently sharing opinions, but are in fact dedicated to destroying all educational free enterprise outside the reach of the government's iron fist.  We all know what they are doing, but that's not what the complaint alleges.  So unless or until it does, Doogle is going to get a walk. 
Reply
#43
A recent flurry of activity in the Charisma v. Douglas case, coinciding with the recent flurry of Klempner trolling activities at this website.  Mere happenstance?  You be the judge.

On March 10, 2015 Charisma filed amendments naming Gustavo Armando Sainz, Thomas Vernon White and Steve F. Levicoff as Doe defendants.  Previously only Doogle, DD, DI and MBWA SHENZI were named as defendants.  No speculation on what the “F” stands for in Levi-jerkoff’s middle name.

On March 2, 2015, Doogle filed an amendment to his motion to strike.  This appears to be identical to the first motion, except the reservation number is included under the document title and a duplicate word “move” was removed.  Local rules may require the former, which illustrates how even experienced attorneys can bungle otherwise routine pleadings because of picayune formalities that differ from venue to venue.  Imagine the difficulty a pro per party encounters in such an environment. 
 
More significantly, on March 10, 2015, Charisma filed a response to Doogle’s motion and demurrer.  Nowhere does the plaintiff cite any legal points and authorities, or otherwise offer any proof of the facts alleged in the complaint, or much of anything else that is going to overcome the motion to strike.  This motion is different from the usual demurrer, where in theory the sufficiency of the complaint is supposed to be decided on the facts alleged therein.  Under the Anti-SLAPP statute there are real proof issues, none of which appears to have been addressed by plaintiff in other than conclusory terms. 


.pdf   OkpalaOppositionMStrike.pdf (Size: 202.09 KB / Downloads: 13)

For example, although it's a fact that Charisma is ASICS accredited, Charisma offers no documentary proof establishing this or the bona fides of ASICS, or even any declarations supporting the point.  I hope Charisma has some documents or something more than just this opposition in mind to file.  Otherwise, looking strictly at these filings (as a court should do) it would appear that this situation is not only just some internet dork spouting his lame opinions (i.e., constitutionally protected free speech), but that there has not been even any basic showing that those statements were arguably untrue.  A very easy decision for a judge to blow out this case as to Doogle and award attorney fees. 

The quality of this response is a real disappointment because I believe there are facts that could be alleged that might uphold the business tort counts.  Whether Okpala could prove them would be another story.  For example, although Doogle was not a formal member of “The Gang” boys club at DD he made 2,132 posts there and another 9,999 at DI, which suggests he just might be a significant player in their sick game.  The volume of his posts is easy enough to prove, but no effort to do so or even a mention of it by Okpala. 

This illustrates the Catch 22 that underfinanced parties often face in the legal system.  A real lawyer probably could cook up something that would pass muster, but a real lawyer isn’t going to take a case like this without a substantial retainer because there is lots of work and likely no real pay day.
Reply
#44
To a point I agree that freedom of speech is important. To say that a school is a piece of crap is fine with me, BUT, if it is done with the intent to damage or cause harm, and, it sometimes is. I would like to see some limit. Let's face it, it's really an attack, not opinion. I have to admit that I no longer keep up with the Douglas-Bear crapping show, but I do see/hear about some of it. As long as some people still listen and give value to their words, they must be held to account for them.

Proving that they once said this and now say that, well, it's enough for me.
Reply
#45
(03-20-2015, 06:08 AM)jhc7 Wrote: ...Let's face it, it's really an attack, not opinion.

Absolutely correct.  It's a shame the complaint wasn't written so that was clear.  Opinions are constitutionally protected free speech, but commercial disparagement is not.

In a way Doogle was smart by getting out in front of Tailpipe Chip and Gangster Gus in this litigation.  He can portray himself as just an isolated, opinionated jerk commenting rudely and/or ignorantly on public issues, but not otherwise a participant in any of the infamous and sordid activities for which the others may be known, such as gay boy porn or crank calling people's wives.

I always wondered why Doogle wasn't an official member of Goose's "Our Gang" Stalker Club.  Was it because Doogle was too much of an asshole even for them and so wasn't invited, or he was invited but they were too assholish even by his minimal standards?  I noticed George Brown had the good sense to drop out once it became clear to him what sort of clown crew he was mixed up in. 
Reply
#46
Quote: I always wondered why Doogle wasn't an official member of Goose's "Our Gang" Stalker Club.  Was it because Doogle was too much of an asshole even for them and so wasn't invited, or he was invited but they were too assholish even by his minimal standards?  I noticed George Brown had the good sense to drop out once it became clear to him what sort of clown crew he was mixed up in. 

I got news for you.
Much as many people on here were unjustly bullied and slandered at boyfunk degree dot com, so the clones themselves do not go along that well if we take away running vicious campaigns to slander an outsider.
Come on... "doctor" this and "professor" that hobnobbing with tailpipe Chip who films queer teen fairies cramming the entire basement up their exhaust?
Janko? He was probably "knowing" (in the biblical sense) altar boys while posting trash online: can you take THAT seriously?
Oh yes...they lavish compliments upon one another...and as they log off murmur:"what a jerk"; "what a L.I.A.R"; "this pervert makes me sick to my stomach...oh! Hi Chip! Howdy pal? Yes, I'll send you five hundred forms to push for free anal beads and coffee enemas under medicare".
It's like having seven bakers on one street corner...professional fellowship on one end; but on the other, each wishes the other six would die hit by a truck so that he might have all the business for himself.
A.A Mole University
B.A London Institute of Applied Research
B.Sc Millard Fillmore
M.A International Institute for Advanced Studies
Ph.D London Institute of Applied Research
Ph.D Millard Fillmore
Reply
#47
(03-25-2015, 03:52 PM)ham Wrote: Oh yes...they lavish compliments upon one another...and as they log off murmur:"what a jerk"; "what a L.I.A.R"; "this pervert makes me sick to my stomach...oh! Hi Chip! Howdy pal? ...

True, no honor among thieves, but there is safety in numbers.  The kind of sociopaths Klempner appeals to are happy to join in mob action from the safety of their keyboard burrow.  It’s only when it starts blowing up in their faces that they abruptly want freedom and justice for all.  Suddenly Douglas discovers he has God-given rights, even though he doesn’t believe in God.

Oh, hi Chip!
Reply
#48
(03-20-2015, 06:25 PM)Harrison J Bounel Wrote:
(03-20-2015, 06:08 AM)jhc7 Wrote: ...Let's face it, it's really an attack, not opinion.

Absolutely correct.  It's a shame the complaint wasn't written so that was clear.  Opinions are constitutionally protected free speech, but commercial disparagement is not.

In a way Doogle was smart by getting out in front of Tailpipe Chip and Gangster Gus in this litigation.  He can portray himself as just an isolated, opinionated jerk commenting rudely and/or ignorantly on public issues, but not otherwise a participant in any of the infamous and sordid activities for which the others may be known, such as gay boy porn or crank calling people's wives.

I always wondered why Doogle wasn't an official member of Goose's "Our Gang" Stalker Club.  Was it because Doogle was too much of an asshole even for them and so wasn't invited, or he was invited but they were too assholish even by his minimal standards?  I noticed George Brown had the good sense to drop out once it became clear to him what sort of clown crew he was mixed up in. 



I like that, Opinionated Jerk, and so true. I suspect Rich would see himself as that. I think Rich had a lot of history with the unaccredited schools /John Bear. He made his change to "they are bad" when John jumped the tracks and did his- Unaccredited is bad-accredited is good, and, oh by the way "I just happen to represent an accredited school--- please send checks" Big Grin

These people change their minds as often as the weather changes. The reason for it is, of course, the debate point. I maintain that they change for money and for the audience. Old John has to have his crowd, no matter how small, of suck-ups. If he can arrange it so money is involved, all the better.
Reply
#49
jhc7:  He made his change to "they are bad" when John jumped the tracks and did his- Unaccredited is bad-accredited is good, and, oh by the way "I just happen to represent an accredited school--- please send checks" 

John: Since 1974, my 'mantra' has been, "Make sure any given degree will meet your current, and your predictable future needs." For many people in many situations, that is, and has been, an unaccredited school. A few years ago, I had the pleasure of testifying as an expert witness in California Superior Court on behalf of a person whose unaccredited degree had been challenged. The school was one I never had any connection with. The defendant prevailed. My total fee was a modest lunch at the diner near the courthouse.'
Reply
#50
(03-28-2015, 08:50 AM)JohnBear Wrote: jhc7:  He made his change to "they are bad" when John jumped the tracks and did his- Unaccredited is bad-accredited is good, and, oh by the way "I just happen to represent an accredited school--- please send checks" 

John: Since 1974, my 'mantra' has been, "Make sure any given degree will meet your current, and your predictable future needs." For many people in many situations, that is, and has been, an unaccredited school. A few years ago, I had the pleasure of testifying as an expert witness in California Superior Court on behalf of a person whose unaccredited degree had been challenged. The school was one I never had any connection with. The defendant prevailed. My total fee was a modest lunch at the diner near the courthouse.'



Hmmm, John, I just don't seem to remember you saying any of this, "If it meets your needs," stuff, in about 10-15 years. It seems to me that your fondness for unaccredited schools ran out when you left Greenwich. Just about when you shifted your money interests to accredited.

Now if you had gone on some of these talk shows and mentioned the fact that you had, at one time, called Kennedy Western a good school, thereby causing some unknown number of people to contact and use such a school, and others, of the type, perhaps we could cut you some slack, but you didn't tell the whole story, did you? You let the unknowing believe you were an accredited virgin, but, in reality you are a well used money whore who would sell anything to anyone, just so the check doesn't bounce. I still have many of your books and sales literature, kindly sent to me by some of your past loyal readers, who you screwed over for money.

Remember giving the interview saying,"All unaccredited schools are bad or worse, "Degree Mills?" Why didn't you tell the reporter that you had books out there saying many of them were good? Poor memory? or just being a slime ball for the time in the press? You always were willing to say or do it all, just keep the camera running. Too bad, John. You once seemed to be sincere in providing useful information to adults seeking degrees that were legal and somewhat useful. BUT, you just wanted some level of fame and the money.

You called Columbia Pacific one of the best and just a few years later dammned one of the graduates as having taken the easy way and his degree being suspect. John, John, you are a bad actor, aren't you? How many did you lead to the doors of the unaccredited schools only to kick sand in their face for listening to your advice?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)