Simon Loyalists Say E-Mail Dirty Trick Backfired

Los Angeles Times ^ | 7/14/03 | Patt Morrison

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

you'll see it's in direct response to your comments about Simon

Hello? Anybody there? You post 2 pages of unrelated rantings about how bad Simon is, I have assured you on at least two seperate posts that I am not wanting him to run again (and this is techically a 3rd statement of that) yet you continue to tell me about how you and other posters don't want him to run.

I never said he should, I said you are buying into liberal spin to think of him as such a loser.

You still are.

and you probably will after I post this.

Hell you'll probably tell me yet again about how terrible Simon would be in running in the recall.

That

is

ad hominem

argueing...Bye!

[research99]

But, where's a reference, to back up your claim that Simon had to go to court to counter baseless "Enron-type" charges made by "Davis minions" about him? (Those court cases were already in the works, and Simon did all Republicans a disservice by not disclosing their existence in advance of running; even the White House -- which donated millions of dollars from contributions from Bush visits -- complained about that!)

I've read the Simon case file; have you? If you read it, you might see for yourself that Simon's actions don't equate with his words. Information on reading that case file is located in this thread, and I suggest you follow up on it.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

A reference... because we are blowing off that whole "you need to hear that Simon shouldn't run" tangent of your's? That's because you weren't wrong to ad hominem attack me obviously.

Is this Deja Vu all over again. You mentioned your claims about how great you are at reading court cases. I said the timing of the case closing during the election, (even though he wasn't even convicted), was beyond suspect.

I have not read whatever you are talking about. Perhaps if you would stop bragging about what you claim to have read twice, you would find the time to cite some website where you can demonstrate, or reference if you prefer, where "Simon's actions don't equate with his words."

Beyond that, stop wasting my time with your tangents. I mean settle down and think about what I actually SAID about Simon, look at my tagline for crying out loud, research99 are you this lazy or just that careless?

[research99]

RE: "Perhaps if you would stop bragging about what you claim to have read twice, you would find the time to cite some website where you can demonstrate, or (2) reference if you prefer, where (1) "Simon's actions don't equate with his words."

To my knowledge, the information is not on any website, although it was (generally) referred to by news accounts at the time. But I'll say it again, to make it clear:

(1) The information that proves Simon's actions don't measure up to his words
IS IN THE VOLUME 6 OF THE CASE FILES OF THE LAWSUIT.

(2) THE LAWSUIT REFERENCE IS IN A PRIOR POST IN THIS FR THREAD.

Any questions??

[research99]

RE: "I said the timing of the case closing during the election, (even though he wasn't even convicted), was beyond suspect."

I'll say it again:

THIS CASE WAS FILED LONG BEFORE SIMON FILED HIS CANDIDACY FOR GOVERNOR.

So there goes your "Davis Minions" theory -- the trial was scheduled BEFORE Simon won the March primary.

IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBTS, GO READ THE CASE FILE FOR YOURSELF.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

To my knowledge, the information is not on any website

Yeah, that's what I thought you'd say. You're really clinging onto this mythical case filing before the campaign proving that Davis wasn't involved with its spin. As if that relates to your mindless lecturing on why I thought Simon should run in the recall.

You're clinging, with your bold face type and your all caps, and your repeititiveness-cuz you got nothin' else. You're sad.

[research99]

FYI: Courthouse records don't post themselves on websites; That what individuals sometimes do. If you had prior experience at doing research, you would know that. I encourage everyone to do their own research, rathern than rely on the lies of the media and the biased opinions of others.

The court case itself is not "mythical" but is real, and it was the subject of front-page headlines throughout California in late July and early August 2002.

I refer you back to the specific information found in post #115 in this thread, where it says:

"If you read the actual case (Los Angeles Superior Court #BC242432 available in the "Records Room" on the 1st Floor of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse at 111 Hill Street in Downtown Los Angeles during working hours; phone 213-974-5181, @830am-4pm) you'll see that Simon's words don't measure up to his actions."

What part of that statement, are you unable to understand?

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

What part of the statement are you not understand that you ignoring that you were INSANE to rant on me about how Simon shouldn't run leaves you without a slightest shread of crediability.

Now you are trying to lecture me on researching, since you obviously take too large of pride in that area as well given your handle. Let me tell you something, I have a life, and I'm not going to waste it running downtown to read something that MIGHT be there, which incendentally you can't simply quote a single descrepancy of Simon's testamony to me beforehand--when you are a poster without any honor to simply say "I was wrong" about your ad hominem lecturing.

Stop wasting my time, prideful one.

[research99]

RE: "which incendentally you can't simply quote a single descrepancy of Simon's testamony to me beforehand..."

The discrepancy is between the timeline of Simon's actions in the case, and what Simon has said publicly about the case.

Simon claimed that the Plaintiff Edward Hindelang lied to him about his background -- but the case file reveals that Hindelang was never asked about his background. Instead, it was Simon's firm which did a $23+ million deal (with a convicted 'drug lord') BEFORE ordering a background check on him. The timeline of the order of the background check with Scherzer & Co. of Woodland Hills is in Volume 6 of the case file. And it was on this point, that Hindelang won both jury votes against Simon, 12-0 and 11-1.

Simon's hypocracy is further demonstrated in his book. Simon states that you should always perform a background check of the people you go into business with, yet he didn't do that himself, and didn't explain his mistake, and publicly has claimed he was wronged. In my opinion, his character is demonstrably poor, and as such he isn't fit to be Governor of California.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Simon claimed that the Plaintiff Edward Hindelang lied to him about his background -- but the case file reveals that Hindelang was never asked about his background. Instead, it was Simon's firm which did a $23+ million deal (with a convicted 'drug lord') BEFORE ordering a background check on him. The timeline of the order of the background check with Scherzer & Co. of Woodland Hills is in Volume 6 of the case file. And it was on this point, that Hindelang won both jury votes against Simon, 12-0 and 11-1.

Thank you for spelling that out. Yes, it does seem that Simon is lying, and we certainly don't need his baggage involved with this in anyway. I thought he was just railroaded by the liberl Republicans in Sacramento like Parsky, but this shows a better reason for not rallying behind him. He needs to stay far away from the recall.

One suggestion, rather than repost what other posters say about him, (not all of which where based in anything other than personal opinion); Repost this paragraph. This is the first I had heard of it and it makes a better case against Simon than anything else I've read.

Keep up the researching.

[CyberAnt]

"a Simon candidacy in the recall would be bumbling like it was"

How do you know that ..?? Do you know who Simon's campaign manager is ..??

[RonDog]

See also MY new thread:

Why Bill Simon should do the RIGHT thing, and endorse Darrell Issa:
CA GOP's "shock and awe" option
An Open Letter to Bill Simon (continued...) ^ | July 22, 2003 | RonDog
Posted on 07/22/2003 9:58 PM PDT by RonDog

.

"The needs of the Many outweigh the needs of the Few - or the One" - Spock (from "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan")

. . . . Dear Bill,

. . . . Tomorrow you will face the most important decision in your political life: to run, or NOT to run in the recall election to replace Gray Davis.

. . . . Please do NOT run.

. . . . In fact, I contend that your duty to your Party and your duty to your State demand MUCH STRONGER action from you. I sincerely believe that you need to act BOLDLY (amazing your friends, and confounding your enemies) by endorsing Darrell Issa for Governor of California - NOW, before the recall election even begins...

CLICK HERE for the rest of that thread