Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

$1,000,000 Million Judgement against Jim/FR LLC - What does it mean?
12-02-01 | Bob J

Posted on 12/02/2001 10:09:56 PM PST by Bob J

Nothing...thats what it means.

The afholes have been trying to scare FReepers with this little bit information. Here is my opinion on the subject.

As you all know, the Washington Post and LA Times sued FR LLC and Jim to stop it from posting full text articles. The basis of FR's attorneys defense rested on the fair use clause. Unfortunately, Jim drew probably the worst judge he could...Margaret Morrow, a Clinton nominee, whose appointment was held up for a long time by Republicans due to here obvious left wing opinions.

The plaintiffs attorneys filed a pre trial motion to squelch the fair use defense and Judge Morrow ruled affirmatively. That basically took all the guts out of the Jim's defense. At that point, Jim's most prudent course of action was to stipulate to a decision against him. That way the case could get into the appeal with the least cost. This may have actually worked for the best since if Jim won, the WP was certainly going to appeal. It would also follow that whoever lost the appeal would then appeal to the SC. It has been estimated going directly to appeal may have saved Jim and FR 200-300k. Now, it may only cost 20-30k to get all the way to the Supremes.

Once Jim stipulated, they were allowed to ask for a dollar judgement. When Jim found out it was 1 million, he said "Why not make it 500 million. Hell, make it a billion!" The fact is Jim nor FR LLC have any money. What is raised during the quarterly FReepathons is used during the next 3 months for expenses. The LAT and WP know this. I doubt if they expect to ever see a dime of it. The judgement allows them to put a nice round number on their balance sheet to offset the obvious huge expenses this case is chewing up on their P&L's. Can you imagine the public relations nightmare for a multi billion dollar corporation to going after a disabled vet for a million bucks he doesn't have? How about a billion...heheh.

Obviously, some donations go to legal expenses, as in any business, but Jim is trying to minimize the cost. So, when an afhole throws that million dollar judgement in your face, as if you are or they expect you to pay for it, say what Jim said, "Thank you sir, make it a billion, please!"

Ha! What loosers...


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Announcements
KEYWORDS: faq
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 321-338 next last
To: Grampa Dave
Can you verify or clarify what's possibly going on with an error I get when I try to make a donation via credit card?

I tried it twice and got an error both times.(?)

Slight(ly Confused)OfTongue

141 posted on 12/04/2001 9:17:02 AM PST by SlightOfTongue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SlightOfTongue
Send a freepmail to BadJoe. With some of us there is a glitch. More than likely you have been credited/debited for a donation each time. The system is not notifying you.

So don't try anymore to pledge. Contact BadJoe, and he will clear up the mystery. Also, since we are conservatives, we will only charge your credit card once instead of several times!

Thanks and I'm sorry that you hit this glitch. Thanks for bringing it to my/our attention!

142 posted on 12/04/2001 9:24:13 AM PST by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: BRL
In order for an entity to be commercial it has to sell a product or a service. If FR required a membership fee, that would be commercial...if FR sold advertising space, it would be commercial. Donations are donations...they are essentially gifts no matter how much money we are talking about.
143 posted on 12/04/2001 10:48:05 AM PST by francisandbeans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: BRL
"The constitution was written. At some point in time the congress passed a law that clarified the constitution regarding fair use of copyrights. This congressional intervention erred on the side of free speech, not on the side of copyright protection. This congressional intervention is the very basis on which you have argued against copyright protection. Now you blame congressional intervention for all our woes?"

The only way the Congress can ever err on the subject of free speech is by abridging it. You cannot make it any more free the founders intended. The command: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to free speech" is self-evident, does not require interpretation, and should not be all that hard to comprehend. It means exactly what it says, plain and simple. Either the people have the right to completely free and uninhibited speech or they don't. The Constitution is forbidden the power to abridge that right, but they abridged it anyway. Why? What gives the Congress the power to abridge our guaranteed freedom?

Some people say your free speech rights are rightfully abridged by arguing that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. That is nonsense. You have the right to yell fire or anything else you please. You may be thrown out by an usher, or hauled off by a cop for creating a disturbance or causing a riot, or even get the crap beat out of you by a pissed off crowd, but you had the right to say it.

Same goes for libel or slander. You have the right to say or publish anything you want. If someone else claims that what you said or published damaged him in some way, and can prove it in court, then you may have to compensate him for his damages. But you had the right to say what ever is on your mind. God gave you that right and the Founders guaranteed that government can never take it from you.

In regards to copyright, sure the authors have a right to exclusive ownership of their works. You cannot publish books authored and copyrighted by others without permission. That's obvious to all, but we are not talking about books and we are not talking about publishing. We are talking about news accounts of crime and corruption and government abuse and politics and or other news or events that are important to we the people and we are talking about using them as source material for discussion. We are not talking about entering into the newspaper or publishing business and competing with the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times or any other publisher. We are talking about posting news information on a bulletin board and talking about it.

I am just one man. I am not well educated. I am not rich enough to own a printing press or to publish newspapers. I cannot go to Washington to see what they are doing to me by witnessing congressional meetings first hand, and I cannot hire people to do it for me. That's totally impractical. I can and do purchase newspapers, but I find them very slanted and misleading.

I have a right to learn the truth about government and politics, especially since I know that they are screwing me every chance they get and the newspapers are lying about it. I want to know exactly what they are doing and what I can do about preventing them from continuing to abuse my rights, steal my money, and steal my freedom.

How do I do that? Well, I have put up a bulletin board. An electronic bulletin board. And I have a meeting forum. I hold townhall style meetings. I allow people to bring newspaper articles or other source materials into my townhall meeting room and post them to my bulletin board. Then I ask all participants in the meeting room to read them, study them, compare them, and comment upon them.

People who are much more knowledgeable on various topics than myself can study them and compare them to other postings on the bulletin board and or in the archives of the bulletin board and point out the lies or inconsistencies or reveal where fraud or abuse is taking place and inform the rest of us of the truth. We can all join together and discuss these items and through discussion perhaps agree on a course of action. When we find the truth about some crooked politician or some illegal government action, and we've decided on a course of action, we can assemble together and protest or petition the government to right the wrong.

This is exactly what the founders intended, and exactly how we should use news and government or political information and this is the people's right to free press, free speech, and peaceable assembly in action. This IS the first amendment!

What's worrisome to the traditional commercial news and media industry is that, due to advances in science and the useful arts brought about by just and proper application of patent and copyright laws, we have been given wondrous new tools and we can be more efficient about learning truth and we can spread it to a larger audience than ever before. This is what hurts the media conglomerates. They are not being damaged financially by our discussions here at all. We have become free of their monopoly hold over truth. They can no longer hide it or pass off trash as truth. We are exposing them and people are seeing it. We, and others like us, are destroying their credibility. Truth hurts!

So, yes, the Constitution works when properly interpreted and applied as intended. The authors and inventors have their property rights and they can realize benefit for their works and inventions, and we the people enjoy and exercise our unabridged right to free speech, and the only losers are those who seek to erode freedom and or advance their own corrupt version of truth.

Thank You God! And thank you Founders! You did your job well! Two centuries later and we are still a free people! But, just like you feared, the Congress has attempted to abridge or infringe or restrict or abuse many of our guaranteed freedoms. But you have give us the weapon of free speech to wield in the defense of liberty. After all, the pen is mightier than the sword and can prevent much bloodshed. However, we do remember your advice, that the tree of Liberty must be nurtured from time to time by the blood of patriots, so we hold in reserve the last defense you have allowed us. If the pen is ever taken from us, the sword will definitely be its replacement.

144 posted on 12/04/2001 11:47:46 AM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: BRL
A LOOK INTO THE ABYSS(press-media)

What Elian Tells Us About Ourselves

By Edward Zehr

"They have become, in the fullest sense of the term, Weimar Republicans."

Oh no, the reader thinks upon seeing the subtitle of this piece, not another article about Elian. But this series of articles is only incidentally about Elian -- it's really about us and what is happening to us. The Elian affair is like a mirror that reflects our hidden face, the one we never identify with ourselves because we always imagine that it belongs to somebody else.

For example, I get e-mail from people who have chanced to read one or more of these articles and drop me a cordial line or two just to let me know what a numbskull I am. After all, the way I tell the story is not the way they have heard it. If my version were correct it would mean that they have been grossly misinformed, and the implications of that are too terrible to contemplate.

It would mean that in order to be properly informed they would have to stop skating over the surface of issues such as these, letting the anchor people do all the heavy lifting, and start doing their own thinking. But thinking can be kind of like work. Besides, a lot of people just don't quite have the hang of it. The raw material required to do one's own thinking consists of facts gathered from a wide variety of sources, not just the one that happens to materialize when the TV set is switched on.

The "facts" presented by the mass media are typically folded into a smarmy batter of tendentious fiction calculated to elicit a response from the viewer that will be useful in advancing the hidden agenda which the presstitutes are paid to promote. The viewer, who does not comprehend that he or she is being manipulated responds emotionally, as though watching a soap opera or a TV series. After all, most people have a lot more experience responding emotionally to TV plots than they have at thinking critically and analytically. The script writer manipulates the emotions of the audience who respond in a predictable fashion. The viewers are being conditioned to react in a certain way. The leap from the semi-conscious emotional response evoked by TV "entertainment" to the conditioned response elicited by the politically motivated propaganda inserted into "news" presentations is a short one.

THE FACE IN THE MIRROR

The black-shirted, brown-shirted and red-banner-waving totalitarians of the twentieth century missed the point on a grand scale. All that rough stuff is really unnecessary in building a totalitarian state. In fact, if overdone, it tends to give the game away. Goebbels was the one who had it right, not Himmler. Concentration camps are a drain on the economy. That doesn't mean that you cannot turn the occasional group of...

145 posted on 12/04/2001 2:44:14 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
In the last 5-6 years, the 9th Circuit has actually done a fairly decent job. In one year prior to that, the 9th was reversed in 28 of 29 cases before the USSC. After a SC Justice made a public comment about that fact, they started to get their act together.
146 posted on 12/04/2001 2:52:00 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BRL
Pulling it all together, what we have right here in our own country are all of the ingredients necessary for a totalitarian police state. We have a federal government that nobody in his right mind would trust, which lies to us incessantly, uses illegal force against its citizens with impunity, and collaborates with totalitarian dictators under cover of a massive propaganda campaign conducted by our supposedly free press. Our major information media are dominated by closet totalitarians who pay lip service to democracy while covertly promoting the interests of communist despots. The political opposition is made up largely of cowards who are so intimidated by our totalitarian propaganda media they are unable to offer effective resistance to even the most egregious violations of civil liberties by the corrupt Clinton regime. They have become, in the fullest sense of the term, Weimar Republicans. And finally, we have that which makes it all possible, a listless, docile, dumbed-down public who gape mindlessly at all of the above phenomena without the slightest glimmer of comprehension, and prattle the latest propaganda cliches dumped into their empty heads by the mainstream media.

The Elian affair has truly given us a glimpse into the abyss of tyranny. The message that comes through loud and clear is that the system isn't working. The question that remains to be answered is whether we still possess the intelligence and fortitude necessary to fix it.

Edward Zehr can be reached at ezehr@capaccess.org

147 posted on 12/04/2001 2:52:13 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: WileyCoyote22
Texas Pine is far better than Jamaican or Thai! :-)
148 posted on 12/04/2001 2:58:52 PM PST by asneditor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Well she could have recused herself on a conflict of interest charge. Oh yeah, I forgot this is LA home of Hollywierd. Well, I say we keep doing what we have been doing in the name of free speech!
149 posted on 12/04/2001 3:16:41 PM PST by lexington minuteman 1775
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
They still have some wing nuts but I guess they got tired of being kicked to curb by the SC...heheh.
150 posted on 12/04/2001 3:23:33 PM PST by Bob J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
You guys are brave. Best freepin' luck and God's blessings. For victory & freedom!!!
151 posted on 12/04/2001 3:27:59 PM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BRL
"Furthermore, whether we like it or not, the case has been decided - WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF OUR COUNTRY'S CONSTITUTION. FR lost. It is in for apeal. FR may win there or may lose (I would have to say they will probably lose)."

Actually, the case has not been decided, it's not even been heard yet. Just because some rookie liberal activist judge, appointed by the most corrupt president this country has ever had the displeasure of suffering through, and who was directly supported by plaintiff's editorial staff by the way, violated my right to trial by jury by summarily dismissing our primary defense does not make it decided and does not make it constitutional. In fact, the lower court's action is a direct violation of my civil liberties. Who knows, I may yet get the ACLU involved in this thing.

We should have been allowed to present our case in front of a jury. Evidenced by the size of the amount of judgement, this was no nickle and dime case. And the potential precedent set could change the face of modern copyright law forever, not to mention its impact on free speech. It should have been tried. What the heck was the judge afraid of? Was she afraid of costing her friends and political supporters, the plaintiffs, more of their money? Was she afraid that her friends might actually lose? Or that we would be wasting her time? Is this enough to justify summarily dismissing our primary defense? Shouldn't the little guy have his shot at justice? Or is it money, power and influence that sets the judicial agenda? There is no excuse for not hearing this case, complete with our full defense.

Now, I realize that this (referring to trial by jury) is not the way it's done in modern streamlined legal proceedings, especially when you do not have money to hire a large and powerful law firm, but again that is one of the reasons why we are here on Free Republic in the first place. We are challenging these illegal kangaroo courts and unconstitutional rulings. Where and when was our right to trial before jury repealed? Should we be deprived of our Constitutional rights simply for the purposes of court expediency and convenience? I thought that that was one of the primary purposes of government, to defend our individual rights and freedoms.

Furthermore, it was long ago realized that this case is a major first amendment issue. Regardless of who won or lost at the lower court, the case would've been appealed by the other side. And whoever loses at the appeal will attempt to get it before the Supreme Court, you can count on that. It will not have been "decided" until that point. Now, if we don't get there and or if we lose entirely, that still does not make it "decided" or the decision constitutional. The Court will have simply been wrong again (IMHO). The constitutionality of the question will just be put on hold until some other poor dumb sucker decides to risk it all by challenging the system again. Perhaps he'll have better luck. But that's the only way to force these issues and, hopefully, sooner or later, the Court will rule correctly. The fact of the matter is, at this time, the Constitution is more or less ignored by the Congress and the Courts.

152 posted on 12/04/2001 3:32:45 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
All that rough stuff is really unnecessary in building a totalitarian state. In fact, if overdone, it tends to give the game away.

Agreedy. People tend to notice when they're being beaten, a real "wake up" call. And THIS wimpy generation, so sensitive that it would start crying "I want my Mommy" at the first crunch of the jackboot (is that the word I want?), needs a subtler approach.

You see it everywhere: erosion of principle.

153 posted on 12/04/2001 3:38:33 PM PST by alcuin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
You are so smart, boss. For victory & freedom!!!
154 posted on 12/04/2001 3:38:53 PM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
The only way the Congress can ever err on the subject of free speech is by abridging it. You cannot make it any more free the founders intended. The command: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to free speech" is self-evident, does not require interpretation, and should not be all that hard to comprehend. It means exactly what it says, plain and simple. Either the people have the right to completely free and uninhibited speech or they don't. The Constitution is forbidden the power to abridge that right, but they abridged it anyway. Why? What gives the Congress the power to abridge our guaranteed freedom?

Some people say your free speech rights are rightfully abridged by arguing that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. That is nonsense. You have the right to yell fire or anything else you please. You may be thrown out by an usher, or hauled off by a cop for creating a disturbance or causing a riot, or even get the crap beat out of you by a pissed off crowd, but you had the right to say it. Same goes for libel or slander. You have the right to say or publish anything you want. If someone else claims that what you said or published damaged him in some way, and can prove it in court, then you may have to compensate him for his damages. But you had the right to say what ever is on your mind. God gave you that right and the Founders guaranteed that government can never take it from you.

So what you are saying is that a person has the God-given right to say whatever they please, they just need to be prepared to pay the consequenses if it causes side problems like riots, slander or some other damage. What kind of right is this? You either have a right to say something without consequenses or you do not. People have had this right under the most repressive regimes in the world. You can say whatever you want, but there may be consequenses - hehe.

You are saying that that freedom of speech is absolute, but then hedge that if you cause damage through the use of that right then you can be punished. That is not a right then.

In regards to copyright, sure the authors have a right to exclusive ownership of their works. You cannot publish books authored and copyrighted by others without permission. That's obvious to all, but we are not talking about books and we are not talking about publishing. We are talking about news accounts of crime and corruption and government abuse and politics and or other news or events that are important to we the people and we are talking about using them as source material for discussion. We are not talking about entering into the newspaper or publishing business and competing with the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times or any other publisher. We are talking about posting news information on a bulletin board and talking about it.

Oddly enough, combating these papers by entering the publishing business is the very right that you actually have under the first amendment, as long as you do not use their copyrighted material to do it. I wish that posting copyrighted news stories was legal, I can even agree that your argument did have merit and was worthy of a court case. Both parties felt their rights were being denied and the judge made the call.

I am just one man. I am not well educated. I am not rich enough to own a printing press or to publish newspapers. I cannot go to Washington to see what they are doing to me by witnessing congressional meetings first hand, and I cannot hire people to do it for me. That's totally impractical. I can and do purchase newspapers, but I find them very slanted and misleading.

I agree that the media is biased to the left. However, blaming the media for our countries problems seems odd to me. These media outlets are using their first ammendment rights, and using them successfully to advance their political agenda. Is that not what these rights are about - advancing your own political agenda? These very same rights are available to you too , but because you are not able to compete with them you feel that you are due the right to take their property in order to level the playing field. This is kind of like affirmative action.

I have a right to learn the truth about government and politics, especially since I know that they are screwing me every chance they get and the newspapers are lying about it. I want to know exactly what they are doing and what I can do about preventing them from continuing to abuse my rights, steal my money, and steal my freedom. How do I do that? Well, I have put up a bulletin board. An electronic bulletin board. And I have a meeting forum. I hold townhall style meetings. I allow people to bring newspaper articles or other source materials into my townhall meeting room and post them to my bulletin board. Then I ask all participants in the meeting room to read them, study them, compare them, and comment upon them.

I like your bulletin board. You have done a great job. you have run into a legal obstacle. Deal with it. You can still follow the law and get most of what you want to accomplish done here . ( unless paying the 1 million dollars stops you dead).

People who are much more knowledgeable on various topics than myself can study them and compare them to other postings on the bulletin board and or in the archives of the bulletin board and point out the lies or inconsistencies or reveal where fraud or abuse is taking place and inform the rest of us of the truth. We can all join together and discuss these items and through discussion perhaps agree on a course of action. When we find the truth about some crooked politician or some illegal government action, and we've decided on a course of action, we can assemble together and protest or petition the government to right the wrong.

Bringing people together has been a great success that you have accomplished. There is no disputing that. You don't need to post copyrighted material to accomplish that though.

This is exactly what the founders intended, and exactly how we should use news and government or political information and this is the people's right to free press, free speech, and peaceable assembly in action. This IS the first amendment!

We do not reach the same conclusion here.

What's worrisome to the traditional commercial news and media industry is that, due to advances in science and the useful arts brought about by just and proper application of patent and copyright laws, we have been given wondrous new tools and we can be more efficient about learning truth and we can spread it to a larger audience than ever before. This is what hurts the media conglomerates. They are not being damaged financially by our discussions here at all. We have become free of their monopoly hold over truth. They can no longer hide it or pass off trash as truth. We are exposing them and people are seeing it. We, and others like us, are destroying their credibility. Truth hurts!

And you cannot accomplish anything here unless if you post the full text of a copyrighted article? It is all or nothing? You are saying that everything that you are doing here is completely dependent on posting copyrighted articles. I don't follow that. Every other aspect of this site is completely open to you to pursue in this country.

So, yes, the Constitution works when properly interpreted and applied as intended. The authors and inventors have their property rights and they can realize benefit for their works and inventions, and we the people enjoy and exercise our unabridged right to free speech, and the only losers are those who seek to erode freedom and or advance their own corrupt version of truth. Thank You God! And thank you Founders! You did your job well! Two centuries later and we are still a free people! But, just like you feared, the Congress has attempted to abridge or infringe or restrict or abuse many of our guaranteed freedoms. But you have give us the weapon of free speech to wield in the defense of liberty. After all, the pen is mightier than the sword and can prevent much bloodshed. However, we do remember your advice, that the tree of Liberty must be nurtured from time to time by the blood of patriots, so we hold in reserve the last defense you have allowed us. If the pen is ever taken from us, the sword will definitely be its replacement.

I am glad that you admit that we still are a free people. although this is a difficult admission for me to digest from you. You have spent this post saying how bad everything has become, and then conclude that we are indeed still free. If we are free - then where is the beef - for goodness sake ? I guess its just a whine - something we all like to do around here

155 posted on 12/04/2001 3:44:48 PM PST by BRL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

Comment #156 Removed by Moderator

To: AKA Elena
To answer your question, no, I do not think I am responsible for everything that anyone elses posts to a thread I may start. I did clarify what OPH wrote, check post #88, you may have missed it. I am not an attorney and am not qualified to make legal opinions. As far as JE, in a later post I asked for clarification of his remark because I still don't understand what hew meant. he didn't respond. Do you think I should understand the remark and who/what it was aimed at before launching? What I wrote was my own personal opinion and nothing else. How come you attacked me and not the perps? BTW - I got attacked on the 3000 post thread by an AFer who called me a drunk. I'm still waiting for you and clarity to come and defend me.

No one answered about "where's clarity" because that is personal business between him and Jim. If you want to know ask either of them. How can I answer that question? Whatever I say I'll bet a get nice note from some attorney threatening to sue me. I'll have to put it with the rest. Why don't YOU tell us why clarity is gone? Suggestion: Use extreme caution because I think you got about half the story and you wouldn't want to end up in court with a defamation suit as has been threatened against others.

BTW - My thread had nothing to do with clarity or his skill as an attorney. It was a response aimed at AF attempts to frighten and intimidate Forum participants. Be careful AE you are not being used as a tool to get people to make incriminating remarks to be used in future legal actions.

157 posted on 12/04/2001 3:52:16 PM PST by Bob J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: BRL
Here, why don't you use this, too.


158 posted on 12/04/2001 3:53:36 PM PST by Carolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Bob J

159 posted on 12/04/2001 3:54:55 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carolina
Nice picture! I don't get the point though.
160 posted on 12/04/2001 3:56:27 PM PST by BRL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 321-338 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson