Questions about the Arizona Suits

[Thunder Hag]

Your assuming that once someone comes across your smeared name that they continue to research. We all know this isn't true because if it were then there would be no gossip. No one checks facts before repeating there findings. I am sure we all wish that people were like that, but reality is that they aren't.

 

[rumbolt]

Your assuming that once someone comes across your smeared name that they continue to research. We all know this isn't true because if it were then there would be no gossip. No one checks facts before repeating there findings. I am sure we all wish that people were like that, but reality is that they aren't.

Gossip is just that, and people (that matter) that know of or know a person will know the real truth. How is a name smeared when in a legal naming and the case is later dismissed? Intellegent people will understand the nature of lawsuits and be fine with the person being dropped. Now on the otherhand there are people that still think we faked the moon landings and JFKs head is being kept alive in a lab somewhere. Everything has opposing point of views. We all make our choices. Say what you want about me but you have better have the facts to back it up, is what I say.

 

[rumbolt]

You've missed the point: They should have never been bothered at all, much less have a bunch of false accusations broadcast by the media. (no one cares about retractions, they're just not as fun.)

Dunno, I wasn't there to see what the investigator saw or didn't see and whatever it was, it was enought for SC to file suit (wrong, right or otherwise). The case was brought to the attention of the public by the press as allowed under the protection of the US Constitution. The press did it's job and I applaud them! The case was dropped and the press disclosed that information and I applaud them. How/why people form an opinion after that is their own reason. McLeod's was accused of piracy and then cleared. I am aquainted with the kj that was named and he is OK in my book but when the case was first announced I formed a differant and negative opinion. But now I know the truth!

 

[c. staley]

But they were cleared and to date, hasn't affected the kj, he is still working in same location but under a new venue name and owner. He has moved on. But.... I am still mad at the kid (when I was in the third grade) that turned me in for breaking a window that he actually did and was he punished for it. I was cleared and to date it hasn't affected my life. People move on, and if people are intellegent enough to check the facts about an issue will see that he was cleared and he wasn't in the wrong. His reputation is still intact and I have never heard anything negitive said about him once the case was dropped. Ask Athena if the google search is harming her or her business or does she feel tainted.

I understand that you'd like to say that this is all over and done with, however in real life - like it or not - a false accusation never goes away. Mayor Marion Barry of Washington D.C. is not remembered for serving his time in jail, he is remembered as being the "coke-smokin' mayor of D.C."

But weren't you the one that called the media the first place?

 

[rumbolt]

I understand that you'd like to say that this is all over and done with, however in real life - like it or not - a false accusation never goes away. Mayor Marion Barry of Washington D.C. is not remembered for serving his time in jail, he is remembered as being the "coke-smokin' mayor of D.C."

But weren't you the one that called the media the first place?

Didn't ex-mayor get caught on video? And Bill Clinton was a womonizer and Richard Nixon was nothing more than a liar and oh yea what about OJ............shall I continue? People always remember people and things they way they choose and we will never change their opinions.
And Al Capone was not a Thug, just a tax evader.

I did call the media after I saw the suit posted on line. It was already out in the public, so don't try to make me out ot be a bad guy. I felt it was in the best intrest of the local karaoke community. The bar knew in advance before the suit went public and had every opportunity to make thing right before the press released the story since almost 5 weeks passed from the time of the the suit filing to the time that story broke on TV unlike the current suit here in TN by CB that was picked up be TV even before some of the people and places named have even been notified. I am hearing rumors now in this market but will not spread those rumors until I can verify as fact.

 

[c. staley]

Didn't ex-mayor get caught on video? And Bill Clinton was a womonizer and Richard Nixon was nothing more than a liar and oh yea what about OJ............shall I continue? People always remember people and things they way they choose and we will never change their opinions.
And Al Capone was not a Thug, just a tax evader.

And my point exactly above, no one will remember the retraction, but they will remember the accusation(s).

I did call the media after I saw the suit posted on line. It was already out in the public, so don't try to make me out ot be a bad guy. I felt it was in the best intrest of the local karaoke community. The bar knew in advance before the suit went public and had every opportunity to make thing right before the press released the story since almost 5 weeks passed from the time of the the suit filing to the time that story broke on TV unlike the current suit here in TN by CB that was picked up be TV even before some of the people and places named have even been notified. I am hearing rumors now in this market but will not spread those rumors until I can verify as fact.

"The bar knew in advance before the suit went public and had every opportunity to make thing right before the press released the story "

You're kidding right? No one is out to make you a "bad guy." The bar or the KJ had NO "obligation" to make anything right... since they weren't doing anything wrong in the first place and you are fully aware of that. Why are you so quick to defend SC's witch hunt in this case? The KJ was legal, the bar was legal and SC screwed up big time....

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Ask Athena if the google search is harming her or her business or does she feel tainted.

Athena?

 

[KjAthena]

Athena?

ok...here goes yes in a way I do feel a bit tainted. My business name will always be listed even after I was cleared and shown to be 1-1 that can not be changed. Has being listed harmed our business ? No We do have the tools to show venues we are legit so even when others bring up the filing we are able to negate the info. When we were listed we had a choice to make...we could attack SC for their error or look at the bigger picture behind their actions and accept that they are humans who make mistakes from time to time. Since we saw there actions were intended to improve the industry we choose the later.
Sometimes in life you have to look at the greater good...even when it may make things personally a little more difficult. It appears that SC has changed methodology to help prevent future mistakes

 

[Diafel]

ok...here goes yes in a way I do feel a bit tainted. My business name will always be listed even after I was cleared and shown to be 1-1 that can not be changed. Has being listed harmed our business ? No We do have the tools to show venues we are legit so even when others bring up the filing we are able to negate the info.

But here's where I can see a problem. What about the venues that just shut you down right off the top without bothering to ask about it and just tell you "no", but don't give you a reason? Or the ones that are surfing the internet to find someone to hire, but they skim over you because of that suit. You will never know about it, either. THOSE are the ones I would be concerned about with having my name tainted by a lawsuit. Not everyone bothers to dig deeper, and in fact, most don't, especially when there are literally tons of choices out there. Much easier to hire an outfit that hasn't been named in a suit, whether they're legit or not.
Not saying it's right, but I do believe that that is how it is.
As an example, although we are comparing apples to oranges here, what about a man who is wrongfully accused of child molestation but is later TOTALLY exonerated of ALL charges?
Most people would forever remember that he was accused, and even if he was found innocent, their reasoning would be to take the stance of not taking a chance with their kid. After all, there must have been SOMETHING that led to the charges initially, right?
THAT, unfortunately, is how most people think.
I know, because I've seen it happen on more than one occasion.

 

[rumbolt]

And my point exactly above, no one will remember the retraction, but they will remember the accusation(s).



"The bar knew in advance before the suit went public and had every opportunity to make thing right before the press released the story "

You're kidding right? No one is out to make you a "bad guy." The bar or the KJ had NO "obligation" to make anything right... since they weren't doing anything wrong in the first place and you are fully aware of that. Why are you so quick to defend SC's witch hunt in this case? The KJ was legal, the bar was legal and SC screwed up big time....

My point was that if the bar had a problem with the filing, then they would have had plenty of time before it was made public to do what they needed to do for damage control regardless of how the or why the suit was filed. I wasn't defending SC in the prior post since I never saw the evidence that was presented to them. Wrong, right or otherwise.

 

[Big Joe]

My point was that if the bar had a problem with the filing, then they would have had plenty of time before it was made public to do what they needed to do for damage control regardless of how the or why the suit was filed. I wasn't defending SC in the prior post since I never saw the evidence that was presented to them. Wrong, right or otherwise.

I'm gonna assume that you are 100% legit and operate your business totally above board. How many frivolous lawsuits filed against you would it take until you had a "PROBLEM" with them? 1? 2??? Several???

How much extra time per week do you currently have allotted for needless damage control?

 

[rumbolt]

I'm gonna assume that you are 100% legit and operate your business totally above board. How many frivolous lawsuits filed against you would it take until you had a "PROBLEM" with them? 1? 2??? Several???

How much extra time per week do you currently have allotted for needless damage control?

I work 100% above board and all my competitors and the manus know it. I have always worked out in the open. That is how I was brought up and will continue. Oh wait, I did break the speed limit this afternoon rushing home to watch the superbowl, so there is a chink in my armor. Darn, I am not perfect afterall.
I have watched this industry slowly drop it's standards morals. I don't expect any lawsuits against me anytime soon. That is what business insurance is for, of which I carry.

My reputation is not in question so I don't spend anytime on damage control. If somthing were to arise then it would get handled in the way I feel would be approprate.

 

[Big Joe]

I work 100% above board and all my competitors and the manus know it. I have always worked out in the open. That is how I was brought up and will continue. Oh wait, I did break the speed limit this afternoon rushing home to watch the superbowl, so there is a chink in my armor. Darn, I am not perfect afterall.
I have watched this industry slowly drop it's standards morals. I don't expect any lawsuits against me anytime soon. That is what business insurance is for, of which I carry.

My reputation is not in question so I don't spend anytime on damage control. If somthing were to arise then it would get handled in the way I feel would be approprate.

Nice commentary, but I'll try one more time for an answer.

How many frivolous lawsuits filed against you would it take until you had a "PROBLEM" with them? 1? 2??? Several???

 

[rumbolt]

Nice commentary, but I'll try one more time for an answer.

How many frivolous lawsuits filed against you would it take until you had a "PROBLEM" with them? 1? 2??? Several???

Can't answer a question that I cannot relate to. Not a relevent question to me. If it happens, then I will answer but don't hold your breath.

 

[Big Joe]

Can't answer a question that I cannot relate to. Not a relevent question to me. If it happens, then I will answer but don't hold your breath.

OK. Fair enough.

My point was that if the bar had a problem with the filing, then they would have had plenty of time before it was made public to do what they needed to do for damage control regardless of how the or why the suit was filed. I wasn't defending SC in the prior post since I never saw the evidence that was presented to them. Wrong, right or otherwise.

It seems that you have no problem relating it in the above situation....interesting.

 

[rumbolt]

OK. Fair enough.




It seems that you have no problem relating it in the above situation....interesting.

and your point to all this is?............................

 

[Big Joe]

and your point to all this is?............................

Businesses and business owners are being put in the position to defend themselves against baseless allegations.

 

[c. staley]

I work 100% above board and all my competitors and the manus know it. I have always worked out in the open.

So did the KJ at McLeod's.... and so did McLeod's.... So what was the reason for the lawsuit and the resulting media schmear again?

I don't expect any lawsuits against me anytime soon. That is what business insurance is for, of which I carry.

I'm sure that the KJ or McLeod's weren't expecting any lawsuits either.

My reputation is not in question so I don't spend anytime on damage control. If something were to arise then it would get handled in the way I feel would be approprate.

And their reputation was but you insist that they should have done what? They were ALREADY perfectly, 100% LEGAL. You keep insisting that they should stop everything they do to answer a frivolous lawsuit like this? Their way of "handling it" was to do what they felt was appropriate as well. Sorry it didn't agree with your course of action but the point is, they still had no obligation to do anything.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Gossip is just that, and people (that matter) that know of or know a person will know the real truth. How is a name smeared when in a legal naming and the case is later dismissed? Intellegent people will understand the nature of lawsuits and be fine with the person being dropped. Now on the otherhand there are people that still think we faked the moon landings and JFKs head is being kept alive in a lab somewhere. Everything has opposing point of views. We all make our choices. Say what you want about me but you have better have the facts to back it up, is what I say.

Skipping the point. Those names, no matter what, still show up as tainted on the internet, will always be so, and through no fault of those mentioned, but only because someone wanted to make money, yet would not do the proper investigation to find the RIGHT people to get it from-pirates.

Has SC issued a written apology, or maybe offered a reverse settlement of discs and, say 6K to make amends? Nope, they just conintue to do the same thing as long as they are allowed to get away with it. My personal opinion is that a Class Action Suit is probably in the works as we post, and not just for internet taint. Again, IMHO of course....

 

[JoeChartreuse]

But here's where I can see a problem. What about the venues that just shut you down right off the top without bothering to ask about it and just tell you "no", but don't give you a reason? Or the ones that are surfing the internet to find someone to hire, but they skim over you because of that suit. You will never know about it, either. THOSE are the ones I would be concerned about with having my name tainted by a lawsuit. Not everyone bothers to dig deeper, and in fact, most don't, especially when there are literally tons of choices out there. Much easier to hire an outfit that hasn't been named in a suit, whether they're legit or not.
Not saying it's right, but I do believe that that is how it is.
As an example, although we are comparing apples to oranges here, what about a man who is wrongfully accused of child molestation but is later TOTALLY exonerated of ALL charges?
Most people would forever remember that he was accused, and even if he was found innocent, their reasoning would be to take the stance of not taking a chance with their kid. After all, there must have been SOMETHING that led to the charges initially, right?
THAT, unfortunately, is how most people think.
I know, because I've seen it happen on more than one occasion.

Nailed it, Diafel. One won't know for sure if it hurts the business or not. That too is taken into account in court.