Pubby Hate

[gpatt0n]

Pubby used to be more careful about allowing opinions on attorneys: http://paulding.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=121020&view=findpost&p=1525847

 

 

I understand the impulse to discuss an attorney if you feel you haven't been served appropriately or fairly. Trust me, I really do. If you decide you just HAVE to say something publicly, you should expect a response. I'm not sure anyone would be successfully sued for doing what WFAL did, but I would worry like hell if I ever needed to use the legal system in that county again. These old dudes are all very well acquainted.

 

CeeJay:

 

I don't care if he sees this thread.

 

Yes, I do suggest folks be careful discussion attorneys in private practice. You'll note that the post you cite was in 2007 and certainly Mr. Donovan was not an active candidate asking for us to hire him by giving him the most votes at that time.

 

So, as a general rule, I discourage openly discussing attorneys in private practice because, well they are a litigious sort and their cost of litigation on their own behalf, is near zero while your cost could be in the hundreds of dollars per hour. I discourage that kind of conversation because there are some that will sue at the drop of hat and libel suits are bad for my business.

 

However, the law is such - and the protections to the average citizen to discuss a candidate candidly increase dramatically when a person runs for public office. Their record is and ought to be available for public scrutiny including the opinions of their fellow citizens of their competence.

 

That is what upset me so much by Mr. Donovan's letter that sought to shut her up by threatening a lawsuit and punitive damages for libel.

 

I mean, what makes him so special that we can't discuss his qualifications openly and without fear of being sued when he is asking us for a job. That he tried to shut one of us up for discussing that is, in my mind, reason enough to not vote for him.

 

Why?

 

Because his act shows his disrespects the law as established by the US SUPREME COURT's Sullivan V. NYTimes decision which recognized the public's need for this kind of discussion and so expressly protected the public from exactly the kinds of bullcheese that Mr. Donovan and his letter represent.

 

pubby

 

PS: CeeJay, your suggestion that he may come after WFAL and I with both barrels is also instructive. I would ask, in light of that, if you believe in addition to being rude, disrespectful of the first amendment protections afforded by the Constitution, that you believe MR. Donovan is also vindictive at heart?

[Cabe]

CeeJay:

 

I don't care if he sees this thread.

 

Yes, I do suggest folks be careful discussion attorneys in private practice. You'll note that the post you cite was in 2007 and certainly Mr. Donovan was not an active candidate asking for us to hire him by giving him the most votes at that time.

 

So, as a general rule, I discourage openly discussing attorneys in private practice because, well they are a litigious sort and their cost of litigation on their own behalf, is near zero while your cost could be in the hundreds of dollars per hour. I discourage that kind of conversation because there are some that will sue at the drop of hat and libel suits are bad for my business.

 

However, the law is such - and the protections to the average citizen to discuss a candidate candidly increase dramatically when a person runs for public office. Their record is and ought to be available for public scrutiny including the opinions of their fellow citizens of their competence.

 

That is what upset me so much by Mr. Donovan's letter that sought to shut her up by threatening a lawsuit and punitive damages for libel.

 

I mean, what makes him so special that we can't discuss his qualifications openly and without fear of being sued when he is asking us for a job. That he tried to shut one of us up for discussing that is, in my mind, reason enough to not vote for him.

 

Why?

 

Because his act shows his disrespects the law as established by the US SUPREME COURT's Sullivan V. NYTimes decision which recognized the public's need for this kind of discussion and so expressly protected the public from exactly the kinds of bullcheese that Mr. Donovan and his letter represent.

 

pubby

 

Your inexperience in that arena is showing. They rarely represent themselves.

[hart408]

I just try not to mess publicly with attorneys. I know opinion is protected in chat room posts, but I worry what was posted could be considered actual knowledge, not just opinion, and may not be protected.

 

Many lawsuits against posters are stalled because of the anonymity of chat rooms, but Mr. Donovan knows exactly who WFAL is (and you, judging by his comment in the video).

 

I just don't poke the legal bear too much. (I still think Judge Beavers is an ass, but that's as far as I go. lol)

[gpatt0n]

The case law says retraction rule doesn't apply to Internet chat room postings:

 

Williamson v. Lucas 11 (by its plain language OCGA 51-5-11 meant to apply only to newspapers and other printed media). First, they contemplate actions between an aggrieved party and a newspaper, television station, or radio station. They do not appear to address actions between two individuals. Second, these statutes do not reach Internet media such as chat rooms. The statutes, to the contrary, address media which broadcast programs at specific times to specific audiences, whereby a retraction would likely be heard by the same audience hearing the original defamatory remarks. To the contrary, the audience in a chat room is in a constant state of flux, making the remedy envisioned by OCGA 51-5-12 inapplicable.

 

That 1982 decision has been superceded by the 2002 Ga Supreme Court Decision Mathis v Cannon which does provide protection against punitive damages if the person alleged to defame someone makes a retraction. Indeed, it applies the same protections to Internet chat rooms - in the case cited it was a yahoo chat room - as apply to newspapers.

 

pubby

[hart408]

 

PS: CeeJay, your suggestion that he may come after WFAL and I with both barrels is also instructive. I would ask, in light of that, if you believe in addition to being rude, disrespectful of the first amendment protections afforded by the Constitution, that you believe MR. Donovan is also vindictive at heart?

 

Unless he calls all big-boned people "wide load"...

 

I don't know if I would say vindictive, but he seems to have to desire to prosecute stuff.

 

Everybody has their personal "don't go there" issues. You can tease me about anything, but don't say I'm not a good parent or not good at my job. Everything else is fair game. He seems to be a bit sensitive about being accused of not doing his job. If he loses, he may end up with time on his hands. He has sent a warning. I don't know him, so I don't know if that was his legal first step or if he was just "I'll have my attorney send a letter"-ing.

 

What do you think? Is it posturing or a portent of things to come?

[gpatt0n]

Your inexperience in that arena is showing. They rarely represent themselves.

 

I understand that. I also note that there are exceptions and that the letter threatening suit by Mr. Donovan was from Mr. Donovan. Further, I'm sure if a case ever gets to trial, all attorneys would bring in someone to actually try the case. But in the initial stage - particularly when a suit is threatened and the main task is intimidation - bullying - most attorney's will act as their own agents.

 

Oh, and CeeJay ... truth has been a defense to libel in American common law since 1735 when a jury nullified the British law that defined seditious libel. It is an interesting read, particularly this quote from Zenger himself:

"No nation, ancient or modern, ever lost the liberty of speaking freely, writing, or publishing their sentiments, but forthwith lost their liberty in general and became slaves" stated Zenger.

 

pubby

[Cabe]

Well, for me, one thing that always sticks in my mind is how someone treats my children. I found Mr. Donovan quite charming in interactions with my children.

[hart408]

It sounds to me like you and WFAL are aware of what could possibly happen and are both willing to stay the course with this. Keep us posted.

 

I don't know if something like this would change my vote. I don't care if the DA is sweet-natured. In fact, maybe we need a dick for the job. lol.

[gpatt0n]

Unless he calls all big-boned people "wide load"...

 

I don't know if I would say vindictive, but he seems to have to desire to prosecute stuff.

 

Everybody has their personal "don't go there" issues. You can tease me about anything, but don't say I'm not a good parent or not good at my job. Everything else is fair game. He seems to be a bit sensitive about being accused of not doing his job. If he loses, he may end up with time on his hands. He has sent a warning. I don't know him, so I don't know if that was his legal first step or if he was just "I'll have my attorney send a letter"-ing.

 

What do you think? Is it posturing or a portent of things to come?

 

CeeJay:

 

I think the proper term is 'litigate' ... not prosecute. Donovan has never been a prosecutor. He bills himself as a criminal defense attorney.

 

If he had wanted to be a prosecutor, he could have hired on with any number of district attorney's offices at anytime since he held a license to practice law - some 32 years from his resume.

 

Instead he figures he can take a short cut to the top and just convince the public to put him in office by voting out a guy who does have fifteen years of prosecutorial experience.

 

So, when it is all said and done, here is this guy with no prosecutorial experience riding a negative ad he paid some high-priced consultant in Princeton New Jersey $12,750 to produce that comes up saying that the courtrooms are dark which is absurd. They wouldn't be dark because the local courts, with three judges, have enough civil cases on the docket alone to keep five judges busy not to mention the criminal cases.)

 

Now this guy is so 'sensitive' about his actual record as an attorney that he is compelled to threaten a single mother who believes he was not effective counsel in her child custody case with libel - bully her to shut her up when he knows he has no case and she is protected by the first amendment.

 

And if you look at his record you quickly realize that he has never worked closely with other attorneys in an office setting - there are five or six assistant DA's in the District Attorney's office - in his 30 years as a criminal defense attorney.

 

Bill Foster, when he was a DA, came from a law firm as did James Osborne. Drew was with a law firm first, had a single professional office and then worked in the DA's office with three or four other Assistant DA's in Polk County for nine-years before he was appointed Paulding's District Attorney. Most folks think he's put together a good staff and the staff's of the other previous DA's were pretty good too. Why? Well, these folks know how to hire and fire and work with other attorneys in a group setting.

 

Dick apparently has no similar experience. Don't know if that is because he is a loner with a big ego? What I do know is he just thinks we ought to make him boss of a big law firm - the people's law firm - because he and his $28,500 Marietta consultant says so.

 

Well, Dick, I don't know if you have the people skills to run a ten-fifteen person office. I mean working alone is great and I see you have a lot of experience doing that. But managing other people requires you have some people skills. Personally, I have a reason to question your people skills, you know. Bottom line, I don't know that Donovan would be an effective manager and leader. Running a single lawyer professional office isn't the kind of background I would look for to hire someone to do that.

 

This is an important decision for us, as voters, to make. It is not a popularity contest and it is not a beauty contest. We are supposed to be making a decision to determine who is the most qualified for the post.

 

I don't believe that Dick is it.

 

pubby

[Cathyhelms]

WOW is all I can say. Well except for the fact that yes, most attorneys around town know Mr. Donovan very well. I would stretch this a little further and say he truly is lacking in people skills, unless you are on his side. He tends to be a "little" biased when it comes to someone pointing out his flaws. My experience with him goes back many years.

 

Just don't forget sometimes it's better to stick with the Devil you know. JMO

[michelay1000]

I don't care if the DA is sweet-natured. In fact, maybe we need a dick for the job. lol.

Um. Yes and no.

[MrsB]

For some reason I can't scroll past Pubby's video on the first page, so I can't see all the posts. Is Dick D. suing this board? (Am I allowed to post that?) I am lost.

[Lady Raider]

[lumak]

For some reason I can't scroll past Pubby's video on the first page, so I can't see all the posts. Is Dick D. suing this board? (Am I allowed to post that?) I am lost.

I can't either...Pubby's video is post #5 and then page 2 starts with post #41 or something like that -- what happened to #6 thru #40? I can't scroll past pubby's video.

[dallas nana]

Well, I had no idea who to vote for DA, but no doubt about who I won't be voting for. Thanks so much for the enlightment!

[michelay1000]

I can't either...Pubby's video is post #5 and then page 2 starts with post #41 or something like that -- what happened to #6 thru #40? I can't scroll past pubby's video.

I thought it was just me.

[rockysmom]

I thought it was just me.

 

 

Nope, I can't see the posts either.

[MrsB]

Okay. I thought I was the only one. At least it's not my computer.

Edited July 25, 2010 by MrsB

[enjones]

Here you go. WAFL's is post 6..........

 

workingforaliving

Posted 24 July 2010 - 08:13 PM

ultramsb, on 24 July 2010 - 06:19 PM, said:

Man oh, Man! Did Dick Donovan go in your corn flakes? I saw an add for Dick Donovan that said he has never won an election. Good night!

The editorial you did was nice too. My response to you is it takes one to know one! Take some Midol and let it pass.

 

DD hasn't won an election, has he?

 

He lost a bid for sheriff in the 90s and the runoff to Lane a few years ago. This is his third election and it took to a runoff.

JohnnyJ

Posted 24 July 2010 - 08:15 PM

DANG!!!

workingforaliving

Posted 24 July 2010 - 08:18 PM

Dude, just watched the video.....wideload? Did he really call you wideload?

 

Wow.

 

 

(for the record, I LMFAO at the video....puppies, chicks, and a-bombs.....oh, and Skeletor!)

PUBBY

Posted 24 July 2010 - 08:59 PM

What can I say, to know Dick is to be insulted by the man, dismissed by the man, with you WFAL - threatened with lawsuit by the man.

 

The reason I pointed out that he never won an election before is because, in the old days, a large enough percentage of the people knew what an arrogant, insufferable ass he is and wouldn't vote for him for any reason.

 

Oh, and Ultramsb: As far as taking one to know one, I'm not up for election and asking the people to hire me.

 

pubby

 

PS: I thought the surrounding video, from Jefferson's 1800's race to the bombs - I actually lost it at the blue screen of death in the Canadian piece - and even George Allen's Macaca statement (that one butthole comment probably cost him the presidency) put it all in context.

treasure

Posted 24 July 2010 - 09:06 PM

Wow.

workingforaliving

Posted 24 July 2010 - 09:09 PM

My screen keeps getting stuck on the video and won't load past that. I have to hit "add reply" to see what others wrote. Is it just me?

Boss Hogg

Posted 24 July 2010 - 09:20 PM

It is hanging on IE. It works correctly on FireFox and Navigator 9.

SPORTS SOURCE

Posted 24 July 2010 - 09:23 PM

Lots To Do, on 24 July 2010 - 06:27 PM, said:

OP has 2 posts, both pro Donovan. I'll leave the rest of the math up to y'all.

 

I noticed that, too.

mei lan

Posted 24 July 2010 - 09:23 PM

Ohhhh-kay. The only thing I can think of is that Donovan was half-way joking when he said "wide load", but even if that is the case (which I'm guessing it's not), it's still incredibly insulting, ESP. considering a camera was present. Comments on a person's physical attributes is in grievously poor taste, no matter who you are or when and where you say it. I right sure I disagree with Pubby on many issues, but in lurking here for a long, long time, I've never seen him do something that I thought was just outrageously (or even moderately, come to think of it) bad. And he did say it's an editorial. This and the thing about threatening WFAL with a lawsuit just didn't seem kosher to me. Free country, I guess, but it's not endearing me to a candidate who would otherwise have my vote inasmuch as I'm so unhappy with Lane. As my toddler nephew says, whatev.

workingforaliving

Posted 24 July 2010 - 09:41 PM

Mei Lan---

 

Here is the letter he sent me. I blocked out my name and address....because I don't need crazy people showing up at my house and putting DD signs in my yard

 

It's real and it scared the crap out of me when I first got it, which I'm certain was the intention.

 

 

momof 3

Posted 24 July 2010 - 09:44 PM

Geeez! Does the OP not realize who owns this site? There is a problem here, but as I can see it, it's not with Pubby.

workingforaliving

Posted 24 July 2010 - 09:49 PM

Boss Hogg, on 24 July 2010 - 10:20 PM, said:

It is hanging on IE. It works correctly on FireFox and Navigator 9.

 

I downloaded Google Chrome and it's working. It was weird that I could post, but I couldn't see my posts.

CeeJay

Posted 24 July 2010 - 09:50 PM

I could never run for office. Everybody I know has a nickname, some of them not-so-pc. I guess some people have a weird way of showing affection. The worse the nickname I give you, the more I love you.

 

I'm not sure if DD has a weird way of showing affection or if he is ticked off at being publicly slandered during his campaign. I assume the latter. But who knows, maybe he really digs you Pubby.

mei lan

Posted 24 July 2010 - 09:52 PM

workingforaliving, on 24 July 2010 - 10:41 PM, said:

Mei Lan---

 

Here is the letter he sent me. I blocked out my name and address....because I don't need crazy people showing up at my house and putting DD signs in my yard

 

It's real and it scared the crap out of me when I first got it, which I'm certain was the intention.

 

 

Yeah, that would've sent me scurrying to my lawyer's office, too. I mean, I don't know you from Adam, nor him, so I have no interest in the difference(s) between the two of you. But it seems a little...odd...for a person running for elective office to not go out of his/her way to try to be gracious and professional in all respects in order to put forth the best front to people. IMHO, by him responding this way to your statements (even if his response is true, which I have no way of knowing, and don't care), it's brought a lot of unwelcome negative attention to him. If instead, he had said (on here) something like "well, she has a right to her opinion and we will agree to disagree, but I pledge to do as good as job as I can as DA," then it would have been over and nobody would even remember the discussion. But as I keep finding myself saying of so many people running for office, whatever.

workingforaliving

Posted 24 July 2010 - 09:59 PM

mei lan, on 24 July 2010 - 10:52 PM, said:

Yeah, that would've sent me scurrying to my lawyer's office, too. I mean, I don't know you from Adam, nor him, so I have no interest in the difference(s) between the two of you. But it seems a little...odd...for a person running for elective office to not go out of his/her way to try to be gracious and professional in all respects in order to put forth the best front to people. IMHO, by him responding this way to your statements (even if his response is true, which I have no way of knowing, and don't care), it's brought a lot of unwelcome negative attention to him. If instead, he had said (on here) something like "well, she has a right to her opinion and we will agree to disagree, but I pledge to do as good as job as I can as DA," then it would have been over and nobody would even remember the discussion. But as I keep finding myself saying of so many people running for office, whatever.

 

 

I told someone the other day that if he would have just ignored me, I would have eventually gone away when my posts faded into a distant pcom memory.

 

The letter sent me over the edge. I went from being pissed off because I had to fire him and hire a new lawyer to being threatened....and I didn't go to a happy place over it.

 

To be honest, I was all set to apologize and retract, but I just couldn't.

feelip

Posted 24 July 2010 - 10:05 PM

Dick is running for DA.

 

Dick is a bully.

 

Don't be a DICK.

workingforaliving

Posted 24 July 2010 - 10:07 PM

feelip, on 24 July 2010 - 11:05 PM, said:

Dick is running for DA.

 

Dick is a bully.

 

Don't be a DICK.

 

Dude, you almost made me pee on myself.

momof 3

Posted 24 July 2010 - 10:17 PM

workingforaliving, on 24 July 2010 - 10:41 PM, said:

Mei Lan---

 

Here is the letter he sent me. I blocked out my name and address....because I don't need crazy people showing up at my house and putting DD signs in my yard

 

It's real and it scared the crap out of me when I first got it, which I'm certain was the intention.

 

Donovan Letter WFAL.jpg

 

How did how know who you were? Was he reading comments on Pcom that he took exception to? You'd think that the rule of 'If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen' would apply since he is a politician. Wow, the word Dick is stuck in my mind for sure after this.

workingforaliving

Posted 24 July 2010 - 10:19 PM

momof 3, on 24 July 2010 - 11:17 PM, said:

How did how know who you were? Was he reading comments on Pcom that he took exception to? You'd think that the rule of 'If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen' would apply since he is a politician. Wow, the word Dick is stuck in my mind for sure after this.

 

In one of my posts IN A POLITICAL THREAD I said I had recently fired him as my attorney. I guess I was the only one bold enough to do that and then brag about it

 

Obviously, as his former client, he has my name and address.

former member

Posted 24 July 2010 - 10:21 PM

I'm so glad my better half decided not to enter politics. No matter what, it is just nasty.

workingforaliving

Posted 24 July 2010 - 10:24 PM

former member, on 24 July 2010 - 11:21 PM, said:

I'm so glad my better half decided not to enter politics. No matter what, it is just nasty.

 

It's nasty when you try to stay clean.....but when you do crap like DD has done, you pretty much bring it on yourself. Threats and name calling BY the person trying to get elected.... :shakeshead:

momof 3

Posted 24 July 2010 - 10:29 PM

workingforaliving, on 24 July 2010 - 11:19 PM, said:

In one of my posts IN A POLITICAL THREAD I said I had recently fired him as my attorney. I guess I was the only one bold enough to do that and then brag about it

 

Obviously, as his former client, he has my name and address.

 

Wow, thats a little scary.

PUBBY

Posted 24 July 2010 - 10:37 PM

CeeJay, on 24 July 2010 - 10:50 PM, said:

I could never run for office. Everybody I know has a nickname, some of them not-so-pc. I guess some people have a weird way of showing affection. The worse the nickname I give you, the more I love you.

 

I'm not sure if DD has a weird way of showing affection or if he is ticked off at being publicly slandered during his campaign. I assume the latter. But who knows, maybe he really digs you Pubby.

 

 

CeeJay:

 

I know that he wasn't ticked off because the video was taken at the GOP picnic on June 18th - a week before WFAL made her comments and before there were any negative comments on paulding.com.

 

It was taken when I was wandering around the GOP picnic and he just came out with that in his typically arrogant "I'm the only person that counts" demeanor. I was going to walk up and interview him and give him a little earned media, as they say, but he decided to insult me instead.

 

Obviously, I turned off the camera. I blew it off and forgot about it because that is just the way he is and has always been. (His personality is one of the reasons I've never supported his candidacy any time he has run. I've never openly opposed him or suggested he is the wrong guy for this office ... until he threatened WFAL ... which is what tells me this guy is not just not my personal pick, but would be a disaster in office.)

 

I know his 'resume' of experiences, including law enforcement, etc. would seem to be a good fit for that post. But that little snipped of video, which shows his true personality, does sum up why he never won an election and why he shouldn't win.

 

The greater reality of politics is that a lot of folks don't know the candidates very well. And so when someone calls them a pompous ass they figure it is because the person calling names is the ass because they've never seen that side of the guy.

 

It wasn't until last Thursday that I went back to see if I could find the clip. It just occurred to me then that this little bit of video may clue folks to who Dick Donovan really is, without having to call names. I mean, I'm no glutton for punishment and I sure am not eager to be known as wideload, but hey, I figure by failing to use my name (he knows it), he just insulted every fat person in Paulding.

 

pubby

CeeJay

Posted 24 July 2010 - 10:48 PM

I'm sure he was pissy then, this is from May 26, 2010: http://paulding.com/...ost__p__3170534

 

I'm not defending him calling you a name. I was just pointing out motive.

Madea

Posted 24 July 2010 - 10:49 PM

What video are y'all referring to?

workingforaliving

Posted 24 July 2010 - 10:56 PM

CeeJay, on 24 July 2010 - 11:48 PM, said:

I'm sure he was pissy then, this is from May 26, 2010: http://paulding.com/...ost__p__3170534

 

I'm not defending him calling you a name. I was just pointing out motive.

 

 

Maybe. He's running for a position as the people's lawyer and I don't think it was wrong to tell people what kind of lawyer he was [for me].

 

However, there's more to that thread: http://paulding.com/...ost__p__3178031

 

And that was mild compared to the response he made later on...but that thread is in the political forum.

 

Either way, nothing that I've said about the way Donovan conducted himself was false.

Madea, on 24 July 2010 - 11:49 PM, said:

What video are y'all referring to?

 

It's in post #5.

Madea

Posted 24 July 2010 - 10:59 PM

workingforaliving, on 24 July 2010 - 11:56 PM, said:

It's in post #5.

 

 

Well, it didn't say "Donovan" and I KNOW that's not his picture. Plus, several folks mentioned it was stalling their computer.

workingforaliving

Posted 24 July 2010 - 11:06 PM

Madea, on 24 July 2010 - 11:59 PM, said:

Well, it didn't say "Donovan" and I KNOW that's not his picture. Plus, several folks mentioned it was stalling their computer.

 

It depends on your browser if it stalls.

 

It jacked my IE, but Google Chrome isn't having any problems.

 

The piece with Donovan is after the puppies, chicks, and a-bombs.

mei lan

Posted 24 July 2010 - 11:16 PM

workingforaliving, on 24 July 2010 - 10:59 PM, said:

I told someone the other day that if he would have just ignored me, I would have eventually gone away when my posts faded into a distant pcom memory.

 

The letter sent me over the edge. I went from being pissed off because I had to fire him and hire a new lawyer to being threatened....and I didn't go to a happy place over it.

 

To be honest, I was all set to apologize and retract, but I just couldn't.

 

 

Well, knowing me like I know me, I'd have probably done the same. Or worse. Like my apology would have said I do apologize for whatever I said that sent you up the creek, but I'm also sorry that your being such a pissant provoked me into doing it. Or something to that effect. Which prolly wouldn't be conducive to peace between us.

 

Actually, I really wouldn't have said that on a public forum (the pissant part). But I do believe I'd have been...er...motivated, shall we say, to have my lawyer discuss things with him. Which maybe you did that, too. But this whole thing has seemed puzzling to me. His reaction, that is.

CeeJay

Posted 24 July 2010 - 11:20 PM

Pubby used to be more careful about allowing opinions on attorneys: http://paulding.com/...dpost&p=1525847

 

 

I understand the impulse to discuss an attorney if you feel you haven't been served appropriately or fairly. Trust me, I really do. If you decide you just HAVE to say something publicly, you should expect a response. I'm not sure anyone would be successfully sued for doing what WFAL did, but I would worry like hell if I ever needed to use the legal system in that county again. These old dudes are all very well acquainted.

workingforaliving

Posted 24 July 2010 - 11:20 PM

mei lan, on 25 July 2010 - 12:16 AM, said:

Well, knowing me like I know me, I'd have probably done the same. Or worse. Like my apology would have said I do apologize for whatever I said that sent you up the creek, but I'm also sorry that your being such a pissant provoked me into doing it. Or something to that effect. Which prolly wouldn't be conducive to peace between us.

 

Actually, I really wouldn't have said that on a public forum (the pissant part). But I do believe I'd have been...er...motivated, shall we say, to have my lawyer discuss things with him. Which maybe you did that, too. But this whole thing has seemed puzzling to me. His reaction, that is.

 

I wrote a "retraction" letter. My sister told me not to post it.

PUBBY

Posted 24 July 2010 - 11:24 PM

CeeJay, on 24 July 2010 - 11:48 PM, said:

I'm sure he was pissy then, this is from May 26, 2010: http://paulding.com/...ost__p__3170534

 

I'm not defending him calling you a name. I was just pointing out motive.

 

 

CeeJay :

 

I'm more familiar with the exchange that occurred in the donovan v wfal topic which occurred a week after (June 26th) the one you cited. I was more aware of it because it occurred in late June and it apparently spurred the threat of legal action.

 

Indeed, I remember the first one now but that topic was basically dead until Dick started whining.

 

Harry Truman, BTW, said about politicians taking heat ... that if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

pubby

CeeJay

Posted 24 July 2010 - 11:25 PM

The case law says retraction rule doesn't apply to Internet chat room postings:

 

Williamson v. Lucas 11 (by its plain language OCGA 51-5-11 meant to apply only to newspapers and other printed media). First, they contemplate actions between an aggrieved party and a newspaper, television station, or radio station. They do not appear to address actions between two individuals. Second, these statutes do not reach Internet media such as chat rooms. The statutes, to the contrary, address media which broadcast programs at specific times to specific audiences, whereby a retraction would likely be heard by the same audience hearing the original defamatory remarks. To the contrary, the audience in a chat room is in a constant state of flux, making the remedy envisioned by OCGA 51-5-12 inapplicable.

workingforaliving

Posted 24 July 2010 - 11:29 PM

CeeJay, on 25 July 2010 - 12:20 AM, said:

Pubby used to be more careful about allowing opinions on attorneys: http://paulding.com/...dpost&p=1525847

 

 

I understand the impulse to discuss an attorney if you feel you haven't been served appropriately or fairly. Trust me, I really do. If you decide you just HAVE to say something publicly, you should expect a response. I'm not sure anyone would be successfully sued for doing what WFAL did, but I would worry like hell if I ever needed to use the legal system in that county again. These old dudes are all very well acquainted.

 

Were he not running for a public office, it would be a different situation. My comments about his abilities as an attorney were made in a politically motivated thread and provided first-hand testimony about his abilities as an attorney, which directly correlate to his abilities as a DA.

 

Otherwise, I'm certain I would have kept my mouth shut. All of my posts about DD have been related to his abilities to fulfill the duties of the office for which he is seeking election.

 

I am not the type of poster who says things and then ignores all of the responses to it. There is a whole thread in the political forum where I openly asked questions of him, but he didn't answer.

 

However, there's a line. Making threats crosses that line. He knows he doesn't have a case (per the Supreme Court), and if he doesn't know, then he doesn't need to be DA. I can only assume that I came across to him as a woman who can be pushed around. The time I spent with him, I was very emotionally vulnerable, since the situation deals with my child. He sent the letter to shut me up and shut me down. That is absolutely unacceptable.

CeeJay

Posted 24 July 2010 - 11:43 PM

You better hope he wins so he'll be too busy to mess with you. If he loses, he may go after you (and Pubby) with both barrels. Where there is a will, there is a way. Also, I would hate for you to have to pay to defend yourself. Sometimes making the other party pay legal fees is the entire point of the exercise.

 

I also kinda hope he doesn't see this thread.

 

Behave so I don't have to worry about it. lol.

PUBBY

Posted 24 July 2010 - 11:46 PM

CeeJay, on 25 July 2010 - 12:20 AM, said:

Pubby used to be more careful about allowing opinions on attorneys: http://paulding.com/...dpost&p=1525847

 

 

I understand the impulse to discuss an attorney if you feel you haven't been served appropriately or fairly. Trust me, I really do. If you decide you just HAVE to say something publicly, you should expect a response. I'm not sure anyone would be successfully sued for doing what WFAL did, but I would worry like hell if I ever needed to use the legal system in that county again. These old dudes are all very well acquainted.

 

 

CeeJay:

 

I don't care if he sees this thread.

 

Yes, I do suggest folks be careful discussion attorneys in private practice. You'll note that the post you cite was in 2007 and certainly Mr. Donovan was not an active candidate asking for us to hire him by giving him the most votes at that time.

 

So, as a general rule, I discourage openly discussing attorneys in private practice because, well they are a litigious sort and their cost of litigation on their own behalf, is near zero while your cost could be in the hundreds of dollars per hour. I discourage that kind of conversation because there are some that will sue at the drop of hat and libel suits are bad for my business.

 

However, the law is such - and the protections to the average citizen to discuss a candidate candidly increase dramatically when a person runs for public office. Their record is and ought to be available for public scrutiny including the opinions of their fellow citizens of their competence.

 

That is what upset me so much by Mr. Donovan's letter that sought to shut her up by threatening a lawsuit and punitive damages for libel.

 

I mean, what makes him so special that we can't discuss his qualifications openly and without fear of being sued when he is asking us for a job. That he tried to shut one of us up for discussing that is, in my mind, reason enough to not vote for him.

 

Why?

 

Because his act shows his disrespects the law as established by the US SUPREME COURT's Sullivan V. NYTimes decision which recognized the public's need for this kind of discussion and so expressly protected the public from exactly the kinds of bullcheese that Mr. Donovan and his letter represent.

 

pubby

 

PS: CeeJay, your suggestion that he may come after WFAL and I with both barrels is also instructive. I would ask, in light of that, if you believe in addition to being rude, disrespectful of the first amendment protections afforded by the Constitution, that you believe MR. Donovan is also vindictive at heart?

Madea

Posted 25 July 2010 - 12:03 AM

PUBBY, on 25 July 2010 - 12:46 AM, said:

CeeJay:

 

I don't care if he sees this thread.

 

Yes, I do suggest folks be careful discussion attorneys in private practice. You'll note that the post you cite was in 2007 and certainly Mr. Donovan was not an active candidate asking for us to hire him by giving him the most votes at that time.

 

So, as a general rule, I discourage openly discussing attorneys in private practice because, well they are a litigious sort and their cost of litigation on their own behalf, is near zero while your cost could be in the hundreds of dollars per hour. I discourage that kind of conversation because there are some that will sue at the drop of hat and libel suits are bad for my business.

 

However, the law is such - and the protections to the average citizen to discuss a candidate candidly increase dramatically when a person runs for public office. Their record is and ought to be available for public scrutiny including the opinions of their fellow citizens of their competence.

 

That is what upset me so much by Mr. Donovan's letter that sought to shut her up by threatening a lawsuit and punitive damages for libel.

 

I mean, what makes him so special that we can't discuss his qualifications openly and without fear of being sued when he is asking us for a job. That he tried to shut one of us up for discussing that is, in my mind, reason enough to not vote for him.

 

Why?

 

Because his act shows his disrespects the law as established by the US SUPREME COURT's Sullivan V. NYTimes decision which recognized the public's need for this kind of discussion and so expressly protected the public from exactly the kinds of bullcheese that Mr. Donovan and his letter represent.

 

pubby

 

 

Your inexperience in that arena is showing. They rarely represent themselves.

CeeJay

Posted 25 July 2010 - 12:12 AM

I just try not to mess publicly with attorneys. I know opinion is protected in chat room posts, but I worry what was posted could be considered actual knowledge, not just opinion, and may not be protected.

 

Many lawsuits against posters are stalled because of the anonymity of chat rooms, but Mr. Donovan knows exactly who WFAL is (and you, judging by his comment in the video).

 

I just don't poke the legal bear too much. (I still think Judge Beavers is an ass, but that's as far as I go. lol)

PUBBY

Posted 25 July 2010 - 12:18 AM

CeeJay, on 25 July 2010 - 12:25 AM, said:

The case law says retraction rule doesn't apply to Internet chat room postings:

 

Williamson v. Lucas 11 (by its plain language OCGA 51-5-11 meant to apply only to newspapers and other printed media). First, they contemplate actions between an aggrieved party and a newspaper, television station, or radio station. They do not appear to address actions between two individuals. Second, these statutes do not reach Internet media such as chat rooms. The statutes, to the contrary, address media which broadcast programs at specific times to specific audiences, whereby a retraction would likely be heard by the same audience hearing the original defamatory remarks. To the contrary, the audience in a chat room is in a constant state of flux, making the remedy envisioned by OCGA 51-5-12 inapplicable.

 

 

That 1982 decision has been superceded by the 2002 Ga Supreme Court Decision Mathis v Cannon which does provide protection against punitive damages if the person alleged to defame someone makes a retraction. Indeed, it applies the same protections to Internet chat rooms - in the case cited it was a yahoo chat room - as apply to newspapers.

 

pubby

CeeJay

Posted 25 July 2010 - 12:20 AM

PUBBY, on 25 July 2010 - 12:46 AM, said:

PS: CeeJay, your suggestion that he may come after WFAL and I with both barrels is also instructive. I would ask, in light of that, if you believe in addition to being rude, disrespectful of the first amendment protections afforded by the Constitution, that you believe MR. Donovan is also vindictive at heart?

 

 

Unless he calls all big-boned people "wide load"...

 

I don't know if I would say vindictive, but he seems to have to desire to prosecute stuff.

 

Everybody has their personal "don't go there" issues. You can tease me about anything, but don't say I'm not a good parent or not good at my job. Everything else is fair game. He seems to be a bit sensitive about being accused of not doing his job. If he loses, he may end up with time on his hands. He has sent a warning. I don't know him, so I don't know if that was his legal first step or if he was just "I'll have my attorney send a letter"-ing.

 

What do you think? Is it posturing or a portent of things to come?

PUBBY

Posted 25 July 2010 - 12:26 AM

Madea, on 25 July 2010 - 01:03 AM, said:

Your inexperience in that arena is showing. They rarely represent themselves.

 

 

I understand that. I also note that there are exceptions and that the letter threatening suit by Mr. Donovan was from Mr. Donovan. Further, I'm sure if a case ever gets to trial, all attorneys would bring in someone to actually try the case. But in the initial stage - particularly when a suit is threatened and the main task is intimidation - bullying - most attorney's will act as their own agents.

 

Oh, and CeeJay ... truth has been a defense to libel in American common law since 1735 when a jury nullified the British law that defined seditious libel. It is an interesting read, particularly this quote from Zenger himself:

Quote

"No nation, ancient or modern, ever lost the liberty of speaking freely, writing, or publishing their sentiments, but forthwith lost their liberty in general and became slaves" stated Zenger.

 

 

pubby

Madea

Posted 25 July 2010 - 12:27 AM

Well, for me, one thing that always sticks in my mind is how someone treats my children. I found Mr. Donovan quite charming in interactions with my children.

CeeJay

Posted 25 July 2010 - 12:37 AM

It sounds to me like you and WFAL are aware of what could possibly happen and are both willing to stay the course with this. Keep us posted.

 

I don't know if something like this would change my vote. I don't care if the DA is sweet-natured. In fact, maybe we need a dick for the job. lol.

PUBBY

Posted 25 July 2010 - 02:15 AM

CeeJay, on 25 July 2010 - 01:20 AM, said:

Unless he calls all big-boned people "wide load"...

 

I don't know if I would say vindictive, but he seems to have to desire to prosecute stuff.

 

Everybody has their personal "don't go there" issues. You can tease me about anything, but don't say I'm not a good parent or not good at my job. Everything else is fair game. He seems to be a bit sensitive about being accused of not doing his job. If he loses, he may end up with time on his hands. He has sent a warning. I don't know him, so I don't know if that was his legal first step or if he was just "I'll have my attorney send a letter"-ing.

 

What do you think? Is it posturing or a portent of things to come?

 

 

CeeJay:

 

I think the proper term is 'litigate' ... not prosecute. Donovan has never been a prosecutor. He bills himself as a criminal defense attorney.

 

If he had wanted to be a prosecutor, he could have hired on with any number of district attorney's offices at anytime since he held a license to practice law - some 32 years from his resume.

 

Instead he figures he can take a short cut to the top and just convince the public to put him in office by voting out a guy who does have fifteen years of prosecutorial experience.

 

So, when it is all said and done, here is this guy with no prosecutorial experience riding a negative ad he paid some high-priced consultant in Princeton New Jersey $12,750 to produce that comes up saying that the courtrooms are dark which is absurd. They wouldn't be dark because the local courts, with three judges, have enough civil cases on the docket alone to keep five judges busy not to mention the criminal cases.)

 

Now this guy is so 'sensitive' about his actual record as an attorney that he is compelled to threaten a single mother who believes he was not effective counsel in her child custody case with libel - bully her to shut her up when he knows he has no case and she is protected by the first amendment.

 

And if you look at his record you quickly realize that he has never worked closely with other attorneys in an office setting - there are five or six assistant DA's in the District Attorney's office - in his 30 years as a criminal defense attorney.

 

Bill Foster, when he was a DA, came from a law firm as did James Osborne. Drew was with a law firm first, had a single professional office and then worked in the DA's office with three or four other Assistant DA's in Polk County for nine-years before he was appointed Paulding's District Attorney. Most folks think he's put together a good staff and the staff's of the other previous DA's were pretty good too. Why? Well, these folks know how to hire and fire and work with other attorneys in a group setting.

 

Dick apparently has no similar experience. Don't know if that is because he is a loner with a big ego? What I do know is he just thinks we ought to make him boss of a big law firm - the people's law firm - because he and his $28,500 Marietta consultant says so.

 

Well, Dick, I don't know if you have the people skills to run a ten-fifteen person office. I mean working alone is great and I see you have a lot of experience doing that. But managing other people requires you have some people skills. Personally, I have a reason to question your people skills, you know. Bottom line, I don't know that Donovan would be an effective manager and leader. Running a single lawyer professional office isn't the kind of background I would look for to hire someone to do that.

 

This is an important decision for us, as voters, to make. It is not a popularity contest and it is not a beauty contest. We are supposed to be making a decision to determine who is the most qualified for the post.

 

I don't believe that Dick is it.

 

pubby

naturegirl

Posted 25 July 2010 - 05:23 AM

WOW is all I can say. Well except for the fact that yes, most attorneys around town know Mr. Donovan very well. I would stretch this a little further and say he truly is lacking in people skills, unless you are on his side. He tends to be a "little" biased when it comes to someone pointing out his flaws. My experience with him goes back many years.

 

Just don't forget sometimes it's better to stick with the Devil you know. JMO

Happy Wife And Mom

Posted 25 July 2010 - 09:07 AM

CeeJay, on 25 July 2010 - 01:37 AM, said:

I don't care if the DA is sweet-natured. In fact, maybe we need a dick for the job. lol.

 

Um. Yes and no.

MrsB

Posted 25 July 2010 - 09:28 AM

For some reason I can't scroll past Pubby's video on the first page, so I can't see all the posts. Is Dick D. suing this board? (Am I allowed to post that?) I am lost.

Lady Raider

Posted 25 July 2010 - 09:34 AM

 

lumak

Posted 25 July 2010 - 10:25 AM

MrsB, on 25 July 2010 - 10:28 AM, said:

For some reason I can't scroll past Pubby's video on the first page, so I can't see all the posts. Is Dick D. suing this board? (Am I allowed to post that?) I am lost.

 

I can't either...Pubby's video is post #5 and then page 2 starts with post #41 or something like that -- what happened to #6 thru #40? I can't scroll past pubby's video.

PinkCrickett

Posted 25 July 2010 - 10:26 AM

Well, I had no idea who to vote for DA, but no doubt about who I won't be voting for. Thanks so much for the enlightment!

Happy Wife And Mom

Posted 25 July 2010 - 10:38 AM

lumak, on 25 July 2010 - 11:25 AM, said:

I can't either...Pubby's video is post #5 and then page 2 starts with post #41 or something like that -- what happened to #6 thru #40? I can't scroll past pubby's video.

 

I thought it was just me.

rockysmom

Posted 25 July 2010 - 10:43 AM

Happy Wife And Mom, on 25 July 2010 - 11:38 AM, said:

I thought it was just me.

 

 

 

Nope, I can't see the posts either.

[Boss Hogg]

Try other browsers, IE is hanging on the video post.

[lumak]

Try other browsers, IE is hanging on the video post.

I don't have another browser -- can the video be changed so it doesn't start automatically and "hang" things up?

[lotstodo]

I believe that Mr. Donovan has shown his true colors in these threads, and they are not red, white, and blue. I can not and will not vote for somebody who conducts themselves as he has here on this public board. The entire contents of these threads should be posted in a full page ad in the newspaper so everyone has a chance to see how a candidate for public office has conducted himself. It is my considered opinion that this has been a shameful display, unbecoming of anyone in a public forum, let alone a public figure trying to gain the confidence of the electorate.

[MrsB]

Thanks KRM.

[gpatt0n]

I changed the video player. Maybe that will make a difference.

 

pubby

[NewsJunky]

We voted for Drew in the Primary and he has my family's vote in the run-off.

[lumak]

I changed the video player. Maybe that will make a difference.

 

pubby

nope -- but thank you for trying.

 

Thanks KRM for copying the info and posting it.

[gpatt0n]

nope -- but thank you for trying.

 

Thanks KRM for copying the info and posting it.

 

I replaced the video with a permalink. Can you read the rest now.

 

pubby

[lumak]

I replaced the video with a permalink. Can you read the rest now.

 

pubby

nope - still missing post #6-#41 or something like that.

 

I even tossed my cookies to see if that would help

[Cabe]

I'll skip that chance to vote completely before I will cast a vote for Drew Lane.

[MaineGal]

I believe that Mr. Donovan has shown his true colors in these threads, and they are not red, white, and blue. I can not and will not vote for somebody who conducts themselves as he has here on this public board. The entire contents of these threads should be posted in a full page ad in the newspaper so everyone has a chance to see how a candidate for public office has conducted himself. It is my considered opinion that this has been a shameful display, unbecoming of anyone in a public forum, let alone a public figure trying to gain the confidence of the electorate.

 

 

I totally agree. This is inspiring me to go vote....just to vote against him!! My CHILDREN dont even say the things that he said!!! Very sad.

[Beach Bum]

I believe that Mr. Donovan has shown his true colors in these threads, and they are not red, white, and blue. I can not and will not vote for somebody who conducts themselves as he has here on this public board. The entire contents of these threads should be posted in a full page ad in the newspaper so everyone has a chance to see how a candidate for public office has conducted himself. It is my considered opinion that this has been a shameful display, unbecoming of anyone in a public forum, let alone a public figure trying to gain the confidence of the electorate.

 

Excellent points Lots To Do and these are SOME of the reasons I will be NOT be voting for Donovan in the runoff election.

[+DeborahS]

I totally agree. This is inspiring me to go vote....just to vote against him!! My CHILDREN dont even say the things that he said!!! Very sad.

I just wanted to take a moment to interject here....when we were producing the news for Friday, Pubby did a lot of MAJOR thinking as to whether or not to produce the piece. We all discussed it and even viewed the video repeatedly to see if maybe we misconstrued what we were seeing...that maybe Dick was just 'joking' around (even though it was insulting).

 

After watching the clip repeatedly, the answer was...NO, Dick Donovan was not joking (if you watch the video you will see there is absolutely no presence of a smile or anything to even remotely suggest this was said in a 'joking' or 'kidding manner', in fact, it definitely looked the opposite) and yes the people, the Paulding County residents/voters needed to see it.

 

It was RUDE and definitely uncalled for. Dick Donovan will NOT get my vote...nor my husband's...and Pubby, I commend you on the decision to put the clip out there.

[feelip]

So what happened between 2006 and 2010? Did the guy get a new campaign manager or was he just smart enough to keep his mouth shut or has he changed over the last few years?

 

I actually supported the guy in 2006 but I can hardly stomach him any more. It takes a REAL horses ass to get me to vote for Drew Lane, but I did and will again in the run offs.

 

I'm going out on a limb here and say I bet his given name isn't Richard.

[hart408]

People who vote based on personality should remember how charming Obama is.

[feelip]

People who vote based on personality should remember how charming Obama is.

 

There is a big difference in national politics and deciding which po-dunk lawyer is going to be DA.

[solosoul]

When I look for a Lawyer the last thing I ever look for is if they are a "nice" person. I want someone who is going to kick ass. I am NOT looking for someone who is going to be buddy buddy with everyone. I want a shark.I want someone who knows what the hell they are doing and will go balls to the wall to get it.

 

I have seen what we have in a DA and I am not thrilled at all. I am not sure if DD is the answer but I do know that DL is not....I am getting very sick of never having a "GOOD" person to vote for. Seems a lot of people are left with voting for the lesser of two evils way too much.

[Cathyhelms]

When I look for a Lawyer the last thing I ever look for is if they are a "nice" person. I want someone who is going to kick ass. I am NOT looking for someone who is going to be buddy buddy with everyone. I want a shark.I want someone who knows what the hell they are doing and will go balls to the wall to get it.

 

I have seen what we have in a DA and I am not thrilled at all. I am not sure if DD is the answer but I do know that DL is not....I am getting very sick of never having a "GOOD" person to vote for. Seems a lot of people are left with voting for the lesser of two evils way too much.

 

Like I said before, this is not a lesser of two evils...........it's more like "the Devil you know".

[hart408]

There is a big difference in national politics and deciding which po-dunk lawyer is going to be DA.

 

Why? Should any voting decision be made lightly or be based on irrelevant issues such as personality? If we keep treating hometown decisions as popularity contests, we will keep screwing ourselves.

[Cabe]

I just wanted to take a moment to interject here....when we were producing the news for Friday, Pubby did a lot of MAJOR thinking as to whether or not to produce the piece. We all discussed it and even viewed the video repeatedly to see if maybe we misconstrued what we were seeing...that maybe Dick was just 'joking' around (even though it was insulting).

 

After watching the clip repeatedly, the answer was...NO, Dick Donovan was not joking (if you watch the video you will see there is absolutely no presence of a smile or anything to even remotely suggest this was said in a 'joking' or 'kidding manner', in fact, it definitely looked the opposite) and yes the people, the Paulding County residents/voters needed to see it.

 

It was RUDE and definitely uncalled for. Dick Donovan will NOT get my vote...nor my husband's...and Pubby, I commend you on the decision to put the clip out there.

 

I watched it. I detected a "tone" that I would consider "said in jest". Was it the right thing to say? No. But I do not believe it was said with malice. I do also believe that Pubby is already so biased against him, that it really wouldn't matter what he said.

 

Like I said before, this is not a lesser of two evils...........it's more like "the Devil you know".

 

Yeah, well, the "devil I know", I refuse to cast a vote for.

[Cathyhelms]

I watched it. I detected a "tone" that I would consider "said in jest". Was it the right thing to say? No. But I do not believe it was said with malice. I do also believe that Pubby is already so biased against him, that it really wouldn't matter what he said.

 

 

 

Yeah, well, the "devil I know", I refuse to cast a vote for.

 

Darn it, why didn't Chad campaign a little harder??? :lol: