Pubby Hate

[Lady Raider]

were is the video that all of you are talking about?

[bluebonnet]

were is the video that all of you are talking about?

 

PAGE 1 POST #5 OF THIS TOPIC

[MaineGal]

I was OK with it when the thread was started in the political forum. It was presented as a personal matter. But Pubby brought this to the front page and included a video that had apocalyptic, subliminal messages included and made it political. He made it seem like Donovan's comment was a political attack and not just a snide comment. He is purposely confusing people with his personal vendetta. I just don't think it is fair to smear a campaign based on two individual's grudges. I don't even have a problem with you posting your opinion, you are an individual. Pubby is playing journalist and attacker. I take issue with that. He is turning into Rush Dembaugh.

 

 

Pubby didnt start this thread did he?? Someone else did, and Pubby got us all up to speed. If it was his personal "vendetta", he would have put the clip on here when it first happened.

 

Is it new that journalism isnt biased? I must have missed that changing of the tides--ie CNN, Fox news....!! Really, if a journalist has information regarding a candidate...be it his work ethic, or, personal ethics....I EXPECT that journalist to write about it. That is their JOB!!!!

[lotstodo]

Those of you pissin' in PUBBY's Corn Flakes might want to reread the title of this thread.

 

Both Kelly and Pubby plainly call the video an editorial. For those of you out there that can't tell the difference between opinion and pure fact, anything said after the word "editorial" is usually an opinion. You may or may not agree with PUBBY's opinion, but the man has every right to publish it here in his sand box. And FTR, I didn't see or hear the word "hate" anywhere in reference to the candidate in question. That is a term that is used by partisans to evoke an emotional response and elicit ridicule when they can not defend an opinion or position using logic. Look again at who used it.

[NewsJunky]

Those of you pissin' in PUBBY's Corn Flakes might want to reread the title of this thread.

 

Both Kelly and Pubby plainly call the video an editorial. For those of you out there that can't tell the difference between opinion and pure fact, anything said after the word "editorial" is usually an opinion. You may or may not agree with PUBBY's opinion, but the man has every right to publish it here in his sand box. And FTR, I didn't see or hear the word "hate" anywhere in reference to the candidate in question. That is a term that is used by partisans to evoke an emotional response and elicit ridicule when they can not defend an opinion or position using logic. Look again at who used it.

Yep! You have nailed it as usual. Pubby's sand box. Come and play if you want but always understand that.

[Gray_Wolf]

G. Wolf:

 

Okay, so Dick Donovan was pissed at WFAL and that is why he called me wideload out of the blue. If you read that entire thread you'd know that no one - me included - either endorsed or rejected WFAL's initial comment. It stood on its own.

 

Now, I think you know - I certainly know - that I'm not responsible for what you say, what COWA says, what Deadeye says, what anyone other than I say on the open forums of this board.

 

So why are you saying that Dick was justified at calling me wideload because, three weeks earlier WFAL wrote what she did. That is a stretch, you know.

 

Frankly, I was not 'against' Dick until WFAL came to me with notice she was considering providing a retraction and apology for her comments because Donovan wrote her the threatening letter.

 

Until then, I was okay with Donovan. I knew he was arrogant - the video was taken on June 18th and you didn't see it then, you note - because I wasn't for or against anyone in the DA's race until I got the PM from WFAL relating the threat. That was a bad move on his part. To me it trashing the first amendment

 

That bit of bullying of a member her pissed me off and led me to the conclusion that this guy has no respect for the first amendment.

 

I've not seen anything since that would change my opinion.

 

As far as the other issues you raised...

 

 

 

... how often did you read about them in the AJC, Neighbor, Sentinel or New Era. You know about them because of paulding.com and because of my commitment to the first amendment's protections of free speech.

 

The reason I came down on Dick Donovan is because I am aggressively protecting those freedoms from an attorney who thinks he can invoke libel to bully people into being quite. Do you think I would have been any less aggressive had the county attorney threatened surepip? Do you not think I've encouraged those who want to talk about schools to insist that they be given the information they are entitled?

 

Let me just say, I glad you had lunch with Dick Donovan and that your reading of his dry sense of humor excuses his being plainly rude to me in your mind. And you know, we may even be on the same page with the Groucho analogy ... Dick could well be a joke.

 

pubby

 

Pubby,

 

I never said that Dick was justified in saying Wideload. And if had read this thread you will see that CeeJay/Wideload made the correlation first. I mentioned it but you address me. Curious. I just commented that you stated the tape was June 18, 2010 before anything was posted negatively about Dick. Which is not true. W4AL posted her comments on May 26, 2010 in your forum.

 

As for the other issues I raised. Sure not in any other paper. But you certainly did not raise the issues, maybe mistaken here. I learned of them thru those(thru their posting) that were in the know or have been affected by this county. Example : Whitey and the Taxes, Mr.Dis and the Fire tax, Surepip and his ongoing battle against the county staring with Jerry Sherin and onto the current administration. Is the county attorney and the county tying up surepip's day in court not being a bully. Spend the taxpayers money, let employees go. But keep surepip out of court. Sound like the county and their attorney are being a BULLY. Still do not see you raising the flag to help.

 

Again as for W4AL. It would have been one thing to make her comments in a forum that she started and give her assessment of Dick. But, she keeps going into different threads with the same dead horse. How long can a person rattle a cage and expect not to get attention? Well, she has it now. And now you are in it as well. Is there anyone here that was with Dick and W4AL and has "FIRST" hand knowledge of what was said? Otherwise it is hearsay and or opinion. I know that people may bend the truth to get the sympathy card. Frankly, some here have tried Dick in the court of public opinion. When this should have stated private (IMHO). W4AL could have stated off the radar. Filed a complaint with Bar association and /or hired another attorney and go after Dick.

 

And again, You did not answer any of my question about getting to know Mr. Donovan.

 

I do not think that a dry humor is justifying being rude. Certainly Mr. Donovan is not a joke. I have known him for about 5 years. I would want him to represent me. I certainly would want my day in court quickly. Not to be run into jail via zero tolerant (See how that works for the schools).

 

Sincerely Yours,

 

G. Wolf

[Cabe]

In the example from "WideLoad", the DAs office has two years to seek an indictment after someone is arrested. Two years! Arraignments aren't nearly as hard to get in front of judge as your friend Drew would have you believe.

 

 

Madea: Arraingments are automatic and must occur within a day or so - maybe 72 hours - of the arrest.

 

It is the first appearance after an arrest.

 

I'm sure the person was arraigned since he is out of jail and seeking to have the arrest record expunged.

 

Indeed, it would appear the person is fortunate as the DA does not appear to be pursuing prosecution. I wonder if they've allowed him out on his own recognizance or whether he/she still has a bond posted.

 

What I think you're suggesting is that the DA didn't have the person indicted by the grand jury. That is usually the first act that the District Attorney does if they plan to prosecute a case.

 

For the record, a person can be arrested on the suspicion of committing a crime. This is done usually on the oath of the arresting officer who may or may not have all the evidence in hand necessary to win a case. They will have a first appearance - an arraignment - where typically bond is set and assuming the person makes bond, gets him out of jail until trial. Law enforcement (The SO) continues to collect evidence and the DA begins putting the case together for the grand jury where they will ask for an indictment.

 

Typically the DA will present evidence to a grand jury (including the officers testimony). The grand jury will review the evidence collected and then enter a true bill of indictment. They may ask that bond be increased or revoked at this stage but often it is not.

 

At the GOP meeting the Saturday before the election the foreman of the last grand jury asked to speak on behalf of Drew Lane.

 

I didn't include video from that event at the time because the SD card I had with me was not large enough to hold the presentations of all the DA candidates in their entirety. I chose, given the short time frame and potential that I would be considered to be showing favoritism, not to show any of them. (I missed most of Mr. Plumley's presentation.)

 

Anyway, would you like to hear the presentation of the grand jury foreman? I'll do it in the morning assuming I still have that video on hand.

 

pubby

 

Yes, in the second sentence, I misused the word "arraignment". Yes, I'll review your video if you still have it.

[LisaC]

I've watched the video a couple of times, and read all of the posts. The video doesn't rise to the "smoking gun" that I thought it would be (especially if you read all of the posts first). Sure, the wideload comment was a little tasteless, but when does a tasteless comment make you unqualified to hold public office (take our illustrious Vice President for example)? As for the issues with WFAL - in my opinion, things have gotten out of hand on both sides and neither one wants to step down.

 

However, after being a juror in a trial where Mr. Lane was the prosecutor, I will not vote for him (nor would I hire him). His effectiveness and persuasiveness were non-existent in that trial. He came across as a friendly guy, but, in my opinion, he also came across as a doormat - that's NOT what I'm looking for in a district attorney.

[bvrat5199]

This whole topic just drips of class!

[gpatt0n]

Pubby,

 

I never said that Dick was justified in saying Wideload. And if had read this thread you will see that CeeJay/Wideload made the correlation first. I mentioned it but you address me. Curious. I just commented that you stated the tape was June 18, 2010 before anything was posted negatively about Dick. Which is not true. W4AL posted her comments on May 26, 2010 in your forum.

 

As for the other issues I raised. Sure not in any other paper. But you certainly did not raise the issues, maybe mistaken here. I learned of them thru those(thru their posting) that were in the know or have been affected by this county. Example : Whitey and the Taxes, Mr.Dis and the Fire tax, Surepip and his ongoing battle against the county staring with Jerry Sherin and onto the current administration. Is the county attorney and the county tying up surepip's day in court not being a bully. Spend the taxpayers money, let employees go. But keep surepip out of court. Sound like the county and their attorney are being a BULLY. Still do not see you raising the flag to help.

 

Again as for W4AL. It would have been one thing to make her comments in a forum that she started and give her assessment of Dick. But, she keeps going into different threads with the same dead horse. How long can a person rattle a cage and expect not to get attention? Well, she has it now. And now you are in it as well. Is there anyone here that was with Dick and W4AL and has "FIRST" hand knowledge of what was said? Otherwise it is hearsay and or opinion. I know that people may bend the truth to get the sympathy card. Frankly, some here have tried Dick in the court of public opinion. When this should have stated private (IMHO). W4AL could have stated off the radar. Filed a complaint with Bar association and /or hired another attorney and go after Dick.

 

And again, You did not answer any of my question about getting to know Mr. Donovan.

 

I do not think that a dry humor is justifying being rude. Certainly Mr. Donovan is not a joke. I have known him for about 5 years. I would want him to represent me. I certainly would want my day in court quickly. Not to be run into jail via zero tolerant (See how that works for the schools).

 

Sincerely Yours,

 

G. Wolf

 

As I said in regard CeeJay, I admitted that I missed that first comment in late May... Or at least it didn't really register in my mind as having anything to do with me and DD.

 

As far as Surepip, Soundguy, Whitey, Maddox, etc. bringing issues to the fore, I say good. That is the whole idea behind pcom ... to bring voices to the forefront. And do know if they had been sent a letter threatening libel in their cases I would have been raising hell as well (They haven't because theirs is also protected speech in those cases!).

 

You miss the point on the WFAL affair. The bar for libel is so high in cases involving libel of a candidate or public official or public figure/celebrity that anyone with any media law experience knows that he hasn't got a case at all - no chance what so ever. It is not like any specific fact, from her firing him to her hiring another attorney that got results she liked to whether or not he was prepared would make any difference. The essential fact - that she hired him and she fired him because he didn't produce makes it all protected speech in the context of a political campaign.

 

His letter was an attempt solely to bully a single mother into silence before the election, which, while it is on its face legal, is showing utter contempt for the free speech rights of citizens guaranteed under the constitution. (Walking around waving a nazi flag is legal too but you don't elect someone who does such a stupid thing.)

 

That is what ticked me off. The personal insult of being called wideload ... I let that slide and would have ignored it for eternity had he not insulted the first amendment. The lack of judgment shown by dissing of the first amendment by someone aspiring to be the DA' is, well, frigging dangerous IMO.

 

So, if I believe that, what else can I do but oppose him openly?

 

Beyond that, I'm sure he is a fine, church going guy and, while you've known him for five years, I've known him for close to 20. I was basically fine with his candidacy until he showed his true colors with the first amendment. Now I think it would be a disaster if he were elected.

 

pubby

 

PS: I suspect that if we had a candidate for the legislature that promised to introduce a bill banning the sale and ownership of shotguns in Georgia to a small gathering of anti-gun nuts and it got out, folks would be raising holy hell out of concern of the idiot's disrespect for the second amendment. I would be among them ... because it is so silly, stupid and illegal.

 

I see Donovan's use of his threatening letter as an indication that he may, at the drop of the hat, seek gag orders in the cases he tried to bar the press from the courtroom. I know none of the judges would buy it but if he tried in this case, he may try in others because of his lack of respect for the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. Gray Wolf, acts always speak louder than words and that letter was a chilling act.

[Gray_Wolf]

As I said in regard CeeJay, I admitted that I missed that first comment in late May... Or at least it didn't really register in my mind as having anything to do with me and DD.

 

As far as Surepip, Soundguy, Whitey, Maddox, etc. bringing issues to the fore, I say good. That is the whole idea behind pcom ... to bring voices to the forefront. And do know if they had been sent a letter threatening libel in their cases I would have been raising hell as well (They haven't because theirs is also protected speech in those cases!).

 

You miss the point on the WFAL affair. The bar for libel is so high in cases involving libel of a candidate or public official or public figure/celebrity that anyone with any media law experience knows that he hasn't got a case at all - no chance what so ever. It is not like any specific fact, from her firing him to her hiring another attorney that got results she liked to whether or not he was prepared would make any difference. The essential fact - that she hired him and she fired him because he didn't produce makes it all protected speech in the context of a political campaign.

 

His letter was an attempt solely to bully a single mother into silence before the election, which, while it is on its face legal, is showing utter contempt for the free speech rights of citizens guaranteed under the constitution. (Walking around waving a nazi flag is legal too but you don't elect someone who does such a stupid thing.)

 

That is what ticked me off. The personal insult of being called wideload ... I let that slide and would have ignored it for eternity had he not insulted the first amendment. The lack of judgment shown by dissing of the first amendment by someone aspiring to be the DA' is, well, frigging dangerous IMO.

 

So, if I believe that, what else can I do but oppose him openly?

 

Beyond that, I'm sure he is a fine, church going guy and, while you've known him for five years, I've known him for close to 20. I was basically fine with his candidacy until he showed his true colors with the first amendment. Now I think it would be a disaster if he were elected.

 

pubby

 

PS: I suspect that if we had a candidate for the legislature that promised to introduce a bill banning the sale and ownership of shotguns in Georgia to a small gathering of anti-gun nuts and it got out, folks would be raising holy hell out of concern of the idiot's disrespect for the second amendment. I would be among them ... because it is so silly, stupid and illegal.

 

I see Donovan's use of his threatening letter as an indication that he may, at the drop of the hat, seek gag orders in the cases he tried to bar the press from the courtroom. I know none of the judges would buy it but if he tried in this case, he may try in others because of his lack of respect for the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. Gray Wolf, acts always speak louder than words and that letter was a chilling act.

 

 

Again, I post. Is there anyone here that has first hand knowledge of the events? Otherwise it is opinion or hearsay.

 

I do not see you raising hell to assist Surepip against the Bullies in charge? Sounds like you are selective, or should I say Bias?

 

"(Walking around waving a nazi flag is legal too but you don't elect someone who does such a stupid thing.)" Maybe true, but in this county it may be some other flag and they do get elected. (IMHO).

 

Frankly, If I worked on someones computers and got slammed on a forum. You bet I would have an attorney writing a letter. I have rights as well or has that been forgotten? OR, would you consider that I was slamming the clients first amendment right? I rather my rights be protected in the court of law then in the court of public opinion.

 

I bet if Mr. Donovan tried a gag order as you describe. The media will give him the what for... (or at least you, after someone reports it here).

 

As for W4AL to keep posting the same dead horse takes it from opinion to being vindictive. May cost him future clients and maybe the DA office. So I guess hiding behind this "political season" is okay to slam someone and think that they should not have anything happen.

 

Sometimes it is better to keep your opinion to one self and go thru the courts to get even. Especially if you are right.

 

G. Wolf

Edited July 26, 2010 by Gray_Wolf

[shannonsolomon]

I am perfectly fine with being vindictive towards someone who calls me names or dicks me around or threatens me.

 

 

[Cathyhelms]

I am perfectly fine with being vindictive towards someone who calls me names or dicks me around or threatens me.

 

You go girl!!!!

[hart408]

 

(I still think Judge Beavers is an ass...)

 

I did this on purpose. Not one comment. It is my own personal proof that this is politically motivated. Nobody cares when someone is called a name, not to the extent seen here. While it isn't polite to do, and I am sure other people in the county share my opinion, it wasn't a big deal. DD is still a private citizen. He has not been elected to office and is not representing the county. I'm sure he will learn to bite his tongue after this. I am thinking of changing my username to "Molehill."

 

What was said about DD wasn't just an opinion. A fact was stated in regards to him alledgedly not filing paperwork on time. That is a serious allegation. That is when DD responded to the accusations. If you read DD's remarks, he prefaced it by saying that he knew exactly who had posted the information because it was specific enough to not have just been a general comment of opinion. First amendment rights are wonderful, but you have a responsibility to use them wisely. Does DD have a case? I don't know and I'm not calling my favorite attorney in Marietta to find out because I don't care enough to get involved in someone else's personal legal matters. And I wouldn't want everyone involved in my personal legal matters. Is the letter DD sent a personal legal matter? Some would think so.

 

You can be arrested and not be charged with any crime and still have the arrest record. Many employers don't differentiate between being arrested, being charged, or being convicted. I read on the state's website that you have to have the DA's office sign off on the expungement paperwork after law enforcement signs off on it. You have to wait five years after the arrest to have this process even started. Why does it take so long in Paulding county to get a paper signed when there were no charges issued?

 

I wish I had real facts to help me decide how I will cast my vote. I wish I knew the real conviction rate in Paulding for jury trials. I wish I knew how many cases were Dead Dockets. I wish I knew how many people have been victims of crimes that were never brought to a resolution. I don't have that information, but I won't be using personal attacks to decide, either. I looked at both parties' websites. One is running on the good ole' boy platform (He is one of us) and one is more issues-based (how we do dead dockets [cases from 2007 and before that were still on the calendar], number of cases still needing to be tried [2250]).

 

Either Paulding county is a cesspool of crime, or we have a problem with bringing cases to the courtroom.

[LisaC]

One thing that we have to keep in mind is that the DA's office doesn't schedule the cases on the court's docket - that is up to the judge.

[workingforaliving]

Pubby didnt start this thread did he?? Someone else did, and Pubby got us all up to speed. If it was his personal "vendetta", he would have put the clip on here when it first happened.

 

Is it new that journalism isnt biased? I must have missed that changing of the tides--ie CNN, Fox news....!! Really, if a journalist has information regarding a candidate...be it his work ethic, or, personal ethics....I EXPECT that journalist to write about it. That is their JOB!!!!

Zing! The OP is someone who recently created an account and has made only 2 posts---both pro-Donovan.

 

 

Again as for W4AL. It would have been one thing to make her comments in a forum that she started and give her assessment of Dick. But, she keeps going into different threads with the same dead horse. How long can a person rattle a cage and expect not to get attention? Well, she has it now. And now you are in it as well. Is there anyone here that was with Dick and W4AL and has "FIRST" hand knowledge of what was said? Otherwise it is hearsay and or opinion. I know that people may bend the truth to get the sympathy card. Frankly, some here have tried Dick in the court of public opinion. When this should have stated private (IMHO). W4AL could have stated off the radar. Filed a complaint with Bar association and /or hired another attorney and go after Dick.

 

I don't keep going into thread. I was contextually accurate in every thread I posted about Donovan in. The first was about the local races--where it is appropriate to post my assessment of someone involved. The second was about a lawyer referral, where I told the OP not to use Donovan. I used Donovan based on a referral and I didn't want the OP to make the same mistake. The third time that you're referring to is when I commented about political signs in a thread about political signs. That is not at all inappropriate. By your own admission, DD had more signs out than Plumley and Lane combined.

 

As far as hearsay, there were several people who were sitting with me at the courthouse and they all had the same opinion of Donovan's performance as I did. Even the other party agreed that I did the right thing by changing attorneys. Even a well respected family councelor told me that I made the right decision by getting rid of Donovan, as she doesn't often hear good things about his performance.

 

The point, I guess, is that my posts would have gone into pcom memories had Donovan not so viciously attacked me in the threads (hello professionalism) and had he not made the threats. People would have read them and discounted them as a disgruntled client. Donovan did this to himself.

 

I am perfectly fine with being vindictive towards someone who calls me names or dicks me around or threatens me.

 

I've said it before in this thread: Any man that uses fear to control a woman isn't worth of his "man"

 

If he cheezes on me, he'll sheeze on you. Hell, he sheeze on me AFTER I PAID HIM....which is why I fired him. I assure you that I don't have the money to go around hiring and firing lawyers. I prayed a lot and lost a lot of sleep making the decision.

[shannonsolomon]

I did this on purpose. Not one comment. It is my own personal proof that this is politically motivated. Nobody cares when someone is called a name, not to the extent seen here. While it isn't polite to do, and I am sure other people in the county share my opinion, it wasn't a big deal. DD is still a private citizen. He has not been elected to office and is not representing the county. I'm sure he will learn to bite his tongue after this. I am thinking of changing my username to "Molehill."

 

What was said about DD wasn't just an opinion. A fact was stated in regards to him alledgedly not filing paperwork on time. That is a serious allegation. That is when DD responded to the accusations. If you read DD's remarks, he prefaced it by saying that he knew exactly who had posted the information because it was specific enough to not have just been a general comment of opinion. First amendment rights are wonderful, but you have a responsibility to use them wisely. Does DD have a case? I don't know and I'm not calling my favorite attorney in Marietta to find out because I don't care enough to get involved in someone else's personal legal matters. And I wouldn't want everyone involved in my personal legal matters. Is the letter DD sent a personal legal matter? Some would think so.

 

You can be arrested and not be charged with any crime and still have the arrest record. Many employers don't differentiate between being arrested, being charged, or being convicted. I read on the state's website that you have to have the DA's office sign off on the expungement paperwork after law enforcement signs off on it. You have to wait five years after the arrest to have this process even started. Why does it take so long in Paulding county to get a paper signed when there were no charges issued?

 

I wish I had real facts to help me decide how I will cast my vote. I wish I knew the real conviction rate in Paulding for jury trials. I wish I knew how many cases were Dead Dockets. I wish I knew how many people have been victims of crimes that were never brought to a resolution. I don't have that information, but I won't be using personal attacks to decide, either. I looked at both parties' websites. One is running on the good ole' boy platform (He is one of us) and one is more issues-based (how we do dead dockets [cases from 2007 and before that were still on the calendar], number of cases still needing to be tried [2250]).

 

Either Paulding county is a cesspool of crime, or we have a problem with bringing cases to the courtroom.

 

 

If he was able to read comments on an anonymous board and tell who it was because it was so specific then it sounds like there could be a bit of truth there.

[Cathyhelms]

For the record, I have seen several slams against our current DA, in several threads. I don't see him on here threatening or trying to belittle anyone. I don't hear about him mailing letters threatening law suits.

 

I have seen Mr. Donovan in the courtroom on several occasions, I was less than impressed. If you're not "someone" to him, it seems he has little time to prepare.

[rednekkhikkchikk]

The current DA is a public official.

 

Isn't that the measure of how appropriate it was to allow the remarks against Donavan to remain?

 

(I think we all know the county doesn't allow that, don't we?)

[feelip]

For the record, I have seen several slams against our current DA, in several threads. I don't see him on here threatening or trying to belittle anyone. I don't hear about him mailing letters threatening law suits.

 

I have seen Mr. Donovan in the courtroom on several occasions, I was less than impressed. If you're not "someone" to him, it seems he has little time to prepare.

 

 

The only candidate for any office that has been able to come on p.com and hold his on was Will Avery. Stout and Donovan have not done themselves any favors. They both would have been better off to have just kept their mouths shut and be thought a fool.....

[gpatt0n]

The current DA is a public official.

 

Isn't that the measure of how appropriate it was to allow the remarks against Donavan to remain?

 

(I think we all know the county doesn't allow that, don't we?)

 

If you are suggesting that I edited or removed comments - any comments in regard to Mr. Lane 'because the county doesn't allow that" ... then you're sadly mistaken. First the county has no control over this site, it is wholly owned and operated by me and second, commentary is what we're about.

 

The only time we remove negative comments is when they are out of the blue and allege a criminal act of which there is no evidence and we are not in a political season and libel may have been committed - I.e. comments that would be considered malicious and unfounded.

 

During political season we may choose to close the topic with a comment that the comments are unfounded or, in other cases just refute the charges (think Ms. Braddock and the allegation of her classmate ... and possibly close it. It is challenging to do this business during a political season but I think we do a pretty good job.

 

pubby

[mei lan]

The current DA is a public official.

 

Isn't that the measure of how appropriate it was to allow the remarks against Donavan to remain?

 

(I think we all know the county doesn't allow that, don't we?)

 

OK, don't thump me, but I don't understand what you are saying. I think I should go eat lunch (late!) and come back and see if it makes sense then. I don't function well hungry.

[hart408]

The title of this thread is "Pubby hate." Pubby was accused of bias, he presented his side (the video) and has been pushing a first amendment issue and belaboring the point about the poor single mother being attacked.

 

I have concerns for the poor single mother. She isn't a pushover and is posting as her conscience dictates. That is commendable. I don't feel she is a victim, she is posting of her own free will. I do feel she is being used to promote Pubby's first amendment issue and I worry about what could possibly happen as a result.

 

From what I can tell from other threads, after DD sent that letter, WFAL took it to her attorney to handle. WFAL issued an apology through her attorney and then the issue was settled (and I assume WFAL had to pay for new attorneys time, unless Pubby paid and I doubt that). No harm, no foul. But the issue keeps being brought up as a first amendment issue. It's more of a WFAL could get in trouble/have to pay a bunch of money issue to me.

 

Quoting Pubby from another thread: "That was a poorly written phrase on my part. It should have read beg him not to sue her. I think the gender confusion came from my confusion over the gender of WFAL's new attorney ... i.e. she (wfal's) attorney was negotiating a non-suit position for her and according to WFAL, Donovan was adamant and she had to beg him not to proceed with his stated intention to sue for libel. I think that is how that got confused. Donovan did agree, with a retraction and an apology, he would not ... but given the facts of the case, he really should have just manned up on the deal and recognized that the demand was out of line for him to make.

 

The reason the letters are not posted is that they name names, addresses, etc. "

 

We have had the chance to see people's opinions of Donovan. People will vote however they want to vote. Who will pay for WFAL's attorney fees if DD feels the agreement made with her attorney has been violated? What does WFAL's new attorney think about all of this? I have had similar issues with not being represented appropriately in Paulding, but I didn't name the attorney outright on the board. Don't eff with attorneys. It is just common sense. And if you really are worried about a poor single mother, don't use her for your means when she could get in really big trouble...

[bvrat5199]

Don't eff with attorneys. It is just common sense.

 

So are you saying that attorneys can basically do as these please and we should all live in fear of them? I think not.

[rockysmom]

So are you saying that attorneys can basically do as these please and we should all live in fear of them? I think not.

 

 

My opinion is that there are scumbag attorneys who know how to work the system to their advantage and it is in your best interest to steer clear. Just one of the many "but that is not right" things that are part of life.

[hart408]

So are you saying that attorneys can basically do as these please and we should all live in fear of them? I think not.

 

I have a great attorney. He gave me a couple of good pieces of advice. 1.) Shut up. Don't run your mouth. You can bitch when everything is settled, until then, shut up. 2.) Somebody has to lose. Once issues have been "settled" with a court order, let it go unless something really groundbreaking occurs. It makes judges mad as hell to have someone continue the legal battle after they have made an order.

 

I am saying that if there would have been a real issue, the GABar is the place to file a complaint. There is recourse. Did that happen in this case? Is there a complaint filed with the GABar? What I am saying is anything you say in public, especially freaking written in public, is evidence. If they had come to an agreement and one party breaks the agreement, the YES it is stupid to eff with that attorney.

 

Just my two cents. I am more concerned with WFAL at the moment than defending the first amendment. I am more comfortable with trying to convince her not to get in trouble than I would be with egging her on.

Edited July 26, 2010 by WideLoad

[workingforaliving]

We have had the chance to see people's opinions of Donovan. People will vote however they want to vote. Who will pay for WFAL's attorney fees if DD feels the agreement made with her attorney has been violated? What does WFAL's new attorney think about all of this? I have had similar issues with not being represented appropriately in Paulding, but I didn't name the attorney outright on the board. Don't eff with attorneys. It is just common sense. And if you really are worried about a poor single mother, don't use her for your means when she could get in really big trouble...

My new attorney (who is a he, btw, and kicks ass) advised me to issue a retraction. He told me, straight up, that he does not have experience in this but had negotiated with Donovan to back off IF I apologized and retracted my statements. His advice to me was because "it will be easier this way." My new attorney wan't concerned about right or wrong, he cared about what was easier for me (financially, mostly).

 

You were right in your assessment of me, I am NOT a pushover. Donovan doesn't know that about me, though. When I went to his office I was in a severe emotional distress. When I got served, I sat at my kitchen table and cried hystarically for hours. When I talked to Donovan, I felt defeated and hopeless and I looked to Donovan to guide me out of the situation with as little harm to my child as possible. At the courthouse, I cried and snotted all over the place after Donovan came back to tell me what the judge had said. In situations concerning my child, I act emotionally...as does every mother. Donovan probably viewED me as a weaker female that he could push around. I may have, unintentionally, given him that impression.

 

As for the filing of paperwork, there are two documents in my file at the courthouse with Donovan's signature: an issue of appearance and the temporary order. The dates on these two documents are almost 3 months apart. It does not appear that he filed any response or other legal jargon to the request for custody. I believe there is a 30 day time period in which to respond? Either way, my new attorney file a sub. of councel and about 150 other pages of documents to bring my case up to speed. I doubt Donovan will be the one paying for THOSE billable hours. It's like paying two people to do the same job.

 

I'm pissed off at Donovan. I have no problem admitting that....and until this election is over and I get all of my dollars worth of pissed off out of my system, I won't back off and will continue to tell every Paulding voter I know just how much Donovan cares about his PAYING clients. After August 10th, I suspect I'll feel vindicated.

[solosoul]

My opinion is that there are scumbag attorneys who know how to work the system to their advantage and it is in your best interest to steer clear. Just one of the many "but that is not right" things that are part of life.

Amen

[workingforaliving]

 

Just my two cents. I am more concerned with WFAL at the moment than defending the first amendment. I am more comfortable with trying to convince her not to get in trouble than I would be with egging her on.

I consulted with many professionals in the field before deciding not to issue the retraction. I post with clear knowledge of the concequences of my actions.

 

How many people would say they were wrong and beg for forgiveness if they weren't wrong?

[GeorgiaTornado]

that's like saying there are gangs and they should just be left alone. If you don't bother them...they don't bother you?

[hart408]

My new attorney (who is a he, btw, and kicks ass) advised me to issue a retraction. He told me, straight up, that he does not have experience in this but had negotiated with Donovan to back off IF I apologized and retracted my statements. His advice to me was because "it will be easier this way." My new attorney wan't concerned about right or wrong, he cared about what was easier for me (financially, mostly).

 

I'm pissed off at Donovan. I have no problem admitting that....and until this election is over and I get all of my dollars worth of pissed off out of my system, I won't back off and will continue to tell every Paulding voter I know just how much Donovan cares about his PAYING clients. After August 10th, I suspect I'll feel vindicated.

 

Did you agree to back off? What if DD sees this thread? I know you are a pistol, I just hope that doesn't backfire. (haha, lame, had to)

 

I do have a question for you. I know you are mad at DD, and I can commiserate because I had a similar experience in Paulding (NOT with DD). What if he is the best man for the job? Would you vote for him even though he pissed you off personally if he would be the better DA for this county?

 

that's like saying there are gangs and they should just be left alone. If you don't bother them...they don't bother you?

 

No, it's like saying her attorney already made a deal with DD and she is probably violating it.

 

I consulted with many professionals in the field before deciding not to issue the retraction. I post with clear knowledge of the concequences of my actions.

 

How many people would say they were wrong and beg for forgiveness if they weren't wrong?

 

OK. I don't care so much about any this, just watch your arse.

 

I bet this thread has already been printed and faxed...

[gpatt0n]

that's like saying there are gangs and they should just be left alone. If you don't bother them...they don't bother you?

 

I like that analogy, GeorgiaTornado.

 

pubby

[shannonsolomon]

what does a "retraction" mean anyway? It's already out there. Does he think that means everybody is gonna go "oh geez, she was wrong and didn't mean any of that. He IS an awesome guy. And he also doesn't call people names like a 4 year old"!

[dawneykids]

This whole topic just drips of class!

CLASS........here on P.com? You're kidding right!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[workingforaliving]

Did you agree to back off? What if DD sees this thread? I know you are a pistol, I just hope that doesn't backfire. (haha, lame, had to)

 

I do have a question for you. I know you are mad at DD, and I can commiserate because I had a similar experience in Paulding (NOT with DD). What if he is the best man for the job? Would you vote for him even though he pissed you off personally if he would be the better DA for this county?

 

 

 

No, it's like saying her attorney already made a deal with DD and she is probably violating it.

 

 

 

OK. I don't care so much about any this, just watch your arse.

 

I bet this thread has already been printed and faxed...

 

I did not issue a retraction. My attorney negotiated that with Donovan because he received the same letter I did (he was cc'd) and called Donovan before he called me. I assume he wanted the story from Donovan before advising me on what to do.

 

As far as the second letter Donovan sent my attorney, he said, "I did not respond to the second ", which clearly is false because there is an entire thread about his response to my second post in the political forum. I think that he went back in to the original thread and mods had set it invisable, so he's acting like it didn't happen.

 

 

Is he the best DA for the county or is Drew? I have no idea. I do know that many criminals go free because of mishandled paperwork. My experiences with Donovan tells me that there will be backroom dealings and absolute disregard for the rights of victims. How do we know anything, if it weren't for our own personal experiences? If I lived in a vacuum, I may be able to see things as you see them, but I don't.

 

what does a "retraction" mean anyway? It's already out there. Does he think that means everybody is gonna go "oh geez, she was wrong and didn't mean any of that. He IS an awesome guy. And he also doesn't call people names like a 4 year old"!

Yes, if you retract and apologize, it magically erases from peoples minds as if it never happened.

[GeorgiaTornado]

No, it's like saying her attorney already made a deal with DD and she is probably violating it.

 

My reply about gangs was referring to Rockysmom's post about "in your best interest to steer clear."

[Sp3cial]

Four pages of posts all because an @sshole called a big @ss a "wide load"?

 

 

Hope you all can work it out. Seriously.

[hart408]

Four pages of posts all because an @sshole called a big @ss a "wide load"?

 

 

Hope you all can work it out. Seriously.

 

Haha. You bet your @ss.

[workingforaliving]

Four pages of posts all because an @sshole called a big @ss a "wide load"?

 

 

Hope you all can work it out. Seriously.

The best part is that 90% of the people posting in this thread would have never seen the video or known much of the info in this thread except that a DD-supporter was trying to "help" by calling Pubby out...

 

:shakeshead:

 

Four pages of posts all because an @sshole called a big @ss a "wide load"?

 

 

Hope you all can work it out. Seriously.

Is ass censored?

 

:testingtesting123testing123:

[Sp3cial]

Haha. You bet your @ss.

 

I might bet something if I felt odds were in my favor, but you can be assured it would never be my @ss.

 

 

WFAL--for the record...

 

PSSST...

 

I'm on your side.

 

That doesn't mean I can't find this whole thing funny.

 

What he did to you?

 

My opinion?

 

Unprofessional.

 

But this?

 

Tops his antics.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Sp3cial