|
Change
Nov 9, 2006 0:18:59 GMT -5
Post by Carlos Murray on Nov 9, 2006 0:18:59 GMT -5
"Carlos's own words to screw with him, it's like a dare to sue them knowing that they are not crossing the line s by printing his words."
Just to let you know Dean. There is very little in that story that was my actual words. I wouldn't want to say that the guy gained a "Friend" from it!
|
|
|
Change
Nov 9, 2006 0:21:28 GMT -5
Post by fumanshu on Nov 9, 2006 0:21:28 GMT -5
Thanks Dean! FWIW I saw the story and I think it is the worst story they have aver ran on me. This is too much! And I "AM" looking for a Lawyer to proceed. They have truly gone "TOOOOOOO FARRRRRR"!Unfortunately, I don't expect a lawyer will be able to do too much for you. You're a candidate in a civic election. As far as the press and the law are concerned, you're fair game. And it's not slander or libel if they're simply quoting you.
|
|
|
Change
Nov 9, 2006 9:21:24 GMT -5
Post by Carlos Murray on Nov 9, 2006 9:21:24 GMT -5
You are correct fumanshu. But, for the most part, they are not quotes at all. They are just things that the Writer decided to "say" I "said".
|
|
|
Change
Nov 9, 2006 14:04:01 GMT -5
Post by fumanshu on Nov 9, 2006 14:04:01 GMT -5
You are correct fumanshu. But, for the most part, they are not quotes at all. They are just things that the Writer decided to "say" I "said". It's interesting that you condemned the Observer for failing to report what you actually said, and they responded in this manner. In a very real sense, the Observer listened to your criticism and decided that you were right. The article that they published yesterday, was loaded with Carlos Murray quotes. Here's a bizarre twist: Perhaps the Observer was on your side? Perhaps the Observer was supporting you by not printing what you had actaully said, because they knew quoting you would make you look stupid? Perhaps the little media coverage that the Observer afforded you, was in your own best interest? I'm not saying that that's what happened, but you never know...
|
|
|
Change
Nov 10, 2006 15:47:22 GMT -5
Post by Dean Robinson on Nov 10, 2006 15:47:22 GMT -5
This a good question Glenn, also I like your signature. how true it is.
|
|
|
Change
Nov 10, 2006 23:21:46 GMT -5
Post by Carlos Murray on Nov 10, 2006 23:21:46 GMT -5
Well as a matter of fact I did say that I am a "Conspiracy Theorist". But don't you find it a bit funny that they quote me as saying that, but not give any explanation of what it is that makes me so?
First of all, I have absolutely no confidence in those Deibolt Voting Machines. The "Ballot Scanning" model is the primary model that we have been using for the last two Municipal Elections. And the touch screen model (The one that leaves no paper trail) is being phased in.
And I lost confidence in the idea of the "wanker vote" way back when Ferdinand Marcos won the Election in the Philippines. He got 4 Million votes on an island that only has 1 million people.
The fact is that these machines are computers. And a computer is only as good as the person that programed it.
You may recall my statement at the Library last Monday. (11 days ago.) I said that each ballot could have a serial number attached to it. When you vote, you remove the detachable number. Then after the election you could check that number in a list to make sure your vote was counted as you cast it. The same thing could be done with the touch screen models. But it would require people to write down the number from the screen.
You may recall the 2004 USA Election? The C.E.O. of Deibolt promised G. W. Bush that he would "DELIVER" him the Election. And on Election Night they showed a guy doing a display of how easy it was to "hack in" to the router and change the votes registered.
He "Hacked in" (Right on Camera!) and changed 88,000 votes to Bush. And they never did show him changing them back. In fact I don't think he could have? Once they were changed, he would have had no way of knowing "Who" to change the votes back to? -----
In the story he said that I asked for a recount in 2000. Yes I did. But it was never made known what I had specifically asked. I only asked for the ballots in one box to be opened. The box that I casted my own vote in. How difficult could that be?
The list they gave me said that I had received 10 votes in that particular box. I wanted to see only those 10 ballots. I had done something to my own ballot that would allow me to recognize it. Plus I also knew every other person I had voted for. Not only that, but my Mother had cast her vote in the same box. All she voted for was me. She had no idea of who was who running for any of the other offices. So she only voted for the one person. ME!
I know what some of you might think. How do I know my Mother voted for me? Well she told me she did. And that's good enough for me. I know that my Mother would never lie to me!
But my request was refused. I'd like to know why? What's the big deal about opening one box and showing me the 10 ballots with my name picked?
But let's just stay away from that for now. -----
I have the story right here. Jack Poirier (<--- someone that now has a new enemy where he would have been better off keeping as an acquaintance!) stated that I said I should be running in this Election as the incumbent.
That is not what I said at all! I said that in '94 I would have been Mayor, and that I would have run for a second term in '97. But that in 2000 I would have stepped down to run for a seat in Ottawa. By now I would have not been even concerning myself with Municipal Office.
I also said that I thought that the idea of Direct Democracy would have spread to other communities throughout the Country. (That would have been my main reason for staying for a second term. To let other Communities have time to join in on the movement.) And that by now, there would have been a new Federal Party based on the concept. So that Party would have Candidates in every riding across the Country.
That was when he repeated the same question he started the interview with. He had started by asking me if I had said in 2003 that I wanted to be the Prime Minister.? I said, "NO!"
I said that with there being a new Party based on Direct Democracy I would think that I would be a contender because I was the first to push for this newer, (Next Step!) in Govt. But that I would also expect there to be some other people that had had years of Govt experience that would have joined the movement. And that from a National Viewpoint those that had already been household names would quite likely be chosen as the National Leader before myself.
I did say that if the National Party had chosen me to be their leader, I would have accepted their choice. But I would have been equally happy to just be another voice in the Chorus. -----
I'm reading the fourth paragraph. He wrote that in 2003 I was at City Hall when the votes came in. And that I serenaded the other spectators.
Well I was not at City Hall when the Votes came in. I was at "Puck Around" with other members of my own "TEAM"! I did go to City Hall after the Votes had been "CALCULATED". (I decline to use the word "COUNTED" at this time.) But I certainly don't recall ever serenading anyone?
This story is filled with blatant misquotes! I find this truly unbelievable! I look at his paragraph about what I said about my I.Q.. He says that I said mine was 182. (I actually told him it was 181. Not 182.) He then goes on to add in his own thing about anything over 130 being considered "Very Superior" and found in only 2.2 percent of the population. (None of that was ever any part of our conversation.)
I was telling him how I once tested to become a member of MENSA. At that time, MENSA required an I.Q. of 190 to be a member. And I fell 9 points short.
In the test, I found 2 questions that none of the 5 choices was a correct answer to. (This was a multiple choice portion.) I pointed that out to the proctor of the test. But they were using a template to score the tests. With this template method, a page is placed over the test, and the number of correct answers are counted by way of looking for the circles that were filled in. So on those 2 questions, there was nothing marked. (If only I'd have known how they were scoring the test. I would have just blackened in every single circle. Then I would have gotten them all correct! LOL!) -----
This story is absolutely the worst example of them misquoting me ever. In many places he took 2 different comments that I said and combined them into one, which just made them look absurd to say the least.
I'll provide just one example here:
In the middle of the second column he quoted me as saying, "When other people are watching Wheel of Fortune, I'm watching the Queen's Park channel."
Here are the two separate statements that he took that from.
In one I was saying that most people don't watch the Candidates Meetings at City Hall. Because these events always start at 7 PM. most people are watching either "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" or "Wheel of Fortune". Both of which come on at 7 PM. Then at 7:30 they switch to watching "Jeopardy". (I know that those are the shows that I regularly watch at that time of the evening.) And that most people (I'd say possibly 99%) rely on the Sarnia Observer to give them accurate coverage of the event in the next day's paper. (Something I feel they are an absolute disgrace at doing!)
The other comment I made was that I have been spending a lot of my time during this Campaign watching the TV coverage of "Queen's Park" and "Parliament Hill". I have really put a lot more effort into this election than I have in the past.
I want to be as updated as I can be on everything. And a lot of the discussions at both the Provincial and Federal level have a great amount of play in how Municipal activities play themselves out.
In particular I look at the change to 4 year terms as playing an important part in my own plans. I came home in '93 at the request of my Mother to be able to help around the house with things that my Mother and Father were finding more and more difficult to do. Without someone here to help out, they would be forced to sell the house and move to an apartment for the elderly.
My Father died in 2001, so now it is just my Mother. If I weren't here to help her out, she would have to move out of her house. Something that she really doesn't want to to do!
I can't believe that this piece of @$%#^#^# that wrote this article tried to make it look like a bad thing that I "take care" of my Mother. I can see no other reason for him to have put the words "takes care" in quotation marks than to try to make it look like I'm freeloading off of her? Which is definitely not the case.
Unfortunately. I see my Mother's health getting worse to the point that she just might be forced to move to a home for the elderly whether she likes it or not. She is now to the point that she has a Nurse come in twice a week to help her take a bath. (This part is getting "MUCH" too personal!)
I will do just about anything for my Mother! But when it comes to the point of having to give her a bath, that's something that I truly wouldn't want to have to do. Not that I wouldn't if I absolutely had to! But as long as there are other options, they will be taken.
I would have had enough trouble giving my Father a bath if I had to. But giving one to my mother is something that I consider beyond question. -----
I think I'm done with this string for now. But I will pass on a couple of things. I spent much of the last couple of days searching for an "out of town" Lawyer to launch an enormous Law Suit against the Sarnia Observer.
On Monday, (Before or after I go vote. Maybe I should go and vote first?) I will be going to 700 N. Christina, (The Courthouse.) where I will be entering an official "Challenge of Eligibility" against Joe Murray with the "Superior Court of Justice", (That's how the rules say it is supposed to be done!) Stating "Purgery" as my reason of Challenge. (I do have a witness that was there when I spoke to him at the Wet Whistle!)
I will also be filing "2" "Small Claims Court" complaints against Jack Poirier. (The guy that wrote the story in question.) One for "Libel", and another for "Defamation of Character". Each one in the amount of $10,000, for a total of $20,000.
Most people are unaware that Lawyers are only allowed in Small Claims if you pay for them. And, to the best of my understanding, if I am suing him, (and not the Observer) the Observer cannot pay for one for him.
Also. If I am going to court without a Lawyer, the Judge is required "BY LAW" to act on my behalf.
Their, (and especially his at this point) treatment of me is and has been IMHO disgraceful to say the least. I proved to the Disability Board that the media, (Especially the Observer!) has been the cause of my disability. And I am at the point that I will do everything in my power to cause them the same kind of Grief that they have caused me! -----
Won't it be great if I actually do win the election and I still go after them? I think that would truly be the icing on the cake!
Peace! DG
|
|
|
Change
Nov 11, 2006 14:55:17 GMT -5
Post by fumanshu on Nov 11, 2006 14:55:17 GMT -5
I too am bringing suit against a local business. Some words of wisdom from a popular television personality, "If you know they have nothing to defend themselves, sue them into the stoneages."
I don't think you'll be able to sue for $20,000 in small calims court. The law doesn't allow you to bring two suits for the same thing. The judge would dismiss one of the claims if it ever made it to trial, and if you're truly unlucky, he'll dismiss the stronger case.
The simple truth of the matter is that judges do not like to preside over matters where the plaintiff is unrepresented. It strikes me as being rather odd, being that small claims court is intended to give court access to those who might not have access to a lawyer. Regardless, given the reality, the judge will want to shorten the case in any way possible. So if you go in with two claims for the same matter, it's quite likely that the judge will dismiss the stronger claim to serve as a lesson to you.
If you're going to go the small claims court route, make one claim against one individual or business, and make sure that you have a very strong case. Also, if you're the plaintiff, you have to pay for your witnesses to attend. Plus, don't forget that the defendent can countersue for court costs and other losses incurred in defending against a baseless claim.
|
|
|
Change
Nov 12, 2006 4:51:09 GMT -5
Post by Carlos Murray on Nov 12, 2006 4:51:09 GMT -5
Well I guess I'll just have to see. Won't I? Being that the 2 things are totally separate parts of the complaint. Pointing out one part that is a bold Lie, (Libel) and another part of the same story that I can show was meant to defame my Character. Especially bringing up a Drug Charge that I have already received a Pardon for.
And regarding "Counter-suit". If you know anything about Civil Law??? You can sue someone that is Living off of Govt Subsidy. But they can't be forced to pay it. You can't Garnishee someone's Govt Subsidy.
|
|
|
Change
Nov 12, 2006 13:11:03 GMT -5
Post by fumanshu on Nov 12, 2006 13:11:03 GMT -5
Well I guess I'll just have to see. Won't I? Being that the 2 things are totally separate parts of the complaint. Pointing out one part that is a bold Lie, (Libel) and another part of the same story that I can show was meant to defame my Character. Especially bringing up a Drug Charge that I have already received a Pardon for. And regarding "Counter-suit". If you know anything about Civil Law??? You can sue someone that is Living off of Govt Subsidy. But they can't be forced to pay it. You can't Garnishee someone's Govt Subsidy. Yikes! I never considered that. Hmmm, so you'd just be tossing your court costs out the window with no expectation of ever collecting a cent. Brilliant! Wake up, Carlos! You have to pay money to the court to file a claim. You have to serve the papers on the defendent -- depending on how you choose to do that, this will cost you additional money. You then have to give the defendent an opportunity to file a defense. This will cost the defendent money. The defendent will want this money back if you lose. If the matter proceeds to court, you will incur additional expenses -- court and witness costs for example. Now let's assume the judge dismisses one or both of your claims. You won't get your money back -- that will be money that you've just thrown away -- and you'll be saddled with a debt that the defendent will have every legal right to collect. By the way Carlos, your assets are fair game. Bank accounts, investments, assets of any kind can be seized. Think before you speak Carlos; you'll benefit greatly in the short and longterm.
|
|
|
Change
Nov 12, 2006 23:44:41 GMT -5
Post by Carlos Murray on Nov 12, 2006 23:44:41 GMT -5
Oh I know very well how much it costs. I've been through it before. As far as throwing Money out the window. I already know it will be far less than I have spent on running for office.
|
|