We just received word that George Logan is suing Fred Ross. I know what many of you are thinking, what?
We believe it’s important not to let King George intimidate those who speak out against his work.
We’re in the process of building a legal team to protect the identity of blog authors and commentators.
For the time being, we recommend that you refrain from posting on this site if you are concerned about your identity being revealed. Many of you have fought passionately to seek ethical solutions to some of our community problems. We will do our best to prevent King George from stifling our speech.
We’ll keep you posted.
Editor’s Note: Click on the links below to view King George’s Complaint against Fred.
the recorder said,
March 3, 2010 @ 10:18 PM
Really, is anyone surprised? I’m far from a legal scholar, but if I can’t call a person a “joke” in America, then we might as well get rid of that thing we call the 1st Amendment, and call it a day.
I just took a look at the Patterson Times and came across this:
January 14, 2010
Protected: The Cowards of Blog Redemption
I thought it was kind of weird that shortly after King George files the complaint against Fred, Patterson Times T’s up a post that suggests some sort identity revealing.
May be a conspiracy reach, but after all the crap I’ve seen over the last year, it wouldn’t surprise me.
We’re behind you Fred, someone has to stand up to these guys.
Sergio Cuellar said,
March 4, 2010 @ 3:03 AM
This is too funny!
If this wins, i should get a case of my own going when Smith slandered my name with her “Social Network Etiquette” post on the Patterson Times..Remember that Classic Post where my photos were copied from my facebook account and the accusations that i “toke it up”, “Chug a pitcher of beer in one sitting” and how “it is bad form…especially when working with children” was posted by the council woman.
I will watch and see..Good thing i saved a copy of that posting!
Good Luck Fred!
ooopsie said,
March 4, 2010 @ 8:41 AM
Now what can be worse for a reputation as a self titled “accomplished attorney”?:
A) Being called a joke or
B) Having another law suit being thrown of court?
Check the Modesto Bee Headline in the local section of Today’s paper
http://www.modbee.com/2010/03/03/1073189/court-tosses-effort-to-delay-west.html
Fight On Fred!
the recorder said,
March 4, 2010 @ 8:49 AM
ABC: Another Bad Case
When that case was dismissed here in Stanislaus County, the city already spent $275,000 on litigation. I remember there was a huge discussion about whether the city should appeal. If you want to know who pushed this ridiculous appeal, take a look at this article. http://tiny.cc/DIsC9
ooopsie said,
March 4, 2010 @ 8:58 AM
ABC…Easy as..123..and the 3 are non-other than who?
Campos
Farinah
Smith
Lone opposing vote:
Cuellar
No Vote:
Shelton (if this was for conflict of interest, great model for other elected or appointed officials!)
Blue State said,
March 4, 2010 @ 11:14 PM
Did anyone catch the Stanislaus County Counsel quote?
“We can only surmise that the city has ulterior motives,” Doering said. “The city’s objective appears to be either to delay or stop the project, not to seek reasonable project improvements or modifications that help the residents of Patterson — or to secure bragging rights and attorney fees.” – John Doering
Blue State said,
March 5, 2010 @ 12:03 AM
Thought I would add another quote, this one comes from today’s Irrigator article
http://www.pattersonirrigator.com/view/full_story/6572150/article-Court-dismisses-city%E2%80%99s-West-Park-appeal?instance=home_news_lead_story
“Mr. Kamilos has now admitted that we held him up for close to a year (with the appeal), but I think we held him up longer than that,” Logan said. “In fact, I think it may have taken up enough time to kill the project.” — Patterson Irrigator
A Legal Friend said,
March 5, 2010 @ 10:03 AM
I have been following this site for the past year, I really enjoy it and offer these thoughts on this suit.
This is suit has little to do with defamation, any five year old can tell you that after looking at the complaint. What’s at stake here is your first amendment right to speech, specifically the right to speak anonymously.
The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment.
A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . .
is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
If the Patterson Times wants to paint Fred and others as cowards for exercising their constitutional rights, well I guess they have larger problems than any of us can really address.
We’re behind you Fred, IrriTator and others!
Homer said,
March 9, 2010 @ 7:20 PM
Anyone hear the Dave Diamond show today? He talked about this case on and off the whole show.
The PattersonTimes has a subject called Cowards, yet it is hidden and password protected. Who are the real cowards?
the recorder said,
March 10, 2010 @ 9:34 AM
I just listened to his broadcast. Dave had a good point, he said that he calls people a joke all the time, and if you can sue for doing this in America, than we have big problems. He also said King George has no skin or elbows.