Monday, October 23, 2017

The pathetic defense of the Gellatly law suit.

Regular readers should know of the Gellatly lawsuit by Insane Clown, against a local Republican Precinct Committee Officer.

It seems he's butthurt over a word used in a private conversation via email between the defendant "and another party member."

Part of what's in the suit is likely true:  Clown HAS "... face a withering stream of hurtful and damaging allegations..."  The "lie" part is where he appends "...which are false."

There's an irony to all of this, of course.  The claim in the suit, as I see it, is that the defendant used the word "embezzlement" in connection with Insane Clown, IN AN EMAIL and Clown doesn't happen to like that.

So.  Because the defendant used A word... ONE word... Insane felt compelled to sue him for "defamation."  That it's not, in any sense of the word, defamatory to even lie about someone outright, let alone tell the truth, in a PRIVATE EMAIL is beside the point.

There's so much irony here, it's locked on due north.

Why would a party chair do such a thing, particularly with an important local election coming up, besides his blithering incompetence and stupidity?

Except for the self-immolation of his already self-wrecked public image, how does any of this move the GOP's ball forward?

How does this get even those mangling the party label like the RINOs currently in office around here, elected?

It doesn't.  A vision-impaired man could see it in a minute.  (Notice I didn't use the non-PC correct term "Blind?"  Seems I have managed to offend a great many of the ignorant around here by using truthful terminology, and we can't have that, can we?)

So, imagine my surprise when one of the main RINOs around here, one Ann Donnelly, actually attempted to defend this insanity:

Ann Donnelly I personally heard Richard shouting (outside the resource center) that David was an embezzler - I don't know if that was one of the issues in the suit, but it would have been for me if I had been called an embezzler. That it is a serious charge! David HAS TO defend his personal reputation from that specific a charge, which can ruin a man's ability to earn a living. When I heard that word, I made a mental note that Richard was making a serious mistake.

LikeShow more reactions
13 hrs

Ann Donnelly As I wrote just now on another site, I personally heard Richard shout that David is an embezzler. I don't think I was the only one and that that was the only time. When I heard that I thought what a serious mistake that was. Others were egging him on and they should not have done that. When you use that word against a man with a family, job, children, you are threatening all of them. A man's reputation is everything. That was such a mistake on Richard's part and I do not think only Richard was to blame, because Richard sometimes is very emotional, as we observed on the 17th. We all get emotional but I believe he should have been counseled by others to not use that term.

13 hrs

Now, Donnelly's got some throw weight among the other RINOs.  She was among the crew that endorsed my leftist brother-in-law, Marc Boldt, instead of Liz Pike during the horrific outcome for the Clark County Char vote... where Boldt took over county government with 39% of the vote... and hasn't stopped screwing us since.

Clearly, like most RINOs, Donnelly merely views the word "Republican" as a label she can toss aside whenever the mood strikes.

Like she has.

Effectively, what Donnelly is doing here is to make the weak attempt to justify Gellatly's ongoing jihad against any opposition to his plans, his actions or to him personally.

Donnelly's remarks here provides no such justification, of course, but it does go to the heart of the RINO, anti-conservative support for Gellately and to the sock-puppet element of all of this.

Oddly, I have yet to see any of the RINOs criticize Insane for anything.  As if, he hasn't done anything worthy of it.

Is it because they, too, are afraid of him?  After all, between his lame efforts of intimidation and public character assassination, fear is what he's attempting to achieve.

Or is it because he's their tool?

For my part, I have made far worse allegations than "embezzlement."  I have not been sued.  Of course, truth IS an absolute defense.

But having been the target of Insane's efforts to defame ME, and having sought legal counsel only to be told that the fact set presented lacked the element of causing actual provable harm (financial or otherwise), and that the case wasn't worth pursuing; I filed it away for future use.

And I have a hell of a lot stronger case than Insane.

Donnelly is well aware of Gellatly's actions towards me.  His efforts to publicly defame and humiliate me go far beyond a single word in a single email.

And what has she said about that?


I'm hearing rumbles of a lack of volunteers to phone bank and so forth.  Well, where are the RINOs that keep supporting this moron?  At least 70 of you idiots voted to keep him in his job... where the hell are you?

How does any of this make people want to join an organization where you run the risk of abuse if you DARE to disagree with any aspect of what the Straw Boss Man says or does?

So, I admit to a certain level of confusion.  Why the hypocrisy?  Why hasn't she and the other RINOs expressed their outrage about what he's done to so many others?

Why do they turn a blind eye to his obvious objectification of women, for example?  How is it that his effort to get public support from one of the people he knows in the strip club business not worthy of their concern?

It's not unlike Brent Boger's rabid support of serial texter Sean Guard.  Boger used to feed me information about Guard all the time back when Guard he was first running... but when the scandal about Guard broke, I became a so-called "disgraced blogger" and it was like Guard was PAYING Boger to do his PR!

What's up with that?

I've got to wonder:  what does this Clown HAVE to do to get them to come out against him?

Why is what's happened to the guy I call Insane Clown so bad... but what HE does... and HAS done... only worthy of the Silence of the RINOs?

No comments: