Clearing Up The UGOG Matter
I have temporarily removed certain diaries because a certain person, after acknowledging in a comment here from an ISP that they were them, is now denying who he says he is despite overwhelming to the contrary, including but not limited to:
1. Who was the volunteer lawyer of the Bleecker Area Merchants and Residents Association in the Charles Wolf matter?
2. Who was in Judge Wallach's chambers almost 20 years ago on the Ligget matter sitting there with the Sheriff?
In my opinion, someone got caught and after acknowledging who they are, is now denying who they are as a tactical strategy. There was other circumstantial evidence as well.
1. The person said they worked against Freddy in 2005 for a Democrat's campaign for Mayor.
2. The person said they've practiced law for 22 years. (1987 admittance)
3. Person said their first yr of college was 1978. (Means graduated in 1981)
4. Said he voted in Peter King's District.
So here's my theory. He reviewed the original diaries and realized there was absolutely not a single libelous comment in there but now will claim the wrong person was named which of course just isn't true from where I sit based on the evidence above. I checked through records of BAMRA, matched all the other info up, and I have no doubt it's him, none whatsoever. So now he'll claim, SEVERAL hours later after acknowledging it WAS him, that it wasn't him and then he'll sue as him saying he never was him. (Sick.)
However, as a responsible journalist, I will take something down while someone questions it as I said I would. We have the right guy and I stand by my reporting but there is only 1 way for this to be disproven and I doubt that's happening. If for some remote reason I was wrong, then a full retraction and apology would follow on this site. (but I'm not)
1. Who was the volunteer lawyer of the Bleecker Area Merchants and Residents Association in the Charles Wolf matter?
2. Who was in Judge Wallach's chambers almost 20 years ago on the Ligget matter sitting there with the Sheriff?
In my opinion, someone got caught and after acknowledging who they are, is now denying who they are as a tactical strategy. There was other circumstantial evidence as well.
1. The person said they worked against Freddy in 2005 for a Democrat's campaign for Mayor.
2. The person said they've practiced law for 22 years. (1987 admittance)
3. Person said their first yr of college was 1978. (Means graduated in 1981)
4. Said he voted in Peter King's District.
So here's my theory. He reviewed the original diaries and realized there was absolutely not a single libelous comment in there but now will claim the wrong person was named which of course just isn't true from where I sit based on the evidence above. I checked through records of BAMRA, matched all the other info up, and I have no doubt it's him, none whatsoever. So now he'll claim, SEVERAL hours later after acknowledging it WAS him, that it wasn't him and then he'll sue as him saying he never was him. (Sick.)
However, as a responsible journalist, I will take something down while someone questions it as I said I would. We have the right guy and I stand by my reporting but there is only 1 way for this to be disproven and I doubt that's happening. If for some remote reason I was wrong, then a full retraction and apology would follow on this site. (but I'm not)
Follow the evidence.
Who was the attorney who represented BAMRA against Charles Wolf and served on BAMRA's board?
Reply to this
Could somebody really be so arrogant as to pretend not to be who they are when simple discovery and subpoenas, if necessary, would confirm such?
Reply to this
It seems to me that this person, and I think I know who you're writing about, thinks he's gotten one over on you by getting you to back down. He realizes he's had the same thing done to him that he has done to others, and he doesn't like it.
I'll tell you what: FSZ may have banned you but you're free to post on my web site as long as you don't out people who haven't already disclosed their real-life identities or whose identities aren't widely known. I fear no troll and no lawyer, for I have no money to take and no public reputation to ruin or be ashamed of. I fear no gestapo goon, for I have read and understood Orwell.
EDITORS COMMENT - I appreciate it and may take you up on this offer. Please also see my diary. I made a mistake and not only have made it clear in no uncertain terms that I made a mistake, I will go out of my way to make amends if that is what is needed to be done in case others decide to smear. I am so glad I never mailed anything out and that my mistake was limited to my little read blog. As for money, I have student loans and credit card bills, I'm not worth anything for a few years.
Reply to this