[herdswoman]

My husband told me this nonsense was still going on....

For all of you still yammering about blocks, warranties, and how Scott's been done wrong, you may want to clarify what is actually going on this lawsuit. For those of you considering putting cash in DI's pocket to "help him out" with his legal expenses, you may want to consider that he is in court to attempt to untangle a web of his own weaving.

Please refer to the basis of the suit, found mid-paragraph 5 through paragraph six of the link posted on page one of this thread:

"Thereafter, from October 18, 2006 through November, 2006, Roberts posted a number of statements on the bulletin board pages of Internet sites related to automobile racing equipment, performance, and related subjects.
(Paragraph 6) As a result of these postings, Kauffman Racing filed a complaint in the Knox County Court of Common Pleas, alleging Robert's had injured the company's reputation and business by posting false and malicious statements on the Intranet. Kauffman Racing sought monetary damage from Roberts....."

Robert's defense, Paragraph 33:

"In his Brief to the Court, Roberts asserts, "There is no evidence he targeted Ohio residents or even targeted a business whose customers were limited to Ohio." Roberts adds, "he did not know Ohio residents would access the site." We find Roberts' arguement unconvincing....."

The majority opinion in Paragraph 34, which is pending appeal:

"Today, thanks to the accessibility of the Intranet, the barriers to generating publicity are slight, and the ethical standards regarding the acceptable levels of discourse have been lowered. As the ability to do harm has grown, so must the law's ability to protect the innocent."

Boldface and italics were added by me, for added focus on the issues.

In September of 2006, Tom & I journeyed to Maryland for the Cecil County event. Prior to this event, we had not heard of any of Scott Roberts' difficulties. However, we were told all about the circumstances and Scott Robert's anticipated response via the Internet, in great detail. All came about exactly as has been foretold to us, which indicates this was a planned smear campaign, deliberately designed to inflict as much damage to KRE's reputation as possible as a form of retribution. The postings by Scott Roberts in October, 2006 were not merely "blowing off steam" or wanting to alert the Pontiac community out of some sense of greater good, or to "protect others." His intent was self-serving, to extract his "pound of flesh".

The law regarding Internet postings of this nature is still in its developmental stages, and landmark cases are yet to be decided. The First Amendment does have its limits; and that is exactly the nature of this lawsuit. Those are issues to which Scott Roberts did not give thorough consideration, hence, he is now facing the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio by his own decision. He is the one who chose to pursue this suit further, and it has nothing to do with blocks, warranties, or Brinell tests. He is going to the Supreme Court to defend his actions (aka shooting off his mouth). The manner in which he made the statements, as well as the statements themselves are what is on trial. He can limit his legal fees at any time he chooses by not appealing. He can stand up and take responsibility for his words and the intent behind them. Or, he can continue to say he "did not know anyone from Ohio would access the site."

Responsibility and accountability takes many forms. One form can be that of a business taking care of its customers. Another form is telling the truth and owning up to one's actions. People sometimes do the wrong thing for the right reasons, but it is still the wrong thing. And when the wrong thing has legal consequences, it is up to individual to take responsibility.

One other thing, these bulletin boards may be publicly read, howver, they are privately owned. Freedom of speech and the First Amendment is also limited in that respect.

I see my homework is done being processed; and I have the rest of a term paper yet to write. Good evening.

[Brian Baker]

Originally Posted by herdswoman

In September of 2006, Tom & I journeyed to Maryland for the Cecil County event. Prior to this event, we had not heard of any of Scott Roberts' difficulties. However, we were told all about the circumstances and Scott Robert's anticipated response via the Internet, in great detail. All came about exactly as has been foretold to us, which indicates this was a planned smear campaign, deliberately designed to inflict as much damage to KRE's reputation as possible as a form of retribution. The postings by Scott Roberts in October, 2006 were not merely "blowing off steam" or wanting to alert the Pontiac community out of some sense of greater good, or to "protect others." His intent was self-serving, to extract his "pound of flesh".

Amy, how is this any different than your actions on this very board against Ray Cox following Larry Davis' death? Was it ok for you then because a fellow sister (Larry's widow) was getting taken advantage of financially? How is it your actions then were ok, but Scott's (and others) actions regarding REK are "nonsense"?

[Ray Cox]

Originally Posted by Brian Baker

Amy, how is this any different than your actions on this very board against Ray Cox following Larry Davis' death? Was it ok for you then because a fellow sister (Larry's widow) was getting taken advantage of financially? How is it your actions then were ok, but Scott's (and others) actions regarding REK are "nonsense"?

Aledgedly Taken advantage Brian, Remember after Amy stired all that up Darcie came back on the board and said it she was wrong.
so does that mean I can sue Amy?
Wow maybe I should becom the dead beat sue her for a free ride and pay all my bills, or not even pay the bills just keep the money for racing, why pay anyone???
I could just tell Paul, Mike and tom to go jump......

[Rob B]

Originally Posted by Ray Cox

Aledgedly Taken advantage Brian, Remember after Amy stired all that up Darcie came back on the board and said it she was wrong.
so does that mean I can sue Amy?
Wow maybe I should becom the dead beat sue her for a free ride and pay all my bills, or not even pay the bills just keep the money for racing, why pay anyone???
I could just tell Paul, Mike and tom to go jump......

Where's that link for the phonics website?? Is there a grammar/spelling one out there somewhere...

[Brian Baker]

Originally Posted by Ray Cox

Aledgedly Taken advantage Brian, Remember after Amy stired all that up Darcie came back on the board and said it she was wrong.
so does that mean I can sue Amy?
Wow maybe I should becom the dead beat sue her for a free ride and pay all my bills, or not even pay the bills just keep the money for racing, why pay anyone???
I could just tell Paul, Mike and tom to go jump......

Ray, duly noted about Darcie's final statements on that situation. The point I was making was about "how were Amy's actions any different from Scott's?".

[johnta1]

That didn't take long, Amy.

[Skip Fix]

"It was only after Lewis raised some flags that my complaints were found. Brinell, cylinder wall thickness,and cam bore. If you read the suit it states I created or agents of mine created the defects I complained about."

Lil Jack do you think they would have taken it back for porosity in one cylinder if they wouldn't for all the other bigger issues? Shoot that was probably caused by the machine shop too! With just the availability of blocks (or other more race Pontiac parts) most of us over the years have made due with minor issues, probably why the decision to sleeve a hole. Even recently there was a lag in IA2 productions with guys begging for an extra block.

My friend's factory 455 block has a nice porosity pocket at the top of one bore too.So it happens.

Amy I guess the whole suit will hinge on if the facts of the defects were embelished on in his internet postings. Since KRE has denied on his block there were ANY defects from the actual block I'm sure they feel ANY comments are incorrect and defaming. That is the biggest part of the initial problem, the denial and is intertwined in the suits. If additional untrue statements were made, then they have true cause for potential damages.Then we have the dilema how much their actual damages are from his statements(how many internet viewers logged on that were potential buyers) vs publicity of putting out a product that needed a recall and not purchasing it for that reason(would the recall have happened without the internet knowledge of all those who had them)?? Most civil cases try to determine how much of the damages are from which party, maybe another tough thing here. I'll bet the tire issue the Explorers had didn't really increase their sales either and caused "damage" to Ford and Firestone. Guess they could sue the TV stations like the local one here that started bringing that to light for their "damages". Some of the owners suits I believe found incorrect owner maintenance of tire pressures as a factor also. So how do they determine the damages from what? Depositions from potential buyers they know actually access those internet posts(how did they determine that and the privacy invasion of seeing who logged on? So did the posts do the damage or did putting out a product with problems requiring a recall cause more damages-who knows?? Bet it will be a big factor here.

I would also guess there is cause for the machine shop to sue KRE for stating publicly their work damaged one of KRE's customers blocks! And I guess KRE can document how that happened for their suit and a potential one from the machine shop. What do you think John-still haven't explained how final machining caused the original complaints. Maybe the hot tanking shrunk them all like washing jeans in hot water

[Brian Baker]

Originally Posted by Brian Baker

Amy, how is this any different than your actions on this very board against Ray Cox following Larry Davis' death? Was it ok for you then because a fellow sister (Larry's widow) was getting taken advantage of financially? How is it your actions then were ok, but Scott's (and others) actions regarding REK are "nonsense"?

Was hoping to get an answer, Amy...but perhaps it was too much to ask?

[Chris Roach]

Oh, how this topic shows the many intelligence levels the Pontiac community brings.

[67 455 Bird ragtop]

[Overkillphil]

...and Pontiacs continue to set quietly in garages everywhere, collecting dust.

[Goathead]

Originally Posted by Overkillphil

...and Pontiacs continue to set quietly in garages everywhere, collecting dust.

Your's may be, but both of mine run..

[Scott Roberts]

Originally Posted by herdswoman

My husband told me this nonsense was still going on....

For all of you still yammering about blocks, warranties, and how Scott's been done wrong, you may want to clarify what is actually going on this lawsuit. For those of you considering putting cash in DI's pocket to "help him out" with his legal expenses, you may want to consider that he is in court to attempt to untangle a web of his own weaving.

Please refer to the basis of the suit, found mid-paragraph 5 through paragraph six of the link posted on page one of this thread:

"Thereafter, from October 18, 2006 through November, 2006, Roberts posted a number of statements on the bulletin board pages of Internet sites related to automobile racing equipment, performance, and related subjects.
(Paragraph 6) As a result of these postings, Kauffman Racing filed a complaint in the Knox County Court of Common Pleas, alleging Robert's had injured the company's reputation and business by posting false and malicious statements on the Intranet. Kauffman Racing sought monetary damage from Roberts....."

Robert's defense, Paragraph 33:

"In his Brief to the Court, Roberts asserts, "There is no evidence he targeted Ohio residents or even targeted a business whose customers were limited to Ohio." Roberts adds, "he did not know Ohio residents would access the site." We find Roberts' arguement unconvincing....."

The majority opinion in Paragraph 34, which is pending appeal:

"Today, thanks to the accessibility of the Intranet, the barriers to generating publicity are slight, and the ethical standards regarding the acceptable levels of discourse have been lowered. As the ability to do harm has grown, so must the law's ability to protect the innocent."

Boldface and italics were added by me, for added focus on the issues.

In September of 2006, Tom & I journeyed to Maryland for the Cecil County event. Prior to this event, we had not heard of any of Scott Roberts' difficulties. However, we were told all about the circumstances and Scott Robert's anticipated response via the Internet, in great detail. All came about exactly as has been foretold to us, which indicates this was a planned smear campaign, deliberately designed to inflict as much damage to KRE's reputation as possible as a form of retribution. The postings by Scott Roberts in October, 2006 were not merely "blowing off steam" or wanting to alert the Pontiac community out of some sense of greater good, or to "protect others." His intent was self-serving, to extract his "pound of flesh".

The law regarding Internet postings of this nature is still in its developmental stages, and landmark cases are yet to be decided. The First Amendment does have its limits; and that is exactly the nature of this lawsuit. Those are issues to which Scott Roberts did not give thorough consideration, hence, he is now facing the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio by his own decision. He is the one who chose to pursue this suit further, and it has nothing to do with blocks, warranties, or Brinell tests. He is going to the Supreme Court to defend his actions (aka shooting off his mouth). The manner in which he made the statements, as well as the statements themselves are what is on trial. He can limit his legal fees at any time he chooses by not appealing. He can stand up and take responsibility for his words and the intent behind them. Or, he can continue to say he "did not know anyone from Ohio would access the site."

Responsibility and accountability takes many forms. One form can be that of a business taking care of its customers. Another form is telling the truth and owning up to one's actions. People sometimes do the wrong thing for the right reasons, but it is still the wrong thing. And when the wrong thing has legal consequences, it is up to individual to take responsibility.

One other thing, these bulletin boards may be publicly read, howver, they are privately owned. Freedom of speech and the First Amendment is also limited in that respect.

I see my homework is done being processed; and I have the rest of a term paper yet to write. Good evening.

Amy, I don't know you or have any problem in the world with you. I went back and read what you said and alledged about Ray. I have never met Ray but based on what you said about him in your rants, Not sure i would do much buisness with him. Thank you for the heads up! Were you angry when you posted those things about him? Did you do your research before posting them? What was your intent for posting those things? Were you just trying to smear him? Were you trying to get a resolution when Ray felt he hadn't done anything wrong? After all your ranting seems Ray's name got cleared. Not knowing Ray, I have read things about him after is name was cleared still referencing your info making him out to be crooked. If there ever was a suit for libel, that would be it. About my course of action, I have said it once, I'll say it agian, I will be glad to argue the merits of this case, just not in Ohio. It was a smart move on KRE's part to drag me into Ohio courts, Its twice as costly for me to fight a case hundreds of miles away. Be careful of your alegations about my intent (pound of flesh) and such! Do you believe all the blocks sold were ok and everyone was treated with good cust. service? Granted, this jurisdiction thing has gotten out of control but I believe mst be addressed. If it doesn't you better never made a negative comment about anyone o the net again. If you do you coud be hauled into any court in the country regardless of the fact you are tellng the truth. Someone could sue you just cause they are mad you outed them and cause you to have to defend yourself in their state or country for that matter. Don't get me wrong, I'm not doing this jurisdiction thing for all man kind, but it does have an impact on everyone on the net. As far as the last decision, I didn't see you post the desent. It was a much clearer argument. Same as the first judge who dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Also seems some really good things came out of my complaints, What the Spidels found could have been devistating had they not checked their blocks after ray read about my complaints. I also uderstand the new MR-1 block is a good, strong, well represented piece. Are these not good things? Maybe I was pissed, but I did not lie . I didn't make an issue over the things I had to do to the block (as Jack questioned) because its a race piece and a new one at that. Plus it wasn't that costly to get straight. It was only after finding what I considered as well as experts considered serious issues. I gave them ever chance in the world to make it right. I Didn't want any money back for the work I had done. I wanted my money back for the cost of the block. I also said if he wanted to I would take another block which i felt was only fair. I was asked If I already had another block and my answer was yes.I feel that was the point everything went down hill(opinion). I feel if I had said no, things would have gone different (opinion). Agian, I have no issue with you and I understand your wanting to defend your friends, I'm the same way(loyal). So I believe you might make sure your side of the street is clean before you point out the problems on mine.

[Steve C.]

Posted- "Do you believe all the blocks sold were ok and everyone was treated with good cust. service?"

Many did, and some still do !