April 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Killian on the satire suit | Main | A settlement as solid as a sieve »

May 14, 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Billy Jones

Roch wrote: "You asked for it before it was due and publicly portrayed that as a "refusal" by them to provide it. You are dishonest."

I continue to ask, Barber continues to refuse. And the due date has since passed. Now who is being dishonest?

Billy Jones

Andrew Brod wrote: "Well, that's an easy one to debunk. The suit is actually Adkins, Adkins, Riddleberger, Riddleberger, and Conservatives for Guilford County vs. Martin. So C4GC is indeed one of the plaintiffs."

Well actually, Jodi Riddleberger was quoted as saying she was not part of any suit so Brod is wrong again as usual.

Andrew Brod

Yeah, what do I know?

Hartzman

Do the Craft's and Lomax intend to ask for City taxpayer incentive money?

Andrew Brod

From the BizJ reporting, it appears that Lomax and the Crafts (sounds like a band) are selling the land, not developing it.

Roch

"And the due date has since passed."

... he writes on the due date. Geez.

Hartzman

I suppose it's time to disclose Roch has done business with Mike Barber.

It would have helped if you had said it already as a disclaimer to your rhetoric.

Andrew Brod

Because now that we know Roch's done business with Barber, that May 15 date has morphed to become February 23.

Hartzman

It's kind of like you moderating a debate between Nancy Hoffmann and Bill Knight after you gave Hoffmann a campaign contribution Andrew.

Andrew Brod

Ah yes, that one again. Never mind that Knight thought the debate was entirely fair and thanked both the Temple for holding it and me for moderating it. Don't let the facts spoil the narrative.

Andrew Brod

Any thoughts about the Fec lawsuit and Mark Walker's campaign?

Billy Jones

Andrew Brod wrote: "Yeah, what do I know?"

Andrew Brod, Having your name on a document, even a court document doesn't prove you're a plaintiff. I could sue Ed Cone on behalf of myself and Andrew Brod as long as the lawyer is willing to write your name on the form. Take for example this non profit board that Marty Kotis is seated on. As Roch Smith Jr, Marty and George Hartzman, GPD Chief Ken Miller and others will all attest, Marty had never before heard of Eastern Development Growth Enterprise until I informed Marty he had a seat on the board.

But hey, don't take my word for it (you never do) ask you wife, the smart one in your family and my lawyer.

And in case you don't know how to view the actual document, after you click through the link you must click on the tiny image.

As Jeff Martin wrote: "It is obvious to me that Adkins and Culbertson cooked up this scheme and encumbered the PAC and other plaintiffs without their knowledge. I regard them as reckless and foolish."

Again, the smart one in the Brod family is obviously Andrew's wife as the Professor is constantly proven wrong by a crazy old redneck with nothing more than a faked high school diploma from James B Dudley Sr High School.

Hey Andy, ever hear the expression, "Dumb as a mud fence."

Andrew Brod

Bubba claimed that "the suit is titled Adkins v. Martin, not C4GC v Martin." That's obviously wrong, meaning that I was right. The title of the suit includes C4GC as the list of plaintiffs.

However, I took that a step further and stated that C4GC actually is a plaintiff, and you've persuaded me that maybe that's wrong. I assumed that the Complaint was accurate, and while I've yet to see any reporting to the contrary from a trustworthy correspondent like Sykes or Killian or Roch, maybe it's not accurate after all. But I'll always place more weight on a court document than on Bubba's ravings. You, at least, are making an actual argument amid your own angry ravings.

Speaking of which, I agree that my wife is the smarter one. And I hope you win.

Finally, you said that "Jodi Riddleberger was quoted as saying she was not part of any suit." I'm not aware of any such quote. In fact, from Sykes' reporting:

When asked over the weekend via social media messaging to confirm the suit, [Jodi] Riddleberger said that C4GC had not sued anyone. On Monday, when told that she and her husband, in addition to C4GC were listed as plaintiffs, Riddleberger said that she “was not aware that C4GC had been named in the court papers.”

It looks to me that Jodi Riddleberger was twice given the chance to say she wasn't part of the lawsuit and twice used that opportunity to say that C4GC hadn't joined the suit. Perhaps Sykes' reporting omitted something. Perhaps the Riddleberger quote you're claiming as real is somewhere else. Or perhaps the Complaint accurately portrays her as a plaintiff.

Billy Jones

Andrew, what makes you think I'm angry?

Bob Grenier

"That's obviously wrong, meaning that I was right. "

You still haven't figured out what you don't know, have you?

The comments to this entry are closed.