The veiled threat is that if someone is connected, however remotely, to a legal action, that you will seek damages against them.
If that were true then there would be not 7 defendants, but more like 100. Your post is nonsensical. The only legal action I take is against those who are directly responsible.
I stated from long ago, in many posts, that if someone is, under a false alias, claiming to be an unbiased party, attacking this case left and right, sooner or later, if they happen to be one of the defendants or in league with them, will be exposed. What's threatening about that? I would think people coming on here and completely lying about who and what they are, seeking to discredit others through LoCuST tactics would be more than prepared to reap what they have sown.
Or do you think that's perfectly OK? Those who are not implicated will not be named. They have not been so far and they shall not be. So to say that this might happen is totally and completely to ignore the record the past three years. How many SI members are named in this case? Answer: ONE.
Likely soon I will be adding three others - Steve Demarest, Ross Ditlove and Gerald Putnam - but none of them - at least not under their true names - have ever posted on this thread.
You conveniently ignore the record. If Jon Tara is not affiliated with one of the defendants then why should he worry about anything from me or this case? But if it turned out at some point that he was, then by posting here he should reasonably foresee his being hailed into court to be not named but certainly asked a few questions. |
