CNN and Reader Agree: Steubenville Rapists are Victims

Posted in the Columbus Forum

Comments (Page 15)

Showing posts 281 - 300 of578
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#308
Mar 22, 2013
 
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a true moron. I can take care of myself.
So as a lawyer, what do you bill out at?$25.00 an hour? You're overpriced at that.
woof
Takes 10 pound sacks of kibbles and bits with bacon!

Woof.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#309
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>You're so stupid you don't realize that she knows that and you're not getting under her skin.


Spot on, Georgie and gokeefe is one smart (and funny) Cookie.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#310
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>Translation: gokeefe nailed you to the wall.
Oh goody, Colby. How about you defend and explain Gokeefe's assertion that the the court of appeals case is about the Kodgers' divorce? This should be fun.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#311
Mar 22, 2013
 
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
SL is quite intelligent. It'd be a compliment to be considered less intelligent than her, which would be a whole helluva lot smarter than you. I'll do the reading for you, "counselor". I will even highlight relevant statements.
Do we need to break this down into monosyllabic, kindergarden level language for you, "counselor?"
Evidence illegally submitted, used in conjunction with divorce, obtained in conjunction with another case cannot be used as evidence. And in nowhere in this appeal is the mention of this as proof of "hush money" agreements. Or is there "special" ink on the computer screen that only delusionals like Che and Duke can read?
Sigh. I'm not even an effing "lawyer" like Che.
Its kind of you to cut and paste the text of the opinion that I already read.
Now I will tell you what it means...the part that you are not understanding, because you don't understand the context of what it is that you are reading.
The court is explaining the application of the law regarding confidentiality of medical records by citing the Hageman case (a case that has absolutely nothing to do factually with the church, or the Kodgers).
It then applies the law from Hageman to the Kodgers' present claim against the law firm that represented the diocese in the Kodgers' original civil claim which sought damages for sexual abuse of their son.
What Che is telling you, you are too dense to understand. You refuse to read between the lines or do any easily performed independent research. Here it is:
As a result of their performing their work in the representation of the Diocese in defending against the Kodgers' original claim, people working at the largest law firm in Cuyahoga County had access to documents indicating that a sexual abuse victim revealed to his psychologist/counselor that the church paid his family a large sum of money ($45,000) as a settlement for his prior victimization. The documents revealed that after receiving that settlement, his family threatened to expose the Diocese' later decision to return the perpetrator to his position in a local parish, and the Diocese then began making false allegations about the victim and his family. Those documents were floated around the law firm and possibly shared with others outside of it, but they were also filed with the court by the victim's lawyers.
Because the Kodgman's lawyers themselves filed the documents with the court, the victim's expectations of confidentiality and privilege in his communications with his therapist were found by the trial court in the second case to have been waived, so Kodgman's later claims against the Diocese' legal counsel for intentional/negligent/reckless infliction of emotional distress were dismissed through an order of by summary judgment issued by the trial court, and that verdict was upheld upon appeal.
Got it?
woof
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#312
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
You're effing hopeless and a terrible poser.
Explain to us, showing your extreme brilliance, how evidence used in a divorce case, submitted for another case without consent, is proof of a "hush money" agreement via proxy in an APPEAL? God, you're insane or willfully stubborn.
You are seriously making an ignorant ass out of yourself.
You are soooo confused it isn't even worth trying to explain to you. First, I didn't post the link to that case; someone else did. Second, that case is about the Diocese allegedly improperly divulging the Kodgers' medical records. Third, the divorce you keep referencing isn't the Kodgers' divorce but the divorce in a case that was being cited as precedent by the Court of Appeals. You aren't equipped to read that document and understand it.

I provided a link regarding the Dioceses' payment to the Kodgers' that was meant to keep them quiet. You choose not to accept or acknowledge it. Not my fault. You are the horse that one can lead to water but can't force it to drink.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#313
Mar 22, 2013
 
Sorry for the mess...

Its kind of you to cut and paste the text of the opinion that I already read.

Now I will tell you what it means...the part that you are not understanding, because you don't understand the context of what it is that you are reading.

The court is explaining the application of the law regarding confidentiality of medical records by citing the Hageman case (a case that has absolutely nothing to do factually with the church, or the Kodgers).

It then applies the law from Hageman to the Kodgers' present claim against the law firm that represented the diocese in the Kodgers' original civil claim which sought damages for sexual abuse of their son.

What Che is telling you, you are too dense to understand. You refuse to read between the lines or do any easily performed independent research. Here it is:

As a result of their performing their work in the representation of the Diocese in defending against the Kodgers' original claim, people working at the largest law firm in Cuyahoga County had access to documents indicating that a sexual abuse victim revealed to his psychologist/counselor that the church paid his family a large sum of money ($45,000) as a settlement for his prior victimization.

The documents revealed that after receiving that settlement, his family threatened to expose the Diocese' later decision to return the perpetrator to his position in a local parish, and the Diocese then began making false allegations about the victim and his family.

Those documents were floated around the law firm and possibly shared with others outside of it, but they were also filed with the court by the victim's lawyers.

Because the Kodgman's lawyers themselves filed the documents with the court, the victim's expectations of confidentiality and privilege in his communications with his therapist were found by the trial court in the second case to have been waived.

Kodgman's later claims against the Diocese' legal counsel for intentional/negligent/reckless infliction of emotional distress were dismissed through an order of by summary judgment issued by the trial court, and that verdict was upheld upon appeal.

Got it?

woof

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#314
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh goody, Colby. How about you defend and explain Gokeefe's assertion that the the court of appeals case is about the Kodgers' divorce? This should be fun.
This should be fun. Explain your premise that this is what I was arguing. Not only are you a lousy, untrustworthy,$8/hr gossip mongerer, you are Skimmer's protege. You don't read for comprehension, you read for buzz words. Go back to junior high for reading comprehension.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#315
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Duke for Mayor wrote:
Sorry for the mess...
Its kind of you to cut and paste the text of the opinion that I already read.
Now I will tell you what it means...the part that you are not understanding, because you don't understand the context of what it is that you are reading.
The court is explaining the application of the law regarding confidentiality of medical records by citing the Hageman case (a case that has absolutely nothing to do factually with the church, or the Kodgers).
It then applies the law from Hageman to the Kodgers' present claim against the law firm that represented the diocese in the Kodgers' original civil claim which sought damages for sexual abuse of their son.
What Che is telling you, you are too dense to understand. You refuse to read between the lines or do any easily performed independent research. Here it is:
As a result of their performing their work in the representation of the Diocese in defending against the Kodgers' original claim, people working at the largest law firm in Cuyahoga County had access to documents indicating that a sexual abuse victim revealed to his psychologist/counselor that the church paid his family a large sum of money ($45,000) as a settlement for his prior victimization.
The documents revealed that after receiving that settlement, his family threatened to expose the Diocese' later decision to return the perpetrator to his position in a local parish, and the Diocese then began making false allegations about the victim and his family.
Those documents were floated around the law firm and possibly shared with others outside of it, but they were also filed with the court by the victim's lawyers.
Because the Kodgman's lawyers themselves filed the documents with the court, the victim's expectations of confidentiality and privilege in his communications with his therapist were found by the trial court in the second case to have been waived.
Kodgman's later claims against the Diocese' legal counsel for intentional/negligent/reckless infliction of emotional distress were dismissed through an order of by summary judgment issued by the trial court, and that verdict was upheld upon appeal.
Got it?
woof
It goes back to the premise: it is NOT PROOF of "hush money." NOT EVIDENCE. That simple. Have to work it backwards and show the "money". It ties NOTHING together factually with evidence that "hush money" was paid to a specific victim.

Got it?

Gotta get me some kibbles and bits with BACON BACON BACON! Woof!
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#316
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
This should be fun. Explain your premise that this is what I was arguing. Not only are you a lousy, untrustworthy,$8/hr gossip mongerer, you are Skimmer's protege. You don't read for comprehension, you read for buzz words. Go back to junior high for reading comprehension.
Ok. How about this?
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
All this document is is an uphold of an appeal that was argued for unauthorized use of medical documents, looks like it happened via a divorce.
Explain.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#317
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a true moron. I can take care of myself.
So as a lawyer, what do you bill out at?$25.00 an hour? You're overpriced at that.
woof
Well apparently I got that wrong.

Were they rouge priests with rogue faces and sweaty palms?
Or maybe rogue priests with sweaty faces and rouge palms?

woof

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#318
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh goody, Colby. How about you defend and explain Gokeefe's assertion that the the court of appeals case is about the Kodgers' divorce? This should be fun.
There's no need for my analysis. You've tied yourself up in knots while simultaneously flying yourself into the coffin corner.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#319
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
It goes back to the premise: it is NOT PROOF of "hush money." NOT EVIDENCE. That simple. Have to work it backwards and show the "money". It ties NOTHING together factually with evidence that "hush money" was paid to a specific victim.
Got it?
Gotta get me some kibbles and bits with BACON BACON BACON! Woof!
What are you waiting for, a copy of the canceled check? You are insane.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#320
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Its kind of you to cut and paste the text of the opinion that I already read.
Now I will tell you what it means...the part that you are not understanding, because you don't understand the context of what it is that you are reading.
The court is explaining the application of the law regarding confidentiality of medical records by citing the Hageman case (a case that has absolutely nothing to do factually with the church, or the Kodgers).
It then applies the law from Hageman to the Kodgers' present claim against the law firm that represented the diocese in the Kodgers' original civil claim which sought damages for sexual abuse of their son.
What Che is telling you, you are too dense to understand. You refuse to read between the lines or do any easily performed independent research. Here it is:
As a result of their performing their work in the representation of the Diocese in defending against the Kodgers' original claim, people working at the largest law firm in Cuyahoga County had access to documents indicating that a sexual abuse victim revealed to his psychologist/counselor that the church paid his family a large sum of money ($45,000) as a settlement for his prior victimization. The documents revealed that after receiving that settlement, his family threatened to expose the Diocese' later decision to return the perpetrator to his position in a local parish, and the Diocese then began making false allegations about the victim and his family. Those documents were floated around the law firm and possibly shared with others outside of it, but they were also filed with the court by the victim's lawyers.
Because the Kodgman's lawyers themselves filed the documents with the court, the victim's expectations of confidentiality and privilege in his communications with his therapist were found by the trial court in the second case to have been waived, so Kodgman's later claims against the Diocese' legal counsel for intentional/negligent/reckless infliction of emotional distress were dismissed through an order of by summary judgment issued by the trial court, and that verdict was upheld upon appeal.
Got it?
woof
Duke, I've dealth with many lawyers for many years, on a mulitude of subjects, and you sound nothing like an attorney.

Furthermore, I cannot imagine one of them that would spend the time you do on here, maintain a practice and speak in absolute certainties and as unguarded as you do in your 'opinions.'

Tony drops in once in awhile and makes sense. Topix is your career.

To summarize, I doubt you're an attorney and certainly not one I would use.

Are you arguing a case in front of SCOTUS, or even State court of appeals when not on Topix?

gokeefe made more sense in a few posts then you have on this whole, long thread.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#321
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a true moron. I can take care of myself.
So as a lawyer, what do you bill out at?$25.00 an hour? You're overpriced at that.
woof
My rate is based upon a formula involving four or five variables:

venue and type of case, a client's ability to pay, the degree of my sympathy for their cause, and my initial judgment of their propensity for being difficult.

Paco would be able to afford an initial one hour consultation, after which I would be drinking heavily with the three hundred dollars he just gave me and never answering another call when I saw his number pop up on my phone.

Despite our differences, Bubba would be charged about 100 an hour, and he and I would probably go to the local tavern to hash them out once in a while with a knitting needle duel.

Kids and parents with no money get the going rate paid by the state.

Rogue priests with rouge faces....naaaah.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#322
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>There's no need for my analysis. You've tied yourself up in knots while simultaneously flying yourself into the coffin corner.
Oh come on Paco...You can't do any worse that gosqueek. Give it a try. Tell us about the divorce and the illegal evidence.

woof
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#323
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>There's no need for my analysis. You've tied yourself up in knots while simultaneously flying yourself into the coffin corner.
In other words, Gokeefe is so far out there not even you can defend her.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#324
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
Duke, I've dealth with many lawyers for many years, on a mulitude of subjects, and you sound nothing like an attorney.
Furthermore, I cannot imagine one of them that would spend the time you do on here, maintain a practice and speak in absolute certainties and as unguarded as you do in your 'opinions.'
Tony drops in once in awhile and makes sense. Topix is your career.
To summarize, I doubt you're an attorney and certainly not one I would use.
Are you arguing a case in front of SCOTUS, or even State court of appeals when not on Topix?
gokeefe made more sense in a few posts then you have on this whole, long thread.
The blind leading the stupid.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#325
Mar 22, 2013
 
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
Duke, I've dealth with many lawyers for many years, on a mulitude of subjects, and you sound nothing like an attorney.
Furthermore, I cannot imagine one of them that would spend the time you do on here, maintain a practice and speak in absolute certainties and as unguarded as you do in your 'opinions.'
Tony drops in once in awhile and makes sense. Topix is your career.
To summarize, I doubt you're an attorney and certainly not one I would use.
Are you arguing a case in front of SCOTUS, or even State court of appeals when not on Topix?
gokeefe made more sense in a few posts then you have on this whole, long thread.
I assure you dear, I take what you say in your first sentence as a compliment. My clients are usually happy with what I do for them, and I don't need your business, thanks though.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#326
Mar 22, 2013
 
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
It goes back to the premise: it is NOT PROOF of "hush money." NOT EVIDENCE. That simple. Have to work it backwards and show the "money". It ties NOTHING together factually with evidence that "hush money" was paid to a specific victim.
Got it?
Gotta get me some kibbles and bits with BACON BACON BACON! Woof!
Open the links in post 296 and read.

woof

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#327
Mar 22, 2013
 
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
My rate is based upon a formula involving four or five variables:
venue and type of case, a client's ability to pay, the degree of my sympathy for their cause, and my initial judgment of their propensity for being difficult.
Paco would be able to afford an initial one hour consultation, after which I would be drinking heavily with the three hundred dollars he just gave me and never answering another call when I saw his number pop up on my phone.
Despite our differences, Bubba would be charged about 100 an hour, and he and I would probably go to the local tavern to hash them out once in a while with a knitting needle duel.
Kids and parents with no money get the going rate paid by the state.
Rogue priests with rouge faces....naaaah.
woof
$300? You're low end for Columbus. That was the going rate for someone decent here eight years ago. That tells me all I need to know.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 281 - 300 of578
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

16 Users are viewing the Columbus Forum right now

Search the Columbus Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Lois Lerner linked to another erased hard drive 8 min Dick for Mayor 36
500 march for Trayvon Martin in Columbus (Mar '12) 1 hr TonyD2 406
No you agree with Israeli airstrikes into Gaza? 1 hr TonyD2 28
Hey sidelick 3 hr They cannot kill a Spook 1
OH Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 3 hr They cannot kill a Spook 29,010
Ann Coulter: "White Guilt Has Produced Mistake ... (Sep '12) 4 hr They cannot kill a Spook 37
Columbus mayor to DNC: Pick us or lose Ohio 4 hr They cannot kill a Spook 2
•••
•••
•••
•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••