PRESS RELEASE: Gordon Watts to call in to WGUL-AM-860

[Svaha]

Amazed wrote:

<quoted text>
I never pretended to be a famous genius theoretical physicist.
YOU on the other hand like to pretend to be a lawyer.
I'm guessing you still like to play dress up also. Your moms clothes still a little big on you? What does she say NOW when she catches you with her things?
You will have made progress when you realize that playing dress up and getting caught is working as well in your life as pretending to be a lawyer and getting laughed out of court.

In addition to lawyer add doctor and theologian AND I get the distinct impression he believes that he and God/Jesus are peers since he speaks for them. I have no desire to look up his court stuff but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know something is gravely wrong with the man.

[Amazed]

Try acting. Go to Hollywood. Live the dream.

Pretenders and people with huge self esteem issues, people like you, who are looking to be GIVEN praise, admiration, respect, prestige, and lots of ego stroking without really having to earn it or work for it or be stable and productive in their life generally find that Hollyweird can be just the gold mine they are looking for.

Playing dress up isn't necessarily considered strange- for an actor.

Cross dressing isn't necessarily considered strange- for an actor.

Pretending to be something you are not - again not necessarily considered strange for an actor.

Think of the possibilities. No one will expect you to get out of bed five days a week and show up on time for work. No one will expect you to make an effort to get along in social settings, structured environments and environments requiring a certain amount of self discipline and restraint. No one will expect you to respect authority.

Dude, you should make the journey. Find your REAL family.

[Amazed]

"Works by Albert Einstein include more than fifty scientific papers and also non-scientific books.Einstein is revered by the physics community, and in 1999 Time magazine named him the "Person of the Century".

He is probably the most recognized scientist in history, as well as one of the most important, counted among or even surpassing the achievements of Galileo, Isaac Newton, and Charles Darwin. In wider culture the name "Einstein" has become synonymous with genius." -Wiki
__________

I admire Mr Einstein. He was a man that had talent and he was a man who supplemented his gifts and talents with education. He worked hard and he earned the respect of his peers in the scientific community. He wasn't a failure in his personal life. He was a man of good conscious.

You probably don't know admiration Gordon. You probably only know jealously and impotent rage.

[Boohil]

pbfa wrote:

funny stuff.
He also uses his phony, pretentious British spelling throughout. No wonder the courts keep laughing at him.

I thought that was pretty funny, too...particularly since the phony Brit-spell was not consistent throughout the two briefs--Gordon missed more than a few Brit spelling changes (or words that Brits use in place of words that Americans use). While that was a dead giveaway to the silly pretension, Gordon also makes the reference in his briefs to his previous filings in the FLSC. Had the FLSC justices bothered to read those past filings (although because they were completely irrelevant to the unemployment issue, I can't imagine that they would), they would have seen that this silly Brit-spell affection of Gordon's is of recent origin. Stupid to not only indulge, but to also call attention to, your evolving pretentions...particularly when you so obviously haven't mastered them.

I'm sure that more than a few chuckles were shared in the FLSC process for review of the briefs. But these folks didn't get where they are without finely honing their baloney-sniffing skills, and Gordon presented them with a pile of snausages.

Boo

[WSage1]

WSage1 wrote:
ps: It seems mighty funny, BOO, that you were able to see the court's ruling the very day it posted -while it is not impossible for you to check online, what are the odds that you check the very day it posts.
Now, the comments by friends of mine that lawyers "run the court" make me wonder if you had a hand in this matter behind the scenes.
care to comment?

Boohil wrote:

<quoted text>
Paranoia strikes deep; into your heart it will creep...
Gordon, I have a couple of clients' cases filed and pending in the FLSC. As a matter of course, and as an ordinary part of doing my job, I check the FLSC website a couple of times a day to see if there is either a disposition order on the cases, or if they have been granted review.
In addition to that immediate reason, an important part of doing my work properly is staying abreast of case law. One of the easiest ways to do that is to read through the FLSC (as well as the five DCAs) case disposition orders and the issued opinions.
Are you really so narcissistic and deluded that you would imagine that I was looking specifically for *your* case? Are you really so egotistical that you would imagine that I would lift a finger (one way or another, even if I could) to affect *your* case?
Perhaps if you actually got a job, you'd have a little less time for your paranoid, self-important fantasies, as well as actually making some contribution to the society to which you've thusfar only been a parasite.
Boo

Thanks for the detailed answer; I accept your version of events here.

However, my friend(s) who told me this is held in high regard, and iy would have been illogical to not follow up on his comment.

[WSage1]

not thiat it is relevent to the matter at hand, but I dress like a man.

you sure do have an obcession with how people dress.

might want to get that looked at -plenty of shrinks, psychologists, psychiatrists, and counsellors around for you, I trust.

Amazed wrote:

Try acting. Go to Hollywood. Live the dream.
Pretenders and people with huge self esteem issues, people like you, who are looking to be GIVEN praise, admiration, respect, prestige, and lots of ego stroking without really having to earn it or work for it or be stable and productive in their life generally find that Hollyweird can be just the gold mine they are looking for.
Playing dress up isn't necessarily considered strange- for an actor.
Cross dressing isn't necessarily considered strange- for an actor.
Pretending to be something you are not - again not necessarily considered strange for an actor.
Think of the possibilities. No one will expect you to get out of bed five days a week and show up on time for work. No one will expect you to make an effort to get along in social settings, structured environments and environments requiring a certain amount of self discipline and restraint. No one will expect you to respect authority.
Dude, you should make the journey. Find your REAL family.

[WSage1]

I was inconsistent on purpose -variety is the spice of life.

BOO: "I'm sure that more than a few chuckles were shared in the FLSC process for review of the briefs."

Not much more -only 5 of the 7 justices signed on to the "mandamus," as the court called it -just like when a brief on the jurisdiction is being considered.

BOO: "But these folks didn't get where they are without finely honing their baloney-sniffing skills, and Gordon presented them with a pile of snausages."

That they got there does not negate the possibility that they are full of it -many such leaders (all the way from Hitlar on down) "got where they were," but it wasn't by honesty.

now that's you've actually seen the actual briefs, care to comment on the merits?("Merits" doesn't include trivial matters like British spelling or prior cases; each cases is judged on its own merit)

Boohil wrote:

<quoted text>
I thought that was pretty funny, too...particularly since the phony Brit-spell was not consistent throughout the two briefs--Gordon missed more than a few Brit spelling changes (or words that Brits use in place of words that Americans use). While that was a dead giveaway to the silly pretension, Gordon also makes the reference in his briefs to his previous filings in the FLSC. Had the FLSC justices bothered to read those past filings (although because they were completely irrelevant to the unemployment issue, I can't imagine that they would), they would have seen that this silly Brit-spell affection of Gordon's is of recent origin. Stupid to not only indulge, but to also call attention to, your evolving pretentions...particularly when you so obviously haven't mastered them.
I'm sure that more than a few chuckles were shared in the FLSC process for review of the briefs. But these folks didn't get where they are without finely honing their baloney-sniffing skills, and Gordon presented them with a pile of snausages.
Boo

[Amazed]

WSage1 wrote:

not thiat it is relevent to the matter at hand, but I dress like a man.
you sure do have an obcession with how people dress.
might want to get that looked at -plenty of shrinks, psychologists, psychiatrists, and counsellors around for you, I trust.
<quoted text>

It not how you dress but how you act that defines you.

So it really doesn't matter that you dress LIKE A MAN.

[Boohil]

WSage1 wrote:

I was inconsistent on purpose -variety is the spice of life.

Sure you were, Gordon...sure you were. If it makes you happy to say "I was inconsistent [in my pretentious, latter-day affectation of Brit-spell] on purpose," then I think that's fine. As you wish, princess.

WSage1 wrote:

Not much more -only 5 of the 7 justices signed on to the "mandamus," as the court called it -just like when a brief on the jurisdiction is being considered.

They called it a "mandamus" because that's what it was (or that's the closest thing it came to). One of the courtesies the courts give to the ignorant pro se litigant is to characterize their pleadings properly for them, even when they (like you) obviously don't know what the correct legal term is for what they're attempting to do. Only five justices signed off on it because that's all that are required to do so.

WSage1 wrote:

That they got there does not negate the possibility that they are full of it -many such leaders (all the way from Hitlar [sic] on down) "got where they were," but it wasn't by honesty.

Perhaps it is YOU, Gordon, who needs that refresher course in libel, slander and defamation. Absent any specific evidence that any of the Florida Supreme Court Justices were appointed fraudulently, you have just accused Governors Lawton Chiles and Jeb Bush (along with, in generalization, all of the FLSC justices) of fraud and dishonesty. In addition, of course, you've also bubbled the discussion up to "Godwin's Law"...you lose.

WSage1 wrote:

Now that's you've actually seen the actual briefs, care to comment on the merits?("Merits" doesn't include trivial matters like British spelling or prior cases; each cases is judged on its own merit)

Gordon, I read your jurisdictional and merit briefs about a month ago. And I've already given you my comment, earlier in this thread...your briefs were a regurgitated pile of stinking Snausages...Dollar Store brand baloney.

Boo

[Amazed]

WSage1 wrote:

I was inconsistent on purpose -variety is the spice of life.
BOO: "I'm sure that more than a few chuckles were shared in the FLSC process for review of the briefs."
Not much more -only 5 of the 7 justices signed on to the "mandamus," as the court called it -just like when a brief on the jurisdiction is being considered.
BOO: "But these folks didn't get where they are without finely honing their baloney-sniffing skills, and Gordon presented them with a pile of snausages."
That they got there does not negate the possibility that they are full of it -many such leaders (all the way from Hitlar on down) "got where they were," but it wasn't by honesty.
now that's you've actually seen the actual briefs, care to comment on the merits?("Merits" doesn't include trivial matters like British spelling or prior cases; each cases is judged on its own merit)
<quoted text>

If you want a legal education go to law school.

If you want a review of your legal ramblings take them to a lawyer and pay for the professional services rendered.

Otherwise it seems rather obvious that your ramblings were weighed by the court and rejected. Not liking the decision or the reason given doesn't invalidate the reason or the decision.

You might be able to pretend to be a lawyer.

What you can't pretend is being an effective, talented, good, gifted or even great lawyer.

The first step to becoming a good lawyer is to invest the time, energy and money necessary to learn the law and the practice of law.

Success is earned, not awarded.

[Boohil]

Amazed wrote:

<quoted text>
If you want a legal education go to law school.
If you want a review of your legal ramblings take them to a lawyer and pay for the professional services rendered.

Exactly, Amazed. It never fails to amaze me that Gordon wants a free analysis of his filings, and then (naturally) wants to argue about them. It's a silly ego exercise and the hallmark of a delusional parasite, and until he ponies up my fee, my response to him is the same that I might make to a little pimple on my azz...POP, apply an alcohol wipe, go away.

Amazed wrote:

Otherwise it seems rather obvious that your ramblings were weighed by the court and rejected. Not liking the decision or the reason given doesn't invalidate the reason or the decision.

Again, exactly right. In every court action/lawsuit I've ever seen, there's at least one loser (sometimes two). The loser frequently whines..."They were wrong!" "No fair, man!" "It's fixed!"). The adults among the losers are usually more philosophical and realistic in their reactions. But it appears that Gordon in neither realistic nor adult. Whatever.

Amazed wrote:

You might be able to pretend to be a lawyer.
What you can't pretend is being an effective, talented, good, gifted or even great lawyer.
The first step to becoming a good lawyer is to invest the time, energy and money necessary to learn the law and the practice of law.
Success is earned, not awarded.

I've never seen (honestly, NEVER, even among the utterly uneducated, high-school dropout, "jailhouse lawyers" of my acquaintance) someone less skilled in pro se lawyering than Gordon. He is like the aimless dilettante who takes up oil painting and produces one piece of crap after another that only friends will comment upon politely (with comments like, "Isn't that an interesting use of color?" or "What a unique perspective!"). His court filings are, quite simply, trash, and reflect a total lack of acquaintance with the law but from the most superficial and shallow of viewpoints.

Not surprising, I suppose. This is a person who actually claims to have (I've never bothered to confirm it, so I'll accept it) dual degrees (Chemistry and Biology) for Florida State University, as well as an associate's degree in Electronics Technology. The FSU graduation was in 2000 (nearly 8 years ago); the tech school graduation was some years before that. BUT...this is a person who has never been employed as a chemist, biologist, or electronic technologist; rather, at Taco Bell, McDonalds, and as a contract night security guard, all briefly and unsuccessfully. What will he pretend to be next?

Boo

[Boohil]

WSage1 wrote:

Thanks for the detailed answer; I accept your version of events here.

Gordon, I don't give a flying rat's azz if you "accept" it or not. I do what actual, practicing lawyers do (not that you know anything about that). Your smarmy implications regarding inappropriate "influence" on the court was scurrilous, scandalous, and without factual basis. However, I paired the implications with the source...irrelevant.

[QUOTE who=WSage1"]However, my friend(s) who told me this is held in high regard, and iy [sic] would have been illogical to not follow up on his comment.[/QUOTE]

LOL! Your "friend" (too funny!) the unlicensed (anywhere) "attorney" Spencer Cohn (producer of the "Beat Your Boss!" show)? Did Cohn use you for one of his (REAL LIFE, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FIGHTS!!! Oh boy, sure gotta watch that!) shows, Gordon? Did you answer some casting call, and emerge as the "biggest freak" winner? I've no doubt you'd be as much of a reality show draw (don't we all enjoy watching people more dysfunctional than ourselves?) as the typical mismatched families on "Wife Swap." LOL...you "engaged" an "attorney" who was not licensed to practice in Florida (nor anywhere else, according to the ABA)--that is just too funny, and it's just so *you*. Is THAT the "friend" you're talking about that you "hold in "high regard?"

You got used, Gordon, as an object of derision, to stuff Spencer Cohn's pocket. Did you REALLY not know?

Boo

[Walter In FL]

Boo and Amazed
I agree with both of you.

Gordon should pick his trained speciality and stay with it, work with it and grow with it.

There must be some kind character fault that prevent him for maintaining a job in anything.

A person can have a handful of degrees, but what good are they if you don't use at least one of them.

Someone once asked why do we go the school. Most answered to learn.
The answer is to earn money to live a level of comfort.

Gordon never LEARNED to make money.

[Unreal]

Walter In FL wrote:

Boo and Amazed
I agree with both of you.
Gordon should pick his trained speciality and stay with it, work with it and grow with it.
There must be some kind character fault that prevent him for maintaining a job in anything.
A person can have a handful of degrees, but what good are they if you don't use at least one of them.
Someone once asked why do we go the school. Most answered to learn.
The answer is to earn money to live a level of comfort.
Gordon never LEARNED to make money.

I have a cousin who is a "professional student" always searching for something but never quite getting there. He "dabbles" in lots of interests but just when the time is right to apply that knowledge with practical applications..ie..work. She runs right back into a classroom where she feels safe.

Maybe that is why Gordy "dabbles" but never follows through because he can or cannot face fear or possible rejection and/or is unable to hold a job. Time to sh*t or get off the pot dude.

I love my kids but I would not let them live with me while as grown ups cannot make up their minds what they wanna be before I take the ultimate dirt nap.

[WSage1]

Boohil wrote:

<quoted text>
They called it a "mandamus" because that's what it was (or that's the closest thing it came to). One of the courtesies the courts give to the ignorant pro se litigant is to characterize their pleadings properly for them, even when they (like you) obviously don't know what the correct legal term is for what they're attempting to do.

I was advised by a consumer lawyer (in a call-in program hosted by WTVT-Fox-TV-13, Tampa Bay) to ask the court for a writ of mandamus, and I did tell that guy that this was one option vs. just appealing.

However, I chose to appeal instead of asking for a mandamus -since a mandamus would have implied the lower court was so stupid that it could not even perform its "ministerial duties" to know how to count.

In my humble opinion, going the mandamus route was not necessary: Even though I though the lower court was indeed that stupid, it was not appropriate to explicitly say so -when an appeal could accomplish the same goals but with less offensive implications.

Boohil wrote:

<quoted text>
One of the courtesies the courts give to the ignorant pro se litigant is to characterize their pleadings properly for them, even when they (like you) obviously don't know what the correct legal term is for what they're attempting to do.

Boo, you know better than that:

I certainly know the difference between a mandamus and an appeal.

However, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Boohil wrote:

you've also bubbled the discussion up to "Godwin's Law"...you lose.

Some "made up" law is not relevant in any way -except perhaps in someone's "wondering" mind.

Do you really "wonder" what the inventors of Godwin's law really think?

You should have more serious things to think about than trivial bull as this.

Boohil wrote:

Gordon, I read your jurisdictional and merit briefs about a month ago.

I did, in fact, post a link to one of my briefs in a self-help legal board.

However, the Fla Supreme Court does not post the briefs of original jurisdiction papers, and, I holding my cards close to my chest, also chose not to post both briefs publically.

Therefore, I am puzzled at what you think you saw a month ago.

Please direct me to the link where you think you saw my briefs in SC08-424, and we will both know.

I think you are merely unwilling to actually confront the facts: Not only are you wrong, but also you yourself are threatened by an out-of-control court who don't follow their own rules.

I am surprised that you went to all the trouble to pretend you saw my briefs somewhere when I am quite sure I did not post *both* of them anywhere until just now (I only posted one of them on some obscure legal board.)

If, however, you can show me where I've posted my briefs before this week, I will conceded I had a major memory failure.

And, why do you think the court is right?

[WSage1]

Amazed wrote:

<quoted text>
If you want a legal education go to law school.
If you want a review of your legal ramblings take them to a lawyer and pay for the professional services rendered.
Otherwise it seems rather obvious that your ramblings were weighed by the court and rejected. Not liking the decision or the reason given doesn't invalidate the reason or the decision.
You might be able to pretend to be a lawyer.
What you can't pretend is being an effective, talented, good, gifted or even great lawyer.
The first step to becoming a good lawyer is to invest the time, energy and money necessary to learn the law and the practice of law.
Success is earned, not awarded.

circular logic, begging the question, does not impress me.

That you are not a lawyer is no excuse: Apparently you can read and thus actually make an argument on the facts -not just "it must be right because so-and-so said so."

weak argument, if you can even *call* it an argument. Go back to bed; you are too tired to make sense.

[WSage1]

Boohil wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly, Amazed. It never fails to amaze me that Gordon wants a free analysis of his filings, and then (naturally) wants to argue about them. It's a silly ego exercise and the hallmark of a delusional parasite, and until he ponies up my fee, my response to him is the same that I might make to a little pimple on my azz...POP, apply an alcohol wipe, go away.
<quoted text>
Again, exactly right. In every court action/lawsuit I've ever seen, there's at least one loser (sometimes two). The loser frequently whines..."They were wrong!" "No fair, man!" "It's fixed!"). The adults among the losers are usually more philosophical and realistic in their reactions. But it appears that Gordon in neither realistic nor adult. Whatever.
<quoted text>
I've never seen (honestly, NEVER, even among the utterly uneducated, high-school dropout, "jailhouse lawyers" of my acquaintance) someone less skilled in pro se lawyering than Gordon. He is like the aimless dilettante who takes up oil painting and produces one piece of crap after another that only friends will comment upon politely (with comments like, "Isn't that an interesting use of color?" or "What a unique perspective!"). His court filings are, quite simply, trash, and reflect a total lack of acquaintance with the law but from the most superficial and shallow of viewpoints.
Not surprising, I suppose. This is a person who actually claims to have (I've never bothered to confirm it, so I'll accept it) dual degrees (Chemistry and Biology) for Florida State University, as well as an associate's degree in Electronics Technology. The FSU graduation was in 2000 (nearly 8 years ago); the tech school graduation was some years before that. BUT...this is a person who has never been employed as a chemist, biologist, or electronic technologist; rather, at Taco Bell, McDonalds, and as a contract night security guard, all briefly and unsuccessfully. What will he pretend to be next?
Boo

several lawyers have told me that I did a good job -one of those included one of those who was on the Terri Schiavo case, but, out of respect, I am keeping him anonymous.

[WSage1]

WSage1 wrote:
Thanks for the detailed answer; I accept your version of events here.

Boohil wrote:

<quoted text>
Gordon, I don't give a flying rat's azz if you "accept" it or not. I do what actual, practicing lawyers do (not that you know anything about that). Your smarmy implications regarding inappropriate "influence" on the court was scurrilous, scandalous, and without factual basis. However, I paired the implications with the source...irrelevant.
<quoted text>
LOL! Your "friend" (too funny!) the unlicensed (anywhere) "attorney" Spencer Cohn (producer of the "Beat Your Boss!" show)? Did Cohn use you for one of his (REAL LIFE, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FIGHTS!!! Oh boy, sure gotta watch that!) shows, Gordon? Did you answer some casting call, and emerge as the "biggest freak" winner? I've no doubt you'd be as much of a reality show draw (don't we all enjoy watching people more dysfunctional than ourselves?) as the typical mismatched families on "Wife Swap." LOL...you "engaged" an "attorney" who was not licensed to practice in Florida (nor anywhere else, according to the ABA)--that is just too funny, and it's just so *you*. Is THAT the "friend" you're talking about that you "hold in "high regard?"
You got used, Gordon, as an object of derision, to stuff Spencer Cohn's pocket. Did you REALLY not know?
Boo

I just checked with my original expert, the one who said that lawyers have pull in court.

He agrees with you that you probably have no pull with the court if you aren't on my case.

However, he says that a "real" lawyer would not have time to post on a message board as much as you do -and then read all the daily opinios of both the Supreme Ct *and* all the district courts unless you have a small case-load -working part time.

Now, that I believe!

So, if you aren't working full-time, perhaps *you* are mooching off someone to make ends meet, and you have no moral high-ground to say anything against me having found myself in between jobs and having to stay with my father.

However, I am not mean: You are welcome to express your opinion, and my comments about you being partly uneployed (and thus mooching off someone) are my friend's theory, about which I have no direct knowledge -so don't get your panties in a wad about possible slander; it's only a theory.

[WSage1]

Walter In FL wrote:

Boo and Amazed
I agree with both of you.
Gordon should pick his trained speciality and stay with it, work with it and grow with it.
There must be some kind character fault that prevent him for maintaining a job in anything.
A person can have a handful of degrees, but what good are they if you don't use at least one of them.
Someone once asked why do we go the school. Most answered to learn.
The answer is to earn money to live a level of comfort.
Gordon never LEARNED to make money.

Walter makes some good points. I will adress one:

Since we know that mankind can be very evil (think: Slavery, Hitlar, Communist Dictators, Suffrage denials, etc.), it is no far stretch that they might perform practices that are evil -but less evil.

After all, if people can be *very* evil, they can be "somewhat" evil even *more* often, right?

What is to prevent some locals from not liking me because I am *honest* and follow the rules, instead of keeping my mouth shut and doing something dangeorous and dishonest?

Eh?

On one security guard job detail, I insisted on getting specific post instructions from my immediate supervisor regarding when to set the alarms, and this rubbed the client the wrong way, and I was off the post.

Therefore, my theory has merit.

[WSage1]

Unreal wrote:

<quoted text>
I have a cousin who is a "professional student" always searching for something but never quite getting there. He "dabbles" in lots of interests but just when the time is right to apply that knowledge with practical applications..ie..work. She runs right back into a classroom where she feels safe.
Maybe that is why Gordy "dabbles" but never follows through because he can or cannot face fear or possible rejection and/or is unable to hold a job. Time to sh*t or get off the pot dude.
I love my kids but I would not let them live with me while as grown ups cannot make up their minds what they wanna be before I take the ultimate dirt nap.

"Couples living with parents are more likely to have their third child."

* http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_res...

UNREAL, Japan is more advanced than us in many ways, yet many of their population live several generations in the same household -yes, that included people living with their parents.

You going to now call the Japanese people stupid?

I don't think so!

www.google.com/search...

http://search.yahoo.com/search...

So, you should quit **obsessing** over me still having to live at home with my father (my mother lives at home with him, herself, even though she owns a home in which no one lives!-how crazy!)

your **obsession** should be treated with counseling and therapy, I think.