Beached az!!

Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Amended No-Evidence and Traditional Motions for Partial Summary Judgement

Reading through the latest documents a couple of things really stood out to me in this document. Starting here:

Thus it is not a STRETCH for any reasonable mind to determine that the Defendant PREYED on her VICTIMS and then sought and obtained money from these victims / members of the Websleuths.com website. 

Oh no, it is indeed a GIANT LEAP. To go from complaining about money issues and taking money for Ad Free, to saying she used Websleuths as her grooming ground is a HUGE STRETCH. Especially when so many affidavits filed at the same time do nothing but complain that Tricia was largely MIA from the forum, so when prey, did all this grooming take place? 

The Great Clay Davis you say? Well .. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeit!!

Not So Blind Item: Alien Invasion

It has been reported that some on a quest for justice (who were famously cast out of one queendom and forged forth to create their own) have recently been the victims of alien attack! Coming from the skies and unexpectedly time and time again comes an alien craft carrying this little green lady. It seems her mission is to bring news of unrest in their former land. How this is of any value or interest to them remains a mystery.

Online Anonymity - What is your NAME?

For the record it's Moniker! SMDH

Websleuths First Amended Counter Petition

Please download and read the following document ..

Websleuths First Amended Counter Petition

It's a MUST READ! This part is particularly enlightening  ..

If that wasn't interesting enough for today, then we had these two motions:

Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel

Exhibit A

Don't skip the emails in Exhibit A, here is just a taste ..

"That's fine the good news is she has a lawyer and I bet the lawyer knows she isn't going to be able to afford a long legal battle. Hopefully the lawyer will tell her to settle if not but for the lawyers own interest!"

"I'm going to be working on this like a maniac the next few weeks. God willing, nothing else will come up.

Oh, I also told Ciro he's going to have to hit her hard during the depo. That is the only thing that will scare her enough to go away. But she has money now. Ciro said she's already paid for trial time. Where the hell she got it, I don't know. Did Zoomama die or something? My guess is she finally sold that property in Utah that she and her brother owned out of the trust. 

Why, just why does everything seem to work in her favor? I'm damn sick of it."

Or

"So, while Tricia has rights as a 50% owner, the only thing we can do is keep holding her feet to the fire on our TOS and Rules. She can't re-write them, nor should she violate them."

I swear it reads like Sue is going to give Tricia a Time-Out or Ban her for having the audacity to fight this frivolous lawsuit.

Sue Pruitt's full deposition

Read or download here > Sue Pruitt's full deposition

The first part of the deposition is about how Tricia has damaged the Websleuths LLC. It reads like 'Tricia is so bad because <insert TOS reasoning>'. Is Sue making an argument to get Tricia banned - or Former Membered - from Websleuths, because so far that is about the strongest argument Sue has made, and even then I think Tricia would scoot right on over to JQ to complain about an unfair banning situation!

Now that just set the tone for what follows, in my opinion.

To make this whole process a bit easier for those who don't want to read a 109 page deposition, I've pulled out some of what I thought were the best parts, so read on ..

From what I just read, there is very little 'beef' in this casserole. 

Sue decided to file suit because Cathy came to her complaining about having lent Tricia money, then she says Michael went to Cathy .. and that sounds like IT!! No other victims, not even after she put it out there .. some vague reference to someone who might know something about other people, and another vague reference to people who say they left because they were asked for money who nobody can identify and also didn’t make contact .. so really very little in that argument. 

Moving onto the claims of Tricia milking the accounts get quickly derailed by that pesky email agreement that said she could take $3k out / month including expenses. 

The rest is Sue complaining about the money habits surrounding the Websleuths bank account, but the fact that she did very little about that over the course of her time as a co-owner before filing leaves that argument a bit flat too. 

I don't really know what to think, other than the fact I think filing the lawsuit was extremely premature. 

Also, does anyone really believe that Raine just happened upon the document of the filing of the lawsuit on the Calling Mark Redwine page? Seems very convenient if you ask me. Clearly someone dropped it there to be found, to give the impression it had 'made it's way online'. It was later that night Raine was in Tricia's chat room during the BlogTalkRadio show sending it around via PM to the members in there, it's clear that Raine was pushed forth into this role, but she did not act alone, nor without sanction. There was a concerted effort to get the word out about the complaints in the filing to as many Websleuths members as possible, because without a fishing expedition to find more 'victims of Tricia' this lawsuit was dead in the water, and frankly it looks like it still is.

Guess we'll see what the court decides, but it should be interesting. 

Tricia's Depositon

A few people have mentioned that this document is hard to find so I'm putting it up here in it's own post to make it easier to find.

Tricia's Deposition

Download from link above.

SoSueTriciaGate: REPOSTED!

This post is so perfect I'm reposting it .. see original post on the RadioNewz blog here.

SoSueTriciaGate

Newsflash. SoSueTricia is no business person.

Nor is she a social network-savvy angel investor.

An investor performs due diligence (IN ADVANCE) with regard to markets, income sources, financials, tax filing history, staff, possible debts, ownership claims, and risks, negotiates and puts $11K in escrow until terms of deal are met (or not).

A business person protects the integrity of the business she just invested in by NOT sharing partnership strife with non-equity volunteers and members.

Acquiring ongoing businesses typically involve a transitional closing period over time. Sometimes a full quarter, sometimes a year. When there’s problem with closing the deal terms, a business person gets on the phone, or on a plane, conducts a meeting, and seeks to clarify and resolve problems in person.

The LAST thing a business person does is waste time, money, goodwill and human capital dispatching spies and lies and gas lighting an entire force of good-hearted volunteers and then filing a largely frivolous lawsuit.

That’s all just common sense.

The rest of this – below -- is just my opinion – FWIW and IANL.

Read Plaintiff’s first pleading. It’s over-reaching and mischaracterizes the agreement. Read Plaintiff’s decision to post the lawsuit on the forum. Again -- not a business person’s choice. Read Plaintiff’s “Gambling Questions” Motion to Compel. What would any alleged gambling expenditures have to do with any breach of contract? Nothing. A breach may exist if agreement terms were broken -- if Tricia received more than the $3K/mo management compensation agreed to from the business income from WS – if Tricia willfully failed to transfer WS assets in her name into the new WS,LLC in the time allotted – and refused to correct any oversights on a timely basis. A breach may exist if Tricia received compensation in lieu of paying the fixed ongoing expenses of WS -- and such “bookkeeping oversight” was not corrected in reasonable time of the error being discovered. There is no breach if Sue never recovers her investment. (There is only bad judgment on Sue’s part.) So far in these pleadings and depos and exhibits, if there have been clear material breaches of the agreement, Sue has not proven this.

So … what could be the objective of this latest Motion -- compelling answers to Gambling questions?

Is Sue’s objective to straighten out the Websleuths, LLC financials? To preserve and protect the members, mods, culture and spirit of Websleuths? To recover her $11K “investment”? To push Tricia out with a hostile takeover-like move? Or is it to blame, punish and publicly humiliate Tricia because … two years later, Sue realizes, she speculated poorly, does not understand how to make money on the internet, and, in fact, made a very stupid investment.

From this outside perspective … it feels like the latter.

All these secret alignments, secret threads, secret chats, secret tape recorded calls, secret mutiny of volunteer staff … (c’mon -- has no psychopathology been studied on Websleuths?) – it feels so … Toxic personality. Someone is quite masterful at manipulating others. Even groups.

And along with that toxic personality pathology, would go the love of frivolous litigation, (c’mon, $11K invested in a business that has no profitability; who chooses to litigate that?), and the classic inability to take responsibility for one’s own mistakes. But,this investment bungle can’t be Sue’s responsibility -- it must be Tricia’s fault. Tricia must be punished. Tricia must suffer for Sue’s mistake, for Sue’s lack of business acumen, for Sue’s ego.

SoSueTricia. Indeed.

Welcome out of the fog, mods!  Mortified? Ashamed? We get it.

But, why waste time & energy blaming each other? Take a breath, take responsibility, and think about who actually duped you, abused your good hearts, and who the real victim here is. Get off the sidelines. Step up and earn your redemption. Disclosing the back-door manipulation Websleuths’ new “partner/owner” undertook to force Tricia out of Websleuths’ ownership is a start.

Hopefully, with a bit more cooperation and a bit less blame-laying those in the know will help bring these false allegations to a quick end, force a settlement, oust the clearly miserable and unhappy “new owner” and let Websleuths be on its way to recovery.

Truthful affidavits and screen shot exhibits can work wonders to accelerate justice. Maybe it all happened for a reason.

And thanks Radio, for the forum.

Not So Blind Item: The Fraudulent Twit

Which disgruntled activist from the Websleuths Lawsuit malarky had her butt tanned so raw on the blog of the airwaves, that she has gone running back to one old witness with her new tales of woe? Will he continue to tell her story once he learns the real facts over her badly skewed version? If not, she has already found another venue to spew her bile, if she can keep that account out of suspension.

UPDATE:

She's a MOD!

Just because :)

Raine's Recordings

After Raine's demotion, sacking, jumping-before-she-was-pushed (or whatever version of events you subscribe to) which led to Raine's leaving the forum as a Websleuths Mini Mod, and just before Sue filed suit, a number of telephone calls took place, these calls were made to Tricia and recorded without her knowledge.

You can listen to the full length calls here.

Whatever your view after watching these events unfold over the last 18 months or so, I just want to state my personal opinion in regard to these calls.

Whoever planned, knew of, participated in, or was aware of these calls as or before they took place has a lot to answer for. Calling somebody, and recording them without their knowledge is an extreme example of the kind of mean girl behaviour we have seen whilst following this case.

I have nothing but sympathy for Tricia and the fact that this happened to her. Thankfully she had her wits about her, and it's clear from these calls that she doesn't trust Cathy Rhodes one little bit, and why would you, as there is something SEVERELY wrong with that woman.

However, that is just my opinion, listen to the calls and judge for yourself.

Mean Girl 101: How to write a motion

A new motion was filed today, which could very well have been written by 9th graders, now I'm not sure if that is exactly what happened, but let's break it down and take a look at it shall we?

Here is the motion to get you started. 

First up, right off the bat here .. CATCHY TITLE!! Doesn't that one just make your eyes pop out of your head .. Gambling you say? Oooh scandalous! Wow .. let's read on ..

First part is as boring as hell, a quick skim and it's just covering the same old blah, yes we get it .. LLC blah blah blah, Company blah blah blah .. let's get to the good stuff!

This bit has a bit of meat in it though .. ooh there's mention of the gambling .. let's see!

OK, so when people take money out of a bank account they SPEND IT, good to know. 

Right, I think we're getting somewhere now, oh so her attorney instructed Tricia not to answer that gambling question, that must mean she didn't want her to answer the question, HENCE THIS FILING! Gosh, golly, almighty, even if we can't get this shit in court, we can just file a motion and everyone will read it, and then they'll all know that maybe Tricia gambles and OMG then everyone will hate her and that would be AWESOME .. Hang on, I'm getting ahead of myself here, let's read on. 

Next bit is case law .. Nah, not interested, skipping again. 

OK so Tricia was allowed to withdraw $3000 per month, which had been conveniently left out previously in all other mean girl communications, so let's see what they'll do here .. OOOOOH they say Tricia took more than $3000 .. NICE SWITCH!! Keep this one in your back pocket at all times girls, if someone wins a point you can always shift a goal post!

Now it gets juicy: 

Join the club there!

So somehow HOW Tricia spends her money is key here, kind of like the Bluebird card huh, but let's not go there .. 

Wow folks read on, this is the bit where the mean girls tell Tricia and everyone else that all Tricia's friends said things about her too and they can PROVE IT .. This is a great mean girl move, cosy up to the targets friends and get them to tell you something private about her, act like you have a heart, and are concerned for her welfare, then find out whatever you can. 

Now they argue that it's relevant .. Oh of course it's relevant .. any dirt you can dig up on your target is always relevant .. keep the mud coming budding mean girls, do not let it ease up even for one day!

Now for the conclusion part where all mean girls know a little speech is required, make this good, bring God into it if you possibly can, and show that you are only trying to do the right thing and help other people, let's see how they handle this one ..

Oh this is GOOD mean girls .. this is GOOD!!! Oh nice .. OK what they have done here is taken right from the mean girl playbook, I couldn't have asked for more ... basically the argument is this: 

She admitted it!!! She admitted it, then she said she didn't have to talk about it anyway .. and now we're going to MAKE HER!

Well there you have it ladies, now the fact that none of this will be admissible in court is really not relevant, even if the judge just throws this nonsense right outa there, which he likely will, what matters is they got the story out .. they got to spread it, and that's the main thing! 

Mean girl 101. 

Recording of Raine and Sue

https://soundcloud.com/user373075181/raine-call-log

All you have to do is listen really. Like monkeys in a zoo. Pathetic.

True colors

Many conversations have happened, and a few people have exited stage left from this situation in the last week or two. RadioNewz has provided a venue for people to get their feelings on the matter out and discuss what happened, and how so many were misled in what appears to have been nothing more than a fishing expedition.

Highly recommended: Notes from the Bunny Trail: The Hound Dog’s Tale

There are other articles too, and don't skip the comments.

Having sounded the alarm for over a year, it is good to see the truth coming out. Maybe next time a number of people are telling you over and over to be wary of certain folks, to be careful on certain forums, to take another look at the evidence, to take a look at the character and motives of the people involved, have a listen! Don't just assume those people are simply on the opposing side and dismiss it. Maybe, just maybe, they're trying to tell you something for your own good, maybe they actually want you to be safe and smart. At the very least have an independent mind, don't blindly follow those who you feel have authority, use your own instincts and demand to see the facts for yourself, then judge them on their merits, if the facts can't be produced, well that's a sign to WAIT until they can be before taking a stand. 

Just saying. 

Sometimes things are so good they need to be saved for the ages.

Originally posted on the RadioNewz blog: http://radionewz.net/2014/10/back-to-basics-websleuths-is-about-victims-and-their-families/

Sorry, not sorry.

OOPS something went wrong!
Page not found 404

The definition of confusion

Why so many people just have no idea what they can and cannot discuss at Websleuths. This is from Sue's deposition;

Q. Did you post anything in The Jury Room?

A. I posted that I had filed suit.

Q. Did you do that before it became public knowledge?

A. No. It was after.

Q. Do you remove any posts about this lawsuit after it was filed?

A. Did I what?

Q. Remove posts from the website, from Websleuths.

A. What type of posts?

Q. The posts about the lawsuit. Did you take any of them down off the website?

A. I'm not sure that I did. We didn't want our members discussing it. It would be -- I don't recall.

Q. Why didn't you want your members discussing it?

A. The damage it might do to the reputation; and that's why I kept it in the private area, too.

Q. Was The Jury Room a private area?

A. Yes, for members only.

Q. Maybe I'm -- we're back to the members problems, and that's not your fault.

A. Okay.

Q. We've done this to yourselves. So, let's clarify it as it applies here.

A. Okay.

Q. You said you didn't want members discussing it, but you posted in an area that was members only. So, I'd like to understand a little more about how that works. Maybe there's a distinction of members that you're using that I'm not familiar with. It's a problematic word in this context. I get that.

A. Right.

Q. You told me you didn't want members discussing it; is that correct?

A. Right.

Q. And when you say members in that context, who do you mean?

A. 70,000 members we have. I mean, it could get a little out of control; and all we've done is post the documents and -- so, they can read. And I just felt they should be aware. You know, they were going to find it anyway.

Q. And how many members had access to The Jury Room?

A. It would be all of our -- all of our members. But you have to be a member.

Q. Is that the 70,000?

A. Yeah.

Q. But you didn't want them discussing it?

A. No, not really.

Q. Why did you post in The Jury Room if you didn't -- about this lawsuit if you didn't want them discussing it?

A. Because as members, I thought they had a right to know it had already hit other websites.

Q. Did you -- did they begin discussing it on Websleuths?

A. I can't remember if they did or not. There was a thread, but I can't remember specifically if it was about the lawsuit.

Q. Okay.

At the beginning of this line of questioning we have the reason for letting members know about the suit ..

Q. Why did you intend for them to become aware of the lawsuit? Why did you want them to know about it?

A. In order to field any questions from members.

That must be why no discussion was allowed, so no questions could be asked / fielded / etc.

The only reason to post the lawsuit was to make everyone aware that Sue was taking Tricia to court, and to look for more of these so called 'victims of Tricia' which if they existed would have helped her legal case, none of which we have ever heard of, unless of course you count Raine1212 who started this whole mess, which nobody does really for the obvious reason. 

PMs between Ursa & Raine | Vetting