"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
