The Charlie/Corey thread

thebighurt said:
dont worry dave. Charlies defense is when he snuck into the room, got naked and climbed into bed he thougt it was thorstens room
Click to expand...
Rob your too much man. lmao
 
I have a theory. Maybe, just maybe Corey was so pissed about the disqualification "time of match change" he went to the hotel, somehow changed all of the room numbers and keys to match. Therefore, sending Charlie to an "supposed to be vacant" room. Now, if Charlie sleeps in the nude, then this would make perfect sense. Paying off the hotel staff to go along the way. Oh wait, this happened BEFORE the "disqualification forfeit" situation and the slappage. Forget it, back to the drawing board
 
The best defense to any libel case is TRUTH and from the sounds of this thread, any trier of fact in a libel case would have CW on one side and a parade of witnesses on the other side. I personally don't like CW's chances here to get out of a libel case with a better reputation than he has going into one.

That said, a libel case can also be started by one side solely to inflict financial damage on the other side. Crank up the litigation and paper them to poverty with no intention of seeing it to a jury. Pool players are broke dicks usually so this is probably not the most likely of strategies by CW.
 
I know Sweet Marissa was emotionally upset during this incident--- in addition to being a top notch photographer, she also writes songs. Her good friend, Elton John, sang the song she wrote that night after Charlie left her hotel room.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7o3whUPMc4

It's actually about Charlie leaving her room.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
I know Sweet Marissa was emotionally upset during this incident--- in addition to being a top notch photographer, she also writes songs. He good friend, Elton John, sang the song she wrote that night after Charlie left her hotel room.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7o3whUPMc4

It's actually about Charlie leaving her room.
Click to expand...

That's not exactly true, Spider. :mad:

Elton wrote and sung that song to his "friend" Charlie, in hopes of a reunion. :wink:

Jim
 
A buddy of mine, when he heard a particular Elton John song, use to always sing "Dont let your son go down on me". Now everytime I hear that song, thats the only lyric I can hear. Spiderweb your gonna queer that song for me too man.
 
KoolKat9Lives said:

armchair businees owners know diddly f'g squat
With all due respect Poolplaya9 (and other censorship screamers), liability associated with content/conduct in & about forums is largely unchartered waters. Last I was aware, insurance companies did not insure sites like AZ against suits. The market does not yet exist (or if it started, it is brand new). However, it IS just a matter of time. Some site will soon be sued because an attorney took a case from a client stating he/she was harmed and the site should have/could have prevented it and perhaps even enabled it. There may or may not be merit to the suit, but the site will be overwhelmed with expense, distraction and stress. Perhaps enough to destroy the entity.

If there is even a possibility of a threat of violence, libel, slander, or other crime - a site's admin would be well served to employ the practices necessary to prove at all times that the site was diligently moderated and took action against questionable conduct (Ie. save transcripts, have witnesses, etc).

So many visitors don't have a F'g clue here as to a forum's legal exposure. Listen... What AZ admin will not tell you... An in-law relative of mine passed away in '04 and I reluctantly took over a # of chat rooms and message boards (I say reluctantly because the content was largely deplorable :eyes: and I own/operate my own retail business of 10 franchise locations). The web-sites were adult in nature and received millions of visitors per year. They were very successful under my reign. I had them moderated out the wazoo looking for (in great part) predators seeking minors and other prey. I could not get insurance. I spoke with attorneys about exposures and sued some jerk site over the use of intellectual property. (btw, I sign divorce papers today and no longer run the sites. :thumbup: I sure don't miss the perverts and policing them. I'd say I miss the money but the ex spent it all and then some.... Unfaithful F**king B**ch. Damn, there's my Tourettes again).

Anyway, no one was going to take that business away from us while I ran it. If I could prevent it - No pervert or sicko was going to hurt someone, rape someone or libel someone under my watch.

And none of the short-sighted VISITORS CRYING "censorship, favoritism, unfair, arbitrary!!!" was going to stop me from drawing the lines only I could draw in the murky legal sand.

Trust me, Mike and his team have their work cut out. His mod's work for free. My policy handbook was long and well defined. But how do you train mod's - free agent associates - how to handle every situation? So AZ and the web-forum world are on their own for now, interpreting where the line must be drawn on a case by case basis. There's no "Site-Owner's Legal Forum Rules for Dummies" book out there! I see and applaud AZ'sefforts in dealing with the 3% psychotic trolls and sickos that breed here and the other 5% of visitors that so freely and ignorantly slam their management practices.

Honestly...
You don't know WTF you're talking about.
Click to expand...
Concerning your statements in bold above..........does pot...kettle...black mean anything to you? You described yourself to a "t". I'd have to say that not only does the shoe fit, but you are wearing it proudly.

Liability associated with user generated or 3rd party content in forums is NOT largely unchartered waters. The fact is that there are specific laws in place that cover the fact that websites are NOT responsible for 3rd party or user generated content. They are still occasionally challenged, but the courts all over the country have continuously agreed and upheld the laws. There is lots of information on this for those that bother to research, but here are just a couple of links to help get you started in educating yourself on the matter:
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/05/05/wikipedia-sued-for-libel

http://dontdatehimgirl.com/article_view/empower/108/


You also said "some site will soon be sued because an attorney took a case from a client stating he/she was harmed and the site should have/could have prevented it and perhaps even enabled it," as if it hasn't already happened (your lack of knowledge that it has already occured further shows your ignorance in ever having actually researched it or gotten any information from a legitimate source). Well guess what, there have already been TONS of those lawsuits. The ones that made it to trial were lost, and now it is at the point where most of these lawsuits just get tossed out right away because enough precedent has already been set.
 
uwate said:
A buddy of mine, when he heard a particular Elton John song, use to always sing "Dont let your son go down on me". Now everytime I hear that song, thats the only lyric I can hear. Spiderweb your gonna queer that song for me too man.
Click to expand...
Every time I hear that song, sung by Elton, I think: "Well, what about the father?"
 
watchez said:

I AM NOT SAYING MARISSA IS LYING. And Blackjack putting his stamp on her story gives it more credibility.

People probably question why someone might possibly lie about such a thing are probably people that remember Tawayna Brawley.
Click to expand...



You must be old like me to remember that incident that took place around 1987/88
 
Shawn Armstrong said:
If you have all this information, you must take it to the authorities. If this happened, you have a responsibility as a law-abiding citizen to go to the police. Let's say he has done this to many others. Do you want him doing it again? Don't all turn a blind eye and just threaten him. HAVE HIM CHARGED. If he's done it twice or three times, he's not learning from any of you being silent.

Please get the ball rolling and press charges against Charlie if you have the goods on him. You owe it to every female he works with, or will work with.

Good luck!
Click to expand...
I actually agree with this post 100% Shawn. I understand some of the reasons why someone would not want to press charges in a case like this, but you have a duty to society at large (more potential victims that could be prevented) to press charges regardless of your personal feelings.

Unfortunately, the statute of limitations may have already run out on whatever crimes they might have been able to charge him with. Not only that, but they may have refused to pursue charges, or it might not even have been a very winnable case even if he were charged (but you should still press charges regardless). His defenses would probably be that:

He had a right to access the room because it was his, his organization's, or because it was provided by him to one of his employees.

He thought she was interested, because she had been flirting with him too.

He was not trying to attack her in any way, and in fact he made sure to announce his presence in the room by calling her name to wake her up or get her attention, and also by identifying himself to her by name.

When she made it clear she was not interested he immediately left the room without any problems.

Or he could simply say none of it ever happened-prove it, which is almost certainly what he would at least say about the second nights occurance where he was alleged to have fidgeted with the door lock from the outside.


For the record, I'm not at all saying I don't believe Marrissa, only that he may have good defenses in the eyes of the law. She should have (and still should if possible) pressed charges anyway, if for no other reason than to let him know that not every girl out there is going to roll over and accept this type a behavior. That in itself would likely be some kind of future deterrant.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top