Where's Chris Geer?

[WordWolf]

Wordwolf, go into any bookstore and you will find books in the non-fiction section where the author does not cite sources.

Bob Woodward is an example of a guy who has no footnotes in his books.

If there's an anonymous source, that's one thing- but in that case, there's acknowledgement

that there IS a source.

Any further explanation I'd defer to our poster who makes his living in writing,

since he knows all about this subject.

It is also possible to write a non-fiction book and not use a source, BTW.

Or to identify all sources right at the quote in the text rather than footnoting or endnoting.

Where another work is quoted from, I like to see footnotes, too.

Glad we agree on that.

Plagiarism is a moral issue (the honest do not pretend they wrote what they did not)

as well as a legal issue (if even a student does it on a school paper, it's a misdemeanor

whether or not charges are file, and it's a felony when its income exceeds $2500.00 US.

It's a big deal. Schools usually don't notify the police, but they will penalize a student

caught doing it. Business will fire workers who do it.

All it takes to show the intent NOT to plagiarize is to cite sources.

If one still wholesale used the words of another at that point, most people will look

for reasonable solutions like "rewrite and resubmit this, leaving out the copied text."

Rather than try to put my position into your own words, just leave them as I wrote them and you'll get a better sense of my opinion, rather than a reinterpretation of it.

I'll be glad to amplify or explain anything I have said.

Mr. Juedes made a charge of "piracy," - a crime.

The word "piracy" has more than one meaning, and not all of them specify "crime."

Please don't insist Juedes specifically HAD to mean that when he did not need to.

(If you found him saying "this was a crime", that's a different story.)

Besides, I think this discussion has gone far afield from what he meant in the

first place.

The issue was apparently settled in court, where both sides presented their cases. TWI lost, showing Mr. Jeudes' charge of a crime to be rejected in a court where issues of criminality are settled.

It's easy to sling around charges on the internet where talk is cheap but quite another to make actual criminal complaints and follow through in the court system.

Clearly a court has decided that what Mr. Geer is doing is legal.

My further point about TWI not acting like a victim otherwise still stands.

Clearly a court decided what was brought before them was legal.

(I'm still presuming something WAS brought before them.)

We have no proof that what you're suggesting was approved was ever discussed,

let alone subject to a court ruling.

More likely, twi wanted the rights entirely 100% theirs again, and anything else

was either glossed over or never discussed.

(Then again, that's my best guess as well.)

[Deciderator]

If there's an anonymous source, that's one thing- but in that case, there's acknowledgement

that there IS a source.

Any further explanation I'd defer to our poster who makes his living in writing,

since he knows all about this subject.

Woodward doesn't have ANY footnotes and reading his books one clearly sees reference to other material.

He is not alone in this, either.

I spend a lot of time researching terrorism and espionage and spend a pretty good amount of time going through footnotes and I could buy us both Rolls Roces if I had a nickel for every time I looked for a quotation that wasn't cited in the footnotes.

And some authors have a way of muddying the waters by doing a sort of footnotes dillio referring generally to sources that were used on a page of text when it is clear they are not giving every source.

I agree with you that plagiarism is a big deal.

Besides, I think this discussion has gone far afield from what he meant in the

first place.

Clearly a court decided what was brought before them was legal.

(I'm still presuming something WAS brought before them.)

We have no proof that what you're suggesting was approved was ever discussed,

let alone subject to a court ruling.

More likely, twi wanted the rights entirely 100% theirs again, and anything else

was either glossed over or never discussed.

(Then again, that's my best guess as well.)

Yeah, we don't have evidence of a court case, but just for argument's sake we can take, who was it, WhiteDove? at his word.

And I think it can be therefore accurately stated that Mr. Geer did nothing illegal, contrary to Mr. Juedes' assertion.

The fact that TWI never apparently issued a restraining order or a cease and desist order or had Mr. Geer charged with any number of crimes may indicate the strength of their case. Given their litigious reputation and the state of affairs between them and Mr. Geer, this would seem reasonable to expect.

The first thing a prosecutor must determine is whether a crime took place.

Apparently that was an insurmopuntable hurdle.

Edited August 7, 2007 by Deciderator

[WordWolf]

Woodward doesn't have ANY footnotes and reading his books one clearly sees reference to other material.

He is not alone in this, either.

I spend a lot of time researching terrorism and espionage and spend a pretty good amount of time going through footnotes and I could buy us both Rolls Roces if I had a nickel for every time I looked for a quotation that wasn't cited in the footnotes.

And some authors have a way of muddying the waters by doing a sort of footnotes dillio referring generally to sources that were used on a page of text when it is clear they are not giving every source.

Having not read Woodward, I really can't speak on what he includes or leaves out.

(You have, and you have.)

For the rest, I'll see if I can flag down our writer and see if he can make sense out of practice.

I agree with you that plagiarism is a big deal.

That's more than a few people say.

Glad we agree on some things.

Yeah, we don't have evidence of a court case, but just for argument's sake we can take, who was it, WhiteDove? at his word.

And I think it can be therefore accurately stated that Mr. Geer did nothing illegal, contrary to Mr. Juedes' assertion.

The fact that TWI never apparently issued a restraining order or a cease and desist order or had Mr. Geer charged with any number of crimes may indicate the strength of their case. Given their litigious reputation and the state of affairs between them and Mr. Geer, this would seem reasonable to expect.

The first thing a prosecutor must determine is whether a crime took place.

Apparently that was an insurmopuntable hurdle.

First of all, I'd like to make a distinction I made earlier, especially since it seemed

so emotionally-charged when it was answered.

I never questioned WhiteDove's word- which is that he was told various things regarding

a court case. I believe he was told those things and reported accurately what he was told.

Therefore, I believe he was telling the truth-he was told these things.

Whether those things THEMSELVES are true is a different question, and has

nothing to do with WD.

For argument's sake, I can take their word, as reported by WD's word,

which I think was the point you were trying to make.

Second, twi had a specific agenda, and approached their case with that agenda in mind.

I see no reason to think that their court case included cg and plagiarism.

(It's so rampant in twi that they probably don't admit it's wrong to most people, including court.)

I see no reason to believe twi reported he had used materials without attribution-

which he did, and which IS plagiarism, and which IS a crime.

What was an insurmountable hurdle is the crimes they TRIED to make stick.

Therefore, if all of the above is true, I can see believing twi was unable to grab rights back

from cg,

but I find it unsupportable to claim that this proved he could not have been found guilty of

matters never brought before the court,

or any claim that it WAS brought before the court.

[bulwinkl]

Plagiarism in itself is not illegal. Copyright infringement or intellectual property rights infringement are. Schools have not won a law suit against a student because they weren't the ones harmed. The owner of the copyright or intellectual property are the ones harmed. It's the same as me listening to a cover song and then suing the performer because he/she didn't acknowledge that it was a cover and therefore I was harmed. No where in the US Code of Laws does it mention plagiarism.

[Ham]

Soooo.. where's gear this morning.

Maybe.. maybe.. hmmm.

just maybe, he's being run out of town on a rail by an angry mob in Hackensack, New Jersey..

[Raf]

I'll just make a general comment that works of journalism generally don't carry "footnotes" per se, and that the necessary citations are usually in the text itself. If you don't see an obvious citation, there can be a couple of reasons for it:

1. It's a firsthand account: the author personally observed it, and therefore there is no need for citation.

2. There are numerous overlapping citations, meaning you can't narrow it down to one source. An example of this would be the "Mission Accomplished" banner or that Bush flew a plane to an aircraft carrier or something. Who do you cite? The New York Times? The Washington Post? CNN? Every news organization that did a story?

3. Somewhere else in the text, there may have been a "blanket attribution," an acknowledgment that significant portions of what you're writing are coming from another source, and naming the source. You'll sometimes see that in a news article when it says: "Here's what police say happened:" What immediately follows that line is not attributed to its source, because it pretty much already has been.

There was such an acknowledgment, for example, at the beginning of the "Introduction to God's Heart" class once taught by CES. The class was a new presentation of old PFAL, and it told you so right at the beginning, acknowledging Wierwille by name and noting that it would deviate somewhat from what he taught, but would also repeat much of what he taught. After that point, it's not necessary to say "Wierwille said this, Wierwille said that, according to Wierwille..." The blanket attribution in the class itself sufficed. I don't know if Geer did the same thing. If he did, there's no need to argue about plagiarism in his case.

I'm sure there are others, but without specific examples, I wouldn't know how to explain them.

[Ham]

So.... where is gear this evening?

hmmmmmmm. Could be.. maybe, maybe, just maybe....

maybe he's pulling up in a broken down jalopy at a farm somewhere in Georgia, stepping out, and sizing up the lay of the land..

you'll have to read the book to get this one..

[excathedra]

where's chris geer ?

far away i hope. he could be one nasty scary dude up close and personal. if vp really gave a damn about people, he would never have made him an "overseer" of anyone (except himself, i guess). he did make a good bus driver for him. but what i said still applies (just fewer people).....

when it comes to discussions about vp and trustees and geer and poo poo paper, the only thing that comes to mind is, i don't know which one flew the highest over the cuckoo's nest

well that's not excactly the right way to say it, since mc murphy was a good guy

Edited August 7, 2007 by excathedra

[Ham]

Vintery, mintery, cutery, corn,

Apple seed and apple thorn;

Wire, briar, limber lock,

Three geese in a flock.

One flew east,

And one flew west,

And one flew over the cuckoo's nest.

[Deciderator]

I never questioned WhiteDove's word- which is that he was told various things regarding

a court case. I believe he was told those things and reported accurately what he was told.

Therefore, I believe he was telling the truth-he was told these things.

Whether those things THEMSELVES are true is a different question, and has

nothing to do with WD.

He also said he had seen documents with his own two eyes, so it was not hearsay.

Second, twi had a specific agenda, and approached their case with that agenda in mind.

I see no reason to think that their court case included cg and plagiarism.

(It's so rampant in twi that they probably don't admit it's wrong to most people, including court.)

I see no reason to believe twi reported he had used materials without attribution-

which he did, and which IS plagiarism, and which IS a crime.

What was an insurmountable hurdle is the crimes they TRIED to make stick.

Therefore, if all of the above is true, I can see believing twi was unable to grab rights back

from cg,

but I find it unsupportable to claim that this proved he could not have been found guilty of

matters never brought before the court,

or any claim that it WAS brought before the court.

I'm having trouble figuring out whether you think this suit had anything to do with the rights Mr. Geer had and that TWI was trying to get back or not.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Deciderator

[WordWolf]

The suit had everything to do with what twi saw as their exclusive rights,

and, as I see it, probably had to do with rights to reproduce pfal and other books and classes,

and to run them.

I think all the evidence supports that.

Furthermore, I think twi lost their suit, and didn't gain back any rights they had previously lost.

I see all of that as having nothing whatsoever to do with cg rewriting parts of pfal, in whole or in part,

into a similar class with subjects directly taken from pfal.

Nor do I see any reason twi would even have thought of that, or filed anything to that effect.

[Deciderator]

The suit had everything to do with what twi saw as their exclusive rights,

and, as I see it, probably had to do with rights to reproduce pfal and other books and classes,

and to run them.

I think all the evidence supports that.

Furthermore, I think twi lost their suit, and didn't gain back any rights they had previously lost.

I see all of that as having nothing whatsoever to do with cg rewriting parts of pfal, in whole or in part,

into a similar class with subjects directly taken from pfal.

Nor do I see any reason twi would even have thought of that, or filed anything to that effect.

What would those rights be then?

Neither of us were at the trial, but is it not reasonable to see that Mr. Geer's right to do just what he is doing was supported by the court?

[johnj]

To the best of my knowledge along with some documents that I referred to as well this is what I can tell you , of course I'm not claiming to be an eyewitness or anything as I was not on the scene nor am I verifying anything with the exception of that which I have written documentation for.

Why didn't the Way sue them? They did ! Eventually when Craig realized that they had signed away the material after parting company, it went on for about 10 years and millions of dollars in costs. The Way never disputed the fact that he had the rights, only their attorneys concocted this grey area in which they said that the rights were for Europe alone and not for the US or other countries distribution. Years later the way in Great Britain won the suit and reportedly The Way forked over major cash settlements, for which I doubt they ever mentioned to their followers.

What documents did you read? Who signed them, and what specifically did they say? The details are important.

You mention lawsuits that went on for 10 years. Who filed the suit(s)? Who were they filed against? Where and when were they filed?

Lawsuits are public record and they generate many motions which are also public record. Judgements or closure of suits are also public record, even if details of settlements may not be. Who do you know of who specifically saw legal documents that were filed with a court?

People on this thread have said contradictory things, and some admit their memories are foggy or they only heard something from soneone.-- very vague and not reliable.

[Deciderator]

Likewise, "piracy" is a crime that Mr. Geer has not been convicted of, isn't it?

And what does it tell you that Mr. Geer continues to do what he does in the United States unimpeded by any legal action, in spite of the alleged litigious ways of TWI?

Edited August 9, 2007 by Deciderator

[WordWolf]

The suit had everything to do with what twi saw as their exclusive rights,

and, as I see it, probably had to do with rights to reproduce pfal and other books and classes,

and to run them.

I think all the evidence supports that.

Furthermore, I think twi lost their suit, and didn't gain back any rights they had previously lost.

I see all of that as having nothing whatsoever to do with cg rewriting parts of pfal, in whole or in part,

into a similar class with subjects directly taken from pfal.

Nor do I see any reason twi would even have thought of that, or filed anything to that effect.

What would those rights be then?

Those would be, as I said,

"rights to reproduce pfal and other books and classes,and to run them."

That's approximately what a lot of people were doing in hiding, but cg was doing it in the open, so he was "a target."

Of course, if they already signed over rights to do all of that, then all of his being a target meant nothing except

frustration for twi. Furthermore, they may have just tried to "nuisance-suit" him to death, where they knew he was

in the right, but tried to bankrupt him with nuisance lawsuits. (These are possibilities, I don't know what they were thinking,

or even if it was either of those possibilities.)

Neither of us were at the trial, but is it not reasonable to see that Mr. Geer's right to do just what he is doing was supported by the court?

No, it is not reasonable to suppose that a court upheld-as you're suggesting- EVERYTHING he did at the time.

It was not a judgement of ALL his conduct, or ALL his activities.

Whatever the suit was, it governed only the specific terms of that specific suit. By definition, it excluded EVERYTHING ELSE he did.

If all of what we were told is true- and for the sake of argument, we are presuming it is-

then the court upheld that the specific complaints brought before the court lacked sufficient merit to warrant action.

They were not endorsements of anything-especially anything outside the scope of the complaints.

If someone's going to claim that a court endorsed plagiarism, I'd want to see the specific judgement from the court before

taking that one seriously. In this particular case, that would have been endorsing a felony- and such actions require some truly

extraordinary circumstances for a court to overlook the felonious aspects.

(For example, killing another man in self-defense, where the court overlooks the killing of the man because it was in self-defense.

Edited August 10, 2007 by WordWolf

[WordWolf]

Likewise, "piracy" is a crime that Mr. Geer has not been convicted of, isn't it?

Not so far no, but neither has anyone claimed he's been taking over ships and robbing the passengers.

And what does it tell you that Mr. Geer continues to do what he does in the United States unimpeded by any legal action, in spite of the alleged litigious ways of TWI?

It means he has not successfully been sued on anything for which he might be successfully be prosecuted.

It means twi might have used incompetent tactics, or sued on unwinnable grounds rather than winnable ones.

Mainly, it tells me only what it does at face value- cg has not been convicted of any crime.

Look,

Al Capone continued to do what he did in the United States, unimpeded by legal action, in spite of the best attempts of the

Dept of the Treasury, until someone finally got him on INCOME TAX EVASION.

That does NOT mean he was innocent of any wrongdoings before that, nor that the only wrong thing he did was

not pay his taxes.

Likewise, it didn't mean he wasn't or didn't, either.

[WordWolf]

Plagiarism in itself is not illegal. Copyright infringement or intellectual property rights infringement are. Schools have not won a law suit against a student because they weren't the ones harmed. The owner of the copyright or intellectual property are the ones harmed. It's the same as me listening to a cover song and then suing the performer because he/she didn't acknowledge that it was a cover and therefore I was harmed. No where in the US Code of Laws does it mention plagiarism.

Incorrect.

Plagiarism is always a crime, either a misdemeanor or a felony. Whether or not someone is legally prosecuted

for it or not is no measure of whether or not it's a crime. Similarly, jaywalking and speeding are often not legally

prosecuted, but they're still crimes when that happens.

http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_wh...plagiarism.html

""Most cases of plagiarism are considered misdemeanors, punishable by fines of anywhere between $100 and $50,000 -- and up to one year in jail.

Plagiarism can also be considered a FELONY under certain state and federal laws. For example, if a plagiarist copies and earns more than $2,500 from copyrighted material, he or she may face up to $250,000 in fines and up to ten years in jail."

So, plagiarism in itself IS illegal.

Edited August 10, 2007 by WordWolf

[bulwinkl]

Incorrect.

Plagiarism is always a crime, either a misdemeanor or a felony. Whether or not someone is legally prosecuted

for it or not is no measure of whether or not it's a crime. Similarly, jaywalking and speeding are often not legally

prosecuted, but they're still crimes when that happens.

http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_wh...plagiarism.html

""Most cases of plagiarism are considered misdemeanors, punishable by fines of anywhere between $100 and $50,000 -- and up to one year in jail.

Plagiarism can also be considered a FELONY under certain state and federal laws. For example, if a plagiarist copies and earns more than $2,500 from copyrighted material, he or she may face up to $250,000 in fines and up to ten years in jail."

So, plagiarism in itself IS illegal.

Notice in that article it mentions Intellectual Property, copyright laws and other such minor legal matters. If something is not under copyright or under intellectual property rights, it is not illegal. immoral yes but illegal no.

I know we are nit-picking but that's how lawyers do so let's pretend we're lawyers and nit-pick.

Theses days a copyright is not necessary. If I write some code for a function in software and find that someone used that code and made gobs of money I could sue them for Intellectual property rights infringement. I don't have to copyright software code as long as I could prove that code is identical to mine and mine predated theirs. This is where Intellectual Property Rights come in. I would then reap the benefits if the Court ruled in my favor. Would they go to jail? I doubt it unless the state prosecuted them for fraud. I can't prosecute them for fraud only the state or federal Gov. could here in USA. Otherwise George Harrison would be a felon since he was found guilty of copyright infringement for "My Sweet Lord" and as far as I know he wasn't prosecuted for fraud therefore it wasn't criminal but civil action as far as the state was concerned.

John

[Deciderator]

Not so far no, but neither has anyone claimed he's been taking over ships and robbing the passengers.

It means he has not successfully been sued on anything for which he might be successfully be prosecuted.

It means twi might have used incompetent tactics, or sued on unwinnable grounds rather than winnable ones.

Mainly, it tells me only what it does at face value- cg has not been convicted of any crime.

Look,

Al Capone continued to do what he did in the United States, unimpeded by legal action, in spite of the best attempts of the

Dept of the Treasury, until someone finally got him on INCOME TAX EVASION.

That does NOT mean he was innocent of any wrongdoings before that, nor that the only wrong thing he did was

not pay his taxes.

Likewise, it didn't mean he wasn't or didn't, either.

But Capone didn't win court cases where he was charged with those other crimes, did he?

Apparently Mr. Geer has faced TWI in a court on an even playing field where both sides could be heard and had the case decided by a far more impartial judge and/or jury than can be found here in the Cafe, right?

That isn't exactly reflected in Mr. Juedes' charge of "piracy," is it?

[WordWolf]

But Capone didn't win court cases where he was charged with those other crimes, did he?

Apparently Mr. Geer has faced TWI in a court on an even playing field where both sides could be heard and had the case decided by a far more impartial judge and/or jury than can be found here in the Cafe, right?

That isn't exactly reflected in Mr. Juedes' charge of "piracy," is it?

Correct- it isn't reflected in Mr Juedes' charge.

In any way, including in the CHARGE.

twi was suing on something COMPLETELY UNRELATED to what Juedes was talking about-

at least as any court of law would see it.

Please stop confusing what twi supposedly sued over (rights to duplicate books/tapes,

and rights to sell books/ run classes,

with what Juedes was talking about.

[Deciderator]

Those would be, as I said,

"rights to reproduce pfal and other books and classes,and to run them."

That's approximately what a lot of people were doing in hiding, but cg was doing it in the open, so he was "a target."

Of course, if they already signed over rights to do all of that, then all of his being a target meant nothing except

frustration for twi. Furthermore, they may have just tried to "nuisance-suit" him to death, where they knew he was

in the right, but tried to bankrupt him with nuisance lawsuits. (These are possibilities, I don't know what they were thinking,

or even if it was either of those possibilities.)

Thank you for your reply and quoting what you had posted. I think we are very close to agreement here.

The nuisance suit is an interesting angle, but could they sue him more than once for the same thing?

Do we know they have tried that approach?

Your above post and the quote you provided show clearly that the charge of "piracy" to be incorrect, at least in terms of what we have been given.

No, it is not reasonable to suppose that a court upheld-as you're suggesting- EVERYTHING he did at the time.

It was not a judgement of ALL his conduct, or ALL his activities.

Whatever the suit was, it governed only the specific terms of that specific suit. By definition, it excluded EVERYTHING ELSE he did.

Good point.

Like, if he was bouncing checks to the supermarket, getting speeding tickets or jaywalking, those issues would not be a part of it.

In this case, we can only guess for sake of argument in good faith as to what TWI would sue for. Would they sue just over Mr. Geer redoing PFAL, for example, but nothing else?

What can we reasonably guess -for sake of argument - what TWI would sue for?

If all of what we were told is true- and for the sake of argument, we are presuming it is-

then the court upheld that the specific complaints brought before the court lacked sufficient merit to warrant action.

They were not endorsements of anything-especially anything outside the scope of the complaints.

Do you think it possible the phrase "not guilty" was heard in the courtroom?

If someone's going to claim that a court endorsed plagiarism, I'd want to see the specific judgement from the court before

taking that one seriously. In this particular case, that would have been endorsing a felony- and such actions require some truly

extraordinary circumstances for a court to overlook the felonious aspects.

(For example, killing another man in self-defense, where the court overlooks the killing of the man because it was in self-defense.

I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that if the charge of "piracy" were true, then Mr. Geer would not just be charged with that.

Look at what's been going on.

Don't you think that besides "piracy" and "plagiarism," that charges of conspiracy could be brought?

How about interstate transportation of stolen merchandise?

Why, that one could involve the FBI, couldn't it?

If they had a strong case, in other words they could prove they had the various rights, they could take their case to a prosecutor and have Mr. Geer cuffed and stuffed, right?

No, they sued for whatever reason and on whatever grounds.

None of us knows what happened in that courtroom, but what we DO know is a charge of "piracy" was not sustained.

Mr. Juedes is not being fair to Mr. Geer.

[WordWolf]

WordWolf:

"Those would be, as I said,

"rights to reproduce pfal and other books and classes,and to run them."

That's approximately what a lot of people were doing in hiding, but cg was doing it in the open, so he was "a target."

Of course, if they already signed over rights to do all of that, then all of his being a target meant nothing except

frustration for twi. Furthermore, they may have just tried to "nuisance-suit" him to death, where they knew he was

in the right, but tried to bankrupt him with nuisance lawsuits. (These are possibilities, I don't know what they were thinking,

or even if it was either of those possibilities.)"

Deciderator:

"Thank you for your reply and quoting what you had posted. I think we are very close to agreement here.

The nuisance suit is an interesting angle, but could they sue him more than once for the same thing?

Do we know they have tried that approach?"

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the only ways one can sue twice for the same thing is

if: A) there was a MISTRIAL, which means the first case never finished

B) new evidence has come up that justifies another case (as agreed by the judge at the beginning)

C) one sued in federal court and again in civil court-

but those would have to be different charges to a degree.

That's why OJ was sued twice "for the same thing"- he won the federal suit for murder,

and lost the civil case for "violating the civil rights" of the victims

That possibility gets murky and probably needs a legal translator.

============

Deciderator:

"Your above post and the quote you provided show clearly that the charge of "piracy" to be incorrect, at least in terms of what we have been given."

I think we should give up trying to communicate further on this one.

I refuse to budge on "piracy" being neither a word with exactly one meaning,

nor meanings only referring to crimes,

nor do I see any reason to even suppose twi sued on any grounds related to piracy.

You refuse to budge on saying that whatever "piracy" means, twi sued on it and won,

therefore there was no "piracy."

We're just repeating the same arguments over and over on this one.

It's at an impasse, and without a translator, I see this as just wasting time right now.

WordWolf:

"No, it is not reasonable to suppose that a court upheld-as you're suggesting- EVERYTHING he did at the time. It was not a judgement of ALL his conduct, or ALL his activities. Whatever the suit was, it governed only the specific terms of that specific suit. By definition, it excluded EVERYTHING ELSE he did."

Deciderator:

"Good point. Like, if he was bouncing checks to the supermarket, getting speeding tickets or jaywalking, those issues would not be a part of it. In this case, we can only guess for sake of argument in good faith as to what TWI would sue for. Would they sue just over Mr. Geer redoing PFAL, for example, but nothing else? What can we reasonably guess -for sake of argument - what TWI would sue for?"

As I see it, if twi's being typical twi, they focused all their energies on all the legal rights to

pfal, the tapes, and the books (including all the collaterals.) They wanted to say only THEY

were the legitimate source for any of them, no matter what. twi's been concerned with "illegal classes",

but-AFAIK- never seemed interested in any of the "classes" that sprang up anywhere-

and there were a number- that basically cloned pfal materials under another name.

These were hardly secret, either. twi just seemed disinterested in any of them-

or didn't think there was a basis for a lawsuit, one or the other.

(All of this supposing, for discussion, all the previous is true, of course.)

WordWolf:

"If all of what we were told is true- and for the sake of argument, we are presuming it is-

then the court upheld that the specific complaints brought before the court lacked sufficient merit to warrant action.

They were not endorsements of anything-especially anything outside the scope of the complaints."

Deciderator:

"Do you think it possible the phrase "not guilty" was heard in the courtroom?"

I'm supposing there was a case, that the case was over legal rights to reproduction, sales and

presentation, and that the case ended with the phrase "not guilty" being spoken in re: cg,

yes.

WordWolf:

"If someone's going to claim that a court endorsed plagiarism, I'd want to see the specific judgement from the court before

taking that one seriously. In this particular case, that would have been endorsing a felony- and such actions require some truly

extraordinary circumstances for a court to overlook the felonious aspects.

(For example, killing another man in self-defense, where the court overlooks the killing of the man because it was in self-defense.)"

Deciderator:

"I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that if the charge of "piracy" were true, then Mr. Geer would not just be charged with that.Look at what's been going on. Don't you think that besides "piracy" and "plagiarism," that charges of conspiracy could be brought?"

Again,

I see no reason to suppose "piracy" OR "plagiarism" were discussed in that court,

nor do I see a reason to suppose "kidnapping" was discussed in that court.

It is a supposition that there was any charge of "piracy" by ANY definition,

it is a supposition that there was any charge of "plagiarism".

It would not surprise me if twi tried to make "conspiracy" a charge.

Deciderator:

"How about interstate transportation of stolen merchandise? Why, that one could involve the FBI, couldn't it?

If they had a strong case, in other words they could prove they had the various rights, they could take their case to a prosecutor and have Mr. Geer cuffed and stuffed, right?"

Depends on what you mean.

If they could make the fundamental charge stick of cg using materials THEY had rights over,

THEN other RELATED charges might stick- like transporting merchandise. If they could not,

then he was exercising his legal rights concerning the merchandise, and their transport was

perfectly legal.

I see them as potentially getting him to pay money, but I don't see this as a "throw him in

prison" type of crime. (Then again, I'm not a lawyer.)

Deciderator:

"No, they sued for whatever reason and on whatever grounds.

None of us knows what happened in that courtroom, but what we DO know is a charge of "piracy" was not sustained.

Mr. Juedes is not being fair to Mr. Geer."

You're still making the supposition that "piracy" only means what you're saying it means,

AND that it's a crime,

AND that it entered into the events in the courtroom.

(At least 3 suppositions in a row.)

Expecting Juedes to conform to all those suppositions is not being fair to Mr Juedes.

Like I said, I think we've reached an impasse.

You're going to keep making the same statements A & B,

and I'm going to keep making the same statements ~A & ~B.

We can agree to disagree and just move on.

[bulwinkl]

According to the "Collaborative International Dictionary of English" Based upon 1913 Webster's Dictionary the third definition of piracy "Sometimes used, in a quasi-figurative sense, of violation of copyright; but for this, infringement is the correct and preferable term.".

Now according to what I've read in these posts that was TWI's lawsuit against CG. The Courts found that TWI's position was untenable. Therefore in the court's view no piracy. Again this has nothing to do with plagiarism which was John Juedes premise. Although Piracy was used in the headline I do not know if that was his choice or the Webmasters choice. Did CG plagiarize? I think that is self-evident. Did he infringe upon copyright law? The Courts say not and they have access to documents and contracts I'm not privy to.

John

[Deciderator]

According to the "Collaborative International Dictionary of English" Based upon 1913 Webster's Dictionary the third definition of piracy "Sometimes used, in a quasi-figurative sense, of violation of copyright; but for this, infringement is the correct and preferable term.".

Now according to what I've read in these posts that was TWI's lawsuit against CG. The Courts found that TWI's position was untenable. Therefore in the court's view no piracy. Again this has nothing to do with plagiarism which was John Juedes premise. Although Piracy was used in the headline I do not know if that was his choice or the Webmasters choice. Did CG plagiarize? I think that is self-evident. Did he infringe upon copyright law? The Courts say not and they have access to documents and contracts I'm not privy to.

John

Bulwinkl, if you are going to seek legal definitions, the place to go is Blacks Law Dictionary.

Mr. Geer has not been convicted of "piracy."

What we have here on the board are people with biases offering their opinion.

Apparently, a court of law, where these biases have no weight, and heard the case.

Here people may selectively add, delete, magnify or minimize varous things to make their point, but in a court of law, both sides have the opportunity to present their cases and cross-examined witnesses and evidence and have an impartial judge and/or jury decide.

Apparently that has taken place and the logical, reasonable thing to do is aboide by classic American traditional values and accept the court's ruling.

Given the biases of us on the board, is it not rasonable to say that no "piracy" charge has been sustained in a court of law where those biases have no bearing?

Mr. Juedes is obviously being unfair and needs to be man enough to correct his mistake.

And the rest of us should allow him to do so graciously, for we all make mistakes at times, so let's not have any hooting when Mr. Juedes does the right thing.

Edited August 12, 2007 by Deciderator

[Ham]

I really think both der vey and *mr* gear mutually have the "ignore" button on each other..

he drove the bus, for crying out loud.. I bet he has PICTURES..

he leaves them alone..

they let him do his pfal thingy, as long as he doesn't label it pfal..

he can be a hero, a mog wanabe for a day..

I think the "legal" term is, they've reached a "mexican standoff"..

der vey has sued for far, far less.. look at Robe*ege.. they were chafed enough to sue over him naming his organization "the vey of CHRIST ministry"

oh, I guess he was openly antagonistic to their organization too.

all he could do was to shame them to death..

and I think it partly worked.

But gear.. he doesn't openly attack them, at least on the internet.

Probably part of the "agreement"..