Im so pissed on your behalf!

Profile pic matches the comment.

That's odd. Even with some sort of insulation by his attorney you should be able to get his full name. Depending on the state I'm pretty sure that it would be recorded on the court filing. Maybe contact the courts jic

This isn't directly my fight, it's my GF's and her lawyer's. My GF is afraid to give me his name, her lawyer won't for lawyery reasons. Even if I did get his name, they made some fair points. What if he does sue us for libel? What if he buries us legally? What if continuing to fight this battle only ends up hurting us more than him? If it turns into a war of attrition, we'll lose everything long before he even breaks a sweat.

Yeah. This is a shitty situation, but it seems to me that escalating things is almost certainly going to hurt you and your GF, while the chances of hurting him are small. So yeah, please listen to the lawyers and stay safe!

Honestly, I read this, and I just... literally cannot even.

I comprehend what's going on, but somehow my mind's refusing to process the thing because, I don't know, it's something that could cause a rage-induced aneurysm or something.

World's just all sorts of fucked up...

I wish I could make myself believe that karma will bite this guy in the ass but if life experience is anything to go by, I'll have no such luck. :\

Best we can hope for is a giant meteor hitting somewhere in his general vicinity, I think.

Hah. If it landed right on his head, that would be idea. No collateral damage. Just him. If that happened, straight up, I'd convert from atheism. Dunno what god I'd sign up for but I'd be like TAKE ME TO CHURCH! I BELIEVE!!!

Get me enough worshipers that we can fund launching a weaponized satellite and we can arrange something similar.

Heh. Wouldn't that be nice.

Your worth as a human being is a million times more than his. He is a cockroach hiding behind money, who never gets to experience genuine happiness, friendship and peace. Just remember that and pity him.

Honestly, I tried tp pity him, but every time he crosses my mind, I think of the nice house I could have had, the furniture we needed, any repairs that might need to be done, the fact that we couldn't afford an inspection and might be walking into a death trap, the fact that this guy's net worth is almost 100M and 40K is chump change to him.... :\

Sure, but thinking about it won't make it any better.

A (wo)man has to realize what they can and what they cannot fight. Some battles, it's best to back down from. If the guy has mob connections, it's best to just back away until you can get some connections of your own. Remember, though, it's not running away, it's making a tactical retreat. You WILL have revenge. It WILL be sweet. Unfortunately, this is also a battle you and your closest friends must fight if you choose to involve them. Name dropping is considered harassment under pretty much every TOS, not just FA's so you'd be banned from just about everything, especially if he's even a fraction as powerful as he seems to be.

Bottom line, cut your losses, walk away, but NEVER forget this.

There's no way the lien can be thrown out now?

Nope. :\

Rich people fucking suck.

It's not that rich people inherently suck, it's that the sucky rich people have way more power and influence to spread their suck around.

That, and rich people are a lot more likely to suck.

The majority or rich people got rich by fucking over (and/or straight up killing) other people. But remember, they did it for their families.

As I mentioned before, there is no point going after poison. The best you can do is get away and hopefully get to watch as his empire of shit finally crumbles around him. Let him "win"-it doesn't matter, no matter how much he gloats: it just shows that he needs "victories" to justify his own existence. This will fail him, sooner or later: the lawyers hovering around him like vultures waiting for his death is enough to predict his future.

Being with your GF should be worth it. Hope things get better!

Aye. True that. It's not so much him I care about though as that money. We really needed it. :\ As a lupus sufferer, stress is toxic to Jordan. Having to work 12 or even 14hr days in the middle of a lupus flareup with migraines and narcolepsy- I don't know how she does it but it's killing her and we were really hoping not to have to deal with that.

depending on where filed there are anti-slap laws taht can protect you from those suits

If it were up to me, I'd pick that fight. I think ultimately, people would come out on our side and the law would provide us some protection. Unfortunately, Jordan does not have such faith in the law. I can't really say that I blame her.

Basically the only way to fight a piece of shit like this is to fervently hope that he accidentally ends up fatally impaled on a tiki torch via the rectum, and that somebody puts it up on YouTube. There are very few lawyers who can't be bought for an ill-gotten nickel, and he who has the gold keeps the rules on retainer. Really the best you can do is keep your nose clean and imagine that on some primitive level he must understand what garbage he is and that no sum of money can change that.

Yeah, pretty much.

meh sadly this is the most likely outcome of fighting it.

I'm aware. That's why I've been counseled not to fight him.

That's not necessarily how libel works. If you do get a win you can counter sue to win back funds. The best he has is a SLAPP action which is illegal.

The problem is that in the process of doing this, we lose time and money. He loses nothing. It would turn into a battle of attrition and we'd lose. At least that's what everyone else is telling me. I still think that if I told the straight truth about what he's done, we'd come out okay.

There is no federal law against SLAPP suits. In 20 states, there are no remedies for those who are victimized by them, and those states are usually where those suits are filed. When John Olver and HBO were sued, it cost $200,000 in West Virginia courts to defend themselves (neither John Oliver nor Bob Murray, who sued him, have any dealings in West Virginia). Even in states that have laws against SLAPP suits, there is not always an option to recover legal fees.

Find someone who does pro-bono work? Call a news station? hm.

Not likely. :\

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjL4-WchI_mAhXmm-AKHWtfD6wQFjAAegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.floridabar.org%2Fpublic%2Fprobono%2F&usg=AOvVaw0f-30yA6W_vrtJarguETL2

Just reading this makes me so frustratingly mad.

Thing is, anybody can sue anybody for anything. Even if he loses, he could cost you $$$$$$$$$ just trying to defend yourself. When Major Asshole, Robert Murray, sued John Oliver and HBO for defamation, it cost them $10s of thousands to defend themselves. They got the suit thrown out of court, and John Oliver got his revenge with a wonderful musical number. https://youtu.be/UN8bJb8biZU Even if you beat them, it will likely cost as much as he's trying to steal from you.

But those remedies aren't available to "little people." This is why rich assholes are free to do whatever they want in this country—even be president. I have to shut up about things that were done to me by famous people, because they have a lot more money than I do.

And liens DO have an expiration date unless they are actively renewed. It differs in each state, but they do expire. That's small comfort in the face of the unjust evil that capitalism makes possible.

Thing is, anybody can sue anybody for anything. Even if he loses, he could cost you $$$$$$$$$ just trying to defend yourself.

Eeeyup. That's my big fear. If it devolved into a war of attrition, we'd lose.

and John Oliver got his revenge with a wonderful musical number.

Ah, yes. Great episode.

And liens DO have an expiration date unless they are actively renewed. It differs in each state, but they do expire. That's small comfort in the face of the unjust evil that capitalism makes possible.

I'll ask JD if her lawyer looked into that. I'm not getting my hopes up but hey, ya never know.

If you don't mind my asking, somehow, I got the impression you were more of a centrist type? Was I wrong about that? Just curious. No judgment either way. I'm a leftist myself and I tend to be mostly nonjudgmental as long as one's worldviews don't include bigotry, hatred, or willful ignorance. You don't have to answer that, of course. I'm really just curious. Lately, I've found myself becoming increasingly skeptical of capitalism and I'm very interested in hearing other people's thoughts on it.

I used to be more centrist, but gradually (or rather abruptly in the 80's) "centrist" has shifted meaning until the same attitudes that one might have as a moderate Republican in the early 70's will now have you labeled as a "radical flaming leftist." Environmental protection? Signed in to law by Nixon. Assault weapons ban? Reagan. Abortion rights? Decided by a Republican-controlled Supreme court. Massive, socialist enterprises like the Interstate Highway system and the National Park System cam from Republicans. But that was a long time ago, when Republicans were not bat-shit insane fanatics. The ideas of the current crop of Democrat candidates that have them labelled as "radical-left extremist communists" are considered mainstream and non-controversial in almost every wealthy, civilized country.

I'm "centrist" inasmuch as I rely on logic and reason more than emotion, and I cannot abide deception, or falsehoods standing unchallenged. Capitalism works great, but the very concept of money is a fiction created by the power of collectivist government, so it is absurd to suggest that capitalism can exist separate from the social management of government controls, or that regulation is somehow the "enemy" of capitalism, when it is only by the magic of government dictate that currency has any meaning whatsoever. One only needs to see how often various forms of electronic fake money (like Bitcoin) blow up spectacularly, wiping out everybody's wealth in an instant, to see how well "pure" capitalism would fare.

Interesting. Fair. Fair. The problem I have with capitalism is this- in every case I've ever seen (keeping in mind that I'm only 35 and maybe too young to properly make this very observational determination) is that it seems to consistently allow certain individuals to accrue ludicrous amounts of money by cheating the system and hurting people (re: making use of overseas slave labor, tax loopholes and havens, paying people min wage which is, at this point, not livable, making them pay high premiums for health insurance but not paying out when it's needed, etc etc). Very often, once said ludicrous amounts of money are made, they will straight up purchase politicians who then orchestrate legislation to favor these wealthy few and allow them to make even more money. The way they go about this isn't even secret and it's considered normal even though in a lot of cases, it's basically just open, shameless backdoor bribery.

Now, you can put regulations on that but those in power who want money and those with money who want power are always going to find ways to circumvent those regulations and go right back to business as usual. Is there an answer? I don't know. I don't pretend to know. But I know it's not whatever the fuck we're doing now. Maybe something like what many of the Nordic countries are doing?

That's partly the problem of being a Republic instead of a direct or even parliamentary democracy. In the original envisioning of this country, the common people were not to be relied on for guidance at all. Senators were not to be tainted by the ignorance of the masses, but chosen by the elite, much like the House of Lords. In the 1800's there was widespread feeling—not unjustified—that Senate seats were merely being bought and sold. It wasn't until nearly WWI that the Constitution was changed to allow direct election of Senators.

Even given the corruption of wealth we decry today, things in the past have been actually worse, and we have been moving in a better direction, even though not in a straight line, and even though it takes generations. It took nearly 100 years to get direct election of Senators, and what made it happen is people exercising their power and voting out a large swath of Republicans to send a wake-up call that the people wanted this done. (surprised that Republicans were the ones opposing democratic elections, even then? No? Oh, well).

If it were fundamentally trivial to circumvent regulations, then nobody would bother with the messy expense of trying to pervert elections and lobby legislation in order to get those regulations removed. In the same way, if the voting power of the random citizen were actually irrelevant, there would not be such a massive effort to carve up the electorate, shove as many as possible out and pervert the allocation of votes. As Americans, we have a short attention span. We want microwave politics (results in thirty minutes, or your legislator is free!). It takes something truly spectacular to get people to look up from their cell phones—at least for a few minutes. It's astonishing to me that there can be so many "undecided" people out there—never mind all those who don't think that elections have any meaning in their personal lives.

You mention Nordic countries as an example. Norway is a kingdom, and yet voter turnout averages nearly 80%. Likewise for Denmark. That's probably why they have high taxes and broad public services. People are willing to pay for government, and expect a lot back from it. They seem to understand that they ARE the pillars upon which government rises, that "government" is not some alien invader that needs to be destroyed or opposed so that they can live happily ever after. One of the great triumphs of right-wing propaganda is convincing a broad swath of knuckle-dragging unibrows that "government" is the biggest villain they must fight against. To them, "collective action" is communism, instead of understanding that it's the only defense they have against being steam-rollered.

USA voter turnout averages just over 50%. The last time voter turnout exceeded 70% in a national election was over a decade ago, the first time Obama was elected.

Few people I talk to even know how our government is constructed. They don't know what "Congress" even is, even less who their representatives are, or how they are chosen and when. They can't name three rights guaranteed by the first ten amendments (even though there are more than three just from the FIRST Amendment). They don't comprehend that there ARE limits to power. Our problem is not so much anything institutional as it is ignorance and apathy, which gives an outsize level of influence to those who actually do take an interest. Maybe there's a big dose of learned helplessness, too. In some of the primary races, Trump won the ballot by a handful of votes, in primary elections where turnout was less than 10%. A hundred people could have stopped him, or at least blunted him, had they given a damn: if they had understood that "none of the above" is never an option.

This was a very informative, interesting, and entertaining (knuckle-dragging unibrows -lol-) read. :)

Curious: What would you say about a rule that politicians, of any kind in the US, are disallowed from earning ANY form of money, from any source, exceeding an amount equivalent to the median income of Americans, excluding the highest earners (millionaires and definitely billionaires)? Potential dubious constitutionality aside, do you think this would accomplish anything? I would like to think it might disincentivize people from getting into politics for monetary gain, prevent moneyed interests from wresting direct control over the government via financial means, and ensure that most Americans are earning a decent living which in turn, ensures their politicians' livings.

Naturally, there would have to be some caveats and addenda but I imagine this might work in some regard. Alas! My instincts tell me there's a big pothole in the plot somewhere and I can't quite ferret out where it is. Whenever I think I've come up with some fabulous idea, there's a pothole somewhere to be found, inevitably, every time. In this case, the reality is that there's no fucking way in hell most politicians would kneecap themselves like that so pragmatically speaking, the idea might be nice but it's probably dead in the water.

Thoughts?

One difficulty is that simply getting noticed enough to get votes is an expensive proposition. Getting one's name out to where people have even heard of you requires advertising. Television ads cost around $100,000 a minute, depending on time slot. Representatives have to spend every other year working on elections, and to do that, they generally have to fund-raise $20,000 per day. Considering that 2.5 days of fund-raising would exceed the median income in the USA, that does put a crimp in their ambitions, and is a big reason why they would rather raise election funds from a few large sources than try to chase down 50,000 small donors. Without that advertising, though, I think a lot of people would end up voting for the person with the best-sounding name. Sorry, Mayor Pete.

One thing I miss from California after moving to Texas was that there was a lot more effort to educate voters in California. We would get packets in the mail with lists of candidates in the elections, with mission statements and survey question answers for all of them. On ballot measures, we'd get information sheets with pros and cons for each measure on the ballot, including who was backing it and who opposed it. They really tried to engage voters and educate them.

In Texas, it's the opposite. They try to make information as hard to find as they can (it's usually only available from private entities like the League of Women Voters). They restrict voting times. Early voting only encompasses a single weekend, and even that much is hotly contested every year (Republicans HATE seeing citizens vote). On election day, polls close at SIX, almost guaranteeing that anybody who works can't get there. They purge voter rolls. They actively strive to discourage voting. You can see some of the results in the politics of each state. Cause or effect? I'm not sure. But i think this view of America as a collection of independent states rather than as a national entity is really hampering our ability to implement any kind of reform.

In Texas, it's the opposite....... kind of reform.

I've heard similar charges levied against other states, all southern or conservative (though it seems TX is particularly odious in this regard), because the fact is that when more people vote, liberals are more likely to win. They know this so they try to restrict the vote as much as possible. Dirty pool. They're damn good at it.

As for campaign finance, IMO that is one of the biggest bruises on our democracy. Rich folk can pretty much buy themselves whatever they need to win. Unfortunately, there are other issues that wouldn't be as easy to iron out. People are shallow. As you pointed out, having a name that is infinitely mockable (like Booty-jig) will cost ya but so will being older, non-white, female, fat, not conventionally attractive, or having any features/traits that don't align with general preferences such as being atheist or nonchristian, unmarried, single, childless (especially if you're a woman) etc etc. If there was a way to ensure people would pick politicians on policy and merit instead of "he's Jewish" or "she's black" or "he's an atheist", that would be great... maybe?

Big exception to all that was Trump. But then, he broke a lot of what I thought were pretty hard, fast rules when he "won" the election. I was legitimately shocked. I was so convinced Hillary was a shoe-in, I didn't bother voting. I was in FL which went heavily to Trump anyway but still. That was one hell of a wake-up call. I honestly did not think an ignorant buffoon like him could win. :\

This is why that guy in Colorado built his own tank and went on a suicide mission. Not that I would suggest you do something like that.

Are you talking about the Killdozer guy? While I don't condone what he did, you've got to admit, he did it well. Didn't go after innocent people. Didn't kill anyone. Just targeted the institutions. Did like BILLIONS in damage, IIRC. Alas, I have neither the means nor ability to build a killdozer. XD I'd be lying if I said the thought never crossed my mind though.

I know this sucks. But here, have a nice John Oliver vid about slapp suits including an epic musical number at the end. ^u^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN8bJb8biZU

I've seen this one but it was so damn funny and salient, I'll watch it again. Love that guy.

Hope everything goes okay for you hun. *hugs*

"a gazelle turning to fight a pack of lions- the gazelle ain't gonna win"
aptly put.
the losses may be massive, but you don't need more.

i hope you and your SO can find the strength within to move forward and keep working as much as you healithily can, to build your lifenonetheless. you have my warmest wishes and a stranger's faith in your determination!
if anything, that would spite him as well, if you're into that sort of thing.

Thanks. :) I appreciate it.

Wow, that is beyond shitty. I don't know how you can grow up to be the kind of person that screws people over just because you can.

I'm so sorry on your behalf.

Sadly I know the world doesn't work on the basis of karma, if it did, you'd be the ones with million dollar lawyers and a giant mansion while he's struggling to pay for his ass cancer treatments with blow jobs.

Heh. Thanks and aye, can't say I have much faith in the idea of karma at this point.

I know what you mean. *hugs*

If his lawyers are sayin that, then I would absolutely NOT give up on challenging it, and advise whatever lawyer you have of this fact, suggesting to him that he look into it more closely.

Money is a powerful thing, but again: THE LAW IS THE LAW. Yes, he can have a ton of really powerful lawyers on his side, but short of buying out the judges, he can't instruct them to break the law in order to take money from you. If the lien is invalid, then do everything you can to get it thrown out. The person it was connected to is dead; does it say that it passes to his next of kin in the contract? WHY should it have been thrown out? Why would his well paid lawyers give you that little bit of information?

I'm getting strong 'Mr. Incredible' vibes here. They told you this so you could investigate it and maybe squeeze out a win, because they hate the guy and the system that is letting him do this. Remember how Mr, Incredible (from the movie) gave the old woman the info she needed to avoid losing money? It feels like that. I'd definitely investigate it before giving up.

Things like this make me wish there really were gods and divine justice. It would be comforting to think this monster was purchasing eternal damnation with all his pilfered riches.

Yeah. :\ Unfortunately, I can't make myself believe that no matter how hard I've tried. Every piece of evidence I've ever seen has led me to believe that we are living in a cold, indifferent universe that won't bother to remember us when we're gone because it doesn't even know we're here.

I understand this, I suffered a head injury and luckily for my employer, hit it hard enough I forgot I hit it. My family is one unexpected bill away from a box on the street (thankfully we have family that would take us in but we would like to avoid that). All the money we had for a house went into medical bills for treatment and we are still trying to get repaid.

Whatever you are going through, my council is, first be certain of your safety, then be certain of the facts as you know them before you do anything. IF you do anything. And maybe you should make a record for your personal use, and keep it locked safely away somewhere.

Best of luck to you and yours, and my sympathy for the situation.

luvs