Even an idiot can be right sometimes
”I didn't honestly have time to wade through the whole thing”
That’s a rough start to an argument to admit that you haven’t read the evidence. At 61 pages, it <u>is</u> long. However, I don’t have time to read 61 pages either but I do have word search which lead me immediately to page 45 when I searched for "boys and girls club":
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>-Page 45-</center>
<center>
<u>Schedule 15.2.4</u></center>
<center>
AAR LIABILITIES</center>
The specific liabilities listed on the attached schedule <u>plus</u> the following:
1) $875,000 claimed by The Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club, of which an aggregate of $167,000 was purportedly advanced to Progress Media, Inc. (PMI) on October 2nd, 2003. ($80,000) and November 26, 2003 ($87,000), and an aggregate of $708,000 was purportedly advanced to Radio Free America, Inc. on March 5, 2004 ($218,000) and March 15, 2004 ($490,000) (collectively, the "Boys and Girls Club Claims")
-- on the same page, it goes on to list 3 more liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
”The Unequalizer has had an axe to grind over AAR since its inception, so immediately readers need to hold some suspicion over the veracity of the accusations and the conclusions the author draws (and steers readers to) based on the evidence provided.”
I have asserted his lack of credibility in the past. But even tabloids get it right sometimes. Britney Spears is in fact pregnant.
”His main charge would seem to be:
"These newly disclosed documents go beyond casting serious doubt on Air America talk host Al Franken's recent assertions. They prove that Franken and his cohorts were aware long ago of the community center scandal, contrary to their public statements."
Actually, they don't prove that at all. All they prove is that the debt to the Boys & Girls center is listed on their papers as one of the Liabilities.
What about the signatures on the notarized documents? They signed it and then deny they knew about it?
"In sections 20 - 22, there are confidentiality provisions as well an indemnification clauses which would seem to protect Piquant from the legacy of some, if not all, of the former corporation's interests."
You appear to suggest that in the same document, they list liabilities to be assumed by the new company and then indemnify them from those same obligations. I see nothing in the language that suggests that but I'll keep an open mind. What paragraph are you citing?
Failing that, the only available defenses would be:
<ul>[*]The "I’m Incompetent Defense". I signed them but I didn’t read them. (They can presumably rely on statements of their attorneys. I don't read all the documents
my attorney puts under my nose to sign either. But when you are making denials, shouldn't you refer to the documents?)
[*] I never said what you heard me say when I said we have no liability.
[*]The Documents are falsified.[/list]
"Our star reporter remains a failed, unemployed right wing talk show host"
True. But which of those three things disqualifies him. Failure, unemployment, or being a right wing talk show host? It's not very compelling. Relying on attempts to discredit the reporter appears to betray a lack of confidence in your arguments.<P ID="signature">______________
Jerry
"If we knew what we were doing, it would not be called research, would it." -
Albert Einstein </P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">
Edited by Jerry Stevens on 09/08/05 03:44 AM.</FONT></P>
Good to see you're that transparent.
