Elaine
05-07-2009, 08:14 AM
Was sent this exchange that appeared on CybeDobes. Frankly, it’s rather amusing that a 60 year old adult - this Mr. Phil Green-(who of his own accord refers to himself as Da Kid) feels comfortable expressing this opinion. So be it. I expect as much, given who Green is and his obvious limitations.
Hmmm… and here I thought that a good clean life of fresh air, plenty of exercise, eating all my veggies had me pretty well balanced… guess not huh? After all, who can argue with Da Child. He seems to be an expert on all things. Who am I to argue with him?
Seriously though, without question the threads here on DSNN hit a nerve with people like Da Kid and Cheri. How dare we say what is true? When these people get caught with their pants down, and can not argue the facts or the law, they stoop to this kind of crap. It is disgusting, but it reflects who they are.
The purpose of DSNN is to provide a forum for the discussion of issues that relate to dogs and specifically to the sport of showing purebred dogs. We expect mud to be thrown… it comes with the territory. Clearly people are reading DSNN. The mere ability to post the truth here is going to shake things up… that is as it should be. Tactics like those of “Da Child” simply drive up the number of views… which is good for business
From:
"Phil Green" <phg1938@verizon.net>
To:
"a discussion list for the Doberman Pinscher Fancy." <cyberdobes@listserve.com>
Hi, Bruce -
Perhaps if you and Athy had not had me expelled from Ione's rescue list by means of a rigged vote, I would not be here today asking questions that Athy and you refused to answer just prior to my rigged expulsion from that list. Perhaps if you and Athy had not smothered my right to free speech that any citizen has, (except, evidently, on a private forum), I would have been able to defend myself from your and Athy's scurrilous attacks.
What was it back then that made you and Athy so afraid of answering the questions I was asking then, and have asked here again today? And still you stonewall me. What do you think the people who read this list, including those who have taken no sides in the Stella matter, will think of your unwillingness to answer simple questions that seek nothing more then facts and truth?
But, at least you replied to my post this time, something you have refused to do for about a year. Thanks for that. I guess you feel that instead the truth setting you free, that the truth might further damage your reputation in the real world. I don't understand why you insist on continuing to be joined at the hip with power mad, revenge seeking Athy. Its almost as if you enjoy be coupled with Athy and her seriously mentally unbalanced acolyte, Elanie. Oh well, have it your way...
Regards,
Da Kid
Phil,
Suggest you call Athy. Her number is in the DPCA membership directory. This has ALL been explained somewhere or other on the internet. Probably just not on a list or website you read. And I’m about done with banging my head against this particular wall for the time being.
Bruce
From: cyberdobes-bounces@listserve.com [mailto:cyberdobes-bounces@listserve.com] On Behalf Of Phil Green
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 11:10 AM
To: a discussion list for the Doberman Pinscher Fancy.
Subject: [Cyberdobes] Who owned Stella?
Bruce -
Since you are suddenly posting to CD after a very long absence, perhaps you can answer a question that I have been asking ever since this boil burst onto the Doberman scene.
Who was the legal owner of Stella at the time that Stella went "missing?" DARE or Danoff? As you may remember, at the time Stella went "missing," both DARE and Danoff were claiming legal ownership of Stella. I assume, perhaps mistakenly, that this issue was brought up during the trial.
Also, would you care to comment on the pictures that were circulated about the same time, which, it was stated, showed several Dobes, loosing serious weight while under DARE's benevolent overall care, supervision, and protection?
Finally, it has never been clearly explained on various Dobe e-mail lists why DARE at first removed Stella from the foster care of Danoff, based on a negative report prepared by a trusted DARE member, only to a short time later offerer Stella back to Danoff in the form of a formal adoption.
As you must know from your years of practicing law, our legal system does not, except in a very few instances, provide justice. It simply provides dispute resolution. Two very different things...
Da Kid
************************************************** ***********
On May 6, 2009, at 5:51 AM, Bruce Rogers wrote:
**All posts are the property/opinion of the original authors.**
Cheri McNealy wrote:
“I can hardly wait to hear. Spin us a big one, Bruce!”
One of the wonderful things about this list is the way members are welcomed for participating when their views differ from yours. </sarcasm>
Cheri McNealy wrote:
“perhaps you'd explain to the fine people about how some of these things work...you know, the judge gives instructions and the jury must follow them? “
The lawyers submit proposed jury charges. There is a charge conference at the close of the evidence where the lawyers argue over the charge and the judge decides. If Alla McGeary’s lawyers argued for a different charge, if they are right, and if the judge improperly denied their request, then that may be grounds for appeal.
The closing argument from Alla McGeary’s counsel was basically a plea for jury nullification. Apparently that didn’t work.
Cheri McNealy wrote:
“Perhaps you could also tell everybody why some of the defense witnesses were allowed to give testimony to the judge but NOT to the jury?”
Sam Burke showed up to testify on Alla McGeary’s behalf. According to the pre-trial pleadings, we was to testify as an expert that a spayed/neutered rescue dog has zero monetary value. Since the value of the dog is not an element of the offense of felony failure to return a dog, his testimony was excluded as irrelevant.
Steve Martin said the prosecution witnesses were permitted to address topics but defense witnesses were not. Don’t know anything about that. But Phil Green, I think correctly, pointed out that such a ruling might be the basis for an appeal. Presumably the defense presented the evidence to the court to make a record for appeal.
Hmmm… and here I thought that a good clean life of fresh air, plenty of exercise, eating all my veggies had me pretty well balanced… guess not huh? After all, who can argue with Da Child. He seems to be an expert on all things. Who am I to argue with him?
Seriously though, without question the threads here on DSNN hit a nerve with people like Da Kid and Cheri. How dare we say what is true? When these people get caught with their pants down, and can not argue the facts or the law, they stoop to this kind of crap. It is disgusting, but it reflects who they are.
The purpose of DSNN is to provide a forum for the discussion of issues that relate to dogs and specifically to the sport of showing purebred dogs. We expect mud to be thrown… it comes with the territory. Clearly people are reading DSNN. The mere ability to post the truth here is going to shake things up… that is as it should be. Tactics like those of “Da Child” simply drive up the number of views… which is good for business
From:
"Phil Green" <phg1938@verizon.net>
To:
"a discussion list for the Doberman Pinscher Fancy." <cyberdobes@listserve.com>
Hi, Bruce -
Perhaps if you and Athy had not had me expelled from Ione's rescue list by means of a rigged vote, I would not be here today asking questions that Athy and you refused to answer just prior to my rigged expulsion from that list. Perhaps if you and Athy had not smothered my right to free speech that any citizen has, (except, evidently, on a private forum), I would have been able to defend myself from your and Athy's scurrilous attacks.
What was it back then that made you and Athy so afraid of answering the questions I was asking then, and have asked here again today? And still you stonewall me. What do you think the people who read this list, including those who have taken no sides in the Stella matter, will think of your unwillingness to answer simple questions that seek nothing more then facts and truth?
But, at least you replied to my post this time, something you have refused to do for about a year. Thanks for that. I guess you feel that instead the truth setting you free, that the truth might further damage your reputation in the real world. I don't understand why you insist on continuing to be joined at the hip with power mad, revenge seeking Athy. Its almost as if you enjoy be coupled with Athy and her seriously mentally unbalanced acolyte, Elanie. Oh well, have it your way...
Regards,
Da Kid
Phil,
Suggest you call Athy. Her number is in the DPCA membership directory. This has ALL been explained somewhere or other on the internet. Probably just not on a list or website you read. And I’m about done with banging my head against this particular wall for the time being.
Bruce
From: cyberdobes-bounces@listserve.com [mailto:cyberdobes-bounces@listserve.com] On Behalf Of Phil Green
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 11:10 AM
To: a discussion list for the Doberman Pinscher Fancy.
Subject: [Cyberdobes] Who owned Stella?
Bruce -
Since you are suddenly posting to CD after a very long absence, perhaps you can answer a question that I have been asking ever since this boil burst onto the Doberman scene.
Who was the legal owner of Stella at the time that Stella went "missing?" DARE or Danoff? As you may remember, at the time Stella went "missing," both DARE and Danoff were claiming legal ownership of Stella. I assume, perhaps mistakenly, that this issue was brought up during the trial.
Also, would you care to comment on the pictures that were circulated about the same time, which, it was stated, showed several Dobes, loosing serious weight while under DARE's benevolent overall care, supervision, and protection?
Finally, it has never been clearly explained on various Dobe e-mail lists why DARE at first removed Stella from the foster care of Danoff, based on a negative report prepared by a trusted DARE member, only to a short time later offerer Stella back to Danoff in the form of a formal adoption.
As you must know from your years of practicing law, our legal system does not, except in a very few instances, provide justice. It simply provides dispute resolution. Two very different things...
Da Kid
************************************************** ***********
On May 6, 2009, at 5:51 AM, Bruce Rogers wrote:
**All posts are the property/opinion of the original authors.**
Cheri McNealy wrote:
“I can hardly wait to hear. Spin us a big one, Bruce!”
One of the wonderful things about this list is the way members are welcomed for participating when their views differ from yours. </sarcasm>
Cheri McNealy wrote:
“perhaps you'd explain to the fine people about how some of these things work...you know, the judge gives instructions and the jury must follow them? “
The lawyers submit proposed jury charges. There is a charge conference at the close of the evidence where the lawyers argue over the charge and the judge decides. If Alla McGeary’s lawyers argued for a different charge, if they are right, and if the judge improperly denied their request, then that may be grounds for appeal.
The closing argument from Alla McGeary’s counsel was basically a plea for jury nullification. Apparently that didn’t work.
Cheri McNealy wrote:
“Perhaps you could also tell everybody why some of the defense witnesses were allowed to give testimony to the judge but NOT to the jury?”
Sam Burke showed up to testify on Alla McGeary’s behalf. According to the pre-trial pleadings, we was to testify as an expert that a spayed/neutered rescue dog has zero monetary value. Since the value of the dog is not an element of the offense of felony failure to return a dog, his testimony was excluded as irrelevant.
Steve Martin said the prosecution witnesses were permitted to address topics but defense witnesses were not. Don’t know anything about that. But Phil Green, I think correctly, pointed out that such a ruling might be the basis for an appeal. Presumably the defense presented the evidence to the court to make a record for appeal.