Originally posted by cstmwgn
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
DieselGeek/Scott Clark in the hot seat....
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Monster View Post
Not any more .. we banned him.
thankfully Brian doesn't come in here so I can admit it was kind of funny watching that episode go on - especially when Brian finally got the last nail in MR's ban coffin. You'd have thought that Brian had just overcome the Nazis forever more.Doing it all wrong since 1966
Comment
-
Originally posted by SuperBuickGuy View Post
repeatedly
thankfully Brian doesn't come in here so I can admit it was kind of funny watching that episode go on - especially when Brian finally got the last nail in MR's ban coffin. You'd have thought that Brian had just overcome the Nazis forever more.The Green Machine.
http://s1.postimg.org/40t9i583j/mytruck.jpg
Comment
-
Originally posted by BigAL View PostApparently some shit is going down....
https://web.archive.org/web/20170913...com/scottclark
Poor Guy, Had to spend Christmas in the pen. AKA big house
https://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/s....php?t=2556277
Last edited by JamesMayberryIII; December 26, 2018, 04:37 AM.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by JamesMayberryIII View Post
Poor Guy, Had to spend Christmas in the pen. AKA big house
https://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/s....php?t=2556277
TOP TIP: Don't do something a judge has warned you not to do . . . The guy in the black robe (not "Mopar") RULES. . .
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Interestingly enough, one of the contempts of Court that DG is accused of is disobeying an order to turn over his communications with one William Fowler . . . One wonders if this is BS's own Bill Fowler a/k/a CDMBill . . . .
The case is Hoffmann v. Clark, (Dist. Ct. Pottawattamie Co, IA; Case No. LACV116501)
I do not own this song, everything belongs to it's rightful owner. No copyright infringement intended. Apologies for bad spelling.Last edited by Gateclyve Photographic; December 26, 2018, 04:35 PM.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by dieselgeek View Post. My gripe is that he is on here making up stories to get attention when the truth is not working for him. Try being the target sometime and let me know how that feels. . . . Just dont lie.
Clark's misconduct was repeating itself. In Hoffmann's first March 5, 2018 Motion for Sanctions, Ex. 6 p. 7/8, Hoffman provided evidence that Clark wrote to a non-party ". . . . your friends are suing me and going around telling made up stories, and conning you into doing the same thing. . . ."
and 2) DG allegedly filed a false petition
64. Hoffmann then filed a Fourth Motion for Sanctions against Clark on July 12, 2018, when he learned that Clark filed an April 25, 2018 Petition for Civil Protection against Hoffmann with the Court, claiming that Clark and his fiancee fear for their safety.
* * * *
70. On August 13, 2018, the Court heard oral argument on a number of pending motions, including Hoffmann's Third and Fourth Motion for Sanctions.
71. During the hearing, the Court saw evidence that suggested that Clark falsified evidence in connection with his Petition.
Remember, Kids, these are just allegations.
All suspects are innocent until proven guilty, in a court of law.Last edited by Gateclyve Photographic; December 26, 2018, 05:46 PM.
Comment
-
With hesitation I'll weigh in because DG's biggest failure was one that I spend lots of hours a day trying to fix.
Don't be your own lawyer. If you are signing an employment agreement, it says "You may wish to contact a lawyer who can apprise you of the rights contained within this document." the word "may" should really be "shall" except people don't like being told what to do. While I've not gone as far as GP to really dive into the nuts and bolts of what landed him in jail on contempt - the crux of the argument is DG (as related by DG and AMP - my apologies if I forgot who got sued) signed an agreement to teach for (iirc) AMPefi - which, I understand, is some part of DIYTune. AMP claims DG was moonlighting and in express violation of their agreement to have him teach for them. A lawsuit happened and somewhere in the court process (interrogatories), DG was told to surrender his customer list - he refused.
Okay, enough gritty. Here's why I am saying anything - If you have to sign an employment agreement - the "see a lawyer" is not optional. The "ask some guy I know who's a lawyer" is not retaining an attorney to review the agreement. From the little I read, there was a misunderstanding of the agreement - and whether or not that was willful really doesn't matter... now DG is staking his reputation and freedom on that fundamental flaw. Add some bravado, deafness to counter-view-points, and this train wreck is unavoidable. Not just that but morals, even 'traditional' ethics only have a nodding respect in Court process.
Again, what has happened to him is not really unique and something that gives me much motivation to work on cars rather then work over clients - (figuratively). If anything it gives even more credence to these words found in the Bible - avoid taking your disputes before a judge, otherwise you may find yourself in worse shape.
as for mopar rules, well, those never apply anywhereLast edited by SuperBuickGuy; December 26, 2018, 06:29 PM.Doing it all wrong since 1966
- Likes 1
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Loren View Post(As far as I know, the B.S. member mentioned did business with Clark 'way back and would not be in the wrong for following him out of the noted employment situation, as he would have followed him in there in the first place.)
I can even illustrate. When I was newly minted, I shared office space with several attorneys. The two principle attorneys were a father and son. Dad, smart guy, worked his tenure and made partner at a very large law firm (big bux). Son, liked the title of attorney but was mostly in it for the chicks. When dad retired, his partner agreement (employment contract) stated that he could not work as an attorney in anything but pro-bono for 7 years after retirement. What was dad to do? well, he sat in a very nice office, met people and had his son represent them. Dad was indentured and could not work as an attorney (even though, it is his license to practice law) due to the agreements in place. I understand dad/son no longer work together.... so consider, top-of-the-world $1,000 hr lawyer couldn't work around his agreement, DG didn't stand a chance - especially given the common law aspects of the claim.
Again, I say this as warning to others here.... the word "may" in the sentence you MAY wish to consult a lawyer means you shall consult a lawyer that you paid money to give you an opinion. It's not optional.
Oh and fun fact - did you know that contempt of court has no term limit? The longest term has been 14 years - https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=8101209&page=1Doing it all wrong since 1966
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment