Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DieselGeek/Scott Clark in the hot seat....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by cstmwgn View Post
    There are Mopar rules?
    Not any more .. we banned him.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Monster View Post

      Not any more .. we banned him.
      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.
      Doing it all wrong since 1966

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Ron Ward View Post
        Mmmm...... I do enjoy a tasty Orange Julius Click image for larger version

Name:	oj.jpg
Views:	422
Size:	9.7 KB
ID:	1222631
        Such good days.
        The Green Machine.
        http://s1.postimg.org/40t9i583j/mytruck.jpg

        Comment


        • #34
          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.
          Guess I missed all that... I mainly do Facebook now.
          The Green Machine.
          http://s1.postimg.org/40t9i583j/mytruck.jpg

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by BigAL View Post
            Apparently 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.

            Comment


            • #36
              Wow ... 5'01" and 235-pounds ?

              Comment


              • #37
                for contempt of Court. the irony of that :smh:

                anyway, moving along.....
                Doing it all wrong since 1966

                Comment


                • #38
                  I often wondered why I haven't seen him here, not that I mind, his rants were tiresome.

                  knowing = (1/2 * battle)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    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
                    Merry Christmas, indeed. I'd be willing to bet that news made poor old Speedy's day . . . And DG's old buds Chad and Bruab couldn't reflexively cover DG's "six" in that one!

                    TOP TIP: Don't do something a judge has warned you not to do . . . The guy in the black robe (not "Mopar") RULES. . .

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      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)
                       
                      Last edited by Gateclyve Photographic; December 26, 2018, 04:35 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        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.
                        The part of the irony here is that 1) DG is allegedly still running the same playbook . . .

                        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. . . ."
                        Plaintiffs' Fifth Motion for Sanctions and Request for Incarceration and Request for Expedited Hearing (filed November 20, 2018) at page 10, footnote 1. http://realtuners.com/wp-content/upl...OT_1637266.pdf (document from DG's own website)

                        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.
                        Plaintiffs' Fifth Motion for Sanctions at Pages 12-13.

                        Remember, Kids, these are just allegations.


                        All suspects are innocent until proven guilty, in a court of law.
                        "Cops" intro (circa 1989, Harry Newman, narrator)
                        Last edited by Gateclyve Photographic; December 26, 2018, 05:46 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          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 anywhere
                          Last edited by SuperBuickGuy; December 26, 2018, 06:29 PM.
                          Doing it all wrong since 1966

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            When you take a job with someone and accept their paycheck, don't use their shop to make your own bucks and don't take any of their customers with you if you leave.

                            ...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              (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.)
                              Last edited by Loren; December 26, 2018, 08:37 PM.
                              ...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                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.)
                                It's a trap for the unwary. most tech jobs (and what DG did was certainly higher-level tech) make you disclose your prior, business relationships and any patents or inventions you have, could have or are working on presently. To the unwary, they might not even know that such a clause exists or could exist. The point of it is to avoid situations like this. Employment contracts also usually have verbage about moonlighting - the problem arises for solely the employee when it goes sideways. Employees have a duty at common law of fidelity (aka loyalty) to their 'master.' I use the term master because it really does connote the outside edge of that relationship. While the 13th amendment does an admirable job keeping slave traders at bay, a properly written employment contract (offer, acceptance for consideration) looks just like a slave relationship because outside the master's world, the employee may not be able to make a living in their chosen field.

                                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=1
                                Doing it all wrong since 1966

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X