http://columbus1.ath.cx/index.php?news=5785
"Fred Barkes can walk right out the front door with bags of our tax money and do whatever he likes and everyone refuses to see what he's doing."
"During the campaign, I brought up the issue of Fred Barkes, our Columbus Township Trustee, using $225,000 of money from the Assistance Fund, which every resident in the township pays, to buy a maintenance building for the township fire department. Fred knows that is not only against the rules, but it is against the law and could be considered a felony."
"He (Fred Barkes) and some of his staff should be removed from office and charged in a criminal court for crimes they know they are committing."
"We also know that that office breaks the law regularly. And we intend to prove it and file complaints with the state officials."
"Fred Barkes has robbed us for 8 years. Now he gets to rob us for 4 more."
"It is illegal for him to manipulate the funds the way he does. Just because he hasn't been convicted or just because the SBOA doesn't have the balls to crack him on it, it doesn't mean he isn't breaking the law."
"Your dad didn't resign as treasurer of the fire department over missing money?"
"You twist what Barkes does illegally to look like it's legal."
"Unfairness in their distribution of relief is illegal. Manipulating the funds and the tax money as they do is illegal."
"Like Billy the Kid! Biggest thief of taxpayer money in the county."
"Fred Barkes is a f***ing thief"
36 comments:
Only a DOLT such as Simpleton Bob would chose to play tough guy, in a public forum, with a member of the legal profession. I am sure that the smart assed and desecrating comments that he has directed at and published about this attorney will not be taken lightly by the attorney nor those in the judicial system.
Looks as if ole BOBBY BADASS has bit off little
more than he can chew now hmmmm
I suspect that the attorneys in this law firm have Bobby's letter "pinned up" on the wall in the Lawyer's Lounge and are ROTFLTAO every time they glance at or read it.
FREEMAN SAID
"And 'decist' instead of 'desist?'"
Coming from an idiot that misspells words often.
FREEMAN SAID
"I can’t be held responsible for what someone else posts using my name."
Chickenshit Freeman is already trying to claim that any and all incriminating things said, were by someone else (his imaginary enemies) using his name.
FREEMAN SAID
"Columbuzz.net is a website that allows opinions from everyone. I’m not responsible for what others say."
Freeman has control over what is published and what is not approved for publication on his dog and pony website.
"I can’t be held responsible for what someone else posts using my name."
There is an easy way to PROVE who said what."
Bob is mistaken. He definitely can be held responsible for what he posts and even what others post.
There have been plenty of national cases where blog commentors were even taken to court and the blog or site creator was also held responsible.
"Fred Barkes can walk right out the front door with bags of our tax money and do whatever he likes and everyone refuses to see what he's doing."
This is not necessarily libel. He is just illustrating how blatantly obvious he believes Fred's mistakes and possibly intentional actions are.
"During the campaign, I brought up the issue of Fred Barkes, our Columbus Township Trustee, using $225,000 of money from the Assistance Fund, which every resident in the township pays, to buy a maintenance building for the township fire department. Fred knows that is not only against the rules, but it is against the law and could be considered a felony."
I don't know if a felony, since Fred is a public official and was carrying out the duty of one, but under any other circumstance, it would be considered a felony. And it certainly is against the rules. This is not libel, IMO
"He (Fred Barkes) and some of his staff should be removed from office and charged in a criminal court for crimes they know they are committing."
Unless they have embezzeled taxpayer dollars or some other crimes, then what Bob has talked about up until now would not be felonious in their current capacities. I would like to know what crimes he claims the staff are committing.
This might be half-libel because he brought in staff members to the conversation.
"We also know that that office breaks the law regularly. And we intend to prove it and file complaints with the state officials."
He is merely claiming that he has evidence to back up the claims and that he is going to prove it. This is definitely not libel, supposing he can indeed support his claim.
"Fred Barkes has robbed us for 8 years. Now he gets to rob us for 4 more."
Again, not libel. Many elected officials are said to have robbed the taxpayers. Bush, Clinton, Obama, Congressmen, Senators, Governors. This is not libel. It's just political speak.
"It is illegal for him to manipulate the funds the way he does. Just because he hasn't been convicted or just because the SBOA doesn't have the balls to crack him on it, it doesn't mean he isn't breaking the law."
This is actually the truth. it really is illegal to manipulate the funds the way Fred has in a few cases. The City Clerk Treasurer had a problem with that too when about 500K was taken from firemen's pension funds and placed somewhere else. SBOA caught this, told her she did something wrong, and she replaced the money.
This is definitely not libel.
The statements you have provided as libel are not good enough. I am sure you can find better, unless Bob has deleted those posts (as he should if he indeed was being libellous in them).
Phil, those posts have been saved and sent to the lawyers I am sure. I agree some of what you posted above is not libel. I imagine the main point of the suit is for the ladies Bob has been calling names and claiming they did things they did not. That IS libel. They are not public figures. Working for a government office does not open the door to say what you (Bob) will.
Bob has been claiming to have proof for a year now. He has shown none of it. I imagine it is time for Bob to shut up or pay up.
The statements in question are not the ones cited here today.
Exactly. So why do we not get the statements and post them?
I find that calling staff members names or calling certain people's wives whores is pretty libellous.
As I have said numerous times, Bob has done a lot of things I would not support and I would object to (I do). The stuff he should have stuck to was the SBOA audits. That's it.
If Bob does continue to commit libel, especially against people, not elected officials, then I say let what happens to him in court happen.
I don't discount everything Bob does for the things he has done wrong. Some of his stuff is well founded. Much of it for now is just reposting and random commenting threads.
However, to call a post "Libel from Bob Freeman" and not to have hardly any good examples of libel is really this site doing itself a disservice.
Find the real libel and post it please.
"So why do we not get the statements and post them?"
Go for it. No one is stopping you.
"I find that calling staff members names or calling certain people's wives whores is pretty libellous."
Calling people names is not libel IMO, whore being a possible exception. If that was the case, then Bob has libeled many people since he calls people names constantly.
"I don't discount everything Bob does for the things he has done wrong. Some of his stuff is well founded. Much of it for now is just reposting and random commenting threads."
Bob has zero credibility. I'm surprised that you can't see this.
"However, to call a post "Libel from Bob Freeman" and not to have hardly any good examples of libel is really this site doing itself a disservice. Find the real libel and post it please. "
According to you, calling names is libel and I could produce hundreds of examples of Bob calling names. I'm focusing on Bob's accusations of criminal activity, which he has no proof of.
'"Fred Barkes can walk right out the front door with bags of our tax money and do whatever he likes and everyone refuses to see what he's doing."'
"This is not necessarily libel. He is just illustrating how blatantly obvious he believes Fred's mistakes and possibly intentional actions are."
Combined with the other statements, I believe it's libel. He's impying that Fred Barkes is a criminal and a thief without proof.
'"During the campaign, I brought up the issue of Fred Barkes, our Columbus Township Trustee, using $225,000 of money from the Assistance Fund, which every resident in the township pays, to buy a maintenance building for the township fire department. Fred knows that is not only against the rules, but it is against the law and could be considered a felony."'
"I don't know if a felony, since Fred is a public official and was carrying out the duty of one, but under any other circumstance, it would be considered a felony. And it certainly is against the rules. This is not libel, IMO"
Since Bob is claiming Fred Barkes broke the law but can't cite the law that was broken, IMO it's libel.
'"He (Fred Barkes) and some of his staff should be removed from office and charged in a criminal court for crimes they know they are committing."'
"Unless they have embezzeled taxpayer dollars or some other crimes, then what Bob has talked about up until now would not be felonious in their current capacities. I would like to know what crimes he claims the staff are committing. This might be half-libel because he brought in staff members to the conversation."
Half-libel? Never heard of that. It sounds like libel to me.
'"We also know that that office breaks the law regularly. And we intend to prove it and file complaints with the state officials."'
"He is merely claiming that he has evidence to back up the claims and that he is going to prove it. This is definitely not libel, supposing he can indeed support his claim."
Phil, he's been saying this for a year now but he still can't cite the law that was broken. Do you really think he can support his claim?
'"Fred Barkes has robbed us for 8 years. Now he gets to rob us for 4 more."'
"Again, not libel. Many elected officials are said to have robbed the taxpayers. Bush, Clinton, Obama, Congressmen, Senators, Governors. This is not libel. It's just political speak."
Yes I agree. This one was a stretch.
'"It is illegal for him to manipulate the funds the way he does. Just because he hasn't been convicted or just because the SBOA doesn't have the balls to crack him on it, it doesn't mean he isn't breaking the law.""
"This is actually the truth. it really is illegal to manipulate the funds the way Fred has in a few cases. The City Clerk Treasurer had a problem with that too when about 500K was taken from firemen's pension funds and placed somewhere else. SBOA caught this, told her she did something wrong, and she replaced the money."
Please cite the law that was broken. Why didn't the SBOA mention it during the audit? Do you and Bob know more than auditors at the SBOA?
You need to post the links because this is your site, not mine. I was asking you to be credible.
Indeed, Bob has libeled by name calling (very specific name calling) and it is not really libel, it is slander, which is considered libel per se in legal jargon.
Bob has pretty darn close to zero credibility, but I hope he learns from the Cease and Desist order. That's a very serious thing and I do not think he is taking it seriously.
Don't make this a Dude vs.. Bob thing. He libels and slanders quite a bit, as you pointed out, but I just would like to see you do better than him. To criticize someone for slander and libel and then to do the same is not being very credible yourself.
But continue to do your work. I enjoy some of the analysis you do.
"Indeed, Bob has libeled by name calling (very specific name calling) and it is not really libel, it is slander, which is considered libel per se in legal jargon."
Again, I don't believe name calling is considered libel/slander in the legal sense. If that were the case, then we're all guilty of libel.
http://www.medialaw.org/Template.cfm?Section=Libel_FAQs
Another reference:
http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4565975_libel-get-determined.html
Name calling is not considered libel.
My apologies. i am mixing warrantless personal attack in with libel.
See, I can be wrong. Thanks for the info.
i guess I just dont' see much credibility if all people are going to do is just call people names and personally attack.
This site tries to stick to the issues it brings up, but the comments definitely get out of hand.
Bob's articles definitely are filled with personal attacks when it comes to Fred Rodney and their wives.
By the way, I would like to acknowledge that the author of this post changed the title. The title now reads as the posts' content merit.
Again, that's why I like this site, there are reasonable people on it. Very hot headed ones,judging by the comments, but reasonable and I thank Dude for this site.
"i guess I just dont' see much credibility if all people are going to do is just call people names and personally attack."
I don't either, but I'm not going to censor like Bob does.
"This site tries to stick to the issues it brings up, but the comments definitely get out of hand."
Yes they do get out of hand sometimes. If you don't like a comment, then just skip it.
"By the way, I would like to acknowledge that the author of this post changed the title. The title now reads as the posts' content merit."
That was just for you, Phil. :-) But I acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree on whether or not Bob's statements are libel. I think some of them are, but a judge or jury would make the final decision, not me.
That's fair enough for me. I just wanted to extend the same courtesy to you in informing you that there have been cases in the nation where a site has been sued because of commentors' statements about elected officials. The suit was won by the elected official.
I know that's why I have recently chosen to review comments before I post them. THat and some weirdo kept coming on my site just to call me a f----n communist b--ch. Yeah. I don't mind people criticizing me or my work, but when it's just to personally attack someone, I don't let it on the site no matter who it is.
Anyway. That's how I run my site. I just want to make sure your protected from lawsuit in case something you or your commentors say here pisses off the wrong person and they come after you.
Cheers. Keep up the work!
"Anyway. That's how I run my site. I just want to make sure your protected from lawsuit in case something you or your commentors say here pisses off the wrong person and they come after you."
Before they can sue, I believe they must give you a chance to delete the comment or issue a retraction. I've always said I would consider deleting any comments Bob feels are libelous against him.
Fair enough then.
Thanks for the chat Dude. Just to set the record straight, you still don't think I favor the B man to you? (Bob) Because I would hate to be thrown in the same league as someone who spews personal attacks and libel in with his information. That's not my class.
Phil Swaim said...
"So why do we not get the statements and post them?"
That's between Bob, Barkes, the Ferrenburgs, and their respective legal counsels.
Search through comments here and on Columbuzz, and you may find them.
"Just to set the record straight, you still don't think I favor the B man to you? (Bob) Because I would hate to be thrown in the same league as someone who spews personal attacks and libel in with his information. That's not my class."
I would hope that's not your class. The problem I have is that you send Bob some of your material and he posts it on columbuzz. I would think that you wouldn't want to be even remotely associated with columbuzz.
I allow Bob to post my stuff because it gets my credible information out to more people in Columbus. If anything, I'm adding value to his site and doing him a favor.
If you notice, I never post Bob's stuff. I did a post with an interview with him, but Fred Barkes declined to do an interview with me. That's why I never posted Fred.
Bob is subscribed to my site. So he automatically gets my stuff. I don't mind anyone posting my stuff in its entirety without their additions or subtractions and they have to have a link back to my site. Bob follows those rules.
Hope that cleared things up. I was doing what I do before I even heard of Bob Freeman. So don't get this idea that we have been palling around forever. I have not even met the guy. ha
"I allow Bob to post my stuff because it gets my credible information out to more people in Columbus. If anything, I'm adding value to his site and doing him a favor."
But it's not doing you any favors. Are you that desperate to get your information out to more people that you would make a "deal with the devil"? Posting your stuff on columbuzz makes it less credible, IMO.
Here is a major problem with Phil Swaim while we are discussing it. By having "Bob" publish your materials, it hardly gives you credibility, in fact, I have talked to several people who would rate your level of flakiness pretty high just for posting on Columbuzz. Fair? Probably not but perception is reality.
Let's all be clear about this, Bob is going to have his day in court and it will probably not be pretty. Like most sane people, I would get the hell away from him as fast as you can.
Phil, saying you post on Bob's site to get your message out is akin to saying Adolf Hitler had some good policies mixed in with the bad. Bob has tainted Columbuzz forever.
and Godwin's law is proven true once again... Thank you MR. Anonymous.
You might actually find it akin to the Republic. Stay with me on this one now.
Not everything the Republic is worth reading because you know that it is probably wrong, but when certain authors write, you know you can trust them and their article has brought credibility to the publication.
Bob is not writing much right now. Probably because he does not have an election where he is running to write about. But he is aggregating quite a bit. That's good, credible work.
I have actually received a LOT of positive feedback from people who read my site because they were introduced to it through Before It's News, All Voices, or Columbuzz. I get praise also for adding credibility to Bob's site.
Be honest, though. I never personally attack on my site. I never libel or slander anyone. I give fact based opinion and let the truth stand for itself that's it. I don't need to call someone names. THat does nothing to argue the point or to tell what happened.
That is what sets me miles away from Bob.
"You might actually find it akin to the Republic. Stay with me on this one now.
Not everything the Republic is worth reading because you know that it is probably wrong, but when certain authors write, you know you can trust them and their article has brought credibility to the publication."
But columbuzz is not The Republic, far from it.
"But columbuzz is not The Republic, far from it. "
Oh, but Columbuzz is just like the Republic (only better) just ask Jeremy or Bob, they will tell you.
You're right Dude. Columbuzz is not the Republic. I was merely using it as an illustration to show how many authors are pulled to create a publication. The Republic even reprints from the AP, NY Times, and other places from time to time. Some of them are very credible, the others are not.
Yes, Bob's Columbuzz material that he writes is far from Republic quality. It is far FAR FAR from Watchman quality (hence why I never post his stuff).
Nice one. Bob does seem to comment how his stuff is better than the Republics. My eyes cannot roll back far enough to really capture how sad his thoughts are on that.
Phil, attempting to lend credibility to anything associated with Bob Freeman is insanity. Do you expect Bob to somehow, all of the sudden, become credible because you post there?
Birds of a feather...
Regardless of how well written you are Phil, and that is an arguable point, affiliating with Bob under some guise for adding credibility to Bob's site is questionable. Why do you feel it so necessary to add credibility to someone who is an established liar and malcontent?
"You're right Dude. Columbuzz is not the Republic. I was merely using it as an illustration to show how many authors are pulled to create a publication."
I understand what you were trying to do, but you should have used a different publication in your illustration, something closer to columbuzz's style and quality. Like maybe the National Enquirer. :-)
hahaha. There's one thing, though. National Enquierer is a publication that posts articles that are ONLY like Bob's. ha.
The whole point of using the republic is that the republic also serves as a news agregate to a degree. Bob Freeman does post links to other articles by VERY reputable sources.
He also used to post my stuff, which is credible, at least so I hear from my audience and other syndicators and fellow citizen journalists across the state.
Sorry, it seems one really cannot say anything good about anything on Bob's site even if it isn't his material because people have the logically fallacious idea that everything on there HAS to be wrong because bob has posted it.
So if Bob posted something from the Washington Post, the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, or any other nationally recognized media outlet, you would automatically discount it and call it lies?
Although, again as I have said numerous time, I do not believe half the stuff Bob says, his other sources are pretty good though because they are not from him. HA.
anyway, I think many people on this site will enjoy the announcement I am about to make.
"Sorry, it seems one really cannot say anything good about anything on Bob's site even if it isn't his material because people have the logically fallacious idea that everything on there HAS to be wrong because bob has posted it. So if Bob posted something from the Washington Post, the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, or any other nationally recognized media outlet, you would automatically discount it and call it lies?"
Only Bob's articles are suspect. The others may or may not be suspect based on the source and one's political leanings. :-)
Plus Bob used to violate copyright laws, in my opinion, by copying the entire article and posting it on columbuzz. At least now he just posts the link, after some of the commenters on my blog called him out on it.
Phil, your arguments about the validity of Bob's web-site because it's not "all about Bob" or "other people post there" is, again, insanity. You are expecting change while adhering to the same set of standards.
You can assume that material on MSNBC is liberal because MSNBC is a liberal network.
You can assume that material on FOX is conservative because it is a conservative network.
You can just as easily assume that because something is posted on COLUMBUZZ, it is automatically discredited because it's editors lack any cognitive journalistic ability besides rants and nonsense and unethical deletions and editing of material.
It has been proven, Phil, PROVEN, that Bob edits and deletes as he sees fit to fulfill his view of ANY given issue. Get out of Bob's bed if you want credibility. You cannot see the forest for the trees Phil or perhaps it is your ego. Your comment that YOU give Bob credibility by posting on COLUMBUZZ says something about you, and it's not good.
Sure MSNBC is a liberal network. I wouldn't classify FOX as conservative. More republican than anything. but I digress
Again, sites like his are aggregations of other posts and some of his put in.
I believe it is YOU who cannot see the forest for the trees. Whether is it is your ego or not, I'm not sure.
My posts did add to the credibility of his site, not his posts. Heck, you can't add credibility to crap, but to his site in general.
You do not need to preach to me the proof of Bob freeman's misdeeds. They are quite clearly documented by Dude.
I'm sorry you are so miserable that you have to push yourself above everyone by personally knocking them when you do not even know them (I'm talking about me not Bob). I hope you find happiness one of these days.
Post a Comment