|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > December 2005 > Who wants to sue Ron Link?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Who wants to sue Ron Link?
|
|
| Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com 2005-12-12, 11:02 am |
| Through consultations with an attorney I have learned the following:
1) If someone issues one or more threats to sue you, and then fails to
follow through on the lawsuit, the victim of the threat has a cause of
action to sue the person who issues the threat.
2) If someone accuses someone else of committing "criminal acts", and
the person has never been charged with a criminal offense, the accused
person has a cause of action to sue the accuser for defamation.
| |
|
| In article <1134403157.684370.272760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com" <administrator@lasikcourt.com> wrote:
> Through consultations with an attorney I have learned the following:
>
> 1) If someone issues one or more threats to sue you, and then fails to
> follow through on the lawsuit, the victim of the threat has a cause of
> action to sue the person who issues the threat.
>
> 2) If someone accuses someone else of committing "criminal acts", and
> the person has never been charged with a criminal offense, the accused
> person has a cause of action to sue the accuser for defamation.
That's beautiful. Now you, Ragnar and Glenn should sue Link for
defamation and clear out this NG!
--
~RT
| |
| nunayabizinez@yahoo.com 2005-12-12, 11:02 am |
| Well, by gosh by golly, maybe y'all can file a class action lawsuit!
RT wrote:
> In article <1134403157.684370.272760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com" <administrator@lasikcourt.com> wrote:
>
>
> That's beautiful. Now you, Ragnar and Glenn should sue Link for
> defamation and clear out this NG!
>
> --
> ~RT
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-12-12, 11:02 am |
| What does your attorney say about publishing a letter that you know to
contain false and misleading information that defames someone?
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com 2005-12-12, 11:02 am |
| Glenn Hagele claims that Ace Recovery Services does not exist, and that
they never sent me a letter as described in the following article
titled "Glenn Hagele / CRSQA / USAEYES Pursued by Collection Agency"
http://www.lasikfraud.com/news/archives/000148.html
However, readers can verify that the letter is valid by viewing the PDF
file as referenced at the bottom of the article.
| |
| Todd Rich 2005-12-12, 12:55 pm |
| Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com <administrator@lasikcourt.com> wrote:
> Glenn Hagele claims that Ace Recovery Services does not exist, and that
> they never sent me a letter as described in the following article
> titled "Glenn Hagele / CRSQA / USAEYES Pursued by Collection Agency"
> http://www.lasikfraud.com/news/archives/000148.html
> However, readers can verify that the letter is valid by viewing the PDF
> file as referenced at the bottom of the article.
Actually, I can't. The link says: This page cannot be found
http://www.lasikfraud.com/crsqa/ace-recovery-notice.pdf
| |
| linkron@gmail.com 2005-12-12, 12:55 pm |
| 1) I demanded retractions and reserved the right to proceed to file
suit. Big difference.
2) Roiland threatened to disrupt a meeting documented in this newsgroup
to the point where extra hospital security was assigned to the room and
the shift commander notified police who were on duty in the area. It's
all a matter of record. The law defines that threatening as criminal.
Nobody is going to sue anybody for doing something they did. No
defamation. Case would be thrown out.
| |
| Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com 2005-12-12, 12:55 pm |
| I fixed the broken link.
Thanks for letting me know about the problem Todd. Unfortunately,
problems caused by refractive surgery are less easily fixed. In fact,
many times they cannot be fixed at all.
| |
| Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com 2005-12-12, 12:55 pm |
| Ron Link states that "Roiland threatened to disrupt a meeting
documented in this newsgroup
to the point where extra hospital security was assigned to the room and
the shift commander notified police who were on duty in the area. It's
all a matter of record. The law defines that threatening as criminal.
Nobody is going to sue anybody for doing something they did. No
defamation. Case would be thrown out."
In fact, Ron Link has never documented the so-called alleged "threat"
by posting documents about the threat on Ron Link's web site. Come to
think of it, Ron Link doesn't EVEN HAVE a web site.
Even if Ron Link had documented the so-called documented "threat",
there is no basis to his claim that the threat was "criminal", as
opposed to simply Christopher Roiland expressing his 1st Amendment
rights at the meeting.
I remember Ron Link making public statements along the lines that I
"made threats to kill refractive surgeons". Knowing that Ron Link
simply invented his claim, it makes Ron Link's claims about Christopher
Roiland pretty questionable.
Ron Link has a history of making grandiose and paranoid claims.
Translation: Ron Link is a "drama queen".
| |
| Todd Rich 2005-12-12, 6:01 pm |
| Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com <administrator@lasikcourt.com> wrote:
> I fixed the broken link.
However you have not fixed the fact that the number on the letter,
847-981-1330 is disconnected and the message says no further information
available.
> Thanks for letting me know about the problem Todd. Unfortunately,
> problems caused by refractive surgery are less easily fixed. In fact,
> many times they cannot be fixed at all.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-12-12, 6:01 pm |
| The number is disconnect because "ACE" does not exist. The substantive
content of the letter is inaccurate. Brent Hanson never attained a
judgment against me as his frivolous lawsuit was thrown out on our
first motion to dismiss. There is no collection effort against me
because there is simply nothing to collect...and Brent Hanson knows
this.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| linkron@gmail.com 2005-12-12, 6:01 pm |
| I don't have to post Roiland's threats on a website. They were posted
here to begin with:
On June 5, 2003 10:56:18 PST, Roiland posted:
"Boy are they in for a nasty surprise...."
[Roiland threatened to disrupt a Surgical Eyes meeting held under the
auspices of Tampa Memorial Hospital on June 21, 2003. Tampa police made
the
on-duty shift aware of this threat and hospital security assigned
personnel to the meeting room in case he showed up].
June 11, 2003 19:25:53 PST, Roiland posted:
"BTW, Dr. Rothman IS a menace to his field and he lasted only about
6 months even at LVI. I did this region a great service by getting rid
of him. Next project is that meeting of loonies in Tampa on the 21st.
That will be like the "Twit Olympics" sketch on Monty Python."
"Nasty surprise" and "getting rid of....the next meeting of loonies in
Tampa on the 21st" are threats that were made by Roiland and are
documented above as well as saved in their original format as posted.
Records of hospital security details exist, the police log everything.
Threats are threats. Roiland made threats. It's not legal to do that.
It has nothing to do with 1st amendment rights.
Brent - TLC hired armed security for fear that you would show up at one
of their board meetings. Do you deny this? You can't because it's true.
I have a copy of an IM exchange wherein it is described how you had
been talking guns again in reference to a particular surgeon in Canada,
that if you were a person who lived in a particular city that that
person's RS surgeon would be dead, that it's too far and too hard to
get guns across the border to Canada. Do you deny this? You can't
because it's true. What should I do with this documented IM? It's saved
with time dates and all. Should I put it up on a website? Should I go
through the trouble of requesting a letter from TLC confirming their
concerns about the safety of their executives about you and put it up
on a website? I am in the process of requesting letters from all of the
board members of SE who resigned explaining how you lied that they
resigned from SE under pressure from me. Should I put those up on a
website as well?
Should I put up a website that puts your name and the truth about you
all over the Internet with documented evidence as opposed to the libel
you posted about me?
The whole so-called article on your blog is a lie. SE didn't cease to
exist over that. The board didn't resign under pressure. I have
requested retractions of libelous statements, identified bona fide
threats, and reserved the right to exercise all legal options
available. Retract all the lies about me on your blog immediately.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-12-13, 11:03 am |
| You better watch it Brent... if you keep this up.. you might just lose
your membership in the "Axis Of Evil"
Are you being good just before Christmas to impress Santa?
You might want to contact that Quin guy yourself. Glenn contacted
him, and Quin said he is not representing Link. I very recently
contacted Quin's office after Ron insisted he was being represented by
Quin. Quin is NOT representing Link. Either Quin or Link is not
telling the truth.
Ron is waiting for Ramsey Clark to be available. Ramsey would love to
represent him. Ramsey is famous for representing dictators, war
criminals, terroists, cult leaders, etc.
On 12 Dec 2005 07:59:17 -0800, "Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com"
<administrator@lasikcourt.com> wrote:
>Through consultations with an attorney I have learned the following:
>
>1) If someone issues one or more threats to sue you, and then fails to
>follow through on the lawsuit, the victim of the threat has a cause of
>action to sue the person who issues the threat.
>
>2) If someone accuses someone else of committing "criminal acts", and
>the person has never been charged with a criminal offense, the accused
>person has a cause of action to sue the accuser for defamation.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-12-13, 12:55 pm |
| Now there is an idea....
I would think all past contributors to SE might join in a class-action
lawsuit.
On 12 Dec 2005 08:17:59 -0800, nunayabizinez@yahoo.com wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Well, by gosh by golly, maybe y'all can file a class action lawsuit!
>
>
>RT wrote:
| |
| Ragnar 2005-12-13, 12:55 pm |
| Since when has Ron shown anything but his disdain for comments? He
considers anything he doesn't like to be a lie or threat.
The biggest threat to Ron is the truth.
On 12 Dec 2005 09:36:28 -0800, "Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com"
<administrator@lasikcourt.com> wrote:
>Ron Link states that "Roiland threatened to disrupt a meeting
>documented in this newsgroup
>to the point where extra hospital security was assigned to the room and
>the shift commander notified police who were on duty in the area. It's
>all a matter of record. The law defines that threatening as criminal.
>Nobody is going to sue anybody for doing something they did. No
>defamation. Case would be thrown out."
>
>In fact, Ron Link has never documented the so-called alleged "threat"
>by posting documents about the threat on Ron Link's web site. Come to
>think of it, Ron Link doesn't EVEN HAVE a web site.
>
>Even if Ron Link had documented the so-called documented "threat",
>there is no basis to his claim that the threat was "criminal", as
>opposed to simply Christopher Roiland expressing his 1st Amendment
>rights at the meeting.
>
>I remember Ron Link making public statements along the lines that I
>"made threats to kill refractive surgeons". Knowing that Ron Link
>simply invented his claim, it makes Ron Link's claims about Christopher
>Roiland pretty questionable.
>
>Ron Link has a history of making grandiose and paranoid claims.
>
>Translation: Ron Link is a "drama queen".
| |
| Ragnar 2005-12-13, 12:55 pm |
| You are one paranoid, brain-damaged nut.
As I recall.. the nasty surprise was that Oprah Winfrey was in town
doing a free meeting just blocks away from your silly meeting on the
same day... and your meeting had almost nobody show up as a result.
"Oprah.. or Ron...hmmm..."
As for Rothman... he was gotten rid of in Tampa. He went to Las
Vegas, Nevada. I think he may have been too sleazy for Las Vegas too,
and is someplace else now. Maybe he is doing LASIK in North Korea
now.
You are so paranoid, and admittedly brain damaged, that you see
everything as a threat.
On 12 Dec 2005 14:52:02 -0800, linkron@gmail.com wrote:
>I don't have to post Roiland's threats on a website. They were posted
>here to begin with:
>
>On June 5, 2003 10:56:18 PST, Roiland posted:
>"Boy are they in for a nasty surprise...."
>
>[Roiland threatened to disrupt a Surgical Eyes meeting held under the
>auspices of Tampa Memorial Hospital on June 21, 2003. Tampa police made
>the
>on-duty shift aware of this threat and hospital security assigned
>personnel to the meeting room in case he showed up].
>
>June 11, 2003 19:25:53 PST, Roiland posted:
>"BTW, Dr. Rothman IS a menace to his field and he lasted only about
>6 months even at LVI. I did this region a great service by getting rid
>
>of him. Next project is that meeting of loonies in Tampa on the 21st.
>That will be like the "Twit Olympics" sketch on Monty Python."
>
>"Nasty surprise" and "getting rid of....the next meeting of loonies in
>Tampa on the 21st" are threats that were made by Roiland and are
>documented above as well as saved in their original format as posted.
>Records of hospital security details exist, the police log everything.
>Threats are threats. Roiland made threats. It's not legal to do that.
>It has nothing to do with 1st amendment rights.
>
>Brent - TLC hired armed security for fear that you would show up at one
>of their board meetings. Do you deny this? You can't because it's true.
>
>I have a copy of an IM exchange wherein it is described how you had
>been talking guns again in reference to a particular surgeon in Canada,
>that if you were a person who lived in a particular city that that
>person's RS surgeon would be dead, that it's too far and too hard to
>get guns across the border to Canada. Do you deny this? You can't
>because it's true. What should I do with this documented IM? It's saved
>with time dates and all. Should I put it up on a website? Should I go
>through the trouble of requesting a letter from TLC confirming their
>concerns about the safety of their executives about you and put it up
>on a website? I am in the process of requesting letters from all of the
>board members of SE who resigned explaining how you lied that they
>resigned from SE under pressure from me. Should I put those up on a
>website as well?
>
>Should I put up a website that puts your name and the truth about you
>all over the Internet with documented evidence as opposed to the libel
>you posted about me?
>
>The whole so-called article on your blog is a lie. SE didn't cease to
>exist over that. The board didn't resign under pressure. I have
>requested retractions of libelous statements, identified bona fide
>threats, and reserved the right to exercise all legal options
>available. Retract all the lies about me on your blog immediately.
| |
| linkron@gmail.com 2005-12-14, 1:07 am |
| Not good enough. The cops, security, hospital admin, all read your
threats for what they were threats. If it was about Oprah, why didn't
you mention it? You said you were going to get rid of us at the
meeting. You are so wreckless that you don't know when you've gone too
far when the rest of the world, including the law, does. Your intent to
threaten was there and now you're trying to retract it by referring to
Oprah? That's the 1st time you've made me laugh. No court of law would
buy it given your past behavior in this newgroup and emailing hundreds
of emails to SE doctors. Sorry Christopher, you've played your last
hand and it's a loser.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-12-14, 11:01 am |
| You are a hoot.
As you posted yourself in a message yesterday, the "getting rid of"
post had nothing to do with you, and everything to do with Rothman..
who indeed was gotten rid of. He got booted from Tampa and went on to
infest Las Vegas.
Your earlier message today to Sandy is precious. Crying on Sandy's
shoulder about people who tell lies. Sandy is the undisputed queen of
lies. She not only lies, she rarely tells the same lie twice. The
facts of her stories change considerably over time. Anybody with a
full functioning brain is aware of that. You aren't t though.
And by the way, like your repeated false claims that Dr. Dan Reinstein
MD was the medical director of SE over the course of over a year, your
claims of attorney Quin representing you are also false.
I guess the idea is that lies should be enclosed in brackets. Let's
test that [ Ron is a swell guy ] hmm... there's a lie for you. I
will take care of the rest of this message.
On 13 Dec 2005 22:13:47 -0800, linkron@gmail.com wrote:
[ >Not good enough. The cops, security, hospital admin, all read your
>threats for what they were threats. If it was about Oprah, why didn't
>you mention it? You said you were going to get rid of us at the
>meeting. You are so wreckless that you don't know when you've gone too
>far when the rest of the world, including the law, does. Your intent to
>threaten was there and now you're trying to retract it by referring to
>Oprah? That's the 1st time you've made me laugh. No court of law would
>buy it given your past behavior in this newgroup and emailing hundreds
>of emails to SE doctors. Sorry Christopher, you've played your last
>hand and it's a loser. ] <<< Note bracket
|
| |
|
|