First: Kill All The Lawyers

Newbie.

 

I can't be the only one who had a webcrush flashback while reading this.

 

Interesting indeed. Just from what little research and reading I have done on this case as well as my own interactions with a couple of BOD I'm not at all shocked or surprised by JU observations and comments.

 

LOL. Same here.

 

And as I read this I get an alert from my email about BOD Elections from Cmra.
Bahhhaaa. Let's see how many spots are open and who is running? Time for a change of leadership and a place to counts votes that don't work for Cmra.
Thanks Mr Ulrich.
You have always stood for the honesty and integrity.
Steven Isenhower #52

 

Lets hope those named in the lawsuit have both the good sense and a strong enough love of the club that they wont accept any nomination for BOD. I think a fresh start is much more valuable than experience this time around.

 

Wishful thinking. But I would hold your breath. But we will see what happens soon.
Steven Isenhower #52

 

Didn't I see about 4 posts of yours in this thread claiming that you were done and wouldn't be posting any more? Why are you still here?

 

I just got three beers from the fridge.

 

Cause now we have fresh info and useful stuff instead of same Ole crap being rehashed. Bahhhaaa. And now some people who have common sense are replying. But it can turn bad real fast as we all know. Bahhhaaa.

Steven Isenhower #52

 

The Phoenix arises from the a$$es.

 

Mr. Walker's veracity, and his motives therefore, will be will be a subject of much discussion in federal court.

 

Of course whomever Mr. Ulrich spoke to at the CCS or WERA may have chosen to give a neutral recommendation based on the fact that you sued another organization. I'm not totally sure there's any credibility at all to any of these statements.

Mr. B-

Love me some gizzards

 

So you are saying that neither Kevin Elliott of CCS or Evelyne Clark of WERA have any credibility with regard to their statements?

Chicken farmers don't buy combines.

 

I have no idea who those people are or what they do...but if I'm them, I doubt I want to tell a reporter that some guy was a jackass if he's gonna sue.

I don't know if that guy is a jackass or not. All I'm saying is that no one is going to say anything about a guy who's suing. Would you?

 

If you have no idea who those people are then you are the jackass.

 

???

I just made an observation, that's all. Not sure why'd you call me a jackass. Should I know them? All I know is John Ulrich calls people and asks them about a guy who's in a lawsuit with another organization. Apparently asked if they'd ever had an issue with him. They say no. Again, I have no idea if they did or they didn't. But I do think you'd be hard pressed to get someone to go "on record" to say they did.

Somehow that makes me a jackass?

 

You very well could be correct; however, when anyone is asked questions that they don't want to answer the response typically is "no comment". In this case, both parties responded that they each did not have any issues with the subject and his behavior. In any event, the subject still remains in good standing with two other race organizations who both apparently feel good about his participation.

Why did the CMRA ban him.

 

I have no idea...I've never been asked to comment, so I just don't know.

I have no idea why they banned him. It was bad enough that he sued them though...seems like he feels like he's wronged.

 

Both would stand to gain if the cmra is no longer around as well.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk