Open Forums for ExChristian.Net [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Science vs Religion > NEWS FLASH: Jason Gastrich LIES!

Posted by: Mr. Neil Jan 4 2005, 11:07 AM

Taken from http://groups-beta.google.com/group/free.christians/browse_thread/thread/d9bbcc73a28dd8ac?tvc=2 and http://www.durangobill.com/JasonGastrich.html.

Jason Gastrich filed a copyright infringement suit against "Durango" Bill Butler last year due to a humorous anti-Jason page which Bill had up on his site. The case ended badly for Jason, and now Bill will be free to repost his Jason page following the approval from Yahoo, his web host.
A topic about the case came up on Free.Christians, in which Jason got caught in an inescapable lie. He claims that the demand he filed for was only $200, but Bill Butler's copy of the document shows that it's actually $2,000!
Bill forwarded a copy of the document to David Sienkiewicz, a member over at Free.Christians, and the following conversation took place:

David Sienkiewicz: "Does the court document contain the phrase “Demand: $2000” anywhere?"

-------------

Jason Gastrich: "No."

-------------

David Sienkiewicz: "Well, Jason, perhaps you have some other explanation for this:

<See image attached below>
I’m sure we’ll be glad to hear it."

-------------

Jason Gastrich: "You have either altered it or there is a mistake in the court's records. I quoted from the paperwork I submitted. It said $200."

Yes! Jason Gastrich, with no other route to take, actually accused David of forging the amount on the document!
The conversation continues to break down from there, and it eventually ends with Jason declaring an oath to GOD that he shall never speak to David again!

Posted by: Biggles7268 Jan 4 2005, 11:48 AM

hahahahahahaha

Posted by: Libertus Jan 4 2005, 11:53 AM

Posted by: Zach Jan 4 2005, 01:00 PM

Am I going mad, or is Jason listed as his own attorney?

Posted by: Reach Jan 4 2005, 01:01 PM

Our ragtag bunch of comedians and their contacts are killing me.

Posted by: Libertus Jan 4 2005, 01:02 PM

You may be mad, but nonetheless Jason is listed as his own attorney. He represented himself.

Libertus

Posted by: Mr. Neil Jan 4 2005, 01:50 PM

Well, like the old saying goes, he has a fool for a client.

Posted by: MalaInSe Jan 4 2005, 03:54 PM

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Jan 4 2005, 11:07 AM)

Yes! Jason Gastrich, with no other route to take, actually accused David of forging the amount on the document!
The conversation continues to break down from there, and it eventually ends with Jason declaring an oath to GOD that he shall never speak to David again!

Boy o boy did I have a brain fart on this.

Neil, I will be downtown tomorrow for a hearing and I will take a detour over to the Hall of Justice and copy this file for you. As long as we're not having crazy hurricane weather that is, as its been the past few days. The rain is supposed to take a break until Thursday.

I will confirm the demand amount as reflected in the Court file. The Court should have the original. You can post it as viewed and verified by a San Diego attorney if you like, as long as your friend says its ok (don't care what Jason thinks).

Ren

Posted by: Asimov Jan 4 2005, 03:55 PM

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Jan 4 2005, 01:50 PM)

Well, like the old saying goes, he has a fool for a client.

wow...if his court arguments are as good as his apologetics arguments, then no wonder he lost.

Posted by: Mr. Neil Jan 4 2005, 04:00 PM

QUOTE (MalaInSe @ Jan 4 2005, 06:54 PM)

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Jan 4 2005, 11:07 AM)

I'm sure Bill will be cool with it. I'll email him tonight, but he may not get back to me for a couple days. I'll make sure it's okay before I post it anywhere.

Go for it!

Posted by: Mr. Neil Jan 4 2005, 04:05 PM

QUOTE (Asimov @ Jan 4 2005, 06:55 PM)

wow...if his court arguments are as good as his apologetics arguments, then no wonder he lost.

It is to laugh! I would kill to be in a courtroom where Jason Gastrich is trying to play the role of prosecuting attorney. If his conversation on Free.Christians is any indication, then he has literally no concept of how the law works.

Think about this. I'm some shitball cartoonist, and he ran for California Governor. There is no reason that I should know more about law than he does. In fact, in no way am I an expert of what works in a court of law, but even I read some of Jason's arguments on that group page and was like, "That's not right."

Hell, I'm fucking Matlock compared to Jason.

Posted by: Lokmer Jan 4 2005, 04:50 PM

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Jan 4 2005, 04:05 PM)

Hell, I'm fucking Matlock compared to Jason.

That should be in your sigline!!!
-Lokmer

Posted by: sexkitten Jan 4 2005, 04:56 PM

QUOTE (Lokmer @ Jan 4 2005, 04:50 PM)

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Jan 4 2005, 04:05 PM)

Hell, I'm fucking Matlock compared to Jason.

That should be in your sigline!!!
-Lokmer

It would be funnier if it stopped after "Matlock"

Posted by: Mr. Neil Jan 4 2005, 05:28 PM

QUOTE (sexkitten @ Jan 4 2005, 07:56 PM)

It would be funnier if it stopped after "Matlock"

Hey! HEY! Context!!! CONTEXT!!!!!

Posted by: MalaInSe Jan 4 2005, 05:56 PM

From Free.Christians:

QUOTE

Yes, I did. They were willing to take the case, but I decided to represent
myself. Unfortunately, I was unable to be in court on the court date.

Regards,
Jason

Holy shit. He filed the thing but didn't bother to show up in Court???? That kind of thing really pisses me the hell off.

He took up the Court's time, cost the State of California money in processing his complaint and preparing for the hearing, and he doesn't even fucking show up???

If he pulls this crap again, I hope Bill asks for sanctions. If Bill showed up and Jason didn't, the Court is pretty sure to grant them.

His story makes absolutely no sense at all. He sought an attorney for $200 in damages? No attorney would take a case with damages that low (not that he's demonstrated at all that he had any damages-- his own online persona being the thing that causes him the most damage). Because it's a tort case, most attorneys would have considered a contingency fee-- the attorney's pay would be based on the damages. So if he did seek an attorney, it's likely the attorney didn't see any real money coming to justify taking the case.

This is a $200/hour town. No attorney is going to appear in Court for $66 (the amount he would get in retainer for $200 damages), or for $660 for that matter ($2k in damages).

Ren

Posted by: Mr. Neil Jan 4 2005, 06:06 PM

QUOTE (MalaInSe @ Jan 4 2005, 08:56 PM)

If he pulls this crap again, I hope Bill asks for sanctions. If Bill showed up and Jason didn't, the Court is pretty sure to grant them.

Apparently, Jason has indicated that he'll try to file again in Colorado. The darn fool. I hope he does. I really, really hope he does. You know why?

QUOTE (Durango Bill)

After I restore the page, if Mr. Gastrich files any subsequent action, I can legally file a counter action regarding this issue. If these events should subsequently unfold, and if I prevail again, I will seize all of his websites as collateral.

Posted by: Java Jan 4 2005, 08:38 PM

Jason Gastrich's website used to promote evolution.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!1

Posted by: Biggles7268 Jan 5 2005, 04:36 AM

QUOTE (MalaInSe @ Jan 4 2005, 05:56 PM)

From Free.Christians:

QUOTE

Yes, I did. They were willing to take the case, but I decided to represent
myself. Unfortunately, I was unable to be in court on the court date.

Regards,
Jason

I read this yesterday so hopefully I have the details straight still.

Didn't he file something to get the court to cover some of the costs, I think I saw $150 mentioned. And his claim of $200 (which was a lie) was to cover his costs in preparing his own case, which according to some of the posters in that thread you can't do.

I don't think he ever even bothered to contact a lawyer or prepare any kind of case. I'm guessing he did all of that just to waste as much of Bill's money as he could. It doesn't sound like Jason paid out a single damn dime or spent any real time with it. Somebody ought to be investigating his ass.

Posted by: Mr. Neil Jan 5 2005, 04:51 AM

That's pretty much what Bill's been saying. When Jason originally filed, he did so under a pawper clause, which means that the prosecuting client is poor.
But Jason isn't poor, and the secretary of whatever office Bill originally contacted (again, I'm not a law expert) told him flat out that Jason's paperwork was "interesting" but it had no chance of standing any ground.
His original charge didn't even feature a claim. He was just blatantly trying to shut Bill down, but had Bill not represented himself, the DMCA would have enabled Jason to shut down Bill's site without due process.

Posted by: Tocis Jan 5 2005, 08:49 AM

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Jan 4 2005, 08:07 PM)

Jason Gastrich filed a copyright infringement suit against "Durango" Bill Butler last year due to a humorous anti-Jason page which Bill had up on his site. The case ended badly for Jason, and now Bill will be free to repost his Jason page following the approval from Yahoo, his web host.

(And now I'll read the rest of the thread...

)

Posted by: Tocis Jan 5 2005, 08:53 AM

QUOTE (Asimov @ Jan 5 2005, 12:55 AM)

wow...if his court arguments are as good as his apologetics arguments, then no wonder he lost.

You know... I was to speak as a witness before a local court about 10 years ago. A certain citizen was accused of sexually molesting a good friend of mine. I testified to my best knowledge, and after it all was over, she and her family told me that the judge and even the defending lawyer had a hard time to not show their contempt for the obvious fairy tales the plaintiff told to claim that "she wanted it".

Guess why reading this thread reminds me of that?

Posted by: Tocis Jan 5 2005, 08:55 AM

QUOTE (Lokmer @ Jan 5 2005, 01:50 AM)

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Jan 4 2005, 04:05 PM)

Hell, I'm fucking Matlock compared to Jason.

That should be in your sigline!!!

Seconded.

Posted by: Tocis Jan 5 2005, 08:56 AM

QUOTE (Java @ Jan 5 2005, 05:38 AM)

Jason Gastrich's website used to promote evolution.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!1

Posted by: Mr. Neil Jan 5 2005, 09:02 AM

Now that's news to me. Is that true? How long ago?

Posted by: Reach Jan 5 2005, 09:46 AM

QUOTE (Java @ Jan 5 2005, 05:38 AM)

Jason Gastrich's website used to promote evolution.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!1

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Jan 5 2005, 09:02 AM)

Now that's news to me. Is that true? How long ago?

Java meant that Jason's website, due to his stupidity, ignorance, dishonesty and general lack of integrity, IS BEING USED to promote evolution.

Posted by: Java Jan 5 2005, 09:59 AM

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Jan 4 2005, 09:06 PM)

QUOTE (Durango Bill)

That's what I was talking about.

Ifin' he file again, Bill takes the webpages and you can probably guess what would happen to THEM.

Posted by: Mr. Neil Jan 5 2005, 10:04 AM

OH!!! I read that in the wrong context. To me it sounded like "Jason's page used to (past tense) promote evolution." However, you were actually stating that it would be funny if Jason's page is used (speculating) to promote evolution.

Brainfart on my part.

Posted by: Reach Jan 5 2005, 10:41 AM

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Jan 5 2005, 10:04 AM)

OH!!! I read that in the wrong context...

Brainfart on my part.

Due to hanging around Jason and his ilk too much?

Posted by: Mr. Neil Jan 5 2005, 10:45 AM

Jason has a retarding effect on people. The more I read his arguments, the stupider I get.

Posted by: MalaInSe Jan 5 2005, 01:41 PM

I have the file (cue music).

Ummmm, it was a very interesting, albeit brief, read.

Neil, can you tell me how this all came to the attention of Bill? Was he served with the complaint?

I will say that the Court did make a mistake in transcribing the damages amount to the docket. Jason did ask for only $200. But there's some very very interesting stuff contained within these five short pages. I just want to see what the chronology of events here was before I reveal.

The question of the hour is: was Bill served with the complaint? Was he ever actually informed of a Court date? Because I think that Jason may be a bigger liar than you even imagined.

BTW, you can sue for costs-- time spent preparing your case isn't damages.

He did apply for a fee waiver, and it was granted. Y'know, I have domestic violence victim clients all the time being told they can't have a fee waiver because the State of CA doesn't have enough money, and then this dickwad gets one. Asshat.

Ren

PS: I've attached a pic of the Hall of Justice I took today. No way to really verify that, just thought that it would be funny if Jason were lurking and he saw that I really do know where it is and what it looks like.

Posted by: MalaInSe Jan 5 2005, 03:28 PM

After reading Bill's website I caught something I should have in the beginning. The case that Bill cites is a federal case. The case file I copied is a state lawsuit. It was filed on August 3, 2004, with a fee waiver, and dismissed on August 4, 2004 by Jason. Apparently Jason figured out that copyright belongs in federal court. So, in essence, Jason wasted the time and money of BOTH courts.

I will see if I can copy that case file. I haven't practiced in the federal courts, so I'll have to figure it out. It will be a week or two before I get downtown though, so next week at the earliest.

Ren

Posted by: Kay Jan 5 2005, 05:39 PM

Why was the proceedings dismissed without prejudice?

If Jason failed to show up, shouldn't the judge have entered a default judgement in favour of Bill and award Bill, against Jason, his legal costs?

That Californian court behaved in a dodgy manner. On what basis did they recognize jurisdiction over Bill? Was California where the alleged breach of copyright occured?

Posted by: Kay Jan 5 2005, 05:42 PM

Is there some way to inform Yahoo that Jason Gastrich is a vexatious litigant if Bill can get the paperwork from that court case together? The DMCA procedure of placing the burden of proof on the accused and not the accuser is harsh.

Posted by: AggieNostic Jan 5 2005, 05:54 PM

Another Liar for Christ.

Matthew 7:21
Not every one that saith
unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter
into the kingdom of heaven; but
he that doeth the will of my
Father which is in heaven.

Posted by: MalaInSe Jan 5 2005, 06:05 PM

QUOTE (Kay @ Jan 5 2005, 05:39 PM)

Why was the proceedings dismissed without prejudice?
---
If Jason failed to show up, shouldn't the judge have entered a default judgement in favour of Bill and award Bill, against Jason, his legal costs?
---
That Californian court behaved in a dodgy manner. On what basis did they recognize jurisdiction over Bill? Was California where the alleged breach of copyright occured?

If both parties agreed to dismiss, as it sounds like maybe they did, it would be without prejudice because the Judge hasn't made any kind of ruling. Or the Judge found that certain facts were lacking and is giving Jason a chance to provide them. Or the Motion to Dismiss was won by default. Judges generally like to decide things on the merits. It could have been dismissed on jurisdictional basis as well, again a procedural defect rather than substantive.
---
Not necessarily. If there's a Motion to Dismiss on the table, the Judge may just order the case dismissed. What Bill likely won by default was the Motion to Dismiss hearing, because it would have been heard before the case was set for trial. If he won by default, he probably should have gotten fees and costs, unless the dismissal was stipulated, i.e. Jason saw the writing on the wall (pun intended) and decided to settle it.
---
Actually, the Court did not. The Court doesn't decide what cases to hear when they get a complaint. It's up to the other party to have the case dismissed. There was no personal jurisdiction here, from what I can see, even if you establish that the breach occurred here. If the case was dismissed on jurisdictional issues, that's again, not a decision on the merits. It would be a dismissal based on procedural grounds, and a Judge is loathe to do that with prejudice.

Ren

Posted by: MalaInSe Jan 5 2005, 06:07 PM

QUOTE (Kay @ Jan 5 2005, 05:42 PM)

It sounds like harassment to me, certainly, though it's unlikely that Jason would be found a vexatious litigant. I've tried to have someone named by the Court as a vexatious litigant, and it's very difficult. Multiple suits must be brought generally.

Ren

Posted by: Mr. Neil Jan 5 2005, 06:09 PM

QUOTE (MalaInSe @ Jan 5 2005, 04:41 PM)

Neil, can you tell me how this all came to the attention of Bill? Was he served with the complaint?

I don't have a lot of the detail, but I'll tell you what I know.
Bill was served with a cease and desist notice saying the usual Jason crap, that he'd contacted Bill's provider and demands that the page come down. Yadda yadda.
That's about all I know about how it came to Bill's attention.

QUOTE

I will say that the Court did make a mistake in transcribing the damages amount to the docket. Jason did ask for only $200. But there's some very very interesting stuff contained within these five short pages. I just want to see what the chronology of events here was before I reveal.

The question of the hour is: was Bill served with the complaint? Was he ever actually informed of a Court date? Because I think that Jason may be a bigger liar than you even imagined.

To tell you the truth, I know that Bill knew enough to know where Jason filed the complaint and who to contact about Jason's complaint.
You could email Bill for answers. He'll tell you anything you need to know. Just say you know "Neil". He knows who I am. lisawbill@mydurango.net

QUOTE

BTW, you can sue for costs-- time spent preparing your case isn't damages.

Jason's such a fuck.

QUOTE

He did apply for a fee waiver, and it was granted. Y'know, I have domestic violence victim clients all the time being told they can't have a fee waiver because the State of CA doesn't have enough money, and then this dickwad gets one. Asshat.

You're shitting me! You mean he actually got that?! Fuck! I thought he got shot down.

QUOTE

After reading Bill's website I caught something I should have in the beginning. The case that Bill cites is a federal case. The case file I copied is a state lawsuit.

See, I would never have caught that. That's quite interesting, though. Probably explains why we have two figures.

QUOTE

It was filed on August 3, 2004, with a fee waiver, and dismissed on August 4, 2004 by Jason. Apparently Jason figured out that copyright belongs in federal court. So, in essence, Jason wasted the time and money of BOTH courts.

That's our Jason.

Posted by: fortunehooks Jan 5 2005, 09:31 PM

QUOTE (Zach @ Jan 4 2005, 04:00 PM)

Am I going mad, or is Jason listed as his own attorney?

same thing i thought when i read the document.

Posted by: MalaInSe Jan 6 2005, 09:06 AM

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Jan 5 2005, 06:09 PM)

QUOTE

You're shitting me! You mean he actually got that?! Fuck! I thought he got shot down.

The fee waiver was granted in the State Court. Don't know about the Federal.

If you PM me your address, I'll mail these docs to you.

Ren