'Updated' - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited-*Videos*

Re: *Video Update* - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited

continued from previous post​

"What if MFW went back and got the Bonds+ testimony (and the Chron published the Bonds+ testimony) before the motion to dismiss had been ruled on?"
----------------------------------------------

Before I verified the dates, I wrote the first post of this thread, and you can see there that the implications of MFW's (and possibly LW and/or The Chron) are percolating in my head, as I'm familiar, legally, with some of them, including obstruction of justice issues, defying a court order, etc.

This case has been long, drawn out and many are burnt out with it. Many of our journalistic brethren don't want to see guys they supported take an even harder fall then they're already taking, in light of Ellerman's plea. Also, I'm not sure if any of the journalists who reported on the plea agreement have legal experience. I'm not writing that last sentence to impugn anyone, or sound smug, but from a matter-of-fact standpoint. But I've only read about 5 or 6 original pieces on the plea story, and I don't know if any of those writers have legal experience. Anyway, if you combine the various factors described in this paragraph, I realized that either: A) The writers of the original pieces on the plea agreement hadn't gone back and checked the dates of the motion to dismiss hearing and denial ruling (because they didn't realize the implications of it) and/or B) The writer(s) knew about those dates, and he/she and/or his/her editors didn't want them to bring them up, as they would make MFW, at the very least, and possibly LW and/or The Chron look very, very bad. Much worse than they already looked, in light of Ellerman's plea. I think choice 'A' is what happened with most of the plea pieces. Although I hope it didn't, I fear choice 'B' may have happened in the case of The Chron's piece on the plea agreement. I hope that's not the case, but we'll have to see how this plays out and what the author of the piece and/or the Chron. has to say for him/themselves when the time comes.

In any instance, I realized there was a very good chance that the 12.1.04 and 12.28.04 dates had not been researched and brought up in light of the plea agreement, and that I had an obligation as a journalist who understood what those dates would mean to go and look them up, and say something about what I found.

To my dismay, but not to my surprise, my worst fears were realized: MFW had gone back and got the info while the motion to dismiss hearing was still pending, and The Chron had published the Bonds info while the motion to dismiss was still waiting to be ruled on by the judge.

Gingerbread: There is more to write to fully answer your question, and I will do so, but I have a meeting I have to attend at 9am EST, so I have to run now. ASAP, I will try to answer the rest of your questions and provide more insight/elaboration of the damning nature of these dates, and how they put MFW, at the very least, in serious trouble. And I'm not just talking about his journalistic reputation, either. I'm talking potential legal trouble. LW and The Chron, we'll see when Ellerman testifies and/or when a deal is negotiated between MFW+, Ellerman, and the presiding judge for Ellerman's scheduled court date.

Let me just leave on this note, and give you all something to think about: Why do you think MFW wasn't quoted in the E&P article the other day, and LW and Borenstein (sp?) were? Think about that. MFW never expected Ellerman's plea, and someone had the sense (or he figured it out himself) to give him the legal advice to keep his mouth closed until either: A) a deal can be worked out with the judge and Ellerman before Ellerman addresses the court (i.e., prior to Ellerman's June court date) or B) until after Ellerman's June court date and MFW can be more secure in what he can/can't say. Again, the pieces are all there. Most of what I and JDV have been doing here is using our legal experience, 'recovered' dates and surmise to make educated inferences.

But when this story hits - the story that includes Ellerman's plea and the 12.1.04 and 12.28.04 dates - nobody's putting it out there without crediting me (be it anonymously) and/or JDV. Remember, I've got a brother who's a lawyer, and his primary specialty is intellectual property.

Trust me, once people realize the implications of these dates - not just for MFW and LW, but for The Chron, and to our legal system and justice, more largely - this is going to explode, as it should. And I think we all know here I'm not the self-promoting, hyperbolic type. I leave that to, um, others. But I know what this is, what this means. And I know why MFW isn't giving any quotes these days.

Peace. Back in a bit.

Let me just add: PM me if you want to talk to me more about this,
more than what I write here. I'm not begging for
PM's; I just want to be accommodating, as is
possible. Thanks.

 

Re: 'Updated'-SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited - *Videos*

For those who don't like to read through the verbiage, this is the key (unreported) point that the Villareals have tried to bring to light in development of their timeline on the case:

To me, that's pretty troubling.

 

Gingerbread,

Your attempts to demean me because I am an athlete and strong (yet you cover sports) are sophomoric at best. Your insults are silly.

Let me save you some time as I am tired of having to reiterate my credentials. You can check out my website and see my credentials for yourself.

http://www.johndvillarreal.com/

I think that will provide you the necessary "proof" as to what I bring to the table on all levels including a journalistic one.

What I said was based almost entirely on documented fact and not opinion or speculation (even though I am an expert on what I am opining about)

As for trying to steal our story AND have us do the work for you - WTF??!!! Not going to happen - laughable and pathetic at best.

As my brother said you want to publish it great - but we get credit.

I WILL turn over all of our stuff to cool guys like Whitlock, Tim Brown, Jayson Stark, Jim Rome, or just call my ex at ESPN who will give us credit though. I talked to Rok and we are likely going to do that.

Thus, if you want to be ethical and give us credit for our hard work and story then we can talk.

As to which mediums are "legitimate" you make me laugh as I have worked in all of them (print, radio, TV, and of course the Internet). News is news, stories are stories.

Times are changing and the Internet is a powerful legit medium - last I checked Whitlock, Scoop, and Tim Brown all worked for Internet companies/mediums.

Moreover, one of the BIGGEST stories of the last two decades (Clinton/Lewinsky (sp?)) was broken by Matt Drudge on the Internet by himself - no editor or lawyer there - lol. Same thing if I do talk radio or TV news/talk again. You work in print great - but you sound like a jerk and come off looking naive at best.

You Tube is real and has global reach - plus it is just fun. Rok and I get to tell our story and lock in the time/date stamp here and there (knowing how long it took to produce, capture, edit, and upload (then You Tube was down for many hours)) without a program director, executive producer, or editor telling us what to do or say.

I do want to clear something up that Rok said. Yes, I am an IP specialist/expert but focus more on corporate securities & venture capital (transactions (company formations, venture fundings, M&A, debt, etc.) - startups through IPO & beyond). We are like the quarterbacks of the legal world on the transaction side I used to work with the CEO's, Boards of Directors, and investors directly and would bring in other atny's as needed for their specialties (including IP).

I also did some plaintiff-side big time (Tobacco, breast implant, Phen-Fen,UPS discrimination, etc.) class action my second summer in law school at a top firm.

Anyway, I digress

Cranberry & Rok - great work as usual!!

Also, looking at the other thread that talks about some of this it is clear that many are now seeing our point and this story is going to continue to grow as the implications & revelations widen.

JDV

 

Gingerbread--just this once, I wish we were indeed the same person, because I would love to respond to that on your behalf.

Not that you need my help.

(Oh yeah, legal disclaimer, since there is a LAWYER on this thread, Gingerbread and 21 are not now nor have ever been the same person, yadda yadda).

Highlight of this whole thing:

a) You're not anonymous, Rok---your name is all over the YouTube videos.
b) Is it possible to recognize intellectual property without actually having any?

 

Re: 'Updated' - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited-*Vid

Again supposed journalist attacking a man with more credentials then this whole board. Really, you people should stop and think about what you are writing on here. JDV has more then proven to be correct in what he says and the information he brings. It is getting a little ridiculous if you ask me. Every time you attack him it looks more and more like children who didn't get their way.

 

Re: 'Updated' - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited-*Vid

21 - As a journalist, I am anonymous, as I write primarily under a pseudonym. And I'm not talking about Rokski.

As to your specious attempt at a rhetorical question(b), it deserves and will get no response. You're too smart, allegedly, for such mindlessness, and I shan't indulge you any longer. Of course, authoring a book is not a reliable measure of intelligence, as numerous authors' works can attest.

Let me put this another way: Apparently, you do not possess a 174 IQ. Leave the IP questions to people who know more about them than yourself. I don't care who you are, 21, I'm not here to kiss yours or anyone else's ass. Act as a child, and be treated as such. I tried to extend you an olive branch, but that's it. You blew it, I'm done with you. Highlight that, deuce-deuce-uno.

Of course people know who I am by now, you think I don't know that. My name is Paul Villarreal. My MySpace page has been passed around plenty on this board, as I knew it would be once JDV posted his own page. Again, however, nobody on this board knows what pseudonym I use for most of my work, and that is anonymous, and it will stay that way. JDV and I discussed my potential 'outing' before he ever posted his MySpace page on SJ. I'm not at the mercy of this board - I know what I'm doing before anyone else on this board knows what I'm doing, and I plan and arrange accordingly.

Two other things, while we're on the subject, 21: 1) I discussed my starting this thread with the appropriate personages before I decided to start it, as your first post seemingly concludes I might not have thought of doing. That is, I didn't start the thread impulsively. I carefully considered it and bounced it off of some people before I did so. I will expound on this in a post to come. 2) I'm sorry if it is difficult for you - and anyone else - to follow the discussion of this topic (The Chron Guys and Ellerman's plea, etc) on two different threads. But contrary to your concept that the topic was of such importance that it had to be kept in one thread, I came to the conclusion that what JDV and I had discovered was of such importance and relevance that it, in fact, necessitated it's own thread.

That is, I started this thread precisely because I think this topic is of such importance. Again, I have already begun work on a post which will discuss this point further, and how I came to that decision.

Finally, let's talk some JDV, shall we? Yes, many don't like his style. Great, we all get that. JDV is a lawyer, a California lawyer, a California lawyer who has stood before the presiding court in this instance. The idea that he can't contribute knowledge to this particular discussion is beyond asinine. It's ludicrous and insulting to him, and frankly, to me. Anyone who even tries to come from that angle will be either ignored and/or summarily dismissed. How many lawyers participate on this board? How many lawyers from top-5 schools? How many lawyers from top-5 schools who live in the jurisdiction being discussed? How many lawyers from top-5 schools who live in the jurisdiction being discussed who have stood before the court where the trial occurred? I'm not going to continue here; if anyone is stupid or stubborn enough not to understand his expertise on such a matter, I'm done trying to explain it.

So 21, Markvid, etc. - Stay out of the deep legal waters if you can't swim. Work on your next book, your next gamer, whatever. I don't give a damn what it is. To extend the metaphor, JDV is a deep-ocean shark in this element, and I'm at least out where the bay meets the ocean, minimum. If you're a guppy, don't get in this water. You will drown, or be devoured. And don't bother to try to educate me on journalistic vetting, etc. I'm well-versed on that routine. Spare me the mock condescension.

Ok, time to get back to work.

 

Well, this has gone in a strange direction.
What's going to "explode", brothers V?
Even if you look at the reporters in the worst possible light, they're guilty of bad judgment ...OK, REALLY bad judgment ... but nothing in here clears the athletes in question.
Again, what's going to "explode"?

 

Re: 'Updated' - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited-*Vid

Elliotte - Good advice. 21's 'drive-by' just hit me at the wrong
time, but your point is noted. Thanks.

Fenian - Give me a chance to lay this out more, or more
clearly, if it doesn't make sense yet.

21 - I'm not 'done with you,' for good, though you likely don't
care. I'm just done with you on this issue, if you keep
coming from the same perspective.

Boom - Sorry to be hard on 21, but I worked too damn hard
to listen to this junk.

And in case anyone missed it, here's my MySpace. I'm sure the majority of you have already seen it:

http://www.myspace.com/rokski

Have fun looking at my stupid comments and my posing goofiness. I'm just another 35 year old, trying to get a few cool people to be my friends on there.

Peace.

 

Yes because myspace is a respectable way for a 35-year-old to get cool friends.

 

You're right. It's 187.

Elliotte gave you good advice. These rants are the stuff of 7th grade girls fighting over who got invited to the sleepover. People manage to discuss and inform and disagree all over these boards without psychotic hysteria and paranoia. If you want to be treated as professional, act like one.

 

Re: 'Updated' - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited-*Vid

Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

You're all class, 21. A true professional. If I can be anywhere near the professional you are, I'll be sooo happy.

Perhaps my lack of the 'porn star legs' gene will prove my ceiling, however. What do you think, Miss Professional? Excuse me, that is: Miss Anonymous Professional?

'Rants' don't spring from the ether, 21. Remember that, and you'll be spared another.

Your didactic would-be posturing reminds me of the kid who throws rocks at the dog and then is surprised when she gets bit in the ass later.

You started it, you can end it. I tried to reach the branch to you, and you took another cheap shot. You own no higher moral ground here, and I shan't cede any to you.

The person who threw a temper here was you, when I started this thread. And your tantrum has continued. Eventually, the parents are going to put the child in 'timeout.' She's earned it.

Cut your crap. I didn't start anything. Move on, contribute something of value, or just stop typing. I don't care, whichever option suits you best. Besides, isn't there another thread on this topic you should be looking after?

Oh, and before I forget, thanks for watching the videos. That is appreciated. JDV told me to make sure to tell you that.