![]() |
![]() |
|
|
February 23, 2006
As for who admits to ownership of LasikDisaster.com and when, that will be determined in a different forum. Considering the liabilities there, I'm not surprised that Keller would attempt to distance herself. Who is responsible for the authorship of the defamation at LasikDisaster.com is another matter altogether. Again, that is something for a different forum.February 23, 2006
So now we see Keller attempting to absolve herself of all responsibility for the website she created, which puts the consequences squarely on Paula Cofer. Keller, are you saying Cofer is solely responsible for what is on LasikDisaster.com? Did she accept all liability for the website from you? On what date did this momentous event occur, Keller? Did she specifically accept the legal liability for the defamation you created, but she perpetuates? That will be an interesting document to see.
If Keller wants to say only Cofer is making money off of Lasik ads at LasikDisaster.com and only Cofer is responsible for the content at LasikDisaster.com, then that's fine with me. Let's see you point the finger at your accomplic-...er...buddy Cofer.
You could tell us all right here and now. Why wait for the subpoena? You could tell us when (if) you transferred ownership and responsibility of LasikDisaster.com to someone else, who that someone else is, and when the ads started.February 25, 2006
Yes, I can litigate and attempt to have the whole thing brought down, and that is in process.February 25, 2006
Wrong again, Keller. Investigators in five states have been doing the bulk of the work, but I do what I can. My attorneys are quite energetic, outrageously over-priced (but worth every cent), and "as if" Keller could be intimidated with mere words in a newsgroup. I suspect much more would be required.Posted by Admin at February 25, 2006 04:29 PM