With respect to your "4" above, when I have rented, I have done the following beforehand:
1. I made certain that the sample apartment they showed me beforehand was identical, or at least materially the same, as the one I actually got.
2. I made sure all appliances, lighting, electrical outlets, etc. were in working order.
3. I made certain all entrances and window could be secured secure.
4. I researched the crime rate in the area.
5. I looked into the apartment complexes reviews AND spoke with neighbors. I would knock on doors until I found at least three who would speak to me about the complex. If I smelled anything untoward, I went elsewhere.
6. I read my lease frontward and backward. In fact, I would ask for a sample lease from each complex I visited. None had any problems providing me with one.
7. I walked around the complex and made sure buildings and the surroundings appeared to be in good repair. Things like trash, weeds, unkempt grounds, poor lighting, etc. were a clear sign of "not good".
I did other things as well. And you know what? Not ONCE was I ever dissatisfied with an apartment or complex that I rented from. I never got hoodwinked, as you appear to have been - which leads me to believe you are not as forward thinking (aka intelligent) as you promote yourself to be, Great Shepherd. In fact, on occasions, when my job dictated I re-locate, I was often unhappy to leave.
My ounce of prevention "prevented" the pound of cure you are facing now. I never felt the need to post derogatory comments on a blog to "get back at" anyone, nor the drive to fuel my ego by attacking people who disagreed with me. And I was never sued.
Innocent companies have to pay legal fees like anyone else. Innocent companies who are defamed are entitled to damages like anyone else. Innocent companies don't decide how much they will be awarded IF defamation is proven. Innocent companies simply request a certain amount. They get what the court or a jury determines. Oh, it's the same for guilty companies.
To RENTNdotORG (perhaps I should call you Mr. Raney? - since you identified yourself as "Defendant" on March 28)
I am not certain why you appear to have a fixation with the word "teeter". I used it appropriately in my first post.
You also seem to suggest the my comment (see below) "teeters" on defamation.
I suspect if you were remotely well-versed in the law as you might think you are, you would not be subject to this civil suit. One important concept of a defamation claim is the difference between fact and opinion. Statements made as "facts" are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable. In my sentence, I began with the words, "To me", which clearly shows that the words following it were intended to be my personal opinion.
In YOUR case, the Connor Group has quoted you making factual statements, any one of which, if proven to be factually false, will likely subject you to pay monetary damages.
I shall not address your somewhat poetic comment: "Upper management getting ready to jettison peons under the bus as a blame sacrifice to appease the shit storm gods?", as it's meaning is not clear, and I tend to avoid metaphors, etc., lest they be misinterpreted. Perhaps you should have avoided that approach yourself before delivering such scathing assessments of the Connor Group.
I will, however, address this comment that you made:
"4. Yes, it is better to live on ones knees. I will add you to the list of people who advise not sticking to your principles. (However, I do advise not sticking to your principals.)"
You may add me to whatever list you desire. That will not necessarily paint me accurately. I will say this much. In the past, I have indeed stood on principle and DID defend my position. Unlike you, however, I did not lose my cool. Before I went on any such rampage, I did my homework. I also made sure I would be able to back up any comment I made with tangible proof.
For example, before I made a comment like charging the Connor Group with paying people to write nice reviews, I would have asked some of those "people" to sign a notarized statement attesting to such behavior. But I assume too much. I am sure you already DID something resembling that. Certainly you must have secure supporting statements before ever making such a charge, correct? Or did you?
You were trying to be the "shepherd"? Not the most effective approach, Mr. Raney. Not at all. As I said in my first post, "Raney's comments (while in spirit may have been true), may be factually incorrect."
This is to say, you may indeed have had legitimate grievances, but in your emotional approach, I believe you erred, and because of that, I truly believe you will lose part of the Connor Group's case against you. And if you lose a little, you still lose.
If that makes me a bad person for bruising your ego with anything less than unbridled support of your comments and actions, then you live in a fantasy world.
There are many protected forms of speech that teeter on the brink of defamation.
Raney's comments (while in spirit may have been true), may be factually incorrect. He has accused the Connor group of things that he may not have the evidence to back up.
I have read many of Mr. Raney's comments. I have also heard of his actions - many of which are detailed above.
I do not believe Mr. Raney will survive this lawsuit unscathed. If he thinks he can fight this suit on principle, he is going to be very very disappointed. Even if he is found liable on only one or two counts, the Connor Group will certainly be prepared to present a reasonable estimate of the damage the counts caused.
To me, this is a story of a real estate firm out of touch with its tenants some two or three levels down, and a man with an ego, who believes he is in the right. Or does he really?
Prediction: Jim Raney will be found liable of a few of the counts, and STILL be forced to pay out the ass for his ego.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Chumley.
Re: Re: Watch what you say
1. I made certain that the sample apartment they showed me beforehand was identical, or at least materially the same, as the one I actually got.
2. I made sure all appliances, lighting, electrical outlets, etc. were in working order.
3. I made certain all entrances and window could be secured secure.
4. I researched the crime rate in the area.
5. I looked into the apartment complexes reviews AND spoke with neighbors. I would knock on doors until I found at least three who would speak to me about the complex. If I smelled anything untoward, I went elsewhere.
6. I read my lease frontward and backward. In fact, I would ask for a sample lease from each complex I visited. None had any problems providing me with one.
7. I walked around the complex and made sure buildings and the surroundings appeared to be in good repair. Things like trash, weeds, unkempt grounds, poor lighting, etc. were a clear sign of "not good".
I did other things as well. And you know what? Not ONCE was I ever dissatisfied with an apartment or complex that I rented from. I never got hoodwinked, as you appear to have been - which leads me to believe you are not as forward thinking (aka intelligent) as you promote yourself to be, Great Shepherd. In fact, on occasions, when my job dictated I re-locate, I was often unhappy to leave.
My ounce of prevention "prevented" the pound of cure you are facing now. I never felt the need to post derogatory comments on a blog to "get back at" anyone, nor the drive to fuel my ego by attacking people who disagreed with me. And I was never sued.
Re: De facto admission of guilt
Re: Watch what you say
I am not certain why you appear to have a fixation with the word "teeter". I used it appropriately in my first post.
You also seem to suggest the my comment (see below) "teeters" on defamation.
I suspect if you were remotely well-versed in the law as you might think you are, you would not be subject to this civil suit. One important concept of a defamation claim is the difference between fact and opinion. Statements made as "facts" are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable. In my sentence, I began with the words, "To me", which clearly shows that the words following it were intended to be my personal opinion.
In YOUR case, the Connor Group has quoted you making factual statements, any one of which, if proven to be factually false, will likely subject you to pay monetary damages.
I shall not address your somewhat poetic comment: "Upper management getting ready to jettison peons under the bus as a blame sacrifice to appease the shit storm gods?", as it's meaning is not clear, and I tend to avoid metaphors, etc., lest they be misinterpreted. Perhaps you should have avoided that approach yourself before delivering such scathing assessments of the Connor Group.
I will, however, address this comment that you made:
"4. Yes, it is better to live on ones knees. I will add you to the list of people who advise not sticking to your principles. (However, I do advise not sticking to your principals.)"
You may add me to whatever list you desire. That will not necessarily paint me accurately. I will say this much. In the past, I have indeed stood on principle and DID defend my position. Unlike you, however, I did not lose my cool. Before I went on any such rampage, I did my homework. I also made sure I would be able to back up any comment I made with tangible proof.
For example, before I made a comment like charging the Connor Group with paying people to write nice reviews, I would have asked some of those "people" to sign a notarized statement attesting to such behavior. But I assume too much. I am sure you already DID something resembling that. Certainly you must have secure supporting statements before ever making such a charge, correct? Or did you?
You were trying to be the "shepherd"? Not the most effective approach, Mr. Raney. Not at all. As I said in my first post, "Raney's comments (while in spirit may have been true), may be factually incorrect."
This is to say, you may indeed have had legitimate grievances, but in your emotional approach, I believe you erred, and because of that, I truly believe you will lose part of the Connor Group's case against you. And if you lose a little, you still lose.
If that makes me a bad person for bruising your ego with anything less than unbridled support of your comments and actions, then you live in a fantasy world.
Watch what you say
Raney's comments (while in spirit may have been true), may be factually incorrect. He has accused the Connor group of things that he may not have the evidence to back up.
I have read many of Mr. Raney's comments. I have also heard of his actions - many of which are detailed above.
I do not believe Mr. Raney will survive this lawsuit unscathed. If he thinks he can fight this suit on principle, he is going to be very very disappointed. Even if he is found liable on only one or two counts, the Connor Group will certainly be prepared to present a reasonable estimate of the damage the counts caused.
To me, this is a story of a real estate firm out of touch with its tenants some two or three levels down, and a man with an ego, who believes he is in the right. Or does he really?
Prediction: Jim Raney will be found liable of a few of the counts, and STILL be forced to pay out the ass for his ego.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Chumley.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt