SLE Photography wrote:
A link to the Bar for the state of Wisconsin is fiction?
Wow, that's an awfully GOOD fiction!

Outlaw Photography wrote:
The corporation has not filed with the "Bar" .... your info is fiction .....

You totally have no clue what he was talking about, do you?

Outlaw Photography wrote:
Again, back on topic .... defamation .. which you are doing a really good job of adding to....

God bless,
Outlaw

*shakes her head* .... what a ..... oh, nevermind .....

SLE Photography wrote:
A link to the Bar for the state of Wisconsin is fiction?
Wow, that's an awfully GOOD fiction!

Outlaw Photography wrote:
The corporation has not filed with the "Bar" .... your info is fiction .....

Again, back on topic .... defamation .. which you are doing a really good job of adding to....

God bless,
Outlaw

#1, the link to the state bar involved actions taken against you by your place of residence to invoke restraining orders against you for the protection of public employees you'd threatened.
#2, it wasn't MY information, someone else posted it & I was commenting on it.
#3, I don't see how I'm defaming you by commenting on the humor in you saying a public record on a state website that someone posted is "fiction."

Olaf S wrote:

To the OP...I am new to this thread, but curious.

You say that the certificate is the award...right?

So, answer me this...for what did you receive the certificate, "outstanding photography"?

I'm still wondering what the OP received the certificate for...and now I'm wondering how many other people received the certificate in the same years the OP did.

Lazyi Photography wrote:

Man I need a life, I've been following this thread all day, but now that TX is here, I can't bear to pull away, reading this is like watching a weiner dog face a grizzly bear. My only question is, when you are done TX can I take some pictures of the remains? Sorry, but I like the twisted pictures.

*ok, now back to the main event!*

I am pushing this for a reason.  You will see the reason soon enough.  The big thing is gathering where all you people get all your weird idea's from, and who is passing false information on line, defamation, pure fiction, made up this and made up that.

You want to put BS over court filed documents.  You want to associate a Computer company, with my new career.  But, only when it is convenient, and only when you can use ficticious information to do so. 

It was time to find out just exactly what stories were going around as I have heard many references to these types of things.

Yet, http://outlawphotography.com/credentials/judmt.html is filed in the court house..... you don't want to address it. Why? Does it blow your entire logic?

Perhaps that you have been wrong since day one .. and continue to believe fiction ... just like all did when it was the Duke LaCrosse Players as the issue.

It appears someone has created an entirely false front for defamation.  If the Bar is involved .. then it is time to rattle some cages.... after all ... you can't possibly dismiss the link I gave you. It is an authenticated copy.

You can run in circles all day with bad info on line ... but it doesn't change a thing .. that document is in several other court files. It pretty much proves all you have dug up is fiction.  Now why would someone put fiction on line?

God Bless,
Outlaw

Olaf S wrote:

I'm still wondering what the OP received the certificate for...and now I'm wondering how many other people received the certificate in the same years the OP did.

There is only ONE Certificate for an Award given out per year. Everyone else is Awarded a Certificate.

I hope that is clear to everyone involved,

Evan

Outlaw Photography wrote:
Perhaps that you have been wrong since day one .. and continue to believe fiction ... just like all did when it was the Duke LaCrosse Players as the issue.

It appears someone has created an entirely false front for defamation.  If the Bar is involved .. then it is time to rattle some cages.... after all ... you can't possibly dismiss the link I gave you. It is an authenticated copy.

You can run in circles all day with bad info on line ... but it doesn't change a thing .. that document is in several other court files. It pretty much proves all you have dug up is fiction.  Now why would someone put fiction on line?

God Bless,
Outlaw

So you're saying there's a vast conspiracy against you that the state Bar of Wisconsin is in on?
Wow dude.
Why would that many people be out to get you??

Outlaw Photography wrote:

I am pushing this for a reason.  You will see the reason soon enough.  The big thing is gathering where all you people get all your weird idea's from, and who is passing false information on line, defamation, pure fiction, made up this and made up that.

You want to put BS over court filed documents.  You want to associate a Computer company, with my new career.  But, only when it is convenient, and only when you can use ficticious information to do so. 

It was time to find out just exactly what stories were going around as I have heard many references to these types of things.

Yet, http://outlawphotography.com/credentials/judmt.html is filed in the court house..... you don't want to address it. Why? Does it blow your entire logic?

Perhaps that you have been wrong since day one .. and continue to believe fiction ... just like all did when it was the Duke LaCrosse Players as the issue.

It appears someone has created an entirely false front for defamation.  If the Bar is involved .. then it is time to rattle some cages.... after all ... you can't possibly dismiss the link I gave you. It is an authenticated copy.

You can run in circles all day with bad info on line ... but it doesn't change a thing .. that document is in several other court files. It pretty much proves all you have dug up is fiction.  Now why would someone put fiction on line?

God Bless,
Outlaw

ahhh... so it is all a big conspiracy against you.. with the Bar behind it... I see now.

(as the link points to something you posted on your website and not to a verifiable 3rd party it is highly suspect)

Outlaw Photography wrote:
It appears someone has created an entirely false front for defamation.  If the Bar is involved .. then it is time to rattle some cages.... after all ... you can't possibly dismiss the link I gave you. It is an authenticated copy.

Actually, it is not an authenticated copy.  You changed the name in it from what is filed - and then put a copyright statement at the bottom of it in your own name.  Gotta love the thought process there.

But at best this is an "authenticated copy" of something you wrote about yourself.  That's it.  Nothing more.  You could have just as easily written that you were an astronaut and spoke Mandarin.  Made any wild claim you wanted.  It is only your words that you are citing.  Where is the independent verification?

And one more time:  specifically what that I have said, what of the links that I have provided, is "fake"?  Tell us!

SLE Photography wrote:
Why would that many people be out to get you??

You need to ask?



Studio36

Evan Hiltunen wrote:

There is only ONE Certificate for an Award given out per year. Everyone else is Awarded a Certificate.

I hope that is clear to everyone involved,

Evan

Errr.....no.

Everyone who attends is given a certificate for....what....attending?

And then how many awards are given?

I've tried to follow everything the OP has said, but he is sometimes too cunning for me.

What did the OP get, and what did he get it for?

How many other people got an award?  How many got a certificate?

SLE Photography wrote:

So you're saying there's a vast conspiracy against you that the state Bar of Wisconsin is in on?
Wow dude.
Why would that many people be out to get you??

I never said anything like that. What I said is http://outlawphotography.com/credentials/judmt.html is an authenticated copy, filed in court, reading $22.5 million .... and the Bar has different figures, however, the corporation never filed with the Bar. Thus, their information is fiction ....

I don't know why, do I know why any thinking human being would dismiss an authentic copy and want to argue about a website ... without first going to the court to find out.  d

It goes to how people are being hurt by the Internet ... based on fiction on line.

God Bless,
Outlaw

Bryan Benoit wrote:

ahhh... so it is all a big conspiracy against you.. with the Bar behind it... I see now.

(as the link points to something you posted on your website and not to a verifiable 3rd party it is highly suspect)

Darn it!!! Now you are suggesting that a document inserted into a personal (non-government) may or may not be an authentic item.

How can people be so cynical?

Evan

Olaf S wrote:

Errr.....no.

Everyone who attends is given a certificate for....what....attending?

And then how many awards are given?

I've tried to follow everything the OP has said, but he is sometimes too cunning for me.

What did the OP get, and what did he get it for?

How many other people got an award?  How many got a certificate?

I don't know how many got one.  I know I did, and it was for "Outstanding Achievement in Photography, the photos associated with it are on my home page linked to MM.

God Bless,
Outlaw

Outlaw Photography wrote:
I don't know why, do I know why any thinking human being would dismiss an authentic copy and want to argue about a website ... without first going to the court to find out.  d

Because it is (alleged to be) an "authentic copy" of something you wrote about yourself.  Making a copy of it doesn't make any of the statements real, any more than making copies of any of the claims you have made here or on your website makes them any more real.  They are just copies of what you want people to believe.

Outlaw Photography wrote:

I am pushing this for a reason.  You will see the reason soon enough.  The big thing is gathering where all you people get all your weird idea's from, and who is passing false information on line, defamation, pure fiction, made up this and made up that.

You want to put BS over court filed documents.  You want to associate a Computer company, with my new career.  But, only when it is convenient, and only when you can use ficticious information to do so. 

It was time to find out just exactly what stories were going around as I have heard many references to these types of things.

Yet, http://outlawphotography.com/credentials/judmt.html is filed in the court house..... you don't want to address it. Why? Does it blow your entire logic?

Perhaps that you have been wrong since day one .. and continue to believe fiction ... just like all did when it was the Duke LaCrosse Players as the issue.

It appears someone has created an entirely false front for defamation.  If the Bar is involved .. then it is time to rattle some cages.... after all ... you can't possibly dismiss the link I gave you. It is an authenticated copy.

You can run in circles all day with bad info on line ... but it doesn't change a thing .. that document is in several other court files. It pretty much proves all you have dug up is fiction.  Now why would someone put fiction on line?

God Bless,
Outlaw

Ok, I'm a crappy photographer(no ISP awards here )   I don't make claims I'm some huge business genius, that sued a company for 22.5 million(then claims it as what you made from your last business venture). I'm not making claims I'm connected to a group of fellow rednecks, sorry I mean militia, but I do know a guy, who's cousin once lived with a guy, who's grandpa's barber had a cousin, who's aunt dated a guy who robbed a guy who once ate dinner next to Jimmy Hoffa. I'm not super versed in the laws/rules/codes/secret handshakes of the modeling industry, I just own a camera, take some pictures(mainly crappy) and make a little money. But what I do know is this.
You claim your scanned copy is "authenticated"? First off it is altered, so it is impossible to authenticate, as since it is altered, it is authentic. But hey...
As for the false front, the one someone here is holding up, looks more rickety then my grandma's knees.

Outlaw Photography wrote:

I never said anything like that. What I said is http://outlawphotography.com/credentials/judmt.html is an authenticated copy, filed in court, reading $22.5 million .... and the Bar has different figures, however, the corporation never filed with the Bar. Thus, their information is fiction ....

I don't know why, do I know why any thinking human being would dismiss an authentic copy and want to argue about a website ... without first going to the court to find out.  d

It goes to how people are being hurt by the Internet ... based on fiction on line.

God Bless,
Outlaw

you did say something that implied a conspiracy with the Bar involvement:

"It appears someone has created an entirely false front for defamation.  If the Bar is involved .. then it is time to rattle some cages.... "

or did I break into the MM servers and changed your post? Maybe I am the mastermind behind all this?

studio36uk wrote:
You need to ask?



Studio36

Well, really only 'cause I wanted to see what he'd say

Outlaw Photography wrote:
I never said anything like that. What I said is http://outlawphotography.com/credentials/judmt.html is an authenticated copy, filed in court, reading $22.5 million .... and the Bar has different figures, however, the corporation never filed with the Bar. Thus, their information is fiction ....

I don't know why, do I know why any thinking human being would dismiss an authentic copy and want to argue about a website ... without first going to the court to find out.  d

It goes to how people are being hurt by the Internet ... based on fiction on line.

God Bless,
Outlaw

But the link to the Bar I am refering to had NOTHING to do with the judgement.
The link Tx posted was all about you having injunctions & restraining orders placed against you for the protection of county workers you were threatening.
Or is that all false information too?

Lazyi Photography wrote:

Ok, I'm a crappy photographer(no ISP awards here )   I don't make claims I'm some huge business genius, that sued a company for 22.5 million(then claims it as what you made from your last business venture). I'm not making claims I'm connected to a group of fellow rednecks, sorry I mean militia, but I do know a guy, who's cousin once lived with a guy, who's grandpa's barber had a cousin, who's aunt dated a guy who robbed a guy who once ate dinner next to Jimmy Hoffa. I'm not super versed in the laws/rules/codes/secret handshakes of the modeling industry, I just own a camera, take some pictures(mainly crappy) and make a little money. But what I do know is this.
You claim your scanned copy is "authenticated"? First off it is altered, so it is impossible to authenticate, as since it is altered, it is authentic. But hey...
As for the false front, the one someone here is holding up, looks more rickety then my grandma's knees.

Now the creeps are coming out. First of all .. I don't even know a milita member .. never have.  Other than on line in forum's .. slmr ...

I did remove my name from the judgment, however the date of filing, judge, authentication, etc., is more than enough to verify.  Under contract I have to keep my name separate from my Photography.  It is called a no compete agreement.

There were two contracts associated with the judgment.  One was an appraisal ...

A firm stole, the WI Justice Department investigated, it went to court, and he stipulated rather than facing criminal charges.

Pretty simple ... and more than enough to verify.

God Bless,
Outlaw

Outlaw Photography wrote:
I don't know how many got one.

I wonder if anyone who attended didn't.

Outlaw Photography wrote:
I know I did, and it was for "Outstanding Achievement in Photography, the photos associated with it are on my home page linked to MM.

I have to say your photography really speaks for itself.

Outlaw Photography wrote:
...I did remove my name from the judgment, however the date of filing, judge, authentication, etc., is more than enough to verify.  Under contract I have to keep my name separate from my Photography.  It is called a no compete agreement.

God Bless,
Outlaw

Ummmmm, I am concerned that you may be running a foul of the law. Isn't it illegal to alter a court document?

At first read, I thought you had a non-compete clause about filing lawsuits. I see I was  wrong, but I it made me chuckle.

Evan

SLE Photography wrote:

But the link to the Bar I am refering to had NOTHING to do with the judgement.
The link Tx posted was all about you having injunctions & restraining orders placed against you for the protection of county workers you were threatening.
Or is that all false information too?

Did they also tell you that the transcript was forged. Admitted to by bothsides, and after two cops siezed the assets of the corporation without warrant, cause, Accusation, there were no assets to use to fight back. Again, remember the Duke Lacrosse Boys ... what would have happened if they couldn't have afforded legal counsel?

Did they tell you a cop put his gun in my face and stole land for WI DOT? That the Clinic ordered us to move to save my new born son's life, and the State Department of Socialist Services ordered us to leave our home, relocate the corporation or they would take our son? Did they also tell you that violates the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment?  Theft of property for public use without just compensation? Denying us a day in court. No warrant.  And I could go on for hours. Someone is trying to kill your son and stealing, you are going to get in their face also. And what I really did is ask them if they want me to do the same to them as they just did to me.  It is on tape. It is the Golden Rule.....  of course they didn't want that ... they knew how evil they were.

By the way, the theft is admitted to in the transcript.....

So is this why I haven't been able to get my Photography going? Because people are believing fiction?  They are even posting it on the web?

Not one of them having the professionalism to stop in and ask to see the documents?  Just blindly believing anything anyone wants to put on line as if it were facts or true?

When you face a cops gun ... and verbally fight back .. who is the criminal? Isn't it an out of jurisdiction cop that is the criminal?  No warrant, no authority, just using a badge and gun to steal?

God, you people will believe any evil thing anyone says ... and never take the time to go talk to the one you accuse.  Just like the Duke Boys .... everyone had them guilty .... they were not.

God Bless,
Outlaw

Outlaw Photography wrote:
Now the creeps are coming out. First of all .. I don't even know a milita member .. never have.  Other than on line in forum's .. slmr ...

On no?  Then why, in the state bar's records of court actions at this link: http://www.wisbar.org/res/capp/z1996/96-3094.htm do they make this reference in the actions taken against you?
"Satonica met with the project manager in October of 1995 and informed him that he was well connected with the militia and would "get" those associated with the project. "

Outlaw Photography wrote:
Now the creeps are coming out. First of all .. I don't even know a milita member .. never have.  Other than on line in forum's .. slmr ...

I did remove my name from the judgment, however the date of filing, judge, authentication, etc., is more than enough to verify.  Under contract I have to keep my name separate from my Photography.  It is called a no compete agreement.

There were two contracts associated with the judgment.  One was an appraisal ...

A firm stole, the WI Justice Department investigated, it went to court, and he stipulated rather than facing criminal charges.

Pretty simple ... and more than enough to verify.

God Bless,
Outlaw

Sir, I'm not a creep, I want a duel at sundown. Shall we say, 1,000 paces off your service rd?(I'll cheat and put a county worker there. lol.)
As for your name not being able to be tied to your photography... because of a no-compete(non-compete), yet you are still doing it, so if they found out, you would be in breach of your contract? So uh, just casually, where you work?
As for the militia comment, it was from the court filing TX posted, you claimed it and like the "photography" award, if you claim it, I believe it.

Ok, my 2cents are spent.

Evan Hiltunen wrote:

Ummmmm, I am concerned that you may be running a foul of the law. Isn't it illegal to alter a court document?

At first read, I thought you had a non-compete clause about filing lawsuits. I see I was  wrong, but I it made me chuckle.

Evan

It states on the prior page ... http://outlawphotography.com/credentials/private.html the entry point for the site, I contractually had to alter it ... and put in my Photography name.

The disclaimer is there.

God Bless,
Outlaw

Outlaw Photography wrote:

I don't know how many got one.  I know I did, and it was for "Outstanding Achievement in Photography, the photos associated with it are on my home page linked to MM.

God Bless,
Outlaw

I'm going to guess that everyone who attended got one.  Maybe I'm wrong, but as you say, "I don't know"

So...any clue how many attended?

Outlaw Photography wrote:
It is called a no compete agreement.

Noncompetes are usually within an industry. Nobody'd ever ask a high-tech worker who did computer stuff to sign a noncompete regarding photography, unless your name was such a significant "brand" that it mattered. Can you shed some light on that?

Outlaw Photography wrote:
A firm stole, the WI Justice Department investigated, it went to court, and he stipulated rather than facing criminal charges.

That's another question I have. It's easy enough to get a jury award but it's sometimes damn hard to collect it. Like, impossible. For example, the Goldman family has basically seen nothing of the massive jury award against O.J. Simpson. So, screw the judgement - the real question is whether you got the money, or whether the other guy just offshored his assets and declared bankruptcy and left you with a nice scan of a piece of notarized paper.

Say, you keep ending with "God bless" so I'm assuming you're one of those good God-fearing Christian types. What do you think of that ole 9th Commandment, huh? Some people interpret "bear false witness" as kinda meaning God doesn't approve of liars or people who distort the truth. How do you interpret that one? I'm just askin'...

mjr.

Outlaw Photography wrote:

It states on the prior page ... http://outlawphotography.com/credentials/private.html the entry point for the site, I contractually had to alter it ... and put in my Photography name.

The disclaimer is there.

God Bless,
Outlaw

Sorry, I just copied the link that goes to the "court papers" concerning the 22.5 million judgement. But, the link I copied it from came from that prior page and says (something) about Telebotics being award a large contract within the first six months of business.

I thought it was going to take me to a copy of the contract not the court papers that are currently being disputed.

http://outlawphotography.com/credentials/judmt.html

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

Noncompetes are usually within an industry. Nobody'd ever ask a high-tech worker who did computer stuff to sign a noncompete regarding photography, unless your name was such a significant "brand" that it mattered. Can you shed some light on that?


That's another question I have. It's easy enough to get a jury award but it's sometimes damn hard to collect it. Like, impossible. For example, the Goldman family has basically seen nothing of the massive jury award against O.J. Simpson. So, screw the judgement - the real question is whether you got the money, or whether the other guy just offshored his assets and declared bankruptcy and left you with a nice scan of a piece of notarized paper.

Say, you keep ending with "God bless" so I'm assuming you're one of those good God-fearing Christian types. What do you think of that ole 9th Commandment, huh? Some people interpret "bear false witness" as kinda meaning God doesn't approve of liars or people who distort the truth. How do you interpret that one? I'm just askin'...

mjr.

you ask wise questions...

.. and i work for a top 20 fortune company and have signed a non-compete clause.. and it very specific to the technical work that I do for them (and their corporate lawyer knows about my photography work).

Outlaw Photography wrote:
So is this why I haven't been able to get my Photography going? Because people are believing fiction?

No, it's because:
- You come off as a whack job
- Your website is amateurish
- There are some really sucky photos on the front page of your portfolio, that would make any model think twice about letting you photograph her cellulite
- You don't appear to know how to set a white balance
- You appear to be editing on an uncalibrated monitor and your tonal ranges are all over the place

I don't know you from Adam but after watching you comport yourself in this thread there's nothing anyone could do or say on the Internet that'd make me think less of you than I already do. Nothing personal. Like I said - I don't even know you. But you come off as a real nutter.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
This whole thing reminds me a bit of that thread a few months ago where that guy was claiming he had "thousands of photos in print" and had "worked for national magazines" -- and by the time all the laundry was out in the open it turned out that he meant:
"in print" == "I have made prints of them"
"worked for national magazines" == "I sent pictures to playboy and easy rider"

Thank you Marcus;

I have been avoiding posting in this thread... but, well... thanks to you, I have been thinking about that guy as well.

To OUTLAW:

Dear Sir;

I have been involved in high finance for a long time of my life and have been extremely successful over there.

Hence I understand where you are coming from with some of your ideas... and I agree, some ideas are transferable between industries... NO PROBLEM!

However, you are in fact new to the fashion/commercial/whatever industries that utilize models... and you have told veterans who are here on MM, who have shot with almost every supermodel top fashion house etc., out there for the past 40 years, as well with people who have been running commercial agencies worldwide and in NYC that THOSE people have no idea what they are talking about when referring to the business practices in this segment... that is new for you!

You shouldn't be surprised when other accomplished and recognized personalities come and take your arguments apart.

Lastly... since you don't seem to understand the true value of your "awards"...

It maybe a really good tool for your own personal marketing to a specific market that has no idea about the photography world and it most likely gave you a push to get started and paid jobs.

However, in this community that is filled with experienced talent (heck we even have Pulitzer Prize winners on MM!) credentials are being put under brutal scrutiny.

The award you are using for enhancing your marketability is just like one of those "degree mills"... you know... where you get a phone call, someone is offering you a college degree from... oh, Bowling Green University (or college, don't remember) based on your life experience (I get those in spam mail almost everyday).

So, they "interview" you and tell you that you "qualify" and you pay them whatever money... do have your MBA or doctorate or whatever qualification... and it's all fine and dandy and will impress only those who don't know... but guess what... sooner or later you will deal with real academics... and they will pluck that diploma apart... slowly... painfully... and that's what seems just happened to you.

It appears from skimming the posts that most who responded to you don't see that YOU are the scammer... but you have been scammed.

Well... that's all I have to say.

UdoR