I WAS ON WJOB today, did anyone hear

The Preacher · **Joined:** Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:08 am **Posts:** 25

I'm sorry, I've been way out of line.

NWIHoosier · **Joined:** Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:20 pm **Posts:** 550

The Preacher wrote:

Hey NWIHoosier,
Couldn't help but noticing you are a practicing corporate attorney.
I have a "hypothetical" legal question form law school 101.

If I may.
If you had a client, who's reckless speech had repeatedly raised questions of liability and who may be facing legal action as a result of his/her statements, written or spoken, advise him/her to shut the hell up as to not worsen the situation any further?

Would it not be prudent, in your opiniom, to explore the possibilities of a private, out of court settlement of the parties differences?
Or, would you advise your client to escalate his/her attacks as a means of negociation in hopes his/her accuser would drop their suit?

I'm sorry, I almost forgot. Let's throw some death threats in there as well, for all to see, at an innocemt 3rd party who has nothing to do with your case.
I think that paints a clear picture.

I'm just a "Caveman", but, I know which way I would go.
What say ye council?

Well, I think you know what the answer would be; however, I don't know all of the facts about what happened, so it wouldn't be fair to either of you to give an answer. But again, I would never be in the situation where I would have to advise a client about a matter like this, as this is not my area. I don't know the particulars about what happened on the Times message board, but I'll just say that I hope you and sparks can work this out.

NWIHoosier · **Joined:** Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:20 pm **Posts:** 550

Preacher, I do have to say though, that I listen to your radio show and enjoy it. Thanks for keeping us up to date on everything. As I said, hopefully you and sparks will make amends. I enjoy your posts, as well as sparks' posts.

expresso66 · **Joined:** Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:43 am **Posts:** 7401

I like the preacher too, plus DD Low.

The Preacher · **Joined:** Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:08 am **Posts:** 25

Thanks for listening guys, I appreciate it.

I want to make something clear as far as "Sparks" is concerned.
I don't know the man persoanally anymore than he knows me.
I have nothing against him or his opinions.

This is simply an example of what can happen when you get involved in other peoples problems.

I did have the best of intentions when I encouraged W.M. to settle this situation privately.

I know for a fact he has attempted to contact the person he believes to be "Sparks" and has done just that, thus far unsuccessfully as far as I know.

I tried to be a good sumaritan and it blew up in my face, and not by any fault of W.M.
Either "Sparks" is not who I believe he is, or, he is simply not interested
in a peaceful solution to the problem. It has to be one or the other.

That being said, I don't now or ever have, cared one way or the other.
Just thought I could save everyone a lot of trouble if it stayed out of court.

I am a big enough man to admit when I make a mistake, and this was an error in judgement on my part.
I now have this opinion:
If W.M. wants to pursue this, go for it. If "Sparks" thinks his interest is best served by following his course, that's cool too.

I had no hand in this other than what I just stated, and I admit, playing the good sumaritan blew up in my face.
That's the bottom line, and the end of my interest in a matter that is solely between W.M. and "Sparks" whoever he is.

JustJoe · **Joined:** Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:52 pm **Posts:** 46

The Preacher wrote:

Thanks for listening guys, I appreciate it.

I want to make something clear as far as "Sparks" is concerned.
I don't know the man persoanally anymore than he knows me.
I have nothing against him or his opinions.

This is simply an example of what can happen when you get involved in other peoples problems.

I did have the best of intentions when I encouraged W.M. to settle this situation privately.

I know for a fact he has attempted to contact the person he believes to be "Sparks" and has done just that, thus far unsuccessfully as far as I know.

I tried to be a good sumaritan and it blew up in my face, and not by any fault of W.M.
Either "Sparks" is not who I believe he is, or, he is simply not interested
in a peaceful solution to the problem. It has to be one or the other.

That being said, I don't now or ever have, cared one way or the other.
Just thought I could save everyone a lot of trouble if it stayed out of court.

I am a big enough man to admit when I make a mistake, and this was an error in judgement on my part.
I now have this opinion:
If W.M. wants to pursue this, go for it. If "Sparks" thinks his interest is best served by following his course, that's cool too.

I had no hand in this other than what I just stated, and I admit, playing the good sumaritan blew up in my face.
That's the bottom line, and the end of my interest in a matter that is solely between W.M. and "Sparks" whoever he is.

Is this the W.M. of Team Hammond. So I take it this is about Williams St. What did Sparks comment on that was not the truth, I donâ€™t remember the specifics, please enlighten us.

The Preacher · **Joined:** Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:08 am **Posts:** 25

Hey Joe,
I don't recall any of it as none of that conversation had anything to do with me.
To be honest, I don't recall, because I didn't read any of the thread.

I am not familiar with W.M.'s bizness other than the superficial description
provided by him during his temporary radio career.

I think W.M. is a honorable man, and he speaks his mind.
I do not know "Sparks", so, who am I to judge?
Clearly, they are two guys on oppisite sides of the political fence.

I'm not here to pass judgement, I just don't want to be blamed for crimes I did not commit.

Sorry, I couldn't help.

JustJoe · **Joined:** Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:52 pm **Posts:** 46

Iâ€™m a little confused with some of your post. The supposed problem started with a Times article about a drug bust on Williams St., no names or address were mentioned in the article. I believe Sparks threw out a name of someone who owned a few properties on Williams St. I donâ€™t remember W.M. name mentioned anywhere on the message boards or in the newspaper article, correct. So why is W.M. involved in this mystery?

The Preacher · **Joined:** Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:08 am **Posts:** 25

Joe,
Again, I did not read the thread.
Nor did I trace any other statements made by either party.
I therefore can't form an opinion, because I did not read the material.

W.M. does not share the details of his life with me, as our relationship
is strickly based on his desire to to some radio progamming and I have some time available, and it is on a "pay to play" basis.

Other than that, I can only speccualte W.M. felt he or his bizness was damaged by something that was written and is taking steps to stop any further damage, as he perceives the meaning of the word "damage".
That's about it.

sparks · **Joined:** Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:17 pm **Posts:** 3800

All these sob stories from the Preacher want to make me retch. As far as
I am concerned, I am the aggrieved party here.I have lived in Hammond over twenty years. From the last four years,I posted on the Times forum about what I think will make Hammond a better place to live. I have consistently opposed Team Hammond because I believe their only motive is to make Hammond a profitable place to buy and rent rundown properties. The Preacher was never on my radar screen until he started selling airtime to Wes Miller. From what I have seen, the main focus of all of Wes' efforts has been to cut taxes for landlords. Simply by stating the truth, I was banned from the Times forum. I guess Wes thinks that people expressing themselves
honestly is bad for his business. If that is the case, I think he should reexamine how he makes a living.Like I mentioned to the Preacher in another thread, it is unwise to pick a fight when you do not know who you are fighting. The claim that Wes has tried to contact me is BS. He is free to PM me whenever he wants,but I see no reason for him to do so. I have a right to express my opinions about issues that effect the city I live in and there is nothing he can say to me that will change that. The empty threats he uses to bully the Times won't work with me. I am also tired of reading Preacher's lies. I have never threatened his life. Making statements like that about me just shows how stupid the man is. If someone threatened my life,I would be calling the police,not whining about it on the message boards.

expresso66 · **Joined:** Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:43 am **Posts:** 7401

Twenty years in Hammond, that's all sparks? And now you have all the big ideas on how to run the city? Give me a break, dude. You have the spirit of a troublemaker as we all see now, and always up to no good. Too bad the Times forum banned you, you would still be there giving your "advice"!

Mary Lou · **Joined:** Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:38 pm **Posts:** 955

how many years have you been in america? :shock:

expresso66 · **Joined:** Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:43 am **Posts:** 7401

HOW many years have YOU been here, in my people's land of freedom? Where's my thanks, ML?

sparks · **Joined:** Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:17 pm **Posts:** 3800

expresso66 wrote:

Twenty years in Hammond, that's all sparks? And now you have all the big ideas on how to run the city? Give me a break, dude. You have the spirit of a troublemaker as we all see now, and always up to no good. Too bad the Times forum banned you, you would still be there giving your "advice"!

You are in some serious need of schooling!

expresso66 · **Joined:** Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:43 am **Posts:** 7401

Northwest Indiana Discussion

I WAS ON WJOB today, did anyone hear

Who is online