@LJ: "Here we go again! Part of the reason I have a problem with this is "Help Save Charlie, the REAL deal" it was established on 1/2/13. This was BEFORE the hearing."
That page was initially established because David's story didn't add up and when lots of his early supporters (like me) questioned him, he blocked them, deleted their posts and refused to answer. As the facts started to come out (police reports, etc.) and people started to see what David claimed was not the truth, over 1,000 people joined the TRD page to get the unvarnished truth.
Many of those people have stuck around, because we feel he is still BSing people, still not taking responsibility and still shredding the good names of people and groups who actually save dogs. We feel that if David is going to ask for help/money from good, dog-loving people, then they should know the truth before deciding. As we've told you many times, if YOU want to give your money to him - we're not going to try and convince you otherwise.
"If you do not know a horse will be in that area how is that negligence?"
When you know your dog has a high prey drive and has recently attacked multiple other animals - it is ABSOLUTELY negligence to take your dog off leash (against park rules) PLUS take his collar off too.
LJ - you keep saying "let him have his day on court!" He COULD have had his day in court and he CHOSE not to go forward with it. That ship has sailed.
Who cares about pizza? I know at least 3 people who donated money and were quite upset to learn that David spent the money on himself instead of Charlie. I believe Teresa, who is posting here, donated money and asked for a refund (and never got one) because she felt deceived.
"Next time you are fundraising for a cause, would you like it if someone picketed your cause and made a nuisance of themselves?" - That wouldn't happen to me. Because I wouldn't be fundraising for a cause and then spending the money on something else like David has. When I tried to raise money for Charlie's new owners and they didn't want it, I returned every last cent to people who donated - and paid the PayPal transfer fees out of my own pocket.
And yes, I tweeted Andrea letting her know about the story I wrote about Charlie's new training regimen - which she did not reference in this article at all. But Andrea has been writing about Charlie long before I ever knew about this case. So your point is?
"@ Matt... FACT... It was an ACCIDENT!"
No. Based on his own words, David knew Charlie was prone to attacking large animals. So it was negligence on his part, not a simple accident.
"@Matt.... David or any of his supporters do NOT have to prove a thing to YOU! FACT. David will need to prove his case to the judge. FACT."
Again, wrong. David could have tried to prove his case to the judge, but he declined and chose to settle instead. You can't "appeal" a settlement and any judge he tries to take this back to will throw it out since he has already agreed not to sue the city over this matter again.
Cathy, I've commented on the article many times. I've said why I agree with it. I've posted proof to back up my thoughts. I think I've proven that David is a liar and a cheat and is 100% responsible for what happened.
If you disagree - please comment on what in the article you disagree with. Or what I've said that you disagree with. Post proof - court docs, police reports, etc - to back up your assertions. That's how a debate works.
I know you won't though. Just like everyone else who supports David, you never really debate. You throw out ad hominem attacks, muddy the real issues by rambling on and on about 5th grade he said-she said stuff, and can't refute with any proof the things we say.
But I'm all ears if you want to try. I guarantee I can rebut anything you say using real facts.
Yet again, all David Gizzarelli's fan club can talk about is who called someone a name and who's screen name is who.
NONE OF THAT MATTERS.
If you feel you've been harassed or libeled, THEN SUE and get off this page. If you want to talk about the facts of the case (which I know you don't) - then post some facts for everyone to see. Don't chicken out and say "Oh, I guess we'll see..." No, we won't see - because there's nothing to see.
Post something from the settlement, the police reports, the UCD behavior evaluation, the court minutes from any of his hearings - anything that's factual - otherwise, you're just admitting you've got nothing.
Balls in your court. I'm waiting for one fact - ANY fact.
Outraged, I'm beginning to think you're not really on David's side - since you keep proving my point over and over.
"Legally stolen"? Is that a legal term? Are you going to sue the city on those grounds? Good luck with that.
When both parties agree to a settlement - with lawyers present - and sign their name to a piece of paper that says they were under no duress when signing, then you're SOL. Again, just the facts...
All Comments »
The San Francisco Examiner
Website powered by Foundation