Jim March gets used by Comedy Central...
- Thread starter Moparmike
- Start date
MeekAndMild
New member
Welcome Typhoon! Lots of luck there in the PRK.
IMHO if this is true about the Comedy Central debate I'd think that Jim set himself up for a fall. Anybody who has ever seen CC knows they are a bunch of juveniles who revel in flatus jokes and masturbation humor. I wouldn't go on CC for anything unless they gave me a written contract and full immunity waiver saying I could beat beat up anybody on the set with brass knuckles and a billy stick. Now THAT would be funny!
IMHO if this is true about the Comedy Central debate I'd think that Jim set himself up for a fall. Anybody who has ever seen CC knows they are a bunch of juveniles who revel in flatus jokes and masturbation humor. I wouldn't go on CC for anything unless they gave me a written contract and full immunity waiver saying I could beat beat up anybody on the set with brass knuckles and a billy stick. Now THAT would be funny!
Last edited:
Sorry, Typhoon. Didn't get my handle from "The Power of One". Used to be a high school history teacher years ago and my kids didn't want to pronounce my long German last name so they called me Mr. K or P.K. (initials). I might add, they definitely learned the meaning of the Second Amendment and it didn't come from Sara Brady, Josh Sugarman, or George Soros!
Fred Hansen
New member
I use the off button.
You might try something with Penn & Teller's B*ll$***. As far as I can tell they are both Libertarian RKBA types. A friend of mine Tivos their show. I've seen a couple of episodes. The PETA episode is hilarious.
When I first heard of "Scare Tactics", that was the very first thing that popped into my head--that somebody was going to get themselves shot up.
The second was utter dismay at the fact that we now live in a society where only people like us would have that kind of thought--hell, every man and woman on the street should be thinking the same thing.
OK, let's be clear here. They lied to me - about EVERYTHING.
I just sent off the following to their lawyer and three "producers" a few minutes before finding this thread. So it's cut'n'paste time:
Subject: Yes, the "Jim March situation" again...
This is a follow-up to my conversation with Alonzo Wickers on Friday.
Mr. Wickers has asked me to hold off on my complaints until I see the edited 22 minutes at it's actual broadcast.
I'm not going to do that, and I maintain my objections and withholding of my permission to use video/audio of me.
Here's why:
* Having been lied to, repeatedly, I don't trust the editing process one bit. More on the subject of lies below.
* There is no possible 22 minutes worth of material you guys could pluck out that I'd want my name or reputation anywhere near. Not with a 10ft teflon-encrusted boar pike. Some of it is arguably "funny", sure. The majority was also vile, hateful, slanderous, racist and generally disgusting. The least nauseating segment involved the nut on video with the "smartgun" and that was just stupid, not even funny. I can't imagine you'd use more than a few seconds of it to get the gist (such as the list of "safety features", maybe 30 seconds worth tops).
* If I don't object beforehand, I doubt I'd have the right to object after the fact..."implied permission" or similar would add up with the release signature and I'd be screwed.
* I tell you this in all seriousness: I'd rather see all use of my audio/video killed than obtain millions in damages/punitives after the fact. Which is why we're talking and why I'm writing this: to explain to you all the full extent to which I'm going to fight this both before and (God I hope not) *after* a broadcast.
-----------------
OK, let's talk about lies a sec.
Had this been a one-episode show, and you'd hosed me like this, I'd probably have been thoroughly out of options. I was told all of the following:
1) "The show is called "The Debate show"...
(Bulldroppings. It was "Crossballs"...)
2) ...on the MTV Network". (or sometimes just "MTV")
(...when in fact it was a Comedy Central channel production from minute one...)
3) "There'll be a panel of activists on both sides of the debate...
(More male bovine output - half the "live panel" were actors there to raise as much chaos, slander and pornography as possible, as were 100% of the "live video feed" people...)
4) ...and the moderator will be a neutral professional."
(Don't look now, but a professional comedian who's there to keep the laugh factor up is NOT NEUTRAL. Got that? He's biased towards comedy. All comedy has it's roots in disaster of some sort. "Heard about the chicken that joined a religious order? It became a Friar." No, obviously it ended up in a frying pan. Even puns - the disaster is the warped brain that could come up with a really bad pun. I sure as hell shouldn't have to tell y'all this. "Camo hat boy" tried his worst to make ME the disaster...or suffer one. With the moderator's help, because he was biased towards comedy if nothing else. Classic example: after the "bow and arrow drive-by" stupidity, the moderator didn't even bother looking in my direction, getting "responses" from a visibly shocked Soto and "Camo Boy". He literally turned his back on me. Had he turned towards me, I'd have declared that the most racist disgusting thing I'd ever seen in my life. No laughs there.)
Had I been told the truth about ANY of these issues rather than lies, I wouldn't have gotten involved in this brutal mess.
Now here's the good news. For me anyways.
You told these lies to a LOT of people. I'm in solid friendly contact with at least four.
Think I won't be able to take their declarations and present them as backup to my view of events?
Attached find a declaration I took from a gent...I used my own MS-Word pleading paper template and wrote this based on Dunn's dictation as he sat beside me. That declaration recently cost Diebold Election Systems fourty five million dollars, and probably more if they get completely booted out of California. Run that dollar figure around in your head for a sec, willya?
Granted, I still don't have a copy of your alleged "release". I'm now told it has a "satire clause" of some sort (per XXX XXX) and "Says I didn't rely on any other information given or not given to me ahead of time..." as some sort of "we can lie to you" clause.
Heh. This I want to see. I'll have a copy of Susan Marie Weber's version around the 6th of this month...XXX XXX has promised to forward me the copy you gave her after the fact.
But let's assume for a sec XXX's recitation of these clauses is correct.
You're still hosed.
Here's why:
A) As in XXX's case, I wasn't given a copy of the release. As she put it, "Did it feel rushed to you when they brought it to you? I was not given a copy of the contract when I left so I had them fax it me. Upon returning home to San Francisco today I read it and am pretty shocked, now in hindsight, at how explicitly they spell everything out". I replied to her that it did indeed "feel rushed". And in my case you left me in the room alone for 10 or 15 minutes while that madwoman was doing her thing with Soto...had you left the release with me at that point, I'd have smelled the distinct odor of rat as I read the whole thing.
B) You can't write a contact that allows you to tell unlimited verbal lies about what the contract covers. Ain't no WAY in hell. Mind you, you might get away with it as a practical matter - ONCE. Whoever you screwed couldn't normally prove it. But you IDIOTS did it over and over and over again, telling the same lies to multiple people. You cannot seriously think you'll get away with that in court? Against somebody who knows how to take a proper declaration?!?
C) You left a paper trail of lies all over the freakin' Internet...you spammed dozens of web-forums.
D) California allows verbal contracts. That means verbal ADDITIONS to a written contract are still part of the contract. Now, if you'd ONLY lied to me I'd be in trouble here...but you didn't, did you? You lied to somewhere north of two dozen people, more counting folks that didn't actually appear. And ah, the joys of the Internet, I've *found* a lot of these folks.
In conclusion:
Hey, you guys wanna slander gun owners, accuse us of compensating for small "gear", parody hunting, mock urban violence problems, whatever, be my guest. I can't stop you. But if you think I'll tolerate allowing you to con ME into being a PART of that garbage, think again.
Do you understand what I *am*? I'm literally the best in my entire movement at opposition research. I dig for dirt, I damage enemies, I'm *good* at it. I teach classes in use of the California Public Records Act for these purposes. I'm a veteran of three lawsuits in the gun-rights field and two in electronic voting. I specialize in making it *painful* to violate people's civil rights...and I'm brutally effective at it.
And I swear as God is my witness, if you MORONS broadcast that video you're going to seriously regret it.
Jim March
(The attachment in question can be found at:
http://www.equalccw.com/dunndeclaration.pdf
Besides gun-stuff, I have a..."hobby"
that's made me a hero at DemocraticUnderground of all places. They still threw me off of course ...)
I just sent off the following to their lawyer and three "producers" a few minutes before finding this thread. So it's cut'n'paste time:
Subject: Yes, the "Jim March situation" again...
This is a follow-up to my conversation with Alonzo Wickers on Friday.
Mr. Wickers has asked me to hold off on my complaints until I see the edited 22 minutes at it's actual broadcast.
I'm not going to do that, and I maintain my objections and withholding of my permission to use video/audio of me.
Here's why:
* Having been lied to, repeatedly, I don't trust the editing process one bit. More on the subject of lies below.
* There is no possible 22 minutes worth of material you guys could pluck out that I'd want my name or reputation anywhere near. Not with a 10ft teflon-encrusted boar pike. Some of it is arguably "funny", sure. The majority was also vile, hateful, slanderous, racist and generally disgusting. The least nauseating segment involved the nut on video with the "smartgun" and that was just stupid, not even funny. I can't imagine you'd use more than a few seconds of it to get the gist (such as the list of "safety features", maybe 30 seconds worth tops).
* If I don't object beforehand, I doubt I'd have the right to object after the fact..."implied permission" or similar would add up with the release signature and I'd be screwed.
* I tell you this in all seriousness: I'd rather see all use of my audio/video killed than obtain millions in damages/punitives after the fact. Which is why we're talking and why I'm writing this: to explain to you all the full extent to which I'm going to fight this both before and (God I hope not) *after* a broadcast.
-----------------
OK, let's talk about lies a sec.
Had this been a one-episode show, and you'd hosed me like this, I'd probably have been thoroughly out of options. I was told all of the following:
1) "The show is called "The Debate show"...
(Bulldroppings. It was "Crossballs"...)
2) ...on the MTV Network". (or sometimes just "MTV")
(...when in fact it was a Comedy Central channel production from minute one...)
3) "There'll be a panel of activists on both sides of the debate...
(More male bovine output - half the "live panel" were actors there to raise as much chaos, slander and pornography as possible, as were 100% of the "live video feed" people...)
4) ...and the moderator will be a neutral professional."
(Don't look now, but a professional comedian who's there to keep the laugh factor up is NOT NEUTRAL. Got that? He's biased towards comedy. All comedy has it's roots in disaster of some sort. "Heard about the chicken that joined a religious order? It became a Friar." No, obviously it ended up in a frying pan. Even puns - the disaster is the warped brain that could come up with a really bad pun. I sure as hell shouldn't have to tell y'all this. "Camo hat boy" tried his worst to make ME the disaster...or suffer one. With the moderator's help, because he was biased towards comedy if nothing else. Classic example: after the "bow and arrow drive-by" stupidity, the moderator didn't even bother looking in my direction, getting "responses" from a visibly shocked Soto and "Camo Boy". He literally turned his back on me. Had he turned towards me, I'd have declared that the most racist disgusting thing I'd ever seen in my life. No laughs there.)
Had I been told the truth about ANY of these issues rather than lies, I wouldn't have gotten involved in this brutal mess.
Now here's the good news. For me anyways.
You told these lies to a LOT of people. I'm in solid friendly contact with at least four.
Think I won't be able to take their declarations and present them as backup to my view of events?
Attached find a declaration I took from a gent...I used my own MS-Word pleading paper template and wrote this based on Dunn's dictation as he sat beside me. That declaration recently cost Diebold Election Systems fourty five million dollars, and probably more if they get completely booted out of California. Run that dollar figure around in your head for a sec, willya?
Granted, I still don't have a copy of your alleged "release". I'm now told it has a "satire clause" of some sort (per XXX XXX) and "Says I didn't rely on any other information given or not given to me ahead of time..." as some sort of "we can lie to you" clause.
Heh. This I want to see. I'll have a copy of Susan Marie Weber's version around the 6th of this month...XXX XXX has promised to forward me the copy you gave her after the fact.
But let's assume for a sec XXX's recitation of these clauses is correct.
You're still hosed.
Here's why:
A) As in XXX's case, I wasn't given a copy of the release. As she put it, "Did it feel rushed to you when they brought it to you? I was not given a copy of the contract when I left so I had them fax it me. Upon returning home to San Francisco today I read it and am pretty shocked, now in hindsight, at how explicitly they spell everything out". I replied to her that it did indeed "feel rushed". And in my case you left me in the room alone for 10 or 15 minutes while that madwoman was doing her thing with Soto...had you left the release with me at that point, I'd have smelled the distinct odor of rat as I read the whole thing.
B) You can't write a contact that allows you to tell unlimited verbal lies about what the contract covers. Ain't no WAY in hell. Mind you, you might get away with it as a practical matter - ONCE. Whoever you screwed couldn't normally prove it. But you IDIOTS did it over and over and over again, telling the same lies to multiple people. You cannot seriously think you'll get away with that in court? Against somebody who knows how to take a proper declaration?!?
C) You left a paper trail of lies all over the freakin' Internet...you spammed dozens of web-forums.
D) California allows verbal contracts. That means verbal ADDITIONS to a written contract are still part of the contract. Now, if you'd ONLY lied to me I'd be in trouble here...but you didn't, did you? You lied to somewhere north of two dozen people, more counting folks that didn't actually appear. And ah, the joys of the Internet, I've *found* a lot of these folks.
In conclusion:
Hey, you guys wanna slander gun owners, accuse us of compensating for small "gear", parody hunting, mock urban violence problems, whatever, be my guest. I can't stop you. But if you think I'll tolerate allowing you to con ME into being a PART of that garbage, think again.
Do you understand what I *am*? I'm literally the best in my entire movement at opposition research. I dig for dirt, I damage enemies, I'm *good* at it. I teach classes in use of the California Public Records Act for these purposes. I'm a veteran of three lawsuits in the gun-rights field and two in electronic voting. I specialize in making it *painful* to violate people's civil rights...and I'm brutally effective at it.
And I swear as God is my witness, if you MORONS broadcast that video you're going to seriously regret it.
Jim March
(The attachment in question can be found at:
http://www.equalccw.com/dunndeclaration.pdf
Besides gun-stuff, I have a..."hobby"
that's made me a hero at DemocraticUnderground of all places. They still threw me off of course ...)
Last edited:
UnknownSailor
New member
Funny, I keep seeing the scene in Army of Darkness, when Good Ash puts the muzzle of his "double barrel Remington" up on the nose of Bad Ash.
BOOM!
"Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun."
Guess who is who?
Or, in geek speak, Miscalculation +1 on the part of Comedy Central. They better roll a save throw.....
*edit*
Forgot, for the edification of anyone involved on the other side of this, and who might be reading this post:
The above constitutes a METAPHORE. Jim March is "Good Ash", the rapidly building paper-storm you are about to recieve is the "double barrel Remington," and Comedy Central et al is "Bad Ash".
BOOM!
"Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun."
Guess who is who?
Or, in geek speak, Miscalculation +1 on the part of Comedy Central. They better roll a save throw.....
*edit*
Forgot, for the edification of anyone involved on the other side of this, and who might be reading this post:
The above constitutes a METAPHORE. Jim March is "Good Ash", the rapidly building paper-storm you are about to recieve is the "double barrel Remington," and Comedy Central et al is "Bad Ash".
Go get 'em!FirstFreedom
Moderator
"and full immunity waiver saying I could beat beat up anybody on the set with brass knuckles and a billy stick. Now THAT would be funny!"
Indeed it would. I shell out for PPV money for that!
Indeed it would. I shell out for PPV money for that!
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
Any update on this, Jim?
I just saw an ad for "Crossballs" while watching Chappelle. It premieres next week and they did have a person talking about guns on the teaser. (It wasn't Jim though.)
I just saw an ad for "Crossballs" while watching Chappelle. It premieres next week and they did have a person talking about guns on the teaser. (It wasn't Jim though.)