I deleted the thread about Cindy Felix.October 21 2004 at 8:17 AM
|Rick [C I N D Y - F E L I X] (no login)|
from IP address 126.96.36.199
|This message has been edited by recreation from IP address 188.8.131.52 on Nov 2, 2004 6:28 AM|
Re: I deleted the thread about Cindy Felix.
|October 21 2004, 8:45 AM |
They were right. You don't have the cojones.
You're a gas.
|October 21 2004, 5:22 PM |
I accidentally deleted the thread-- I didn't intentionally delete it. I didn't indicate in my new thread whether it was accidental or intentional on purpose. I only realized that after I wrote the sentence. I was about to change the sentence to indicate that it was accidentally deleted while updating it, but then I thought to myself "no, I'll leave it the way it is to see if anyone makes a remark about the deletion and I'll intentionally leave it vague as to whether it was an accident or not, just to see what happens". Sure enough-- you post what you did making me laugh. Ha ha. You fell for my little trick hook, line-- and sinker to boot. I had a pretty good thread about the traiter Cindy Felix who would rather call lawyers than be signed up to gain potential physically continuous existence.
I still have a couple of good threads in E-Rick where Cindy ADMITS publicly!!!-- that she got mad because she was taken off a particular project. It looks to me like she was so mad about that, that she trumped up some EEOC charges which must be really easy to do these days. One false move by a manager and an employee can make an accusation of harassment or whatever. Employees shouldn't be able to sue companies just because they're reassigned or demoted, or their positions are reinvented.
Truth.... you can't handle the truth
|November 1 2004, 12:05 AM |
Your last post on the subject of my situation with Alcor was so far from the truth.
Do you sit alone at your little piano and dream these things up?
Would it have come this far if it lacked merit?
I didn't think so.
Might I make a suggestion?
What's the truth about your lawsuit?
|November 1 2004, 2:04 AM |
What exactly are you suing for? Where might I find a copy of the exact text? If you won your suit, what would that result in?
|This message has been edited by recreation from IP address 184.108.40.206 on Nov 1, 2004 7:05 AM|
|November 2 2004, 5:42 AM |
Hey, that's an idea.
I can not imagine what it must feel like for someone like you.
To constantly be belittled, bullied,pushed around and not stand up for yourself.
Must suck to be you.
Are you suing for money?
|November 2 2004, 6:12 AM |
Re: Are you suing for money?
|November 2 2004, 6:04 PM |
How much is justice going for these days?
Gee, I don't know. You tell me...
|November 2 2004, 6:22 PM |
...after all you're the one suing. Why don't you ask your lawyer? I take it that this lawsuit involves money for you, right?
|November 4 2004, 6:12 AM |
The first problem I seem to be having is collecting what I have coming to me.
Please remember this very important point, I did not seek legal counsel until M.R. advised me of an investigation, he made himself lead investigator, into the issues I had formally addressed. I'm to attend a formal meeting with Riskin, Horowitz all alone?
Get real Rick.
What kind of money are we talking about here?
|November 4 2004, 6:19 AM |
What kind of money do you have coming to you? (How much?)
Cryonicists will note...
|November 6 2004, 6:59 AM |
...will note that Cindy Felix doesn't want to say anything about how much money she's going after. Batten down the hatches! Drop the suit Cindy and approach the problem another way.
Re: Cryonicists will note...
|November 6 2004, 1:49 PM |
Batten down the hatches? What the hell is that?
The reason I did not disclose a dollar amount is because IT"S NOT ABOUT THE DAMN MONEY!!!
Why can't you see that? Or do you just choose to believe anything can be fixed if you throw enough money at it?
Rick, you are not totally wrong in regards to certain situations at Alcor.
But, I do believe you must pull your head completely out of the sand and take a good long unobjective look around.
Trust your gut.
And while your at it, you might just find the info on the "independant audit" which you are so interested in.
One other thing, quit trying to make me out to be this lawsuit-happy, money-motivated bitch.
That was never my intention.
The people at Alcor know in their hearts that I am not what joe has made me out to be. It would be in their best interest to keep that to themselves though.
|November 6 2004, 3:16 PM |
...about the money. How much are you suing for?
|November 7 2004, 12:18 PM |
? It's not about the money. What money?
Who's money? jw's money? Alcors board of directors money?
Your money? My money?
|November 7 2004, 12:25 PM |
...what is the dollar amount you're suing Alcor for?
|November 7 2004, 10:44 PM |
...anything about suing Alcor?
Wait a second, didn't that in fact come from you?
Wouldn't that be public record.
You do the research.
Is Cindy Felix...
|November 8 2004, 8:37 AM |
...suing Alcor or not? It seemed to me that she was. I picked that up from any one of several threads in the recent past. If there isn't a lawsuit, then what is the situation exactly? Is there an EEOC "fine" involved as a result of Cindy's "charge"? I'm asking anyone who reads this, who knows, to provide the lowdown here. This isn't an issue I'm about to prioritize and do research on. Whoever told me to do research obviously doesn't quite "get" what this discussion forum is all about. If Cindy is as nasty toward Alcor as she has been in this thread with respect to what she's up to, then I'd say she constitutes trouble, no matter which way you look at it. Someone who isn't forthcoming with a problem and resorts to lawyers without expanding on the issue for interested observers like me doesn't deserve to be "researched"-- only defended against. Cindy was demoted or repositioned at Alcor and she didn't like it but it's part of what working "for" a company is all about, in my view. It doesn't appear to me that Cindy was ever interested in cryonics-- so to me, she's just a trouble maker. As an Alcor member, we're looking to lower the amount of trouble-- not increase it. Cindy is looking to increase it.
EEOC, fines, and awards
|November 10 2004, 7:39 PM |
I may be wrong, but I've never heard of the EEOC fining anybody. What they typically do is if they find in favor of the plaintiff (and yes, it is a lawsuit), the plaintiff is awarded various things depending on the case and the perception of what damage is done. Some awards are the return of the employee to the job, lost wages and benefits, compensation for other damages/suffering. Those things of course cost the employer lots of money, but they are technically not "fines."
Usually the two parties agree to some monetary settlement before it goes to the formal EEOC hearing process. The lawyers usually make plenty of money on it, and the plaintiff gets something out of it.
That "something" is sometimes enough to motivate a disgruntled employee to fabricate/exaggerate charges. Also there are some people who make a living off of manipulating themselves into jobs where it is likely they can also manipulate themselves into situations favorable to filing EEOC cases.
This is all presented as general observations and has nothing to do with any particular case.
Maybe an example of what I'm talking about:
|November 10 2004, 7:50 PM |
Liza Minnelli Accused of Sexual Harassment
Wed Nov 10, 2004 08:23 PM ET
By Jeanne King
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The former bodyguard and chauffeur to Liza Minnelli accuses the singer of forcing him to have sex with her and is seeking more than $100 million in damages, according to court papers unsealed on Wednesday.
According to a six-page complaint filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, M'hammed Soumayah said that "without his consent," he was forced to have sexual relations with Minnelli.
He said he finally succumbed to her advances after many repeated attempts and has evidence of a relationship. But he offered no details in his complaint.
A spokeswoman for Minnelli was not immediately available for comment on the latest charges to surface publicly in a civil suit that was filed against the entertainer last month by Soumayah who also claims he was beaten by Minnelli and subjected to her rages.
In an affidavit on Nov. 3 that was also unsealed on Wednesday, Minnelli said she will "vigorously" defend herself against his charges and says Soumayah has caused her "a great deal of personal distress and pain" by violating a confidentiality agreement he had signed.
Her affidavit did not address the allegations made by Soumayah about being forced to have sexual relations with her. Soumayah was hired by Minnelli in 1994 as her personal bodyguard and assistant and was paid an annual salary of $238,000.
Soumayah wants $50 million from Minnelli for her "intentional assault and battery," another $50 million for sexual harassment and $89,000 in back wages.
In his complaint, Soumayah said that throughout his employment, Minnelli "hit and assaulted" him "repeatedly" but fearing loss of his lucrative job, he tolerated Minnelli's "violent outbursts."
Earlier this week, Minnelli countersued and accused him of breach of contract.
Minnelli's estranged husband, David Gest, is also suing her for $10 million claiming the singer beat him during drunken rages. Minnelli has denied beating Gest and counter-sued, claiming he cheated her out of more than $2 million.