Monday, January 23, 2012

Joey Was Court Ordered to Pay a Nearly $300,000 Fine for His Cybersquatting

Check this out:

US Federal Court, Northern District of Texas at Dallas
Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-2099-K
Pursuant to the court’s Order entered concurrently herewith, and its
Memorandum Opinion and Order entered May 12, 2009, the court issues this Final
Judgment and Permanent Injunction as follows. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED
AND DECREED that:
1) Counter-Plaintiff and Third-Party Plaintiff Hoerbiger Holding AG
(“Hoerbiger”) is awarded statutory damages in the amount of $100,000 against
Counter-Defendant Dauben, Inc. d/b/a Texas International Property Associates (“TIPA”)
Case 3:07-cv-02099-K Document 69 Filed 09/01/09 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1239
2
and Third-Party Defendant Joey Dauben a/k/a Joseph G. Dauben (“Dauben”).
2) Hoerbiger is awarded costs of court against TIPA and Dauben.
5) Hoerbiger is awarded reasonable attorney fees against TIPA and Dauben
and shall submit its claim for the amount of attorney fees sought by September
21, 2009.
6) The statutory damages award will carry post-judgment interest in the
amount of .44% per annum.
Signed September 1st , 2009.
__________
ED KINKEADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
AND ORDER FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Before the court is Hoerbiger Holding AG’s Amended Application for Attorney
Fees Against TIPA and Joey Dauben, filed October 5, 2009. No response in opposition
to the application was filed by either TIPA or Dauben. The court has reviewed the
application, supporting factual documentation, and the applicable law, making the
findings contained herein and awarding attorneys’ fees to Hoerbiger Holding AG
(“Hoerbiger”) as follows:
Based upon the foregoing findings, the court hereby awards attorneys’ fees to Hoerbiger in the amount of $195,524.09. TIPA and Dauben shall pay the fee award to Hoerbiger within 30 days of the date this order is signed. The court further cautions Case 3:07-cv-02099-K Document 77 Filed 12/10/09 Page 6 of 7 PageID 1396
7 TIPA and Dauben that if this deadline is not complied with, they will be subject to any and all sanctions the court deems necessary and appropriate.
SO ORDERED.
Signed December 10th, 2009.
then theres the ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT against him issued this past March!

In the above entitled and numbered cause a judgment was rendered in this Court and registered herein, on the 1st day of September, 2009, in favor of Hoerbiger Holding AG against
Dauben, Inc. d/b/a Texas International Property Associates, and Joey Dauben a/k/a Joseph G.
Dauben in the sum of $100,000.00 with interest at the rate of .44 percent per annum from the 1st day of September, 2009. On December 10, 2009, the Court awarded attorneys’ fees to Hoerbiger Holding AG in the amount of $195,524.09 and ordered Dauben, Inc. d/b/a Texas
International Property Associates, and Joey Dauben a/k/a Joseph G. Dauben to pay such fees.
Costs have been taxed by the Clerk of Court in the sum of $0.00.
Credits reflected by returns on execution in the sum of $0.00.



So in 2009, the same year and time Joey was whoring himself out to dirty gypsy cop Michael Meissner, he and Jeff Barron were caught in their internet scam and ordered to pay a massive sum. No wonder Joey hates the court system and never even bothered to get a real job and life for that matter. So we have Jeff Barron, John Margetis, Jay Hoskins, Micheal Meissner....was he ever professionally associated with anyone that had a clean record?

78 comments:

  1. There are several other lawsuits with similar sized judgements that are found through a search. It would be interesting to see if his management portfolio of over 800,000 domain names involves porn.

    ReplyDelete
  2. well as I remember, the little scam he and Jeff had going was to register domain names very close to something well known that people would be serching and then get linked advertising off the unsuspecting souls that didn't realize yet that they made a slight mistake. I'm sure with that many sites some of those were playing off the major porn sites, and Im sure joey spent extra care and time managing those particular sites. Maybe Meissner was going to make some porno's for Joey so he could sell them off his sites.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And I want to page Brandy back to this, as it got lost in all the postathons going on in the other threads.....but according to Brandy, she was going to spill what she knew about the real facts on the ECO and Joey threatened her with legal action through attorney Mark Griffith? I would like to know the exact form and nature of the threat that they made to you on this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cybersquatting. Didn't Joey admit to that? So this an actual judgement he was required to pay?

    ReplyDelete
  5. yes, he tried to make the claim that it was some kind of legitimate business practice similiar to real estate land speculation (heh, nice try). But just like: the truth, critics, logic, facts, both sides of the story, or anything that made him look bad, Joey completely ignored this and pretended it didn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Fuck off Hairball and Anthony LingleJanuary 23, 2012 at 7:46 AM

    You gotta know how to blog it up ginger - that's how you get all the juicy stuff from people - like I do. lol.

    You may not like how joey and brandy did things on their blogs, but that's how they got the juice you love to read.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Fuck off Hairball and Anthony LingleJanuary 23, 2012 at 7:49 AM

    Ginger - do you have access to the indictment out of Ellis county? They indicted Joey Dauben.

    ReplyDelete
  8. All I was told is that they are going to indict him didn't know that they did yet

    ReplyDelete
  9. Fuck off Hairball and Anthony LingleJanuary 23, 2012 at 8:27 AM

    That's what they said about Bill Gates too. Poor Joey was just born in the wrong place and happened to like sex with little boys. He could have be a great star had he not lived in Texas.

    It is my opinion that if he didn't live in Texas, he likely would not have been sticking his meat-pole in little boys either. But that is just pure conjecture. Don't quote me on that or anything.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Fuck off Hairball and Anthony LingleJanuary 23, 2012 at 8:28 AM

    Heard there IS an indictment.

    ReplyDelete
  11. That would be interesting to see that. Pile on...

    ReplyDelete
  12. As i recall EC had until the 18th of jan to return the stuff from the raid or indict. there is a 700k judgment somewhere on dauben to.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why that date?

    ReplyDelete
  14. nothingbettertodotodayJanuary 23, 2012 at 2:38 PM

    Holy Smoke!! Researched law suits with Joey as defendant/respondant I only found 29. Researched Joey's cybersquatting dba and 193 suits pop up. I'd bet my next pay check there is more than a $700k judgement outstanding. All suits are similar: company with trademark rights complains, Joey says OK I'll hand over domain, then he doesn't give up the site, gets sued. These suits go back to 2007.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Looking at the way it was set up, it looks like Joey was basically in the business of getting sued, to protect the real owners. The owners hired Joey to go to court for them and have these judgements against him, and then provided lawyers to protect their interests in the trials. Joey was technically the defendant, and the real owners escape public attention. You've heard of hired guns; I think Joey was a hired shield, a professional defendant.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yes Bob, I think this post and related comments are much ado about nothing. I want to see that indictment from Ellis County. I believe the 18th deadline is due to it being six months since the raid - July 18.

    ReplyDelete
  17. nothingbettertodotodayJanuary 23, 2012 at 3:49 PM

    @ ECO, et al: when property is seized under a warrant, it becomes State's evidence. The State doesn't have to give it back. Ever. The State will hold the property until they decide whether to file charges. Depending on the charge, the State could have 7 to 10 years to make a case.

    So, unless Ellis County wants to put a hold on Joey before he bonds out of Navarro, I wouldn't stay up tonight waiting for a copy of an indictment...........

    ReplyDelete
  18. I guess we could call Joey the most ultimate form of a prostitute?

    ReplyDelete
  19. nothingbettertodotodayJanuary 23, 2012 at 4:51 PM

    @ Ginger: you took the words right out of my mouth. Check out Texas International Property Associates (now dead) web site - Joey was looking for new Johns in Feb. '10. Looks like that didn't work though, TIPA gave up all the .com sites when TIPA filed for bankruptcy later in the year. In Nov '09 Joey's TIPA attorney was arrested for fraud and RICO violations, he received a 50 year sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Aren't we all prostitutes of some sort or another? Just sayin...

    ReplyDelete
  21. What do you mean "not like that"? I guess I just thought the world was full of prostitutes for the good guys and prostitutes for the bad guys or is it not that simple?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Do you guys think Joey ever really believed anything he said? I wonder...

    ReplyDelete
  23. That's where they end up getting everyone - in bankruptcy court. A sad day in America.

    ReplyDelete
  24. In my opinion he believed what he said by whatever degree it took to suck people in. Sort of like a carny trying to sell a ticket to see "alligator man" or the "bearded lady". Speaking of bearded ladies, I looked at his eco2 page and it looked like his photo showed him wearing pink nail polish.

    ReplyDelete
  25. * Texas Department of Public Safety Detail
    Person ID No.
    5247299 Gender
    MALE Race
    WHITE Ethnicity
    NON-HISPANIC
    Height
    509 Weight (lbs.)
    135 Eye Color
    BLUE Hair Color
    Brown

    Name(s)

    Name Entry ID No.
    12686058 Full Name
    DAUBEN,JOSEPH GLEN Last Name
    DAUBEN First Name
    JOSEPH GLEN
    Type Code
    Base Record Value

    Birthdate(s)

    DOB ID No.
    5608310 Date of Birth
    Feb 8 1981 Type Code
    Base Record Value

    Individual

    Individual ID No.
    5247299 DPS ID No.
    06291203

    TRN

    TRN ID No.
    12147488 Date of Arrest
    Mar 6 1999 Sequence Code
    A Tracking Incident Number
    0014928345
    Arresting Agency
    OVILLA POLICE DEPARTMENT

    TRS

    TRS ID No.
    14395633 TRS/TRN ID
    A001

    Offense Detail

    Date of Offense
    Mar 6 1999 Agency ID
    Internal Agency Person Number
    9980136 Arrest Offense (Numeric)
    29990016
    Action Related to Offense

    none found Level and Degree of Offense
    MISDEMEANOR - CLASS B Date of Disposition Immediate to Arrest
    Mar 6 1999 Arrest Disposition
    DISPOSITION UNKNOWN
    Prosecutor ORI Referred To
    DALLAS CO SO DALLAS Arrest Offense Literal
    Arrest Disposition Literal
    Agency Case Number
    Domestic Violence Involved

    none found

    Arrested Charge

    Offense Code
    29990016 Offense Description
    CRIMINAL MISCHIEF>$50$50$50<$500 Level and Degree of Offense
    MISDEMEANOR - CLASS B Statute Citation of Disposed Offense
    28.03(B)(2)
    Statute Code
    PC

    Court Provisions

    none found
    Custody

    none found
    Y

    ReplyDelete
  26. according to law that was the time frame they have to hold personal property. 7 months. June 18 to Jan 18 = 7 months

    ReplyDelete
  27. The Jeff Baron case Joey was so pissed at came about because Joey was sopposed to be the shield for Baron. The lawyer that got handed 50 years was told if he outed the real owners he might get some consideration. well he gave up Baron thats how Baron ended up in his pickel.
    If you go back and look at the entire case against Baron he was sued by several litigants under one civil action. that is what Joey and the rest of his crew dont want out there. some of the same folks that sued Joey went after Baron. they just wrapped it up in one neat and clean case.

    ReplyDelete
  28. to a slight degree you could maybe say that, but no one ever does it to the degree Joey is here

    ReplyDelete
  29. Yeah, and as you remember when they put that stupid case up there for us all to go out an protest because they would do this to all of us if they did it to him, I said that I wasnt really thrilled that they had to change the rules to nail this guy but I'm more interested in them nailing him. He, like JM, found ways to use people and different legal motions to defraud both people and our court system. Frankly, I think they ought to ship them out to Gitmo and treat them like terroists, they have lost their right not only to be treated as an American, but even as a human being, they are the absolute filth of our society so I'm all for these Judges doing whatever they can to keep them from continuing their scams on society.

    ReplyDelete
  30. gingersnap - that is the EXACT kind of thing Joey was doing. You are advocating giving the power of GOD to JUDGES and I am not for that. As criminal and crooked as these guys might have been, anyone who is given the power of GOD will be a tyrant!

    A civilized society that operates by a rule of law cannot claim "rule of law" for one side and then not for the other. You have proven my point and Joey's point that Judges feel they ARE GOD and can do whatever they want and there are people who will back them up on that - that is tyranny. And that is why there are mass protests now. Also why I don't trust the system.

    Thank you for proving my point - not that I needed you to, because that point is proven everyday over and over again - but still, it is always good to hear it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I dont know where you get the "God" power thing. In the Jeff Barron, the judge is taking extraordinary steps to stop Jeff, but they are still, arguably, within his power already alloted him. Jeff found a way to exploit the system itself, and in those cases either we throw out the entire system or we find unusual ways of squashing their tactics.

    I dont really know how judges feel but they are extreamly powerfull, as they are in just about any country on this earth, and thats just the way it has to be. Ultimately, someone has got to decide things and someone must preside over that decision. Now if you can actually prove their are corrupt, then yes lets fight to remove them but simply not liking how they rule isn't proof of corruption.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I am not saying one particular judge or another is corrupt. The system itself is designed to favor the HAVES over the HAVE NOTS. Can you at least agree with me on that point?

    Or are you in disagreement about that as well?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Have you ever, in this history of this world, seen a system where the HAVE NOTS choose the rulers and powers over them?

    ReplyDelete
  34. I think there are much better systems than what we have right now if that is what you are asking Ginger. I know this because I have read a lot about history and governments and philosophy. I also know this because I have experienced different forms and have family members living in different countries.

    The American way is not the best way. In fact, it has become a very awful way and many are waking up to that realization. It was an experiment. But it failed. There is much to be learned from it and we should take what was good from it. However, we should not try to hold on to a terribly unjust system just because we were always taught in school that it is the best in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I guess when it comes down to it, it is all about degrees of power that the system allows the HAVES to hold over the HAVE NOTS. And we are severely out of balance right now. I'm not all doom and gloom saying we have to throw the baby out with the bath water, but we are certainly headed for disaster if we don't do something drastic to change what we currently have in place.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I was looking for a specific example, yes there are lots of countries, lots of histories and lots of ways to skin a cat. But never have the have nots been able to be on the same footing as the haves. And you know what? thats not even our goal. The american way is to make it so that the have nots have the best chance to become haves, and this country, much more than any other, has been able to do it.

    I love this country, I love our system. Does it need reforming? Yes, probably more so now than at any other time, but I want to reform it within the system because, as I said, I love our system.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I think what you are reffering to is our secretive 4th branch of the government, that being the lobbyist branch. Here in lies what we are all most mad about. I dont want to take exxon's profits, its theirs, they should do what they like with it, but what I dont like is that exxon is able to hire lawyers and lobbyist that give them an unfair advantage over their smaller competitors. I have no problem with large corporations making extreame profits and getting bigger, its a good thing for all of us. The problem is when they take a portion of those extreame profits and use them to "juice" up the legislative and executive branch so that laws are passed that slant the rules in their favor at the expense of their smaller competitors. And yes, that is where our major problem lies and must be reformed.

    ReplyDelete
  38. omg, we DO agree then! I guess I see this on a small scale too. I see in courts such as the family courts - that the one with money wins everything they want. That is soooooo wrong and leaves me with utter disgust in the entire system.

    I am not as concerned with what Exxon is doing when I have my ex who has all the money and I have nothing and he can hire lawyers to get whatever ruling he wants in family court. I can't even get a lawyer b/c I have no money and all the legal aid money is going to fund deportation cases (they are considered higher priority that mine.) So illegals have more rights to representation that I do.

    I just get screwed - literally and figuratively.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I haven't had any experience in family court, so I have no idea. But, I can see just by its structure that people are going to tend to feel wronged by the process. In criminal court we have the court appointed attorney's if you cant afford one, we also have a jury of peers to decide the ruling. In family court its the judge that decides and he is probably going to be most influcened by the attorney who was most active in the case (that being the one who got paid the most). But I dont know what the better system is

    ReplyDelete
  40. nothingbettertodotodayJanuary 24, 2012 at 7:58 AM

    I'm not so sure the attorney gave up Barron, I think Barron may have been outed when the law firms records were seized by the Feds. Barron may have been a better suit target for financial reasons. Can't get blood out of a turnip, Joey didn't have any money to pay all those judgements.

    The Feds had bigger fish to fry re: a Ponzi sceme + RICO violations that involve the mafia. A recent news article is saying the attorney may be giving up mafia members now to have his sentence reduced.

    At any rate, if Joey was so great at exposing fraud and corruption, how and why did he overlook this attorney's problems long enough to crawl in bed with him? WIth respect to beleiving what he wrote, seems to me Joey's "exposures" were all self serving. Based on the differences I know between the truth and Joey's posts, he had no interest in creating a better society.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Well, I think that in family courts, there should be a requirement to ensure both sides have equal resources. That could be a start. I believe people should have the right to CHOOSE their representation in court and not a right to have an attorney APPOINTED by the court - too many conflicts of interests. One must be able to fully trust their advocate.

    I think a better solution is to ensure the resources available and the time they are available to each are equalized. For example, attorneys and experts and everyone should have to openly produce records of their billings to the court and the court must ensure that each side has the same amount of money spent on their case.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Yes that would make it the most fair, but here is your problem...I as a taxpayer who never plans to set foot in a family court doesnt really want to fit the bill for this equality, and something tells me I'm not the only one that feels that way.

    ReplyDelete
  43. In addition, I think that the states should stop requiring the advocate to be a licensed attorney if the litigant wishes to freely choose an advocate that is not a licensed attorney. Why, in a free country, must we be REQUIRED to choose a Texas licensed attorney. Why can't I choose my sister in London who is a partner in a law firm to advocate for me in a Texas court? Why not her partner who is a prosecutor and experienced in court litigation? Why can't I choose even a trusted friend who is a solid philosopher and debater?

    I know all the attorneys will tell me the usual excuses to this. But when do we EVER hear about attorneys being held truly accountable for screwing up their client's cases? Sure, there are malpractice lawsuits, but those are very expensive and the laws are set up to favor the attorneys. Attorneys have demonstrated they WILL NOT adequately police themselves. Therefore, we MUST demand that litigants have the FREEDOM to choose other avenues of advocacy in the courts.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "WIth respect to beleiving what he wrote, seems to me Joey’s “exposures” were all self serving. Based on the differences I know between the truth and Joey’s posts, he had no interest in creating a better society."

    That sums up Joey Dauben and all his "crusades" perfectly. the problem with those that were with Joey is they only saw the cause, they never looked deep enough into why Joey had such a passion for it, turns out he had a personal reason in all his targets.

    ReplyDelete
  45. As a "taxpayer" you are paying for so much of the family courts already. The other alternative - which you might like, is to get government out of marriage altogether. This would resolved gay marriage issues as well. Why does the government have to regulate marriage and family life anyway? They are just milking it for money in the divorce industry.

    ReplyDelete
  46. ok yeah, but this isnt unique to attorneys......why can I only choose a licensed doctor, real estate broker, cpa, nurse......

    this goes back to the bigger system arguement. the state is going to force you to hold a license in these fiduciary capacities and if you dont have that, you are practicing illegeally.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I dont see how the government can get out of disputed custody battles or in the case of child endagerment, I think they have to be in it in those situations.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I believe you SHOULD be able to choose whomever you want to help you with whatever you want. I am not saying we should dismantle licensing. However, litigants (and patients and clients) should have to right to CHOOSE who they want. Especially, when it comes to courts where one's constitutional rights are at stake. If I can't afford a state licensed attorney, and taxpayers and courts are refusing to provide me resources to get one, shouldn't I have the right to choose an advocate that is outside the licensing system. If I have the right to choose MYSELF, then why can't I choose my sister or my dear friend?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Gingersnap - please reconcile these two conflicting statements you have made. On the one hand you say taxpayers shouldn't fund family court fairness. On the other, you say there is no way that government should not play a role in family fairness. Taxpayers fund government's role. And government should play fair, do you not agree?

    gingersnapthornoftruth permalink

    I dont see how the government can get out of disputed custody battles or in the case of child endagerment, I think they have to be in it in those situations.

    gingersnapthornoftruth permalink

    Yes that would make it the most fair, but here is your problem…I as a taxpayer who never plans to set foot in a family court doesnt really want to fit the bill for this equality, and something tells me I’m not the only one that feels that way.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I have no problem with it, I was just pointing out the licensing racket and how it works.

    ReplyDelete
  51. wait, you are putting words in my mouth with the "play a role in family fairness", I said they must play a role in protection of children

    ReplyDelete
  52. I just summed up what you were essentially saying Gingersnap. You either want government (taxpayers) to play a role or not in "protection of children" as you call it. If you do, then you either want that process to be fair or not.

    Whether you call it "protection of children" or "family fairness" the substance is the same.

    ReplyDelete
  53. no I would say they are different as the goal is totally different. The child has no advocate, the adults are supposed to be able to advocate, or at least hire someone, for themselves. We have an understood obligation to protect the rights of children in these types of situations so taxpayer assitence to do that is understood. To provide taxpayer assistence to the father and mother so that they have a "fair" chance at their desired outcome is something different altogether.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I don't want to defend what Joey did to a 15 year old kid - and by no means do I mean to do that in my comments. I am simply defending his blogging. I do this even though I was a "victim" of it.

    I want to address this comment:

    "That sums up Joey Dauben and all his “crusades” perfectly. the problem with those that were with Joey is they only saw the cause, they never looked deep enough into why Joey had such a passion for it, turns out he had a personal reason in all his targets."

    Not trying to pick on you today Ginger, just defending bloggers as a whole and Joey happened to be one. I think that your opinion reflects how many feel and that is why I am addressing it as well. Not to attack you personally, because I like you from what I can tell of your posts.

    Here's the fault I see though - I don't know very many people (in fact, very few) that have lived their lives devoted entirely for others with no selfish desires or personal passions playing a part. I, personally, don't believe it is even possible. Now I know you are probably saying that Joey took it to some sort of extreme, but I see the majority of society wanting to separate the good guys from the bad guys and label everyone accordingly. In reality, everyone is quite complex. Joey was a smart and charming guy. He probably did feel bullied all his life from what I've learned. He probably did feel a strong passion to fight back against the BIG guys. I get that because I feel that myself as do many, many others.

    We all have things the government could "get us" on if they wanted to. Or another person could "rat us out" or just lie about us on something - like Vale Krenik and Alan Van Zelfden and Betty Krenik in my cases (sorry, have to do the personal plugs here and there.) The law can be used as a weapon of evil just as much as it can be used as a force for justice.

    People are usually doing what they are doing because of self-interest even when it looks like they are doing it for the great good of mankind. There can always be found that fundamental element of self-interest and personal circumstances that lead people to do what they do.

    The government didn't like Joey embarrassing them on a blog. So they hunted him down and eventually all those with axes to grind got together and found some people to write up a criminal complaint. And, like you said, they separated the one incident into four heavy-handed $50,000 bail-out felonies. Any half-wit can see this was an act of revenge by the powers in government against a "kid" who kept embarrassing them on some blogs.

    You know who looks like the real bad guys in all this now? Yep, they have made Joey Dauben another judicial martyr. They should have just ignored him. But if they were mature enough to ignore him, there probably wouldn't be protests and all this other stuff coming out the wazoo by the people of the United States.

    Step, step, down. Soap box for you now.

    ReplyDelete
  55. gingersnapthornoftruth permalink

    "no I would say they are different as the goal is totally different. The child has no advocate, the adults are supposed to be able to advocate, or at least hire someone, for themselves. We have an understood obligation to protect the rights of children in these types of situations so taxpayer assitence to do that is understood. To provide taxpayer assistence to the father and mother so that they have a “fair” chance at their desired outcome is something different altogether."

    I'm not one to believe that taxpayers care more about my child than I do. "The state" = "the taxpayers" = "an elected judge" whose position depends upon "campaign contributions by other lawyers" - a child's rights are best protected when society protects the rights of all its citizens - no? How can we say we are a civilized and fair society if we advocate fairness for children, but not for adults?

    ReplyDelete
  56. I disagree with the words "embarrising" and "revenge", I would substitute "pissing them off" and "piling on". Joey pissed them off, but he was to ineffective to make them look embarrassing to the general public, at least for those way up the latter (he could pick off a few councilmen in some extreamly small towns here and there). They did not force Joey to break the law, he did that willingly himself. But once they had joey in their crosshairs thanks to his criminal activity, they employed all their resources available to them to make sure maxium punishment is inflicted on him so that this little gnat that has been pissing them off for years is no longer able to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  57. you keep putting the word fairness in relation to the children, its not fairness its simple protection. The child cant advocate for itself, it cant defend itself. The mother and father, at least in theory, can. So when I say the state swoops in to stand for the child its about protection, not fairness.

    ReplyDelete
  58. gingersnapthornoftruth permalink

    "you keep putting the word fairness in relation to the children, its not fairness its simple protection. The child cant advocate for itself, it cant defend itself. The mother and father, at least in theory, can. So when I say the state swoops in to stand for the child its about protection, not fairness."

    The role of child protection belongs to an agency called "child protection services." The courts are SUPPOSED to be independent of that role and interpret law as well as order things fairly (fairly = in accordance with justice.) Parents are protectors of children too. If another person feels the parents are endangering their own children, then they report that to CPS. CPS does an investigation. If warranted, CPS files a lawsuit. CPS then becomes a litigant against the parents - not the court.

    Another situation is when one parent files suit against another parent and the court must determine which parent deserves the right to the child based on "best interests of the child" standard which is based on basic fairness principles.

    In these cases, the court is the independent arbitrator and fact finder.

    You could say that all parties are acting as "protectors" of children.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Yes, I"m mainly talking about CPS, that's governemnt and its funded by us taxpayers. We dont have a PPS (parental protection service) which would come in to ensure the rights of the parents are taken care of. And we must have a court to make a final ruling in cases where the parents are contesting custody or determining child support payments. This started when you said "why not keep government out of it" but I said we would have to have it in the case of children...aka CPS. CPS actions must ultimately be backed up by a court of law.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Well, we do have Adult Protection Services which is for people that have disabilities or those who are elderly and such. However, the basic argument I have been making is an argument in favor of fairness. I suggested "get the government out of marriage" as a possible option when you said you and other taxpayers would not want to fund fairness in family courts.

    My argument was for fairness between litigants when children are at stake or when any other rights are at stake. Parents do have rights to their children, do they not? The rights of parents to decide things for their children exceed those of the state's rights vested in the children, yes?

    I began this argument in favor of each parent being guaranteed an opportunity to an equal playing field in the courts. Since this is not currently guaranteed by our American court system and we all know money goes a long, long way in making a good argument (politics, persuasion, fanfare, and the like), we cannot be guaranteed a just outcome through the courts. Children are essentially sold to the highest bidder - or rather the one with the most political and economic persuasion.

    CPS actions have to be backed up by a court of law, but it isn't like the court's are there to just sanction their actions. I get the feeling you think CPS is just an arm of the court - not so. Or it shouldn't be so. (Though, I admit, it is often looking that way more and more.)

    The court is supposed to be entirely independent of all parties. CPS is just another party. Same as if the federal government filed suit against the state of Texas. The court is supposed to be independent of each of them - not there to back one or the other up (though, due to the way things are we know that practice differs from theory. HOwever, I'm trying to prove the inherent injustice of the system design rather than human bias and error that can never be fully eradicated from any system.)

    ReplyDelete
  61. I also want to address these concepts of "fairness" and "protection" in the context of the subject of which we are speaking. What is protection if not fairness? Isn't fairness = justice? Isn't the protection of rights to the basics - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness - the foundation of fairness in our country? Does "protection" go beyond protecting these rights?

    This is important because I do see a lot of activity by our government in the name of "protection" of the public and "protection" of children and "protection" of safety, etc. I have been concerned lately that the word "protection" has different meanings to different people. It is important to me personally, that freedom be protected. All these values and rights need to be protected - not just one over the other. And courts are there to weigh and decide these matters. If we say that children's rights are worth more than the rights of parents, what are we really saying? I believe all human beings have equal rights - none greater than any other. When two people walk into divorce court, the child is not a victim of crime. There are competing parental rights and the courts must determine which parent the child should live with, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  62. As I said at the outset, I can see how many would view it as unfair, and maybe it is. But what I'm saying is me paying for "fairness" in the family court system isn't fair to me. You didn't have to get married, and you didnt' have to get divorced and you didnt have to have children, and I shouldnt have to pay so you can get the best possible defense of your rights.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I have a hard time mixing in the "government corruption" reason behind all of the problems people face in courts

    There are many cases where there was no corruption involved, but a parent finds an "out" by claiming they lost custody of their children because of corruption when in fact the right decision was made. It seems that most of those same parents find lunatics like Dauben to scream the "corruption"excuse. Dumbasses like Dauben love that because then they have an avenue to become important, even though that importance is limited to the parents that deserved to lose custody.

    Dauben isn't nothing more than an idiot that found an audience. What is so funny is all these idiotic parents were drawn to him like flies thinking he could help them and he its going to be a reason many of them get put further in a hole of despair.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Ok, lets break it down

    Protection: Adult A marries Adult B and eventually have a child or adopt a child who is C. Adult A divorces Adult B and both contest the custody of child C. Adult A has representation either as themselves or by hiring someone, same with Adult B but child C does not without the state coming in and giving them that.


    Fairness: Adult A, B, and Child C all have the same access to same quality of legal representation reguardless of financial means.

    thats how I see the two words in this use

    ReplyDelete
  65. Bingo, and remember, Joey's goal all along was to find an audience, any audience. He would litereally sell out his own soul for a chance at that.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Gingersnap's world of protection: Adult A has all access to money b/c he is an abusive jerk and won't allow wife to have access. Adult A pays $500/hour attorney and Adult B has no attorney or some scumbag who uses her for sex and sabotages her case and hopes to get a job with $500/hour attorney firm one day. Judge got campaign contribution of $100,000 combined from both attorneys or from one - doesn't matter cuz the whole thing has already been decided based on money anyway.

    Child C ends up with Adult A and is abused b/c even though Adult A had criminal record of abusing Adult B, the judge said Adult A would not abuse Child C b/c he has the money and can provide better life.

    Okay, I get it Gingersnap. Fairness and protection are very different in your world.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Integrityisbest:

    "isn't nothing" ?

    I think Dauben actually gave a shit. I do. I think he put himself first as well all do though. And I think he had some shady stuff going on as many, many do in government. He wasn't a squeaky clean guy. But he knew how to get some info on people in government and they didn't like that.

    Look what they are doing to Julian Assange and Wikileaks and the whole internet gang now. They are scared. They are realizing that the info is leaking out of a zillion holes and there is no way to plug them all up.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I do have to agree that Joey seemed to love the limelight. It gave him a platform. That's why he even took on the role of proxy for Jeff Barron I bet.

    ReplyDelete
  69. This is a good point. Even for those who have less-than-noble motivations, the accomplishments and ideas can stand on their own. The outflow of information can only grow from here, and the world can only benefit from that.

    ReplyDelete
  70. He "gave a shit" because he needed a front to cover his ass. Someone that truly cared, wouldn't exploit children the way he did.

    ReplyDelete
  71. gingersnapthornoftruth permalink

    "As I said at the outset, I can see how many would view it as unfair, and maybe it is. But what I’m saying is me paying for “fairness” in the family court system isn’t fair to me. You didn’t have to get married, and you didnt’ have to get divorced and you didnt have to have children, and I shouldnt have to pay so you can get the best possible defense of your rights."

    Very Libertarian of you Gingersnap.

    Based on this statement you just made, it goes back to this: if you don't want taxpayers to pay for fairness in government oversight, then don't have government oversight.

    How can anyone advocate for government oversight of child welfare without a fair process for that?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Government "exploits" children all the time for its purposes. I think most people feel that children are vulnerable. And many use children to get things that they want accomplished. But when it is YOUR child you will have something to say about the courts and about the internet depending on how much money you had to spend on lawyers and whether you were the one to get awarded the child or not.

    Just sayin...

    ReplyDelete
  73. Well, someone sent an email...someone that was going by the name of an attorney named Jeff Williams. Maybe it is another hoax email. I don't think it was answered. But it said Joey was indicted in Ellis County. That's why I asked Gingersnap.

    If anyone can shed light on "Jeff Williams," let me know. Cryptic people. Cloak and dagger. So funny.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RkfBMFQitrs#t=27s

    ReplyDelete
  74. Two completely different situations.

    ReplyDelete
  75. This thread got derailed. The only person I know for a fact exploits kids is Joey Dauben. As for custody battles between two parents, I'm sure there are some unfair practices that go on in instances when one person has money and the other doesn't. But that's always been the way of the world and I really don't see a way around it. People with money always have the advantage. But that doesnt justify what Joey did and how he did it. He was a vicious attacker with no real principals, and no remorse for the lives he destroyed. Let's not lose sight of that.

    ReplyDelete
  76. agree 100%, and my new post hopefully can get us back to the main topic

    ReplyDelete
  77. So you just give up and go back to justifying the status quo...okay, I get it.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.