Friday, May 7, 2010

"I have been advised to retain the services of a defamation attorney in this matter...."


Can anything good ever come out of a sentence that begins that way?

It gets better:
"If today’s news story in the Miami New Times is accurate," said Rekers in an e-mail to me, "I have been advised to retain the services of a defamation attorney in this matter, because the fact is that I am not gay and never have been."
Chuck, call me.

I consider myself a pretty good attorney, but even a bad one can go for hours with stuff like this:

Here are the four questions that I sent my travel assistant at his request two days ago, together with the answers we agreed on in our phone conversation this afternoon:

1. Did Dr. Rekers in fact hire you to lift my luggage when necessary as a travel assistant during the trip, because I cannot do so myself since I had surgery?
Together we agreed that I in fact hired him to lift luggage when necessary as a travel assistant during the trip, because I cannot do so himself since having surgery. We agreed that this is what my travel assistant agreed to do for pay prior to taking the trip.

2. Did you in fact lift my luggage during the trip each time it was necessary, or did Dr Rekers lift his own luggage during the trip?
We agreed that my travel assistant did in fact lift my luggage each time it was necessary, that I did not lift my luggage, and my travel assistant did all the lifting.

3. Did Dr. Rekers hire you as a prostitute for the trip?
We agreed that I hired him as a companion and to help with luggage, and that I did not hire him as a prostitute for any sexual purpose.

4. Did Dr. Rekers spend time explaining how the Christian faith is based in love to you during the trip?
We agreed that I explained the Christian faith to my travel assistant in conversations on several days during the trip.

Remember what I said about litigation sometimes having unintended consequences?

Totally unrelated, I recently re-read The Ballad of Reading Gaol -- great poem, tragic really.

19 comments:

  1. Paging George L. Metcalfe!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. "It did not" deter our investigation, Holder said of the reading of Miranda rights to Shahzad. "As we have seen in prior investigations, the giving of Miranda warnings has not deterred people from talking to us and Mr. Shahzad is, in fact, continuing to cooperate with us."

    ....

    "[Mirandizing] is not conferring a right on somebody or giving them -- treating them in a special way," Holder said. "It is allowing us to make sure statements they give to us will be admissible in court." The Attorney General then went through a list of terrorist suspects who were given the Miranda warnings "and still ultimately decided to speak with the government."

    Holder's strongest pushback, however, came against those critics who have urged him to abandon efforts to try terrorist suspects in criminal courts instead of military tribunals.

    "We want to make sure that we use all the tools that we have available to us in trying to prosecute this war," the Attorney General said, in defense of criminal proceedings. "If you were to take from us the ability to use the federal courts, you will weaken our ability to win this war. You will weaken the strength of this nation. We have to have the ability to use the Article 3 courts, the reformed military commissions, our military power, our diplomatic power. We need to have all these tools so that we are successful in this fight against al Qaeda and others who would do this nation harm."

    ReplyDelete
  3. John "Bluto" BlutarskyMay 7, 2010 at 2:37 PM

    Beer, women, party-- Bring on the toga!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh, oh, I have a question too!

    Did luggage carrying duties also include "anus long-stroking"? Because when I hire a valet, that's what I'm really looking for.

    From: http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/05/my-interview-with-jo-vanni-roman.html

    "Jo-Vanni confirmed to me the "anus long-stroking" technique reported by the Miami New Times, but says that's as far as things went. He says that Rekers never suggested taking things further, but that Rekers' cock was "rock hard" during the massages. "So it was definitely sexual for him?" I asked. "Oh, for sure!" he replied. And in that way that 20 year-olds speak, he added, "He was definitely totally gay for me."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Being gay doesn't mean that he has had gay sex.

    I know plenty of guys I call gay or fag, who probably never have touched a man (other than themselves) in a sexual manner.

    ReplyDelete
  6. GW, you're forgetting question 5 from the doc's statement:

    5. Did Dr. Rekers ask you to "long stroke" him at any point during the trip?

    We agreed that the phrase "anus long-stroking" is an unfortunate term for what is clearly a widely accepted non-sexual platonic luggage carrier technique.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Being gay doesn't mean that he has had gay sex.

    -eventually he will.

    ReplyDelete
  8. who needs porn-- the sfl blog caters to all needs.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If a married man has one sexual encounter with another man in his lifetime-- is he gay or curious?

    ReplyDelete
  10. If 'touching' oneself in a sexual manner is considered gay-- then Ive been gay since the mid seventies.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Point taken SFL.


    @3:35

    "Touching oneself" does't make you gay. Now if you hire a 20-something boy/man from rentboy.com to do the touching for you, I have some pink knee high granny boots that you're really going to love!

    ReplyDelete
  12. 3:33-- One possible clue, but it is not foolproof, is to observe a male partner when a man and a woman come into a room. Does he always look at the man first? If he does, then he might be gay. But it is a very tenuous clue. The best way to find out is to ask.

    Another clue is if the man in question has a tendency to look at the crutch area of another man, perhaps more than might be considered normal. The other man may also realise that he is being eyed up and down!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Whatever the guys are smoking on this blog I want a toke. SFL?

    ReplyDelete
  14. George Alan Rekers is Motherfucking Asshole Number 1. He does “expert” testimony to deny people their children. This guy is responsible for the suicides of countless young people who thought they could be cured of their normal sexual desires, only to have their hopes dashed when his bullshit “cure” didn’t work (not for him, either). The fucking hypocrite even had the audacity to reply back to Joe!!!! Now, there’s a mistake!! Let’s see, you admit to having hired him through “rentboy.com” …..ah…..Joe’s got his profile….Big dick! Tight Ass! Likes EVERYTHING. Hot young man! Very young (20). I wonder what a 60+ year-old closeted queen with an ugly porn ‘stache and a combover has to pay for that hunk of meat? For Ten Days, no less!!! And if the man cannot muster the intestinal fortitude to own up to his proclivities, take Jesus by the hand, and NARTH himself into a frenzy of other-sex attraction, then what does it say about his faith in the treatment he advocates?

    Dear Dr. George Alan Rekers - you are Homophobic Hypocrite and you can Kiss My Ass.

    BTW-- George you are so gay I can feel your hot breath on my sack from the photo. Yes, and I am looking at your haircut, and your glamor shot. And, I do think you seem a little effeminate. None of that would mean anything, except that you also have this really weird aversion to and antipathy towards people who aren’t heterosexual.

    ReplyDelete
  15. fake Dr. George RekersMay 7, 2010 at 7:21 PM

    Let me get my chap stick.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Alex Briley - Sailor
    David Hodo - Construction Worker
    Glenn Hughes - Biker
    Randy Jones - Cowboy
    Felipe Rose - Indian
    Victor Willis - Cop

    The missing act--

    George Rekers- he should fit right in

    ReplyDelete