The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

20 August 2005

Inside Air America Extra: Lizz Winstead Case

Inside Air America

An Investigative Blog Report


BY BRIAN MALONEY AND MICHELLE MALKIN



Lizz Who? Did She Work Here?



On May 20, 2005, comedian Lizz Winstead filed suit in New York, detailing a laundry list of allegations against Air America Radio parent Piquant LLC.

Accusing the company of failing to pay wages, promotional fees, accrued holiday compensation and severance, Winstead is seeking $290,716, plus interest.

You can download her entire complaint here.

Does the company's behavior toward her help to demonstrate a pattern of ethics and integrity lapses in its overall business dealings?

Beyond the allegedly withheld payments, it must have been an especially bitter experience. After all, she was Air America's first "creative" hire, joining in 2003, when the network was little more than an a cocktail napkin idea.

In addition, there's little doubt Winstead's biggest shock came on July 5th, when Air America's legal response was filed. It's disclosed to the public for the first time here, along with many previously unreported details.


'Daily Show' Brought Success


After a bumpy career path, Winstead found major success as co-creator of "The Daily Show With Craig Kilborn", but departed in early 1998, after Kilborn made apparently offensive public remarks about her. Later, she appeared in guest spots on other programs.

It seems clear Winstead was utilized in dual programming and on-air roles at Air America. Published reports from early 2004 listed her in both, here and here. Mediaweek noted she'd been programmer and host, in this blurb regarding her exit.

It's not known what was in her original employment agreement, or for which programming decisions Winstead may have been responsible (other than her own "Unfiltered"). One thing isn't in dispute: on May 24, 2004, she agreed to sign a release supplied by the company.

What exactly it was intended to cover is exceptionally confusing. Winstead believed it to be a release of monetary claims against Progress Media, so Piquant could take it over, without facing demands for unpaid compensation.

But wait a second-- Air America's party line is that Piquant merely purchased the assets of Progress Media, not its liabilities. Why the worries, then, about past claims being brought against the new company?

Perhaps Air America/Piquant contradicted itself. If it was strictly an asset sale, as they claim, there should have been no reason to force air talent to sign releases. Does this bolster Multicultural Radio's "sham transaction" legal theory, as they seek to recover over a million dollars in a separate complaint?

After May 24th, 2004, Winstead believed her previous employment terms remained, with an annual management salary of $250,000, plus options, a potential bonus, profit-sharing, an AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) union-designated scale wage for her on-air duties ($225,000), less $50,000, for reasons not disclosed in her complaint.

Air America appeared to see things differently, however, taking the release to mean a wiping out of her previous agreement. Winstead asserts Piquant paid her only the management salary and as a result, didn't report her wages to AFTRA.

As an on-air host, Winstead provided promotional endorsements for the Vermont Teddy Bear Company. In talk radio, such compensation is often paid by the advertiser directly to the host, but Air America instead billed the firm. She says they never passed the money along.

In addition, she contends severance and holiday pay were not paid, bringing the total figure requested to $290,716, plus interest.

Repeated attempts to contact Winstead for comment have not been answered. Air America hasn't responded to our requests for information on any subject.


Air America's Bizarre Answer


Winstead must have had quite a shock when she received the company's July 5th response (was it filed within the 20 days allowed by law? We're not sure).

Air America's answer to her complaint (download it here) couldn't have been more bizarre. Coming from the firm of Beldock, Levine and Hoffman LLP, rather than their usual representatives at Latham & Watkins LLP, it contained strange and seemingly contradictory assertions.

Weirdest of all: Air America Radio now officially denies Lizz Winstead ever served in a management capacity!

Here's a portion of Air America's answer:

Almost as strange: Winstead essentially worked for Piquant for nearly a year, drawing just the management salary, not the other for serving as "Unfiltered" co-host.

Did she get increasingly vocal about the situation? Is that why she alone was fired, while her two co-hosts were reassigned?

Key is her contention that wages weren't reported to AFTRA, a likely indication remaining pay corresponded to her administrative duties.

If Winstead was paid a management salary, how can they now say she never served in that role?

And why did they believe her signed release, combined with the transfer from Progress to Piquant, meant her previous employment agreement was null and void?

When filing suit, the other party's response isn't often predictable. Can you imagine the look on Winstead's face, however, when she first saw their answers?

It's clear Air America and its apologists would like to rewrite history to make Winstead invisible.

In addition, it doesn't appear she will soon back down from her claims.

If she does win the case, however, will the company have any assets with which to repay her?

AAR Scandal/ Franken by Darleen Click.

Your Amazon orders help to defray costs. Thanks again for your support!


40 Comments:

  • You and Michelle have really rocked on this one Brian.

    I'd be curious as to what it takes for a fraudulent conveyance to move into the criminal realm, as I think there's a point at which it does.

    Tom
    BizzyBlog.com

    By Blogger BizzyBlog, at 20 August, 2005 03:17  

  • Outstanding stuff....the pundit comments across the blogosphere are dead on. The top bloggers (you two included, perhaps at this point leading!) are the new investigative media.

    If I were a representative/ombudsman/writer, et al for the Grey Lady, or WaPo, I would be very very personally embarrased to be watching a major story with possible criminal action ahead instead of leading the charge to cover it from our "superior" (R-I-G-H-T!) position.

    Duke of DeLand

    By Blogger Duke of DeLand, at 20 August, 2005 09:34  

  • All of this makes me wonder whether AAR was merely a "throwaway" or "disposable" organisation, not meant to last much beyond the 2000 american election, if the democrats lost.

    The evidence keeps accumulating relating to mountains of fraud and falsehood from the AAR organisation. Whoever wants to sweep this under the rug should speak out loudly, because we all want to know who they are.

    By Blogger al fin, at 20 August, 2005 10:10  

  • al fin, if that was such a case then AAR sure put a hell of a face on to try and keep the station going by doing illicit stuff. Like taking $$$ away from inner city kids for summer camps. They had to save face because it's the "Rush Limbaugh radio station of the left." And it's true, completely 180 degrees along with no guilt about stealling money from kids, alzheimer patients, bouncing a few checks with large sums of money, hiring and firing a host, poor Al not getting his paycheck, cohen gone AWOL....etc.


    Brian Maloney, this stuff is just getting better and better (or for that matter worse and worse for AAR). You and Michelle Malkin keep up the good work.

    I would say that this be the "Blogory" of the year.

    By Blogger Mike McConnell, at 20 August, 2005 10:37  

  • Amen al fin.
    Previously I remarked on your excellent blog,
    "The theft occurred at the board level with all eyes on the crime and there will be other crimes exposed as well during the investigation. The restructure and sale was a conspiracy to cover up these crimes and keep the funds. All an elaborate shell game poorly conceived and executed by "the best minds in the world"!...
    "Where there's smoke there's fire".... Mark my words this is only the tip of the iceberg.


    I didn't have any absolute knowledge of this case other than the initial story uncovered and published by Brian and Michelle. What I did have is nearly four decades of experience dealing with hard core lefties and ossified hippies like Franken and Rhodes. My mother was one and a very politically active one at that. Their standard operating procedure is to skirt and break rules, especially when large amounts of money are involved. So the conclusion I came to was born out of that experience. Just remember this when you have to have any personal dealings with those on the left. They are rip-off artists who would sell their own mothers to pirates.

    By Blogger McWizard, at 20 August, 2005 10:44  

  • Would you please post the release which was attached to the answer as Exhibit A. It would be extremely unlikely that the release could be interpreted as a release of liability for payment of future services, which the answer seems to assert.

    By Blogger Murph, at 20 August, 2005 10:56  

  • "All of this makes me wonder whether AAR was merely a "throwaway" or "disposable" organisation, not meant to last much beyond the 2000 american election, if the democrats lost."

    al fin, I think you may have hit upon something. Perhaps the attempted continuation of AAR was pushed by nothing more than the on-air egos.

    By Blogger The Truth Hurts, at 20 August, 2005 11:13  

  • I love this story, but I have trouble making a lot with an employer/employee fight. Those can be like divorces, with a lot of accusations thrown every which way.

    Using a different lawyer for an employment issue is not necessarily a bad thing, often firms will hire specialists, and employment law is a definitely a specialty.

    Unless there's a real smoking gun here, all this does is corroborate bad management at Hairball America (resulting in bad employee relations) confusing and contradictory overall strategy and vision, and a general sense of an organization in crisis and chaos.

    I haven't downloaded the complaint and answer yet, but it should be interesting reading.

    By Blogger Tom C, at 20 August, 2005 11:18  

  • Murph:

    Exhibit A wasn't available at the courthouse for some reason. A second trip may be required.

    By Blogger Brian Maloney, at 20 August, 2005 11:37  

  • The waters surrounding AAR are definitely dark and murky. I hope AAR faces up to it's obligations to it's employees, Gloria Wise, it's affiliates and any other creditors. My only fear is after we darin the pond, as in Aruba, we will come up with nothing. I could care less one way or another if there is a Liberal Talk network. It IS a free society, but HONEST business practices benefit EVERYONE. The smell of deceit from the "founders" of AAR makes Denmark smell quite "rosy". Maybe AAR's existence was never intended to be long term, but, that information could never be revealed by AAR's creators.

    By Blogger Duane, at 20 August, 2005 11:57  

  • Do understand this - Lizzzz collected a regular salary during the period 2004-005, then after she got fired, she is demanding an additional salary for additional duties?

    And during the time she did those additional duties, she never requested that because of her "goodwill", but thinks she's owed them now?

    Secondly, there is an interesting issue here related to whether the contract was assigned...

    If you come to me for a loan, and I check your credit history and think you are a great risk and lend you the money, you have very limited rights if you assign that debt to someone else. As the lender I made the agreement based on YOU, not Joe Deadbeat who you made a separate agreement to repay the money. If you assign the loan (contract) to Joe Deadbeat and ask me to sign off on it, I ain't gonna do that. I want you on the hook. So, what happened during the tumultuous spring of 2004 that made Lizzzzzz sign this release?

    Even if she thought she understood it, did she really understand all the ramifications?

    Also, what business decision resulted in Air Head America firing Lizzzzz?

    ScamAir America is retreating behind the "we are a different company" defense, and points to the release and says "Game Over".

    My gut sense is that Lizzzz really doesn't have a leg to stand on here, maybe she IS owed the vacation time and this is just a legal extortion attempt, but I am sure there are additional fun facts that come out that may result in a different outcome.

    Also, I'd guess that filing in NYC can give Lizzzz a pretty good chance of getting a liberal judge that will ignore the facts and stick a large judgement on the employer.

    That's usually how it works in "liberal" jurisdictions. Gives Err America a chance to be "hoist by their own petard".

    By Blogger Tom C, at 20 August, 2005 12:09  

  • Brian can we talk?

    I think I asked this question before and never got an answer. My guess is that you’ve been busy, so I’ll try again.

    As I visited your site over the past several months I’ve noticed a great dislike for Al Franken. I got that feeling even before this “SO CALLED SCANDAL”.

    My question is in regard to this scandal so let me set it up.

    1.) Would you agree that the On Air Host’s like you are basically employees of Air America or what ever the station they work for?

    2.) Is Al Franken more than that? (Owner/Manager/Investor).

    3.) Why do you attack Al Franken in all of this “So Called Scandal”. Isn’t he just an employee? It sounds personal. Do you have a beef with him?

    4.) If he’s an employee and you attack him why don’t you attack the rest. By “the rest” I mean little Mary in accounting or Bob in sales and so on. Aren’t they part of this MASSIVE SCANDAL?

    5.) Are you ACCUSING Al Franken of wrongdoing? If so could you spell out what they are for the uninformed?

    6.) And finally if that is the measure for being responsible for wrong doing than I guess it’s my fault we went to WAR IN IRAQ. Because until I retired I worked as a civilian for the US Navy, which as you know is part of the US Government. . . which by the way pulled the trigger sending us into WAR. So it’s my fault we are where we are in IRAQ. (well at least someone is taking some responsibility).

    Looking forward to your prompt reply.

    Mick

    By Blogger mick, at 20 August, 2005 12:25  

  • McWizard said: “They are rip-off artists who would sell their own mothers to pirates.”

    Gee what an INTERESTING choice of words after having said “MY MOTHER WAS ONE” above.

    Mick

    By Blogger mick, at 20 August, 2005 12:34  

  • "4.) If he’s an employee and you attack him why don’t you attack the rest. By “the rest” I mean little Mary in accounting or Bob in sales and so on. Aren’t they part of this MASSIVE SCANDAL?"

    No, probably not, since they aren't the face of AirAmerica. Mr. Franken, however, is, and probably knows quite a bit about where the money went, unlike your condesendingly named "little Mary" and "Bob," who are simple employees.

    Obviously you haven't worked in radio, have you, Mick?

    By Blogger Wonderduck, at 20 August, 2005 13:26  

  • No, probably not, since they aren't the face of AirAmerica. Mr. Franken, however, is, and probably knows quite a bit about where the money went, unlike your condesendingly named "little Mary" and "Bob," who are simple employees.

    Obviously you haven't worked in radio, have you, Mick?


    Duh? He says he worked for the Navy.

    And he was asking questions, granted they were loaded questions, that you chose not to answer...probably because you don't know the answer. I'm curious about whether Al Franken has a stake in Air America aside from his profile and his employment. I don't know the answer but I think it would be good to know.

    By Blogger Joe Reilly, at 20 August, 2005 14:02  

  • Brian Maloney has a vendetta against Lizz Winstead because his wife went to high school with Lizz, and apparently has become insanely jealous of her success.

    By Blogger WHT, at 20 August, 2005 15:31  

  • Wonderduck:

    No, probably not, since they aren't the face of AirAmerica. Mr. Franken, however, is, and probably knows quite a bit about where the money went, unlike your condesendingly named "little Mary" and "Bob," who are simple employees.

    Obviously you haven't worked in radio, have you, Mick?
    - - - - - -
    It’s NO WONDER Mr. Wonderduck (some how that name fits you) you don’t seem to know the difference between sticking up for someone and patronizing them. But I guess it’s understandable since you can’t or won’t read.

    What you do read you twist, which is typical of you on the right.

    Do I HAVE TO WORK IN RADIO to ask questions, read Blogs or even think?

    PS. Thanks Joe Reilly for your comments.

    PPS: Wonderduck, you never answered my other post to you about this being a POLITICAL Blog vs. a RADIO Blog.

    Mick

    By Blogger mick, at 20 August, 2005 16:47  

  • The comments from liberals to this post and the previous post are immensely amusing.

    The total of their opposition to the AAR scandal is to say it's a "non-story", and then they stick their heads in the sand so they don't have to look at the facts.

    When they get tired of that and don't have any facts to support that it is a "non-story", they change the subject and start throwing out other topics such as misrepresentations of AAR's ratings.

    It's clear many of them don't read and understand what has been written, even when there is documentation.

    Then they intersperse or end their comments with a personal attack on other commenters, the blogger or conservative pundits.

    I just find it really funny, because they always say that their intelligence is so vastly superior to conservatives, yet they can't present facts or understand facts. All they can do is throw out personal attacks. Usually that is a sign that they don’t have anything to prove their point with so they have to distract from it, like the above post.

    By Blogger Linn, at 20 August, 2005 17:09  

  • The comments from liberals to this post and the previous post are immensely amusing.

    The total of their opposition to the AAR scandal is to say it's a "non-story", and then they stick their heads in the sand so they don't have to look at the facts.

    When they get tired of that and don't have any facts to support that it is a "non-story", they change the subject and start throwing out other topics such as misrepresentations of AAR's ratings.

    It's clear many of them don't read and understand what has been written, even when there is documentation.

    Then they intersperse or end their comments with a personal attack on other commenters, the blogger or conservative pundits.

    I just find it really funny, because they always say that their intelligence is so vastly superior to conservatives, yet they can't present facts or understand facts. All they can do is throw out personal attacks. Usually that is a sign that they don’t have anything to prove their point with so they have to distract from it, like the above post.

    By Blogger Linn, at 20 August, 2005 17:09  

  • The comments from liberals to this post and the previous post are immensely amusing.

    The total of their opposition to the AAR scandal is to say it's a "non-story", and then they stick their heads in the sand so they don't have to look at the facts.

    When they get tired of that and don't have any facts to support that it is a "non-story", they change the subject and start throwing out other topics such as misrepresentations of AAR's ratings.

    It's clear many of them don't read and understand what has been written, even when there is documentation.

    Then they intersperse or end their comments with a personal attack on other commenters, the blogger or conservative pundits.

    I just find it really funny, because they always say that their intelligence is so vastly superior to conservatives, yet they can't present facts or understand facts. All they can do is throw out personal attacks. Usually that is a sign that they don’t have anything to prove their point with so they have to distract from it, like the above post.

    By Blogger Linn, at 20 August, 2005 17:10  

  • Sorry about the multiple posts.

    I messed up. I had trouble signing in and I thought that it wasn't posting.

    By Blogger Linn, at 20 August, 2005 17:11  

  • No problem, Linn. You are absolutely right. Al Franken has never been as funny as the commenters here who are trying to make all this simply disappear.

    I like the idea of left wing radio. I used to listen to Radio Pacifica when I worked contracts on the american west coast. I just do not like unethical business practices being excused in the name of left wing radio.

    By Blogger al fin, at 20 August, 2005 17:28  

  • Why does Brian Maloney want to get into the personal life of a private person? Apart from the usual Repub urge to get in everyone's shorts, I'd say its pretty obvious.
    Lizz Winstead went to high school with Maloney's wife, and the henpecking has commenced. nag. nag. nag.

    By Blogger WHT, at 20 August, 2005 18:23  

  • The only person who's shorts I want to get into are Sandy Berger's, to see who he was covering for when he stole documents from the National Archives.

    I guess that's a "non-story" too though.

    By Blogger Smaack, at 20 August, 2005 18:32  

  • By Linn, at 5:10 PM


    Linn said: “The total of their opposition to the AAR scandal is to say it's a "non-story", and then they stick their heads in the sand so they don't have to look at the facts.”
    - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Hey Linn, your starting to repeat yourself. . .just like much of these so called facts you’re talking about.

    Just kidding about the “repeat” stuff.

    Anyway Linn, maybe you can point out these SO CALLED FACTS. I mean the ones that will stand the, Oh I don’t know, the test of a COURT TRIAL. That would be a good start don’t you agree.

    Also the FACTS (as you say) that I’m most interested in are the ones that are addressed to Al Franken. What is it that he has SPECIFICALLY DONE? Again we are talking about testing these facts in a COURT TRIAL right we are not talking innuendo here we’re talking FACTS BABY.

    Ok there you go for a three time repeater (just kidding, you take everything so seriously) can you give me the fact, just the facts.

    Mick

    By Blogger mick, at 20 August, 2005 19:14  

  • Yes Mick it's true, my mom sold my grandma to pirates.

    By Blogger McWizard, at 20 August, 2005 21:11  

  • Mick--I see, if liberals decide that there is a Republican Scandal, for example the Plame thing, then gossip, crude jokes, calling for the individuals resignations and saying he/she is guilty and should be convicted and jailed even before an investigation is finished is OK.

    But it's not OK when there is a liberal scandal and bloggers report on it and let readers know what the unanswered questions are unless the facts are COURT TESTED.

    Nice double standard.

    There are lots of facts in this blog and in Michelle Malkin's blog. If you choose to not believe it then fine. Little by little due to bloggers the story is comming out. It doesn't matter whether AAR did something illegal or not; they certainly acted unethically. And that by itself is a story.

    I didn't say anything about Franken, you'll need to talk to someone else about that.

    Oh and Mick, you can take your condescending attitude somewhere else. Maybe you can call your friends BABY; you don't need to do it here.

    By Blogger Linn, at 20 August, 2005 21:38  

  • Oh Linn,

    You said: if liberals decide that there is a Republican Scandal, for example the Plame thing, then gossip, crude jokes, calling for the individuals resignations and saying he/she is guilty and should be convicted and jailed even before an investigation is finished is OK.
    - - - - -
    It must be nice to be able to just put everything in a little box and paint it with that broad brush. All liberals are not bad people nor are all conservatives (it just seems that way, just kidding, man I don’t know why I do that).

    My brother is a republican and he won’t email me unless he has to because he gets so pissed off. To me that’s his problem not mine. He uses that same BROAD BRUSH you use when he talks about liberals. I don’t get it.

    Guilt by association or innuendo is neither fair nor right. That’s why I’m asking for some FACTS. We happen to be on a Blog that the topic is AIR AMERICA and many on this Blog are using this to paint Al Franken as being behind all this some how. So SHOW ME THE PROOF. And just saying it on this Blog or that Blog doesn’t make it so.

    I said: Again we are talking about testing these facts in a COURT TRIAL right we are not talking innuendo here we’re talking FACTS BABY.

    Linn you said: Oh and Mick, you can take your condescending attitude somewhere else. Maybe you can call your friends BABY; you don't need to do it here.

    You really need to learn to read and comprehend. I was referring to the FACTS BABY most certainly NOT YOU, just the FACTS BABY.

    I said: “you take everything so seriously” I was wrong. . . you take YOURSELF way to seriously. . . get a grip.

    Mick

    PS: Hey is “condescending” another one of those buzz words, no not buzz, key word, nope that isn’t it. Ah, nuts it’ll come to me.

    By Blogger mick, at 21 August, 2005 00:17  

  • Brian, I applaud your work. As the honest among us know, you are doing a great job at what the liberal press absolutely loathes: a zealous investigation of a story which shows fellow liberals to be in a bad light. It's laughable to see people like mick babble on about "lack of facts" after all the ones you have been bringing to the surface. I guess indisputable information isn't truly factual unless it is agreeable to/approved by people like mick.

    Watching Mick "debate" here reminds me of why I don't waste any time arguing with liberals. Hearing it from them, they are never wrong, they are never uncivil, they are incapable of arrogance, and they never have double-standards. Why do these lowly, foolish, flawed conservatives ever dare challenge them anyways?

    Mick is a good example of why liberals haven't faired well with talk radio-I mean, who besides their own choir wants to listen to what intellectually dishonest, self-righteous, pessimistic, narcissistic people have to say? In other words, they are negative, self-centered bores, which makes them bad conversationalists. Not so good for ratings, eh? :)

    By Blogger Lib Hater, at 21 August, 2005 05:45  

  • Thanks Linn. Not only do you speak the truth but you draw out other people to expose themselves.

    Honestly, the stuff coming out of the "sweep it under the rug crowd" is a heck of a lot funnier than anything Al Franken ever did or said. I just hope they do not tire of the self-caricature.

    Brian, keep reporting whatever you find. Heaven knows the media up here will never report it, and it seems that your media down there is ideologically indisposed as well. Forget them. The bottleneck has been broken and thrown away.

    By Blogger al fin, at 21 August, 2005 06:37  

  • Mick,

    What onair personality uses the moniker:

    "Expose the Lies and the Liars that Tell Them." ?

    It's none other than Al Franken.

    So till or unless Franken is true to his tag line, why should he not be held up to investigation? It's quite a double standard to say Bush is a Liar, then turn around and stand with his hand over his micophone about Cohen stealing funds from little kids in his own backyard.

    The ole saw, "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Has a double meaning, in this case Franken by his own inactions is complicit in thw wrong doing even if he did not take the money personally. The fact that he is unwiling to speak out when he is in a prime position to respond places him in league with the wrong does after the fact.

    Just my take.

    By Blogger johnm, at 21 August, 2005 09:55  

  • Johnm:

    You said: It's quite a double standard to say Bush is a Liar, then turn around and stand with his hand over his micophone about Cohen stealing funds from little kids in his own backyard.

    I believe he has talked to that on his show (which I assume you don’t listen to so you would not have heard it). Are you saying he needs to say it everyday, every 15 minutes. . .what?

    Your second point is just laughable. It’s not his job to speak out on “THIS SO CALLED INVESTIGATION”.

    Which reminds me who exactly is doing this Investigation? Is it the State, County, City. . .Attorney General, who? Do they put out any “OFFICIAL” info on their investigation?

    My guess is they do not. That’s why they (supposedly) are investigating and at some point will either file charges or say there is nothing here.

    What’s going on here is a bunch of people saying things that may or may not be true. It’s mostly BS. Hey if you hate Al Franken that’s fine but just don’t say he is guilty of something you and I have no clue about.

    Mick

    By Blogger mick, at 21 August, 2005 12:07  

  • Lib Hater:

    Hey L.H. you forgot “condescending”. Just trying to help.

    Mick

    By Blogger mick, at 21 August, 2005 12:17  

  • Of all the websites - or weblogs - that are dealing with Air Scamerica, I'd like to say that yours is the best and currently most dedicated of all, Brian, ditto Michelle's. Keep it up, it's great work you're doing!

    By Blogger Avi Green, at 21 August, 2005 15:19  

  • mick said...
    Hey L.H. you forgot “condescending”. Just trying to help.

    Thanks MICK BABY, but I left it out intentionally, as I realize that you libs are incapable of it. Well, according to yourselves at least, and what higher source of authority can there possibly be?

    By Blogger Lib Hater, at 21 August, 2005 16:13  

  • Lib Hater:

    You got that right (ugh, bad choice of a word) none higher BABY. Well maybe one.

    Mick

    By Blogger mick, at 21 August, 2005 17:33  

  • The Question becomes:

    What was in the release?

    See item 14 in: winpiq-complaint.pdf

    Of intrest: Items 3 & 4 in the response winpiq-answer.pdf

    Why do we have the response without exhibit A ?

    Minor topics: Was Ms. Winstead payed on a W2 or 1099?

    By Blogger Mr. X, at 21 August, 2005 22:53  

  • Mick, It's pretty clear that nothing but a court conviction will convince you, although then I suppose you might say that AAR was railroaded.

    So why are you still here? Why should Brian or anyone else continue to try to convince you when you have your head in the sand and are denying that there is a scandal? The fact that AAR is party to financial malfeasance doesn't fit your agenda, so you continually say that the facts aren't good enough. Not all liberals do this but many that frequent the conservative blogs do this.

    I'm not going to respond to you anymore. Because of your belligerence and refusal to agree even with the facts that are undisputed means, at least in my mind, that you are nothing more than a troll.

    By Blogger Linn, at 22 August, 2005 03:12  

  • mick said:
    You got that right (ugh, bad choice of a word) none higher BABY. Well maybe one.

    Always the joker, aren't ya?

    C'mon now, stop your kidding! You and I both know there really isn't possibly one higher for you; you know as well as I that liberals honor God/moral authority to the same degree that Ted Kennedy cared about Mary Jo.

    PLEASE be serious for once now, ok? Thank you. :)

    By Blogger Lib Hater, at 22 August, 2005 04:05  

  • An extremely humorous piece. Two right wing Fox News HACKS trying to establish their identities. Very sad!!! I dare say that Michelle & this other HACK did not give the same coverage to Bill O'Reillys' little employee problem and "settlement". I have seen Michelle on youtube.com filling in apparantly for "Bill" and metaphorically licking him to death. Try to get a life and a real opinion.

    By Blogger Gary, at 18 May, 2007 13:57  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger