An Editorial About Crown Hill's Dilemma
Mirror #1, Page Two
Including problems with Goofy's Tavern (Sports bar)
on Crown Hill, Ballard (Seattle)
Yet more damage adjacent to Goofys (uprooted bike rack). The destruction just never ends:
As noted on page one, Dugoni hired an attorney to attempt what we call the "end run" to try to shut down this website. This is a typical tactic attempted by sleazy law firms. It endeavors to circumvent the author of any piece of constitutionally protected speech, by working to "scare" the author's website host into removing content which the attorney's client finds personally offensive. These attorneys know that every once in awhile a stupid, gullible host (EskimoNorth.com comes to mind) will, as a knee-jerk reaction, simply panic and fold without a whimper, and remove the contested content without even thinking about it or consulting an attorney. What some backwoods attorneys don't seem to grasp is that, if successful, and if the removed content really was protected speech, they may instantly find themselves liable for civil, or perhaps even criminal penalties for their wilful denial of the authors' civil rights under the Constitution. Through trickery and deceipt, these attorneys can find that their underhandedness comes back to bite them in the ass.
Without further ado, here's Dugoni's hamfisted attempt to strip the authors of this site of their Constitutionally protected right to Free Speech. In one sense, it's a typical attempt of idiot attorneys everywhere. In another sense, this one is over the top:
Anyone who has read this site knows the letter above is patently ludicrous. No one has threatened this bimbette's (Dugoni's) personal safety, and no one (of us) ever will. No one has claimed Dugoni has engaged in criminal acts, although we would not be surprised if a court found her guilty of criminal acts if all the facts were brought before it; that's our "opinion". Dugoni's attorneys state that this website violates state and Federal laws. It's curious to note that these attorneys (Perkins and Coie, as represented by William C. Rava) so vehemently denouce anyone calling their client a criminal, while at the same time calling the authors of this website criminals, but this is typical of sleazy attorneys. This nitwit even accuses us of "harassing" Dugoni, which, if true, would constitute a crime. This is a bold-faced lie, and it is actionable in the extreme. Additionally, this website in no way, and never has, threatened an "assault against Dugoni with a baseball bat", and that is another defamatory lie by William C. Rava. One begins to wonder just how utterly f--ing stupid this individual is, and if his law firm is aware of the liability he's opening them up to by making such statements. It is considerable. We submit that birds of a feather flock together, and that Dugoni has sought out a local law firm that ranks at her own low level of competence.
Bill Rava includes a print-out of this website which laments hundreds or thousands of words of absolutely protected speech, and continues to threaten the web host if this protected speech is not removed immedately. This, too, is actionable, in that Mr. Rava and this firm are attempting, in a fully documented manner, to strip the authors of this site of their Constitutionally protected right to free speech. Here are just a few of Rava's "legal" objections to this website, all of which he demands be removed from public view. Trust us; these are doozies:
"Give 'em an inch, and they'll always take a mile. At some point you get smart and stop giving folks an inch. You're now beyond apoplectic. You march next door and when your neighbor answers, you rearrange his dental work with the baseball bat. Then you hook onto his car with a chain and drag it bodily from your garage, out into the street. Then you uproot your neighbor's towing placard from your yard, take it back to his house, and shove it as far up his ass as you can get it. Your neighbor gets the message."
Of course this is an imaginary reference to an imaginary character, but Rava wants this piece of fiction removed from public view, and what's worse, he actually seems to think he has some God-given right to enforce such an absurd and arrogant request. But there's much, much more:
"In truth they have NO parking, and never have had any legal parking in anyone's recent memory."
Simply a statement of fact. Dugoni had NO right to ANY parking as of the writing of that paragraph.
"Like a robber cases a bank, it seemed to me Cristina was casing Pizza Hut. From that point onward I regarded Cristina Dugoni as I would regard any common pick-pocket, any common apartment burglar, any common shoplifter. And God knows we don't need any more Wynona Riders in the world."
So.....William C. Rava does not believe that we have the right to state that we have no more respect for Cristina Dugoni than we do for Winona Ryder? This guy is barking-mad. What a stupid, stupid son of a bitch.
"This represented the absolute pinnacle of belligerence, of stupidity, of counter-productivity and dishonesty. I used to be in the business of putting criminals in jail. I have seldom, if ever, put someone away who was more obnoxious and arrogant than this."
What lawbook is this guy reading? Or did he even bother...
It goes on and on, ad nauseam...
"My opinion is that while Cristina Dugoni may be of the same or even inferior moral quality to Wynona Ryder, she doesn't possess Wynona's talent as an actress, and she is pretty readily identified for what she is."
William C. Rava, of Perkins and Coie, have told our web host that this statement, specifically, is (1) illegal by state law, and (2) illegal by Federal law, and (3) actionable, and (4) harassing, and (5) threatening. Now THAT is actionable.
"I also dislike bullies. That's not true. I DO like bullies. I like them for breakfast. But I dislike arrogance and belligerence and sneakiness and dishonor. And I'll fight it when and wherever I can."
William C. Rava, of Perkins and Coie, has perpetrated a legal (or illegal, as you choose) attempt to have this statement removed from public view, thereby stripping us of our Constitutionally protected right to Free Speech. Here's an obnoxious broad (Cristina Dugoni) who documentably tried to simply TAKE a very large and very valuable piece of property that was owned by her neighbor, to which she had NO LEGAL RIGHT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION, and yet she has, through her dim-witted attorneys, the unmitigated audacity to attempt to prevent us from stating publicly that we don't like bullies? I suggest this woman schedule some serious time with a serious psychotherapist. In our view, she needs all the hours she can get. To attempt to have the above opinion forcibly stricken from public view is sure as hell actionable, and no judge would deny it.
But let's put the blame where it lies. --Not with Pizza Hut, who MUST defend THEIR OWN PROPERTY, and not with Pizza Hut's hourly employees in the store, who have only a basic or cursory idea of what's even going on and sure as HELL didn't make the decision to do this, and not with any particular lessee of Cristina's, who are in the same sloppy bucket as all the rest of Cristina's victims, but on Cristina, who has so badly handled this situation as to make her just about the dumbest person I've ever heard of.
We do absolutely believe that the parking mess that has been and currently is raging around Dugoni's buildings is 100% the fault of stupid planning by Cristina Dugoni, and we do absolutely believe that she is one of the dumbest people we have ever had the misfortune of stumbling upon. Yet her lawyers have attempted to have this opinion stricken from public view. THAT, is ACTIONABLE
"At this point we believe Cristina Dugoni is to some degree mentally handicapped."
We absolutely, positively do believe that Cristina Dugoni is to some degree mentally handicapped. How else, on God's Green Earth, can one possibly explain behavior this counter-productive? We see no other possible explanation. That's our opinion. Yet Cristina's attorneys have somehow gotten it into their heads that they can trick our host into forcibly removing this opinion from public view. In-Credible.
"The point we're working to make is this: This won't end well for Cristina OR for her poor victims. Even if it did end well, it won't end soon. Even if by some fluke of flukes it DID end well AND soon, too much damage has been done already, too much has been wasted. Her victims, her neighbors, her children, her friends, her co-workers, her future victims, will all remember what she DID pull here and what she TRIED to pull here. And they'll never forget."
Let's see. This parking problem HASN'T ended well for Dugoni, and it HASN'T ended soon for Dugoni, and it's a cinch that anyone and everyone who is aware of the stunts Dugoni has tried to pull here will never forget them, so what's Rava's beef? We voiced our opinions. They turned out to be in parallel with reality. Yet Rava thinks he has the right to stop us from voicing these opinions? Where does he believe he gets this authority from? There are no laws against it; in fact there is an entire Constitutional amendment which specifically and explicitly PROTECTS IT. Who the hell does Rava think he is? How much more damage is he going to do his scatter-brain client before he bones up on 1st Amendment law?
"Still, it can't hurt to approach Pizza Hut and say, "Hey, by the way, if we GET RID OF that damned witch, Cristina, once and for all, and if we can somehow GUARANTEE she'll never, ever put her stink on you again, would you lease us some parking so we can stay in business?"
Rava has tried to forcibly remove this paragraph from public view. He has NO. SUCH. RIGHT. And if he doesn't know that, he should be disbarred. With counsel like Rava, Cristina doesn't NEED whistleblowers.
"We have decided, frankly, that we don't want to live in a world of Cristina Dugonis. Nor do we want to live in a world of people who are too afraid, or too helpless and wimpy to stand up to the Cristina Dugonis around them."
And now William C. Rava, of Perkins and Coie, actually believes that he can prevent us from making a statement describing our preferences in places and societies around the world in which to live? Fuck William C. Rava and his idiot associates. This is absolutely over the freaking top.
Rava's objections to this site go on and on and on, then on some more, citing dozens upon dozens more paragraphs that he, or Dugoni, personally object to. Who knows who of this pack of jackals actually chose the passages. That any REMOTELY intelligent being would think they had the right to stop ANYONE from making such statements in ANY venue is staggering. To think an "attorney" would attempt a stunt like this is actually frightening. How utterly stupid and counter-productive for your client can you possibly be.
This is no longer just a small-time editorial about local, small-time scaliwags, it's now a 1st Amendment issue in all its glory. Do we (The People), actually have a right to voice our opinions, or don't we? Can we call a skunk a skunk, or is that actionable by some sleazy attorneys, out to land a client at any cost, regardless of morality, decency, that pesky thing called The Constitution? We're no stranger to 1st Amendment issues and battles, and we'll take this one all the way. --All the bloody way, and that's not an opinion, it's a fact.
If we ever get the opportunity to put Dugoni on the stand, boy, do we have some questions for her.
We've absolutely no doubt there's more to come, so we'll go ahead and start the next update section right here and now:
Don't miss the NEXT adventure-filled episode of sneakiness and skulduggery by these amazing folks!
UPDATE (late February, 2007):
We were walking through Pizza Hut's parking lot on our way to QFC across the street -- time: about 3 p.m.. Two drunks came raucously stumbling from Goofy's front door, onto the sidewalk (there's always a crowd of drunks in front of Goofy's now, thanks to Seattle's brainless decision to make them smoke outside). One was a male, roughly late twenties, heavy build, dark hair, dressed all in black, 6 foot, 220 pounds. The other was a "skin head" type, dressed in levis and a white sleeveless t-shirt, about 5'9", 160 pounds, shaved bald. This latter individual was stumbling back and forth on the sidewalk about forty feet from us. We stopped to let him pass across our path, well ahead of us. Both were boisterous -- typical obnoxious drunks. Typical Goofy's patrons. The smaller male was yelling that he "needed to stab someone". He weaved back and forth on the sidewalk, looking around (apparently for someone to stab), yelling over and over that he "gotta find someone to stab", or "I gotta stab some people RIGHT NOW". He had one hand in his pocket, and kept repeating variations on the theme of finding someone to stab. Finally his gaze settled on us, and for about four seconds he was apparently deciding whether or not we would be the people to fulfill his wish. It would have taken him at least three or four seconds to cover the ground between us, so we did not draw weapons, and didn't even place our hands on them; we merely waited. The punk then seemed to think more clearly about his options, and in an instant of lucky lucidity once again took up his ranting, and the two moved off down the street looking for easier victims. We feel that if this nut-job had had one more beer in his pudgy little beer gut to further cloud his judgement, he probably would have come at us with whatever it was he had in his pocket. He would have been dead before he crossed the first ten feet. This is the kind of absolute bullshit that Goofy's subjects this neighborhood to on a daily basis. This is the mentality that Goofy's attracts -- it seems to be the mentality that Goofy's DESIRES. We're sick of it. The neighborhood is sick of it. Seattle is sick of it. No one in the entire nation wants to live around this kind of insanity, or be subjected to it on any level at any time, anywhere, ever. Yet, in our view, Goofy's is a breeding ground for it, and Crystina Dugoni keeps on renewing these animals' lease. Thanks again, Dugoni. Ballard really needed that. Please do us all a favor and contract a terminal carcinoma.
UPDATE (June, 2008):
If you think the problems with Goofy's have abated, you'd be dead wrong. The problems with Goofy's continue virtually on a daily basis. We simply have had the time to report them. Around the first of June, 2008, however, according to witnesses three people exited Goofy's at around 1:30 a.m. and milled around the parked cars for a few minutes. One male then walked across to Pizza Hut's glass employee's door and kicked it in. The group then laughed and moved out of the area. Pizza Hut now gets to pay $900 for a new door. As long as there is a Goofy's, owned by the mentality of scumbag that owns it, staffed by the mentality of scumbags who are employed in it, and patronized by the beer-boozing bottom-feeders who dump their earnings into that black hole, Goofy's neighbors will have to pay the price. It seems to be time to begin focusing on the owner of this Godforsaken dive. What kind of human being (read: piece of human garbage) would so proudly own a place like this? Let's find out! As time allows, we'll find out just who this guy is, and we'll post it right here. Remember that at the other end of the building, 75 feet away, lies yet another bar -- The Crown Hill Pub; consider how curious it is that that establishment causes absolutely ZERO problems in the community. None. Zip. Nada. Not one. Not ever. Why is this? It's because the Crown Hill Pub is owned by an intelligent, responsible human being, who employs intelligent, responsible help, who cater to, well, we were going to say intelligent, responsible patrons, but that's a stretch. At least this establishment caters to a far higher caliber of human than does Goofy's, and that's a fact. Either the owner of Goofy's simply doesn't care what his patrons do to his neighbors, or he is of the very same caliber himself. Or both. We suggest the latter.
Cristina Dugoni has sold the Pizza Hut property. We don't know the status of the others in the strip. We hope she lost her proverbial shirt.
"You can put lipstick on a sow and call it Monique,
...but a Pig is still a Pig".