Looks like Korff has had enough of Mr. Devious and is now putting together a lawsuit to sue for consumer fraud.
http://www.kalkorff.com/?p=14
http://www.kalkorff.com/?p=14
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Kal Korff sues the unmentionable one
- Thread starter Aspie
- Start date
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
Hi Aspie. That's great to hear.
P
Paul Kimball
Guest
From:
http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2006/12/in-defense-of-michael-horn.html
<i>In Defense of... Michael Horn?</i>
Yup, you read the title right folks. In Defense of Michael Horn, Billy Meier's American representative.
Yesterday, I put up a little note about how longtime Meier critic Kal Korff has apparently set his sights on Horn for consumer fraud. I mused that it sounded like "fun".
On reflection, I was wrong.
Is Michael Horn a rotten little guy? Absolutely. He strikes me as a nasty piece of work. He's a bully, the worst kind of True Believer.
But so is Kal Korff. The man has an ego the size of a planet. I can't think of a single ufologist, even the skeptical ones, who have ever had a nice thing to say about him. Indeed, I can't even think of a true debunker that has anything nice to say about him.
Frankly, judging by their recent appearances on the X-Zone radio show (last night, and the Thursday before - check the archives at the X-Zone), the two of them deserve each other.
Further, while I know the Meier hoax stirs up emotion, I honestly see it as a harmless distraction. Almost everyone sees it for what it is - a hoax. As for the small minority that don't see it that way? Well, I've met Meier-ites at the International UFO Congress - they're harmless enough. Nice folks, really. They're not some Marshall Applewhite cult getting ready to kill themselves, or something. I'd put someone like Rael ahead of the Meier-ites in terms of a bad influence. In terms of consumer fraud, Ray Santilli.
Besides, whatever else you can say about Horn, I am convinced that the man honestly believes the Meier stuff is real, as does James Deardorff. Now in my book that makes them as loony as Daffy Duck, but I don't think they're knowingly perpetrating a fraud, because they don't think it's a fraud. That matters. We nasty lawyer types call it mens rea in the criminal law (and Korff is nattering on about going after Horn with both the civil and the criminal law).
Here is part of the civil law definition of fraud from Black's Law Dicitonary, 6th edition:
"Elements of a cause of action for 'fraud' include false representation of a present or past fact made by the defendant, action in reliance thereupon by the plaintiff, and damage resulting to plaintiff from such misrepresentation. As distinguished from negligence, it is always positive, intentional."
Now, Meier himself is another story. If Korff wants to go after someone, it should be Billy boy. He's the one who committed the hoax, after all.
But, again, the Meier stuff is harmless enough. Heck, if you want to go after consumer frauds, you might want to start with a certain "religion" favoured by more than a few of Hollywood's elite. But that would take real guts, and Korff prefers to pick away at the penny ante fringers, because it's easier, and less risky.
Or maybe, because Korff is the smartest person in the world (to hear him tell it), he could build a time machine and travel back to the 1950s, and tangle with Silas Newton.
Either way, while I have no real use for Horn, I don't see him as a consumer fraud, and I don't see the Meier-ites as some big threat that has to be squashed. Heck, there are some religions based on stuff just as loopy and dodgy as Meier's prophecies (umm... Joseph Smith pops to mind).
Michael Horn is a True Believer, absolutely, and a mean-spirited one as well, but a perpetrator of consumer fraud, or a horrible threat to "ufology" or whatever?
Nope.
Time to move on, and leave the Meier-ites alone.
Paul Kimball
http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2006/12/in-defense-of-michael-horn.html
<i>In Defense of... Michael Horn?</i>
Yup, you read the title right folks. In Defense of Michael Horn, Billy Meier's American representative.
Yesterday, I put up a little note about how longtime Meier critic Kal Korff has apparently set his sights on Horn for consumer fraud. I mused that it sounded like "fun".
On reflection, I was wrong.
Is Michael Horn a rotten little guy? Absolutely. He strikes me as a nasty piece of work. He's a bully, the worst kind of True Believer.
But so is Kal Korff. The man has an ego the size of a planet. I can't think of a single ufologist, even the skeptical ones, who have ever had a nice thing to say about him. Indeed, I can't even think of a true debunker that has anything nice to say about him.
Frankly, judging by their recent appearances on the X-Zone radio show (last night, and the Thursday before - check the archives at the X-Zone), the two of them deserve each other.
Further, while I know the Meier hoax stirs up emotion, I honestly see it as a harmless distraction. Almost everyone sees it for what it is - a hoax. As for the small minority that don't see it that way? Well, I've met Meier-ites at the International UFO Congress - they're harmless enough. Nice folks, really. They're not some Marshall Applewhite cult getting ready to kill themselves, or something. I'd put someone like Rael ahead of the Meier-ites in terms of a bad influence. In terms of consumer fraud, Ray Santilli.
Besides, whatever else you can say about Horn, I am convinced that the man honestly believes the Meier stuff is real, as does James Deardorff. Now in my book that makes them as loony as Daffy Duck, but I don't think they're knowingly perpetrating a fraud, because they don't think it's a fraud. That matters. We nasty lawyer types call it mens rea in the criminal law (and Korff is nattering on about going after Horn with both the civil and the criminal law).
Here is part of the civil law definition of fraud from Black's Law Dicitonary, 6th edition:
"Elements of a cause of action for 'fraud' include false representation of a present or past fact made by the defendant, action in reliance thereupon by the plaintiff, and damage resulting to plaintiff from such misrepresentation. As distinguished from negligence, it is always positive, intentional."
Now, Meier himself is another story. If Korff wants to go after someone, it should be Billy boy. He's the one who committed the hoax, after all.
But, again, the Meier stuff is harmless enough. Heck, if you want to go after consumer frauds, you might want to start with a certain "religion" favoured by more than a few of Hollywood's elite. But that would take real guts, and Korff prefers to pick away at the penny ante fringers, because it's easier, and less risky.
Or maybe, because Korff is the smartest person in the world (to hear him tell it), he could build a time machine and travel back to the 1950s, and tangle with Silas Newton.
Either way, while I have no real use for Horn, I don't see him as a consumer fraud, and I don't see the Meier-ites as some big threat that has to be squashed. Heck, there are some religions based on stuff just as loopy and dodgy as Meier's prophecies (umm... Joseph Smith pops to mind).
Michael Horn is a True Believer, absolutely, and a mean-spirited one as well, but a perpetrator of consumer fraud, or a horrible threat to "ufology" or whatever?
Nope.
Time to move on, and leave the Meier-ites alone.
Paul Kimball
Rick Deckard
Paranormal Maven
I bet MH can't wait to get started - more publicity for his 'cause'...
...let's see how he twists this one.
Probably something like "They're so scared of the truth that they're taking to me court in order to silence me - don't let them win! The future of the planet depends on your support - please donate to my defense fund!".
...let's see how he twists this one.
Probably something like "They're so scared of the truth that they're taking to me court in order to silence me - don't let them win! The future of the planet depends on your support - please donate to my defense fund!".
P
Paul Kimball
Guest
Rick Deckard said:
RD:
Actually, he predictably used that line on the X-Zone last night.
Another excellent reason for leaving him / them alone.
Paul
Rick Deckard
Paranormal Maven
paulkimball said:
LOL - really? I honestly haven't heard of the 'X-zone' before - any good?
H
hopeful skeptic
Guest
I agree that The One Whose Name We Dare Not Speak probably is a true believer. I have no evidence for that - just a hunch.
Lots of folks have gone to bat for a known fraud before - in full knowledge that they're supporting a fraud - but I think TOWNWDNS legitimately believes that Meier is for real. It's regrettable that he is able to convince others of that, but caveat emptor.
Lots of folks have gone to bat for a known fraud before - in full knowledge that they're supporting a fraud - but I think TOWNWDNS legitimately believes that Meier is for real. It's regrettable that he is able to convince others of that, but caveat emptor.
David Biedny
Paranormal Adept
Deckard - After a couple of listens to the yutz who hosts the "X-Zone" show, I am extremely unimpressed - he doesn't seem capable of focusing the conversation, and does not seem to have any grasp of any of the many topics the shows attempts to cover. Like so many other folks doing these types of shows, they are "professional broadcasters", seeking ratings and audiences, but they could just as easily be doing programs about politics, celebrities or meat processing. In the case of "you know who", the host of the "X-Zoned Out" allowed him to use abusive, corrosive language without any challenge, and seemed to not have done any due diligence on the topic or the controversy surrounding the particulars of evidence, witnesses, etc. As I've stated more than once regarding The Paracast, we're genuinely interested in having a serious exploration about all matters paranormal, and approach the subject from a skeptical, yet open-minded point of view. In this regard, I'm starting to think that we're alone in the paranormal radio realm.
dB
dB
David Biedny said:
I suppose he could also discuss psychic meat processing, and get double the audience
P
Paul Kimball
Guest
An update, from my blog (the links will work at the original, which you can read at http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2006/12/kal-korff-and-glass-houses.html)
Paul
<i><em>Kal Korff and Glass Houses</em></i>
Kal Korff has made a career out of exposing the false, or exaggerated claims, of others.
But what about Korff himself?
On his website, Korff claims, among many, many other things, to have been "a key, expert witness in the O.J. Simpson murder trial CIVIL lawsuit".
So I did a bit of looking, just for chuckles. Turns out he was no such thing.
Here is the list of witnesses, from Court TV's website.
Nowhere on it will you find Kal Korff's name.
So, because Korff was on the X-Zone with Rob McConnell last night, I thought I would write in and ask Korff about this.
Here is that e-mail in part, which Rob read on the air:
"Take my word for it as a lawyer - you're not a witness, and certainly not an expert one, unless you take the stand in the trial!"
Rob asked Korff about his claim to have been an expert witness - you can go to the X-Zone archives to listen to Korff's answer. What is clear is that by no definition that a lawyer would accept was Korff a witness, expert or otherwise, because he never took the stand, which is the essence of what a witness is.
Doubt me?
Here's the definition from Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition:
"One who is called to testify before a court. One who testifies to what he has seen, heard, or otherwise observed. A person whose declaration under oath (or affirmation) is received as evidence for any purpose, whether such declaration be made on oral examination or by deposition or affidavit."
Listen to Korff's answer closely, and draw your own conclusion. To me, it's clear that the charitable interpretation is that he embellished his role (if he actually had one) in the Simpson case.
If an employer found out that you had done that on a resume, you could easily wind up on the unemployment line.
It's particularly egregious because Korff makes the claim in the context of burnishing his credentials to go after the likes of Michael Horn and Ray Santilli for consumer fraud. In short, his misleading claim to have been an "expert witness" in the Simpson trial is supposed to make him sound more credible as a person to go after people in a legal context.
And that's wrong.
Of course, Korff also claims to be a Captain in the Special Secret Services, but if you listed to a question asked to him about that on the same X-Zone show as the witness question, you'll hear him hem and haw about what that means (I was the person who e-mailed that question in as well). Apparently, despite the alleged fact that the organization has a name, implying it is in fact an organization, and despite the alleged fact that Korff has a commission from said organization, apparently there is no such organization, at least not in the "linear sense" (Korff's term, not mine) - whatever the heck that means.
After listening to the show, I can only say one thing about Kal Korff: people who challenge the credibility of other people, particularly when they are threatening them with lawsuits for consumer fraud, as Korff has done with Horn and Santilli, should make sure their own credibility is pretty much spotless.
In other words, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Paul
<i><em>Kal Korff and Glass Houses</em></i>
Kal Korff has made a career out of exposing the false, or exaggerated claims, of others.
But what about Korff himself?
On his website, Korff claims, among many, many other things, to have been "a key, expert witness in the O.J. Simpson murder trial CIVIL lawsuit".
So I did a bit of looking, just for chuckles. Turns out he was no such thing.
Here is the list of witnesses, from Court TV's website.
Nowhere on it will you find Kal Korff's name.
So, because Korff was on the X-Zone with Rob McConnell last night, I thought I would write in and ask Korff about this.
Here is that e-mail in part, which Rob read on the air:
"Take my word for it as a lawyer - you're not a witness, and certainly not an expert one, unless you take the stand in the trial!"
Rob asked Korff about his claim to have been an expert witness - you can go to the X-Zone archives to listen to Korff's answer. What is clear is that by no definition that a lawyer would accept was Korff a witness, expert or otherwise, because he never took the stand, which is the essence of what a witness is.
Doubt me?
Here's the definition from Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition:
"One who is called to testify before a court. One who testifies to what he has seen, heard, or otherwise observed. A person whose declaration under oath (or affirmation) is received as evidence for any purpose, whether such declaration be made on oral examination or by deposition or affidavit."
Listen to Korff's answer closely, and draw your own conclusion. To me, it's clear that the charitable interpretation is that he embellished his role (if he actually had one) in the Simpson case.
If an employer found out that you had done that on a resume, you could easily wind up on the unemployment line.
It's particularly egregious because Korff makes the claim in the context of burnishing his credentials to go after the likes of Michael Horn and Ray Santilli for consumer fraud. In short, his misleading claim to have been an "expert witness" in the Simpson trial is supposed to make him sound more credible as a person to go after people in a legal context.
And that's wrong.
Of course, Korff also claims to be a Captain in the Special Secret Services, but if you listed to a question asked to him about that on the same X-Zone show as the witness question, you'll hear him hem and haw about what that means (I was the person who e-mailed that question in as well). Apparently, despite the alleged fact that the organization has a name, implying it is in fact an organization, and despite the alleged fact that Korff has a commission from said organization, apparently there is no such organization, at least not in the "linear sense" (Korff's term, not mine) - whatever the heck that means.
After listening to the show, I can only say one thing about Kal Korff: people who challenge the credibility of other people, particularly when they are threatening them with lawsuits for consumer fraud, as Korff has done with Horn and Santilli, should make sure their own credibility is pretty much spotless.
In other words, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.