Goodson's Public Denial of Roger's Claim
Grumps
Goodson's public denial of Roger Aldridge's claim regarding Roger's missing
Buescher soprano saxophone. As you will recall, Roger claims that he shipped
his horn to Goodson for modifications and after some time received a completely
different horn in return with a lesser valued serial number. After alerting
Goodson to the mix-up, Roger claims he is now being ignored by him. Goodson
has publicly denied Roger's claims here on this very newsgroup (see links
below), but he will not explain himself. If any of you consider yourself
friends with Steve Goodson, and you also know Roger from SOTW, please do what
you can to convince Goodson to contact Roger in an attempt to resolve this
situation.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=kM8Mc.18266%24yF.1
6199%40bignews2.bellsouth.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=yKbMc.19403%24yF.1
5966%40bignews2.bellsouth.net
user
"Grumps" <grmpy...@aol.coma> kirjoitti viestissä
news:20040727125313...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> I post this only because of a recent flooding we've had which buried Steve
> Goodson's public denial of Roger Aldridge's claim regarding Roger's
missing
> Buescher soprano saxophone. As you will recall, Roger claims that he
shipped
> his horn to Goodson for modifications and after some time received a
completely
> different horn in return with a lesser valued serial number. After
alerting
> Goodson to the mix-up, Roger claims he is now being ignored by him.
Goodson
> has publicly denied Roger's claims here on this very newsgroup (see links
> below), but he will not explain himself. If any of you consider yourself
> friends with Steve Goodson, and you also know Roger from SOTW, please do
what
> you can to convince Goodson to contact Roger in an attempt to resolve this
> situation.
>
please educate us. Thanks.
Grumps
>Date: 7/27/2004 12:59 PM Eastern
>What is SOTW?
>please educate us. Thanks.
Hi Harri. It's a saxophone site that used to be heavily moderated in favor of
commercial interests. Unfortunately, voices of caution were deleted in favor
of voices for sale and a lot of people got screwed. But you should know.....
it's your site.
user
"Grumps" <grmpy...@aol.coma> kirjoitti viestissä
news:20040727130720...@mb-m14.aol.com...
Mike,
spell out the URL - do not keep us in suspense.
Grumps
>spell out the URL - do not keep us in suspense.
I might Harri, but first can you comment on Roger's situation? You did delete
his post about his missing soprano on your website, didn't you? Who knows,
maybe it was at Roger's request because of the heat he took from your valued
forum contributors. So, what's your take on the situation? Can you vouch for
Roger's integrity? Do you doubt his claim? That's the subject of this string,
not plugging your website.
Mark Bushaw
post? This is Usenet, not a forum. As I've said (and shown you) posts
from years ago are still available.
Mark Bushaw
Peter Willis
>post? This is Usenet, not a forum. As I've said (and shown you) posts
>from years ago are still available.
I think he justs means that with all the flamewars going back and forth, some
things can be overlooked.
user
"Grumps" <grmpy...@aol.coma> kirjoitti viestissä
news:20040727130720...@mb-m14.aol.com...
> >From: "user" har...@pp.inet.fi
> >Date: 7/27/2004 12:59 PM Eastern
>
> >What is SOTW?
> >please educate us. Thanks.
>
Hornsmasher
evidence of any form or fashion has been presented by anybody that this is
not the case. If someone has any documentation whatsoever that I received
one soprano and sent another, please present it. If you have no
documentation, then please let the matter end. There is no reason to discuss
it further. So, Mike, since you are so obsessed with this (and me), PUT UP
OR SHUT UP.
--
Old ladies can eat more than you think.
ansermetniac
1) Can Roger scan and post a copy of his receipt where he paid for
the sop when he bought it. This would have the serial.
2) Steve, is it possible you had two sops of the same brand at your
shop at the same time and you sent the wrong one by ACCIDENT. Can you
scan and post your reciept to Roger which would have the serial of the
sop you sent back. You do put the serial on the receipt, don't you?
There is much said by both sides in a public forum. It is about time
BOTH sides prove once and for all who the liar is. Without some real
proof it is a pissing contenst of libel. Only one of you is right.
Whoever that may be, PROVE IT.
Roger did you insure this ax? You policy would have the serial.
Abbedd
______________
E.A.F.E.
Hornsmasher
one that was sent to me. The fact that a horn of a given serial number may
or may not have been owned by someone at some time tells nothing. That's the
whole issue. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that he may have owned
the horn he is seeking, but since I had no other Buescher sopranos in the
shop at that time, since I don't own a Buescher straight soprano, and since
that one miraculously seems to have been in his ProTec Case and had his
Morgan mouthpiece, I would (reasonably, I think) call for a document that
shows that the instrument in question was actually one and the same as the
one allegedly sent to me. Lacking such documentation, I am through
discussing this matter.
BIG DADDY
you.
I hope that you have lots of work around N.O. cause anyone from out of state
that would send you their horn would have to be crazy!
There are several threads on this newsgroup to which you have never answered
customer claims satisfactory, just denial. It may be the way you perceive
business to be done or how it's done in N.O. but it's not how the rest of
the world does it!
Your business practice leaves a lot to be desired Mr. Goodson, your conduct,
code of ethics and general demeanor are, to say the least, unacceptable by
the rest of the group ( with the exception of those living in and around
N.O.)
You should be post a big sign on your web page,
"SENDER AND BUYERS BEWARE UNETHICAL BUSINESS PRACTICE DONE HERE!"
There is an old ladies saying that goes something like this:
You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. One day
Steve, they will come by and either take you away to the big house or punch
your lights out!
BD
"Hornsmasher" <ste...@saxgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:A0yNc.22950$QO.2...@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Grumps
>SOTW stands for "Sax on the Web"
Come on Harri. Now that you're here, do the right thing. Vouch for Roger.
Grumps
>that one miraculously seems to have been in his ProTec Case and had his
>Morgan mouthpiece, I would (reasonably, I think) call for a document that
>shows that the instrument in question was actually one and the same as the
>one allegedly sent to me.
Steve, I know you to be a liar. I know you have lied to this very newsgroup
before in denying an e-mail that you sent to me. To me you have no honor. Now
you dishonestly twist Roger's story, hoping by once again misleading the
newsgroup, you can rehabilitate yourself. Roger claims you sent back a
different horn in a DIFFERENT pro-pac case; a brand new one in fact. You do
sell pro-pac cases don't you? So having one lying around isn't out of the
ordinary, now is it? Gayle can confirm the serial number of Roger's horn.
Perhaps someone that knows her well enough can invite her here to clear this
up?
Grumps
Steve, I know you to be a liar. I know you've lied to this very newsgroup in
denying an e-mail you sent me. Look at the above quote from you. "I sent the
soprano that I was sent." Sent by who? Sent to you by someone else perhaps,
according to Roger. When one considers this recent case with Roger and an old
case like Peter's (the one where you were accused of swapping out Norton
springs), if true, one might conclude that you take liberties with the horns
entrusted to you thinking you're shielded by Louisiana law and hoping that the
cost of coming after you legally isn't worth the value claimed. Now you deny,
deny, deny and ask for proof. Well, testimony from Roger is evidence. It may
not be the best evidence, but if believed, it can stand up in a court of law
against you. I know of no person who has challenged Roger's credibility,
except for you; and that speaks volumes. Now as far as documentaion goes,
well.... you have that. You're the one that documents what comes in and out.
And you ask us to provide that? Roger was a past client of yours. He
recommended you to people. He trusted you. Is this what happens with your
good clients? Is it true that you are ignoring his calls and e-mail? Is it
true that you've been contacted by others on his behalf to help him? If Gayle
can confirm the serial number on the horn she sold Roger (and he claims he
shipped to you), will that be enough for you? Or will you then say that Roger
still sent a different horn to you to be modified? Will you lie to this
newsgroup yet again?
ansermetniac
>Steve, I know you to be a liar
Please prove it. Here. Now. Just as you made the allegation
Abbedd
______________
E.A.F.E.
Grumps
>Please prove it. Here. Now. Just as you made the allegation
Last September (the 23rd, to be exact) Steve Goodson sent me an e-mail,
insulting to me and my 76 year old father who has nothing to do with saxophones
or web forums. It included his veiled threat to have his minions shadow me at
my gigs and of course had "BITE ME" in giant letters. Just a few weeks ago,
while attempting to rehabilitate himself here, he publicly denied ever sending
any such correspondence to me and added that he had no doubt I could provide
some sort of fake correspondence. So I am well familiar with his pattern of
denial, and in my case, I know him to be a liar. I saved the mail on AOL and
can retrieve it for forwarding. Now I can call Steve Goodson a liar as I know
it to be a fact and can prove same.
Hornsmasher
bearing on this. Again, provide evidence (not "he said") that what you say
is correct. I've yet to see ANYTHING substantiated, nor does anyone else. I
hear lots of third party anecdotal stuff, but I've yet to see any
documentation whatsoever that reflects anything other than I sent back what
was sent to me. If you've got some, I'd like to see it. If you don't, I'd
like an apology.
Grumps
>What anyone has bought and sold from Gayle or anyone else has absolutely no
>bearing on this.
So Roger bought a saxophone from Gayle, approached you for modifications and
then sent you a different horn? You don't make the rules here Goodson. Roger
has presented his case. His testimonial evidence is compelling given his
credibility and your known pattern of behavior when confronted with complaints.
No.... I think the folks here want more from you, not me.
Hornsmasher
in no way backed by any proof whatsoever, other than "he said". I have
nothing else to say about this until people actually involved in the
transaction produce some documentation. I have no reason to respond to
anyone who is not involved, nor do I intend to respond to any more of your
unproven charges. Amuse yourself as you will, I'm through with this. Spin
all the scenarios you like. Make all the conjecture you wish. The fact
remains that there is no proof whatsoever than what you say is true. If
there was, you would have long since produced it. Have fun with the rest of
the discussion on this topic. I'm finished with it.
Grumps
>I have no reason to respond to
>anyone who is not involved
Then just respond to Roger, please.
James
You know the URL darned well. It's http://forum.saxontheweb.net/
As Grumps/Mike says, you know the site perfectly well. That's why
it's called "Sax On The Web, by Harri Rautiainen". Why don't you just
give the URL yourself? You have me puzzled...
"user" <har...@pp.inet.fi> wrote in message news:<01wNc.305$9i2...@read3.inet.fi>...
Robert
BIG DADDY wrote:
>
> There is an old ladies saying that goes something like this:
> You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
> of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Actually, Abraham Lincoln said this first. Possibly old ladies repeated it.
Bill Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman!" For many
people, Bill Clinton told the truth. Depends on how you define sex.
George W. Bush said "The International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]
confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was
working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The
British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources
tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes
suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly
explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."
Off topic -- you bet. Just tired on name-calling.
user
"James" <james_mcc...@yahoo.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:4b9a8519.04072...@posting.google.com...
> Harri,
>
> You know the URL darned well. It's http://forum.saxontheweb.net/
>
> As Grumps/Mike says, you know the site perfectly well. That's why
> it's called "Sax On The Web, by Harri Rautiainen". Why don't you just
> give the URL yourself? You have me puzzled...
>
>
him, for once, to spell it out.
If it is evident for everyone here, I am sorry of my intrusion. Thanks for
your post, James.
-Harri Rautiainen
Steve Marshall
"Grumps" <grmpy...@aol.coma> wrote
> So Roger bought a saxophone from Gayle, approached you for modifications
and
> then sent you a different horn? You don't make the rules here Goodson.
Roger
> has presented his case. His testimonial evidence is compelling given his
> credibility and your known pattern of behavior when confronted with
complaints.
> No.... I think the folks here want more from you, not me.
It is perfectly reasonable to ask for some evidence, which you have failed
to provide. The matter can not be sorted without providing proof.
I don't think folks here want to read about such arguments at all. Sort it
out. Take it to court if necessary . It isn't a matter for the group.
Steve M
Grumps
>It is perfectly reasonable to ask for some evidence, which you have failed
>to provide. The matter can not be sorted without providing proof.
>
Here is what Roger has, as stated by him to me in a recent e-mail:
"I have copies of the Fedex receipts that proves that I sent a package to
Steve Goodson and received one back from him. I have copies of the letters
and other communications that I sent to Steve about receiving a different
horn. Gail can vouch that I purchased a 1928 Buescher soprano from her. I
can produce a picture of the 1925 soprano's serial number."
If you wish to examine the evidence I invite you to e-mail Roger directly as he
requested in his e-mail to me that I initially posted
(nancy...@earthlink.net). He would welcome any help anyone could give him
in this regard. I don't know what other proof you could want, other than
Roger's word. It's not like there's a photographic record of Goodson opening
up the box. Think about it. Roger can prove he bought a 1928 Buescher
Tru-Tone soprano. He can prove he shipped a saxophone to Goodson, and he can
prove that he got one back from Goodson. He can prove he now has a 1925
Buescher Tru-Tone soprano. Do you really think he'd make this one up just to
claim a difference in price between the two horns? He's been patient, and if
you've read his now deleted posts on SOTW, you'd know he was polite about this
as well. No one would dare call him a troll. Now look at Goodson's actions;
finally speaking out on this after months and months. His manner. His
attitude. His history.
> It isn't a matter for the group.
I must disagree with you here Steve M. This is the only way anybody with a
problem can communicate it to the conveniently reclusive Goodson. He's also
here promoting his business and these are important issues to consider before
shipping your horn halfway across the country based upon some internet hype.
Wdflannery
>can produce a picture of the 1925 soprano's serial number."
>
Apparently the vintage of an old Buescher is determined by its seral #.
Correct?
Do Gail or Steve have a serial # for the 'missing' horn?
What does Gail have to say on the subject? Have you emailed her?
All in all, it seems like a great mystery to me. A real bonus to reading
alt.music.saxophone...
W.
The Dude
Better than "Gosford Park" imo.
--
Grumps
>Do Gail or Steve have a serial # for the 'missing' horn?
>
>What does Gail have to say on the subject? Have you emailed her?
The missing sax is in the 238K range. The replacement is in the 180's. Since
I don't know Gayle, I haven't approached her, but Roger will authorize her to
disclose the serial number of the horn she sold him. I've got some other
documentation that supports Roger's claim and will post it in a new thread.
Grumps
>
>>Do Gail or Steve have a serial # for the 'missing' horn?
>>
>>What does Gail have to say on the subject?
Let me add this.....
Gayle had stated on SOTW back in March of '03, that "Roger's 238xxx silver
Buescher is one of the best sopranos I've ever played."
http://saxontheweb.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=822&highlight=&sid=36f5dbc
6cc256f724c6989e716563863
James
Well I HAVE approached Gayle.
I asked her: "Is there any way you can verify (Yea or Nay) that you
sold a Buescher soprano sax to my friend Roger Aldridge, serial number
238167?"
Her reply was: "Yes, I did indeed sell Roger this soprano a few years
ago. It
was a fine playing horn."
Hope that helps. It doesn't prove anything but ownership, but that's
a start. Unfortunately, when it comes to filling out the Fedex
paperwork or other correspondence related to one's horn, a person
often doesn't include the serial number. I know I certainly never
have - I just call my tech and ask about "my sax".
Grumps
>Unfortunately, when it comes to filling out the Fedex
>paperwork or other correspondence related to one's horn, a person
>often doesn't include the serial number. I know I certainly never
>have - I just call my tech and ask about "my sax".
Something that should also be pointed out (as verified in the SOTW strings I
posted), is that Roger had Goodson work on three of his horns in the past.
There was a certain level of trust there that did not require a stamped ticket
to be returned to him documenting the serial number. My techs will fill out
such a card. I wonder why Goodson didn't provide Roger with such a receipt.
It would have protected them both.
Steve Marshall
"Grumps" <grmpy...@aol.coma> wrote
> >From: "Steve Marshall" s...@atmosBlockA.plus.com
>
> >It is perfectly reasonable to ask for some evidence, which you have
failed
> >to provide. The matter can not be sorted without providing proof.
> >
>
> Here is what Roger has, as stated by him to me in a recent e-mail:
<snip>
This is not evidence. Emailing him is not obtaining evidence. Hearing what
some guy may have said secon or third hand is not evidence. It is pointless
telling stories hear, whether they are true or not. I don't know and
certianly cannot tell from ANY communication hear.
This is a matter that needs to be dealt with in court.
> > It isn't a matter for the group.
>
> I must disagree with you here Steve M. This is the only way anybody with
a
> problem can communicate it to the conveniently reclusive Goodson.
No. It is a matter for the courts. You can have flame wars all day in
newsgroups and solve nothing.
The risks of sending saxophones to someone are the same. You may lose your
horn, have it stolen or damaged. In all cases it should be insured by the
owner and they would then have the relevant documents to make any claims if
something goes wrong.
Most repairers record the serial number and make of a horn when they invoice
for a job, (if not before). If the horn was sent elsewhere there should be a
record of it. You need the courts !
Steve M
Robert Steinberg
> No. It is a matter for the courts. You can have flame wars all day in
> newsgroups and solve nothing.
The average price of a Buescher soprano is under $1200. Retaining an
attorney and filing a suit is probably around $2500 to start. Add
investigation costs, out of state considerations and it may discourage
pursuing such an action. Maybe there's a 3rd way.
Just checking to see if your kill file is working, Steve ;-)
--
Robert Steinberg
MidiOpera Co.
http://www.midiopera.com
Robert
> Most repairers record the serial number and make of a horn when they invoice
> for a job, (if not before). If the horn was sent elsewhere there should be a
> record of it. You need the courts !
>
> Steve M
I'm not an instrument repairer, nor do I want to get involved with the
never-ending flame wars recently inflicted on this newsgroup. But as a
member of the Potomac Guild of Watchmakers and Clockmakers, I can attest
that a watchmaker/clockmaker always keeps a record, description, and
valuation of every item brought by a customer for the purpose of his/her
insurance policy.
Such description and valuation are not disclosed to the customer,
however, because any flaw might result in a lawsuit.
(Example: a customer brings a pocket watch to the watchmaker which
belonged to his deceased Dad, asking for free advice of its worth for
purpose of selling it. Watchmaker tells him that to the best of his
knowledge it's worth so-and-so; customer sells it for about that price.
Later, customer finds out that the same brand of watch fetched three
times the price on eBay from an overseas bidder. Customer sues
watchmaker to make up the difference in prices.)
Mark Bushaw
and I don't remember their name, was afraid of retribution because of
death threats. Someone else said that Goodson had an 'in' with the local
court system. Someone else has said that looking to the justice system
was pointless because all they could do was set a fine, and the proper
course was to harass SG on the newsgroup in order to put him out of
business.
And very good advice about serial # records. I've always included that
in every communication, pre-, during and post. Also noted on shipping docs.
Mark Bushaw
Steve Marshall wrote:
<SNIP>
Robbie and Laura Reynolds
Steve Marshall wrote:
>
> "Grumps" <grmpy...@aol.coma> wrote
>
> > >From: "Steve Marshall" s...@atmosBlockA.plus.com
> >
> > >It is perfectly reasonable to ask for some evidence, which you have
> failed
> > >to provide. The matter can not be sorted without providing proof.
> > >
> >
> > Here is what Roger has, as stated by him to me in a recent e-mail:
>
> <snip>
>
> This is not evidence. Emailing him is not obtaining evidence. Hearing what
> some guy may have said secon or third hand is not evidence. It is pointless
> telling stories hear, whether they are true or not. I don't know and
> certianly cannot tell from ANY communication hear.
> This is a matter that needs to be dealt with in court.
>
I hate to jump in on this discussion because it has gone so far beyond
the realm of what is reasonable. But it seems to me that even if Roger
recorded the serial number he still doesn't have a case because you
can't prove a negative. He says that he no longer has his original
horn, but how can he prove that he doesn't have it? How can you prove
that it was stolen, lost or misdirected? When somebody breaks into your
house you can call the cops and report a burglary, but there is no case
until they catch the crook with your stuff.
Personally, I find myself sympathizing with those who call themselves
victims in the never-ending saga of Steve Goodson's adventures in
general saxophonage. Generally you don't hear a lot of people
complaining unless there's a reason. I wasn't planning to send a sax to
him anyway so it doesn't make a bit of difference to me one way or the
other. But going on and on about "proof" doesn't do anybody any good.
The only proof you will ever see is when the saxophone in question turns
up in the wrong hands. Until then it is simply an unfortunate situation
for which there is no resolution. I've had stuff ripped off before by
guys who would look you right in the eye and lie. Everybody knew the
real score, but there was nothing to be done about it.
Grumps
>He says that he no longer has his original
>horn, but how can he prove that he doesn't have it? How can you prove
>that it was stolen, lost or misdirected?
In civil court, the burdon of proof is not by a clear and convincing standard,
nor is it beyond a reasonable doubt. It is by a preponderance of the evidence;
meaning more likely than not (or tipping the scale ever so slightly). Roger's
testimony, if you will, concerning the specifics, backed up by Gayle's sales
record, and further backed up by his documented forum discussions and e-mails
would be enough to sustain the burdon of proof in a civil case; if believed.
Testimony, however imperfect, is evidence. Evidence is judged on its own
merits. You guys are asking for the smoking gun, and not every case that's
decided has one. It would be nice if Goodson publicly offered up the serial
number of the horn he claims he received from Roger and shipped back to him.
Do you think he will?
Grumps
>And very good advice about serial # records. I've always included that
>in every communication, pre-, during and post. Also noted on shipping docs.
True, this is one lesson we can all learn from this.
Grumps
>Maybe there's a 3rd way.
I thought this was the third way......
Robbie and Laura Reynolds
That's the whole point then, isn't it? As long as he keeps quiet about
this particular transaction, then all you have is the guy with the
complaint telling his story. And there still isn't any evidence that he
DIDN'T get the same sax back, unless the sax turns up somewhere else.
If there is a preponderance of evidence that Goodson stole the horn or
was negligent in handling it, then the thing for Roger to do is to file
in court and not hire a lawyer (because you could buy a few saxophones
for what the lawyers get). Usually the filing fee is $40 or so. The
best part is that if the defendant doesn't show up you win by default.
Then you can file papers to garnish the defendant's wages or accounts.
If there really is a case, go for it. If not, then I don't know what to
tell you...
By the way, in these cases it is a good idea to ship via US mail. The
fine folks at the Post Office take it really seriously when somebody
engages in mail fraud. You often have a hard time getting them to help
you, but they certainly do like it when there is a case that seems to
justify their existence.
Steve Marshall
"Grumps" <grmpy...@aol.coma> wrote
> In civil court, the burdon of proof is not by a clear and convincing
standard,
> nor is it beyond a reasonable doubt. It is by a preponderance of the
evidence;
> meaning more likely than not (or tipping the scale ever so slightly).
Roger's
> testimony, if you will, concerning the specifics, backed up by Gayle's
sales
> record, and further backed up by his documented forum discussions and
e-mails
> would be enough to sustain the burdon of proof in a civil case; if
believed.
> Testimony, however imperfect, is evidence. Evidence is judged on its own
> merits. You guys are asking for the smoking gun, and not every case
that's
> decided has one. It would be nice if Goodson publicly offered up the
serial
> number of the horn he claims he received from Roger and shipped back to
him.
> Do you think he will?
Courts will look for paperwork. Showing you own a horn does not show if you
sent it somewhere. The relevant documents should record the item being sent.
If they documents don't show this to be the case you only have your word
against his.
He should may have recorded the instrument details on receipt. Via the court
you may be able to access such information. If he didn't, you didn't or the
delivery and/ or insurance companies didn't record what the horn was then
you have no evidence.
It's a hard lesson to learn, but you need to keep your receipts, proof of
purchase etc. If you make any claim those bits of paper are pretty vital.
What some guy said in a newsgroup is not.
Steve M
Steve Marshall
"Mark Bushaw" <MBu...@aol.com> wrote
> When I have suggested this many moons ago I was told that the person,
> and I don't remember their name, was afraid of retribution because of
> death threats. Someone else said that Goodson had an 'in' with the local
> court system. Someone else has said that looking to the justice system
> was pointless because all they could do was set a fine, and the proper
> course was to harass SG on the newsgroup in order to put him out of
> business.
This sounds like bad advice. If someone doesn't want you to go to court it
is because they can take action.
If death threats are made, get the police in. I somehow doubt you'll get
killed over a saxophone, though stranger things have happened.
It would seem to me that this person is having to resort to flaming
newsgroups because they have no evidence to take to court and so can't
pursue the matter properly. That isn't Goodson's fault whether to not he
made a mistake.
Steve M
Grumps
>It's a hard lesson to learn, but you need to keep your receipts, proof of
>purchase etc. If you make any claim those bits of paper are pretty vital.
>What some guy said in a newsgroup is not.
I agree that there should have been a better paper trail. In this case, Roger
trusted Goodson as he had used him for three of his other horns in the past as
documented in the SOTW postings where Roger recommended Goodson's services. As
for the burdon of proof in court, Roger's testimony, the delivery receipts, his
reciept for the 238K horn and his production of the 180K horn would be enough
for a judge to then turn to Goodson and ask for his side of the story (plus
with discovery, his records would be open to scrutiny). This is academic
though when you consider the damages claimed are only the difference in value
between the two horns. It's not about the money. It's not about court. It's
about doing the right thing. Given the particulars of this case, this is the
only effective way to communicate Roger's claim where Goodson will see it. You
want more evidence? Ask Goodson.
Grumps
>By the way, in these cases it is a good idea to ship via US mail. The
>fine folks at the Post Office take it really seriously when somebody
>engages in mail fraud.
Goodson will only use Fed-Ex. Legal claims against out of state defendants are
not simple matters. There are service issues, venue issues, and should you
prevail, there are collection issues. If only $40 could buy justice....
Robert Steinberg
> >And very good advice about serial # records.
>
> True, this is one lesson we can all learn from this.
Would another be - not taking legal advice offered on a sax newsgroup?
Perhaps posting this story to alt.lawyers would bring some fresh ideas.
RS
plonked, killfiled yet unperturbed
Grumps
>Would another be - not taking legal advice offered on a sax newsgroup?
I am a lawyer.
Robert Steinberg
> >Would another be - not taking legal advice offered on a sax newsgroup?
>
> I am a lawyer.
I gathered that after your last 2 postings which came in as mine went
out. It's the non-lawyers recommending a court action.
I presume that you are not representing Roger or giving him legal
advice. Is that incorrect?
Mark Bushaw
impotent. I am sure it is frustrating, and I am thankful that I've never
had a bad experience with SG (only good to great transactions so far!).
Not sure how I would handle this if it were my horn and I didn't have a
paper trail.... From standing outside the situation under discussion it
is easy to say 'put up or move on.'
It does get tiring to hear the same 3 (4?) cases over and over and over
here. Nothing get accomplished, nothing gets resolved.
Mark Bushaw
Steve Marshall
"Grumps" <grmpy...@aol.coma> wrote
> I agree that there should have been a better paper trail. In this case,
Roger
> trusted Goodson as he had used him for three of his other horns in the
past as
> documented in the SOTW postings where Roger recommended Goodson's
services.
Therein lies the problem. You trust people at your own risk.
> It's not about the money. It's not about court. It's
> about doing the right thing. Given the particulars of this case, this is
the
> only effective way to communicate Roger's claim where Goodson will see it.
Doing the right thing is not setting about to defame someone. That is an
action that could see you in court. When I say it is a matter for the courts
I mean for both sides. If Goodson is innocent then he should be taking you
to court for defamation.
>You want more evidence? Ask Goodson.
I haven't seen you provide any real evidence, only hearsay.
There are a number of things that may have happened. The courier could have
nicked the horn. IIRC this thing happened when Steve was away and/or ill and
he had his assistant take care of things. He could be responsible - or the
assistant that took over. Steve may have no knowledge of this.
I don't know. I really don't. But from what you've said, you can't be sure
either.
I get odd claims occasionally. A music shop sent me a flute with some
problems and horribly worn silver plate. I gave a quote which they didn't
want to pay so the flute was sent back. The customer complained about the
finish and tried to claim I had done something to the flute. It was
something that had happened over time - I couldn't have damaged the flute
like that in the time I had it - but they thought they'd try it on.
Sometimes you get customers on medicine or with a disease that makes them
confused and they have made a mistake but aren't even aware of it. When
you're in business you come across all kinds of things like this.
Another time the same shop sent a flute for a service. They said there was a
problem and sent it back. Different flute ! Exactly the same model, case etc
but this had a different serial number. It was also dusty etc and certainly
no the one I'd just cleaned. The shop was trying it on. In that case I could
prove my case because I had a record of the serial number and evidence of
the instrument condition.
Every repairer gets customers like that. You need to show that this isn't
some elaborate scheme to try and get money or a sax off Goodson. If you
don't have the relevant evidence you can't make a legitimate claim even if
Steve Goodson did nick the instrument. Making illegitimate claims is not
the answer !
Steve M
Hornsmasher
specific description on anything you ship. You can also add a specific
description in the "notes" section of a UPS pickup order, and I imagine with
other carriers. If you don't do this, you have no idea what the specific
contents of a package are. We haven't done this in the past, but now do so.
--
The more you run over a possum, the flatter it gets!
Visit my website www.saxgourmet.com
Visit my Forum http://saxgourmet.myforums.net/
Sax Repair Group
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/
Grumps
>Doing the right thing is not setting about to defame someone.
As an attorney, I am well aware of what constitutes defamation. Nothing I've
done on this newsgroup amounts to same.
>I haven't seen you provide any real evidence, only hearsay.
I admit I'm speaking for Roger. If he would appear here and state his case,
then it would not be hearsay. What more would you want then?
>There are a number of things that may have happened.
Yes, but guessing isn't going to help. I've presented the facts as reported by
Roger. I've shown links to background information posted well over a year ago
bolstering Roger's credibility. I would hope you'd rather hear a detailed
explanation from Goodson than his blanket denial and taunting (his "put up or
shut up" responses). In the very least, wouldn't it be nice if Goodson could
state whether or not the horn he sent back to Roger was a 238K horn, or one in
the 180K range; or if he does not know, then to simply state that. If these
allegations were made against you, wouldn't you do that? Do you ignore phone
calls and e-mails from clients? Roger tried to work this out peacefully and
privately. You keep mentioning it's a matter for the courts, but you really
aren't aware of the intricacies and expenses involved in maintaining such an
action as balanced against the potential recovery.
>When
>you're in business you come across all kinds of things like this.
Yes, and what makes the better business person is how they handle it.
>You need to show that this isn't
>some elaborate scheme to try and get money or a sax off Goodson.
An elaborate scheme would be up to the defense to show. Roger has set forth
his claim. He had a 238K soprano and can prove it. Now he has a 180K soprano
and can prove that. In between, Goodson had his horn, and he can prove that
too. Did you even read Roger's posts from SOTW?
>Making illegitimate claims is not
>the answer !
Figuratively speaking, I think the jury is still out on whether or not this
claim is legitimate.
Grumps
> If you don't do this, you have no idea what the specific
>contents of a package are. We haven't done this in the past, but now do so.
>
Did you keep a record of the serial number of Roger's horn? If so, can you
tell us what it is? If you won't tell this newsgroup, will you e-mail Roger
and set forth your position in writing? You have his e-mail address. Is that
too much to ask?
Grumps
>It does get tiring to hear the same 3 (4?) cases over and over and over
>here. Nothing get accomplished, nothing gets resolved.
Brian had reported that his claim was resolved in his favor. A lot of folks on
the forums spoke out and offered him advice on how to handle the situation,
which dragged on for months. Apparently, things were accomplished and were
resolved. I'm hoping that the people who read this and know Roger and are also
friends with Goodson will work behind the scenes to see what they can do. If a
mistake was made, an admission of such and some good will might go a long way
in putting this one to rest. Roger is a gentleman, and I believe has a
forgiving nature.
Grumps
>I presume that you are not representing Roger or giving him legal
>advice. Is that incorrect?
I came to know Roger through the old SOTW forum, surprisingly enough, when he
recommended that I consider Goodson for an intonation problem I was having with
an old Conn baritone sax (as I was put off by the terms of service, I didn't
send the bari down south). After that, I had recommended a local tech to him
for a clarinet overhaul, as we both reside in Maryland. Roger knows most of
the Maryland SOTW'ers from their gatherings, and now, so do I. It's a great
group of folks. With that said, I have not been retained by Roger as his legal
counsel in this matter. I posted his response to Goodson's denial of his claim
as a favor to him as he had a problem signing up with google to post here and
other methods of communicating with Goodson were ineffective.
Robbie and Laura Reynolds
Robert Steinberg wrote:
>
> Grumps <grmpy...@aol.coma> wrote:
>
> > >Would another be - not taking legal advice offered on a sax newsgroup?
> >
> > I am a lawyer.
>
> I gathered that after your last 2 postings which came in as mine went
> out. It's the non-lawyers recommending a court action.
I am not a lawyer, and I recommended that IF THERE IS AN ACTIONABLE
CASE, the thing to do is to take legal action. If not, then consider it
a lesson learned. I think it's pretty obvious that there is not enough
evidence to recover damages, because you can't prove that something has
been stolen until the thing is found in the wrong person's hands.
Besides, if this were an actionable case it would have been in court
already a long time ago. Common sense tells us what really happened to
the saxophone, but you can't make it stick because of a lack of hard
evidence. Think about it this way. Even if somebody ran up and stole
your saxophone out of your hands and you caught the person half an hour
later, you still wouldn't have a case if you couldn't find the
saxophone. The court may or may not be inclined to believe that
anything was missing in the first place.
The point of the court action or no court action question is that if you
can prove something you should do it. But if you can't then all that
remains is for you to beat the subject to death several times over in an
open forum where nothing is to be gained. I appreciate the warnings, as
I am sure that IF the merchant in question is dishonest or negligent and
IF a crime has been committed, then the rest of us are unlikely to fall
into the same trap. If nothing else, you have helped us all to remember
to pay with credit cards, buy insurance on expensive items, take
photographs, and document the contents of packages. Thank you very much
for that. I think that your work is done for now. Let us know of any
new developments. I hope Roger gets his sax back somehow. Maybe some
other customer will have an attack of conscience and send it back in the
near future.
P.S. Now I know why you have been so upset. I would be, too.
Robbie and Laura Reynolds
> I came to know Roger through the old SOTW forum, surprisingly enough, when he
> recommended that I consider Goodson for an intonation problem I was having with
> an old Conn baritone sax (as I was put off by the terms of service, I didn't
> send the bari down south).
What is your intonation problem? I have an old Conn bari, and it's
mostly in tune except that the A is off. It needs new pads, so that may
be part of the problem. It seems kind of weird. Unlike other
intonation problems I've run into...
Robbie and Laura Reynolds
Grumps wrote:
>
> >From: Mark Bushaw MBu...@aol.com
>
> >It does get tiring to hear the same 3 (4?) cases over and over and over
> >here. Nothing get accomplished, nothing gets resolved.
>
> Brian had reported that his claim was resolved in his favor. A lot of folks on
> the forums spoke out and offered him advice on how to handle the situation,
> which dragged on for months. Apparently, things were accomplished and were
> resolved. I'm hoping that the people who read this and know Roger and are also
> friends with Goodson will work behind the scenes to see what they can do.
That's a good point. Perhaps you could post the exact serial number.
If I ever see it turn up in a shop or on an ebay auction, I'll let you
know. In fact, you may have already thought of this, but it wouldn't be
a bad idea to run ebay searches for Buescher sopranos twice a week just
to see if it shows up.
P. Tung
octave vents - both the heights the pads vent, and the diameter of the
vents. I can't remember which vent in particular it is, but one of them can
be improved with a change in the diameter, especially when there is a hiss
on a note - I think it is actually the A, so that would make it the upper
pip vent.
This is touchy stuff to fuss with, though. There are some other threads
around in archives on questions like this, particularly regarding Selmer
(tenor) neck octave pips.
"Robbie and Laura Reynolds" <rob...@kcnet.com> wrote in message
news:4109853D...@kcnet.com...
Robbie and Laura Reynolds
thing and see how much it improves. I inherited this horn from my
wife's grandfather last year, and although a lot of the corks are
missing and it clanks all the time, and the key heights are not
consistent, and the pads are terrible, it's my favorite sax to play.
Incidentally, it's the middle A that sounds funny, without any octave
vents. It's easily brought into tune with the easy-bending Runyon
mouthpiece, though...
Steve Marshall
"Grumps" <grmpy...@aol.coma> wrote
> >From: "Steve Marshall" s...@atmosBlockA.plus.com
>
> >Doing the right thing is not setting about to defame someone.
>
> As an attorney, I am well aware of what constitutes defamation. Nothing
I've
> done on this newsgroup amounts to same.
That rather depends on what the truth of the matter is. You are making
unproven allegations. You have virtually said that your intent is to use the
newsgroup to defame Goodson. It would seem to be your only option as you
have no evidence.
> >I haven't seen you provide any real evidence, only hearsay.
>
> I admit I'm speaking for Roger. If he would appear here and state his
case,
> then it would not be hearsay. What more would you want then?
I want the matter to be dealt with properly. It is unlikely to be resolved
here. If there was something I could do to help I'd try, but what can
anyone here do to help ?
>
> >There are a number of things that may have happened.
>
> Yes, but guessing isn't going to help.
The guesses just serve to show that we don't know what happened and you
can't show what did actually happen without proper evidence.
> An elaborate scheme would be up to the defense to show. Roger has set
forth
> his claim. He had a 238K soprano and can prove it. Now he has a 180K
soprano
> and can prove that. In between, Goodson had his horn, and he can prove
that
> too. Did you even read Roger's posts from SOTW?
No, because it is pointless. What someone says in a newsgroup is irrelevant.
Roger may have had a horn. He needs to show that that is the horn that was
sent by him and that the same horn was recieved by Steve Goodson. That would
seem to be what you are missing.
> Figuratively speaking, I think the jury is still out on whether or not
this
> claim is legitimate.
Then you can not claim it to be fact.
As it isn't established how can anyone accept what you say ? We can't just
take your word for it.
I have every sympathy if this story is true. I just have no means of
determining if it is true from a story on the internet.
Steve M
Steve Marshall
"Grumps" <grmpy...@aol.coma> wrote
>
> I am a lawyer.
If this is true then what did you learn at law school about 'evidence' ?
What did they tell you to do in a case where someone needs to go to court
but they are lacking in evidence ? Take the case would you ? I sure as hell
wouldn't !!!
Steve M
Wdflannery
>have no evidence.
Say what? I am skeptical.... but it does seem there is considerable
'evidence'.
Who are you to pronounce that there is 'no evidence'?
Steve Marshall
"Wdflannery" <wdfla...@aol.com> wrote
> >It would seem to be your only option as you
> >have no evidence.
>
> Say what? I am skeptical.... but it does seem there is considerable
> 'evidence'.
>
Where ? Seen a receipt or anything of any substance ? No. It's all hearsay
and stories.
> Who are you to pronounce that there is 'no evidence'?
That's a good point really because it's got bugger all to do with me and
shouldn't be posted here. Post it here and I'm going have an opinion.
Steve M
Grumps
>What did they tell you to do in a case where someone needs to go to court
>but they are lacking in evidence ? Take the case would you ? I sure as hell
>wouldn't !!!
>
You've been watching too much TV, where things are neatly wrapped up with the
lost document appearing at the last minute and the defendant (or accuser)
breaking down on the stand. Real life doesn't work that way. There are many
different types of evidence; from testimony to documents. Each judged on their
own merit. You can present a claim with only testimony, and win. I don't say
this because I went to law school. I say this because I am an experienced
trial attorney.
Grumps
>What is your intonation problem? I have an old Conn bari, and it's
>mostly in tune except that the A is off.
Mine is an old New Wonder. I had her fixed up by a local tech and with the
right mouthpiece (an old Woodwind Co. K6), intonation is no longer a problem.
Cost for the repairs: $80. Much better than a trip down south.
Grumps
>Perhaps you could post the exact serial number.
>If I ever see it turn up in a shop or on an ebay auction, I'll let you
>know.
238167
Thanks Robbie.
Grumps
>You have virtually said that your intent is to use the
>newsgroup to defame Goodson.
Never. Truth is an absolute defense. Reread my posts. Now you are concluding
that what I am saying is false. Like it or not you're taking a stand, which is
your right, but rest assured, I'm not going to defame anybody here.
>The guesses just serve to show that we don't know what happened and you
>can't show what did actually happen without proper evidence.
>
Not gonna lecture you on evidence again.
>Did you even read Roger's posts from SOTW?
>
>No, because it is pointless.
No, because you are on your way to minionhood. That much is becoming clearer.
Technically, you are ignoring evidence, yet making an argument nonetheless.
Not such a strong stand after all.
>Then you can not claim it to be fact.
>As it isn't established how can anyone accept what you say ? We can't just
>take your word for it.
I am setting forth Roger's case. You don't have to believe it.
Grumps
> Post it here and I'm going have an opinion.
Which is appreciated and an open discussion allows for the issues to be
explored much deeper.
Grumps
> If nothing else, you have helped us all to remember
>to pay with credit cards, buy insurance on expensive items, take
>photographs, and document the contents of packages. Thank you very much
>for that.
That I appreciate. As for court action, you have to keep in mind the
difference in the burdon of proof for civil and criminal cases. Criminal cases
are harder because the burdon of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and to a
moral certainty. If that were the standard here, then there might be problems.
However, for civil cases the plaintiff only has to show that his version of
the incident in question is more likely than not. This is a very important
distinction, and I hope helpful.
P. Tung
If it's the middle A, the obvious suspects are the height of the G pad (i.e.
how much it vents the G tonehole) and the G# seal. There are other possible
causes, but those are the first suspects.
"Robbie and Laura Reynolds" <rob...@kcnet.com> wrote in message
news:4109AC50...@kcnet.com...
Peter Willis
>the incident in question is more likely than not. This is a very important
>distinction, and I hope helpful.
Just curious if the plaintiff would have to show some form of concrete proof
that say, "sax x" was sent to the defendant and not "sax y" (i.e. a FedEx tag
with serial x) or if it a court appearance would basically just be "I used to
have sax x and now I have sax y" and it's one party's word against the other's
as to how that switch happened - each supporting their argument with their own
non-conclusive evidence.
I'm not saying anyone does or doesn't have proof of anything and I'm not saying
anything did or didn't happen, I'm just asking a question about the legal
system.
Robert Steinberg
> I say this because I am an experienced trial attorney.
Then would you please spell burden correctly.
Robbie and Laura Reynolds
Steve Marshall
"Grumps" <grmpy...@aol.coma> wrote
> Not gonna lecture you on evidence again.
You haven't provided evidence. If you had it and you are a lawyer you could
help Roger go to court. You are not doing that. You have admitted you don't
have evidence by saying Roger trusted Goodson/ Fed Ex. My guess is that you
don't have a case that you would win in court - though that does not mean
what you say is not true.
I'm trying very hard to be impartial. I am pointing out that you don't
appear to have relevant documentation. Alos I find it unusual that in a
country that seemingly sues each other for everything you choose to post
messages on the internet instead of going to court. Did they teach you this
at law school ? I think not.
> No, because you are on your way to minionhood. That much is becoming
clearer.
> Technically, you are ignoring evidence, yet making an argument
nonetheless.
> Not such a strong stand after all.
Let's be clear. Newsgroup chat does not constitute evidence.
My view is that if you could prove your case you would do so in court. I am
not taking sides or saying who is right or wrong. I am saying you don't
appear to have enough to prove what has occurred. All you've offered is what
someone said somewhere.
> I am setting forth Roger's case. You don't have to believe it.
I am willing to believe you. I have no reason to disbelieve you. I am saying
that you don't have sufficient to PROVE it. If you have take it to a judge.
Steve M
Steve Marshall
"Grumps" <grmpy...@aol.coma> wrote
>
> You've been watching too much TV, where things are neatly wrapped up with
the
> lost document appearing at the last minute and the defendant (or accuser)
> breaking down on the stand. Real life doesn't work that way. There are
many
> different types of evidence; from testimony to documents. Each judged on
their
> own merit. You can present a claim with only testimony, and win. I don't
say
> this because I went to law school. I say this because I am an experienced
> trial attorney.
Testimony is useful. Without anything to back it up it is just your word
against his. I you have anything of any worth take it to court. If what you
say is true then you should be presenting your evidence where it matters.
Steve M
Wdflannery
>and stories.
The only thing I've 'seen' is my computer screen .... but if X says he send
horn 12345 and his ownership of this horn is corroborated by Y who sold him the
horn, .... etc. .... this is all evidence and not hearsay. "Hearsay" is ....
"I heard someone say .... "
An eyewitness to a crime doesn't have to have a 'receipt'.
If you want to operate on the assumption "Grumps is making all this up" ...then
you'd have a point .... but I don't think that is where the argument is .....
Grumps
>Testimony is useful. Without anything to back it up it is just your word
>against his.
Testimony is vital. And as often is the case, turns on credibility. Since you
didn't review the documentation of Roger's situation from his old posts at SOTW
(done prior to any problems), you are missing some key evidence as to the issue
of credibility.
>you should be presenting your evidence where it matters.
>
I am presenting this where it matters; right here. This community should
protect its own where such protection is merited. At the very least, we're all
going to be more careful should we have to ship a horn across the country.
Grumps
>Let's be clear. Newsgroup chat does not constitute evidence.
I strongly disagree. It is a record of testimony; once again, which you
ignore. By your own admission, you didn't read Roger's own history and Gayles
corroboration of same.
>My view is that if you could prove your case you would do so in court.
That is a fallacy. There are many reasons to go to court and many more not
too; some of which I posted, which you also ignore given your statement above.
>All you've offered is what
>someone said somewhere.
If you're held to that, then how do you know your own name? Someone told you
that, didn't they? How can you be sure you are who you think you are?
Robert Steinberg
> I am setting forth Roger's case.
Cause of action, please??
> Since you didn't review the documentation of Roger's situation from his
> old posts at SOTW (done prior to any problems), you are missing some key
> evidence as to the issue of credibility.
I didn't review it either. I am missing some key elements. As to
credibility, I am having difficulty believing what you are setting
forth. We don't know who you are and whether you are an attorney or not.
We don't know much about Roger other than what you have told us
here....at least those of us who have not met Roger from SOTW in
Maryland. Please post the missing documentation perhaps on some web
site.
I agree with SG on the one point regarding anonymous posting. Acceptable
in a Kenny G bashing, not acceptable when dealing with a real person
who, presuming he is innocent, has had his reputation compromised. In
that regard you already have won.
I think we need to know who you are.
Grumps
>system.
The plaintiff has the BURDEN (thanks Robert) of proof. After the plaintiff
closes his or her case, the defense will make a motion for judgment for
insufficiency of the evidence. What the plaintiff presented is looked at in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff and cases are rarely dismissed at
that point given that standard. Hypothetically, given Roger's proof of
ownership of the 238K horn, his shipment receipts, his possession of the 180K
horn and the testimony he would offer, that would be plenty of evidence to
withstand a defense motion. Then the defense would present its case. When
that's complete, if it's a tie, the defendant wins in a civil matter. In a
bench trial, the judge weighs the credibility of the witnesses, and can choose
a side even when it's one party's word over another's. In a jury trial, it's
up to the jury to decide the issue of credibility. Another thing to remember
is the function of discovery in a civil matter (i.e., interrogatories,
depositions, etc.). Because of that, there are very few surprises at trial and
much more evidence can be gathered.
Grumps
>I think we need to know who you are.
There's plenty of folks here who know who I am, including Goodson. It's not
that hard to find out. Just e-mail me.
Hornsmasher
But then we only get what you say. How about a link to the Bar
Association so we can be sure you are telling us the truth?
Hornsmasher
But then we only get what you say. How about a link to the Bar
Association so we can be sure you are telling us the truth?
On 30 Jul 2004 18:46:17 GMT, grmpy...@aol.coma (Grumps) wrote:
Steve Marshall
"Grumps" <grmpy...@aol.coma> wrote
> If you're held to that, then how do you know your own name? Someone told
you
> that, didn't they? How can you be sure you are who you think you are?
I have documentary evidence to prove it. People may think they know what
their name is or who their father is but they can be shocked to discover the
truth when they see it in black and white.
Documentary evidence is rather important. I am surprised you think
otherwise.
Steve M
Steve Marshall
"Wdflannery" <wdfla...@aol.com> wrote
> If you want to operate on the assumption "Grumps is making all this up"
...then
> you'd have a point .... but I don't think that is where the argument is
.....
I'm not saying Grumps is making it up. Please pay attention ! I'm saying it
is possible he is making it up. It is possible that Fed Ex or someone else
is responsible. We shouldn't just accept what is said at face value.
I have said more than once that I don't know what happened. I am saying
that for him to make a claim he should have documentary evidence.
If you go to a shop and buy something that doesn't work they ask for a
receipt. If you don't have it, you are up **** creek without a paddle. You
don't expect a shop to take you word for it.
Steve M
Grumps
>How about a link to the Bar
>Association so we can be sure you are telling us the truth?
Membership in the state bar association is not mandatory. However, I belong
anyway. Since you know I'm an attorney, I gather your purpose is to have me
post my name, address, etc. Should any of the newsgroup regulars wish to have
that information, they are welcome to e-mail me. I don't come here to practice
law. I'm a saxophonist who happens to be an attorney.
Grumps
>I have documentary evidence to prove it.
Yes, but that document only represents what somebody told somebody.
I'm not saying documentary evidence is unimportant, it's just not the only type
of evidence. Goodson should have provided Roger with a written receipt for his
horn including the serial number, or Roger should have demanded one. With
that, I agree, and it's a lesson learned by all of us. Regardless, there may
not be the best evidence in this case, but it's evidence nonetheless.
ansermetniac
>I don't come here to practice
>law.
Coulda fooled me. I really hope that Steve is right and you are not
an attorney. Your opnion of what is and what is not evidence is
frightening.
I think it is time that you show some real evidence or STFU.
Everything you have presented so far is hearsay, incliding your
license to practice law.
You have done a pretty good job of defaming Steve and his business.
If it is true more power to you, So far we have absolutely NO reason
to believe it is true. Why don't you give us one
I make a motion to dismiss the case against Steve Goodson for lack of
evidence.
Let's move on to something the group likes and enjoys--bashing Tim
Price or successful design and manufacturing engineers
Abbedd
______________
E.A.F.E.
Grumps
>Everything you have presented so far is hearsay, incliding your
>license to practice law.
Not true. Roger is here now and has backed up my posting on his behalf. It is
now first person, non hearsay. There is a major difference in practicing law
and explaining law. I do not practice law here.
>You have done a pretty good job of defaming Steve and his business.
>If it is true more power to you,
I don't think you know what defamation is, nor the defenses thereto. No
matter, you don't even know the difference between the sound of a tenor or an
alto saxophone, so your lack of expertise is wide spread.
>Your opnion of what is and what is not evidence is
>frightening.
I actually find you frightening, by your very own posts here. And it's about
time I ignored you.
<plonk>
ansermetniac
>so your lack of expertise is wide spread.
Fuck you oh jealous and ignorant one
Abebdd
______________
E.A.F.E.
Wdflannery
I didn't think you were.... but then your statement that there is no evidence
doesn't make sense, as Grumps has described considerable evidence.
>I'm saying it is possible he is making it up.
Anything is possible .... it's possible that you are SG using an alias .... and
the way things have been going lately I wouldn't be too surprised .....
...but, arguing that anything is possible and disregarding clear evidence ....
seems peculiar to me .....
>If you go to a shop and buy something that doesn't work they ask for a
>receipt. If you don't have it, you are up **** creek without a paddle. You
>don't expect a shop to take you word for it.
>
Well, I would expect some sort of accounting on the store's part ..... a
description of how they keep track of what's what .... and any pertinant (sp?)
documentation they might have .....
It's pretty clear what the 'plaintiffs' evidence is, so, now its time to hear
the defendant's side.... then we can attempt to pronounce judgement ......
So far I've only heard the plaintiff's side .... and a sort of 'shoot the
messenger' counterattack.....
For example .... do they track serial #'s in the shop? Is there a paper trail
for the horn in question? It's no crime if there isn't, but if there is it
would be strong evidence for the store's side .... or maybe they just throw all
the horns they get in a big pile ...... I mean really ..... I have no idea.....
Judge WD is ready to hear the evidence!
Robbie and Laura Reynolds
ansermetniac wrote:
> Let's move on to something the group likes and enjoys--bashing Tim
> Price or successful design and manufacturing engineers
>
> Abbedd
Is this a comedy group now?
ansermetniac
I might as well be. It is NOT a Saxophone group. It is a bash Steve
Goodson group. When they are done with him,, they will bash someone
else
Abbed
______________
E.A.F.E.
Roger Aldridge
I came across this thread just now and I'm completely blown way by how
much energy is going into this issue. In particular, since nothing
productive is coming from it.
I suggest that we all take a time out and that Steve Goodson and I do
the following:
1. Steve, since I'm in the role of your customer regarding my soprano
saxophone, you need to be in direct contact with me via my
nancy...@earthlink.net email address. We're both grown men and we
should be able to discuss this problem in a logical, civil manner,
offline between ourselves and work together to figure out what
happened and what we need to do about it.
2. I'll be on vacation from July 31 to August 7. While I'm away from
my computer I ask that you (SG) look through your repair shop records
to find the serial number of the Buescher soprano you received from
me. When you have the serial number please send it to me at my email
address. I'll then be able to tell you whether it was the serial
number of either the soprano I sent you or the soprano that I received
from you. I believe that this will be the most direct way to cut
through all of the c**p flying around and get to a basis in reality.
3. Based upon your answer about the serial number we'll then figure
out our next step together offline...communicating directly with one
another.
I trust that we can work this out together in a step-by-step manner.
Clearly, a SERIOUS DISCONNECT took place with this soprano. I'm not
going to jump to conclusions and speculate about what happened.
Frankly, I don't know what happened. It's my feeling that all of this
wild speculation that's running amuk on these threads -- with punch
and counter-punch -- serves no constructive purpose. So, let's work
together to see if we can figure out what really happened.
Steve, please understand that I am NOT making up my story about the
soprano. I am not lying. Further, I am not seeking to cause you or
anyone else harm. All I'm looking for is justice.
Best Wishes, Roger Aldridge
ansermetniac
Aldridge) wrote:
>Steve and Everyone,
Very good. Now call off your attack dog.
Abbedd
______________
E.A.F.E.
Hornsmasher
of anything that is yours. You can also believe me when I tell you that
having Grumps ( Michael J. Hochman) conveying messages on your behalf has
made up my mind on this matter.
--
The more you run over a possum, the flatter it gets!
Visit my website www.saxgourmet.com
Visit my Forum http://saxgourmet.myforums.net/
Sax Repair Group
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/
ansermetniac
<ste...@saxgourmet.com> wrote:
>having Grumps ( Michael J. Hochman) conveying messages on your behalf has
>made up my mind on this matter.
Which way :-)
Abbedd
______________
E.A.F.E.
BIG DADDY
BD
"Hornsmasher" <ste...@saxgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:gBBOc.43$GJ3...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
RC
deposition, it becomes evidence.
"Wdflannery" <wdfla...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040730115418...@mb-m03.aol.com...