Ron Link, the fool
serebel
diatribes here?
Ironically none of his garbage is posted on SE, they won't have him
anymore. I have to admit, his lunacy is funny. It's been very
entertaining lately. The siccing of your imaginary lawyer on the world
is also pretty good.
Best of luck on your imaginary legal strategy, you are 'de mann.
Ragnar
that a board of directors voted someone out?
Glenn - USAEyes.org
you.
As always: Sue me or keep your meritless accusations to yourself, Ron
Link.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
Ragnar
result of too much Taco Bell.
Seems like you don't have a friend left in the world. Not even your 2
fellow Axis of Evil members stick up for you. Doesn't it strike you
as odd that absolutely nobody is sticking up for you? When you use
and abuse everyone you meet, they don't like that. Apparently, even
your own silly organization wants nothing to do with you. Ding Ding!!
Are you getting the message?
The only thing you have a chance of winning is a Joe Pesci look-a-like
contest (sorry Joe!)
You could fill 3 dumpsters with paper if you were to print out all the
negative comments made about you.
According to you... everyone is a liar. Just who is telling the truth
according to you?
On 2 Dec 2005 17:23:04 -0800, lin...@gmail.com wrote:
>Ah serebel, the faceless, gutless, nameless, irritant. I have no reason
>to post on SE. The lies of Hagele and Roiland originated here and can
>end here in this newsgroup. I can assure you that neither my lawyer or
>his legal strategy is imaginary. It is brilliant as Hagele and Roiland
>will continue to discover. As for you, you're hardly worth another
>keystroke so I bid you adieu. It's rather pathetic that you spend so
>much of your time hiding and posting behind a made-up name in this
>newsgroup. It tells the world a lot about your lack of fortitude,
>cowardice, and dare I say, mental instability. Have you considered
>getting a life or at least a hobby that doesn't involve spending so
>much of your discretionary time affirming what must be an awfully
>miserable existence? I actually feel sorry for you that this is how you
>attempt to connect with people.
Sandy
look at some of your posts and was willing to file suit on my behalf.
Ron is not the only victim of your libelous postings, but he has more
compelling reasons to force you to stop. I suggest that you retract
the falsehoods you have published and stop babbling about things of
which you have limited or false information. You may have thought it
was a funny game while you hid behind anonymity, but you've been outed
and you need to consider the consequences of your actions.
As far as I am concerned, if you want to continue to post that I
altered the images of the settlement checks I received from my doctors'
insurance companies, and inaccurately re-tell the story of what I went
through to suit your own purposes, be a fool and take your chances. I
don't need to lie about what happened to me, because the truth is
horrific as it stands. If a libel lawsuit is filed against you, I'm
sure the attorney could add me as a plaintiff, which would only serve
to make Ron's case against you stronger.
Sandy
doesn't need to be further validated with the libel you have committed
against me.
Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com
civil torts and criminal acts. Furthermore, the fact that Ron is now
claiming that Christopher Roiland has committed "criminal acts" is
undercut by the fact that Ron Link previously (and falsely) claimed
that I had committed "criminal acts".
Yes, Christopher Roiland (aka "Ragnar") is obnoxious, tells lies, and
is a social misfit. However, that does not make him a "criminal".
When Ron Link claims that Christopher is a "criminal", he really is
overplaying his hand.
Ragnar
What reputation do you have to defend? I know of no one who isn't
disgusted with you. You are productive? Wonderful, doing what? Now
you can stop being a parasite on society by collecting those mental
disability checks.
You can put all the therefore, hence, and hithertos you want in a
message, you aren't fooling anyone.
No lawyer would be foolish enough to waste their time and risk their
reputation by dirtying themselves in an association with you.
Near the end of this post, you mention that your little problem can
end in this newsgroup. Really? It did end.. long ago. Nobody could
care less about you. The only reason it is being discussed now is
because YOU are dredging up 3 year old comments.
On 3 Dec 2005 09:39:03 -0800, lin...@gmail.com wrote:
>You just don't get it. There is no need to get anyone else involved
>because YOU'RE the one who broke the law. Your lack of understanding of
>how the law works is astounding. This isn't a popularity context. You
>committed an intentional tort. I've moved on. I have a productive and
>happy life. However, my reputation is important to me and any work I do
>now and in the future, hence you will be held accountable for your
>malicious and obsessive libel. With the help of doctors, patients, I
>accomplished a world of good with SE. You can't change that fact. What
>can be rectified are your criminal acts. Now do you get it?
Ragnar
come across anyone who is as much of a complete liar as you.
Go back to your cauldron and go cook up some more evil.
You and Ron are victims of YOURSELVES.
Ragnar
I have found a lawyer for you... former Attorney General Ramsey Clark.
He is busy right now defending Sadaam Hussein though.
You may have sent a letter, however it didn't come to me. But that is
another story. I leave you to your assumptions.
YOU are the one that keeps dredging up you own name. Nobody else
cares or could be bothered posting about you.
On 3 Dec 2005 12:01:53 -0800, lin...@gmail.com wrote:
>Roiland - you were sent a certified letter by my attorney that you
>refused to sign for. That was putting you on notice.
>
>You can prattle on all your perceptions about me or what others thinks
>about me but that doesn't change the fact that you broke the law. My
>lawyer and I have a strategy that involves several options. I could
>care less if you care about me or if anyone else does in the newgroup.
>YOU started the illegal acts in this newgroup, so if anyone is
>responsible it's you.
>
>You just committed another act of libel - I am not collecting mental
>disability checks or disability checks for anything else. Retract it
>now or it simply gets added to the list. You really don't understand
>that you have and continue to break the law. The comments started two
>and half years ago and continue to this day. You keep extending the
>statute of limitations. You have such a warped sense of your importance
>that you don't get it, but I guarantee you, you eventually will.
Ragnar
understand your association with Dr. Rothman, nor do I understand why
you would defend LVI for their world record of over 24 eye infections
in one day. On the videotaped interview with YOU... you completely
let LVI and Rothman off the hook by saying that incidence of
infections is not unusual. Not unusual? My surgeon and Dr.
Updegraff who also appeared on that same news story have done a
combined 50,000+ procedures without 1 infection, and you call LVI's
24+ infections in one day not unusual? Who paid you off?
I doubt Brent would is too pleased with your handling of the LVI
matter. Brent tends not to like incompetent or inept physicians and
health care.. whether real or imagined.
Why Keller was sticking up for Rothman is peculiar also. Rothman is
the ONLY surgeon that Keiller has praised in this newsgroup and posted
his glowing resume here. Weird.
As for Dr. Rothman, I would not let that man shine my shoes, let alone
perform surgery on me. I wish I could take the credit for being fired
repeatedly, however, that was achieved by other people.
And as far as police go... in this area, the police are far worse than
the average citizen. They are incredibly corrupt, especially in
Tampa. They have amongst the highest incidence of collecting
disability and early retirement benefits due to faked injuries.
Furthermore, the requirements for a police officer here are a high
school education or GED and a 6 week training course. They can put
on their starched shirts with shiny badge and shiny shoes costume and
stuff it. People give the police way too much credit. And while on
that subject... the police around here now all have laptop computers
in their cruisers with built in DVD players. Why they need a dvd
player is odd.. And I have worked with the police for 2 years doing
computer support for them. I KNOW they are watching porno dvd's on
those laptops while on duty and sitting parked in their patrol cars.
Someone might want to look into that. A good police officer might
want to pursue an investigation into that... however any police
officer who goes against his "brothers" is going to have hell to pay
because most of the police are corrupt in one way or another, and they
protect each other with a "good ol' boys" code.
If someone threatened you, it wasn't me. Someone beat your head so
badly you have permanent brain damage. I suppose that was my fault
also?
And why do you keep dredging this crap up? Nobody cares to read it.
This group is already dead as a doornail. Only 1 of the last 320
messages is a person asking for LASIK information. Why don't you
just ZIP IT.
Considering the money issue you have with Brent, I am amazed that
Brent isn't more angry with you than he seems to be. You have been a
bigger enemy to Brent than TLC was. Ironically.. TLC and the surgeon
that worked on Brent is very similiar to the situation with LVI and
Rothman. These McLasik centers with surgeons who come and go and are
not working independent of the policies of the centers are trouble for
everyone.
On 3 Dec 2005 12:34:51 -0800, lin...@gmail.com wrote:
>Actually Brent, I certainly do do know the difference. Criminal
>threatening a crime when someone intentionally or knowingly with the
>purpose of terrorizing the person in reckless disregard for causing
>fear, terror or inconvenience "Terrorizing" generally means to cause
>alarm, fright, or dread in another person or inducing apprehension of
>violence from a hostile or threatening event, person or object. Roiland
>did this when he threatened to disrupt a Surgical Eyes meeting held
>under the auspices of Tampa Memorial Hospital on June 21, 2003. Tampa
>police made the on-duty shift aware of this threat and hospital
>security assigned personnel to the meeting room in case he showed up.
>On June 11, 2003 19:25:53 PST, Roiland posted again: "BTW, Dr.
>Rothman IS a menace to his field and he lasted only about 6 months even
>at LVI. I did this region a great service by getting rid of him. Next
>project is that meeting of loonies in Tampa on the 21st. These emails
>were read by Tampa Memorial Hospital administration, the police,
>hospital security, and a news reporter. They all concurred that Roiland
>was threatening. So, that's the criminal part. The libel is another
>type of tort. Lastly, if Roiland was trying to realize personal gain
>through his libel, it gets into another realm of criminal law. I
>haven't played any hands yet Brent. This is just beginning and it will
>end when justice and the truth are served. I hope that you are doing
>well.
Ragnar
liar, criminal, and law breaker here.
But who cares? Go away please.
On 3 Dec 2005 17:17:03 -0800, lin...@gmail.com wrote:
>I'm not going to zip anything until you retract your lies Christopher
>Roiland.
>
>Nobody paid me off. Once again, you lie.
>
>As far as your opinion about police officers, who cares? The important
>point is that you broke the law. You threatened to disrupt a Surgical
>Eyes meeting held under the auspices of Tampa Memorial Hospital on June
>21, 2003. Tampa police made the on-duty shift aware of your threat and
>hospital security assigned personnel to the meeting room in case you
>showed up. On June 11, 2003 19:25:53 PST, Roiland posted again: "I did
>this region a great service by getting rid of him. Next project is that
>meeting of loonies in Tampa on the 21st." Your next project to get rid
>of someone was a group of people at a hospital sanctioned meeting. I
>quoted you in context after you stated we were in for a "nasty
>surprise". These emails and others by you were read by Tampa Memorial
>Hospital administration, the police, hospital security, and a news
>reporter. They all concurred that you were making a criminal threat.
>
>You just don't get it Christopher Roiland, you will be held accountable
>for your illegal acts. Retract your other statements of libel about me
>or face the legal consequences.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
about you. Everything I have ever said about you to anybody is
accurate, I have legitimate reason to believe is accurate, or is
clearly my opinion. I have not defamed you.