Home | Home | Home | Home | Home
A note regarding subject of the locked thread [Archive] - CreedFeed Community

PDA

View Full Version : A note regarding subject of the locked thread


Frankie
09-14-2004, 12:36 AM
Just a FYI

JHMP is also suing ALL of the members of SevenDust for breach of contract as well.
Perhaps they were all in rehab together :rolleyes:

Or maybe JHMP is just a little upset that people have enough sense to leave them.

musiclover291
09-14-2004, 02:59 AM
Thanks for the information. It explains volumes.

aussiecreeder
09-14-2004, 07:34 AM
ummm thanks for the info and i didn't realise sevendust had left JHMP. however being sued because you have failed to pay a debt (when you can easily pay that debt) is not a good sign. there seems to be explantations for all of his actions but how can one explain away all of these things and not think that at least some of them are true?

Frankie
09-14-2004, 08:01 AM
Handmedown...nowhere is there a documented reason for the lawsuit against Scott given. (And if there is I ask again to see the link or the actual document) The document says breach of contract...period. Just as it says for the members of Sevendust.
Maybe both Scott and the members of Sevendust had had enough...and left JHMP before their contracts were up. Could be something as simple as that...and on Scott's part...certainly understandable.

Steve
09-14-2004, 09:04 AM
Your argument falls short here though because JHMP isn't suing Stapp. Jeff Cameron is. There's a difference (unless I'm mistaken)

RockGoddess
09-14-2004, 09:13 AM
My understanding is that while the case # etc is on file and searchable online through the Orange County Clerk of Courts, you would have to physically go to the courthouse, or have access to the local legal papers that carried the item, in order to read the entire complaint.

Kimvan
09-14-2004, 09:43 AM
If that's your understanding, did you do so, before posting what YOU started in that closed thread? Because if you didn't, and you don't have proof, it's all RUMOR and HERESAY and frankly, NOBODY'S BUSINESS!

The way you just HAD to "tip-toe in, drops this off, then tip-toes out" in your words, and the place you obtained such "information" speaks VOLUMES :rolleyes:

Some people need to really get a life if all they can do with their time is slander people just for the heck of it.

RockGoddess
09-14-2004, 10:21 AM
I had a response posted in an attempt to carry on a civil discussion, but why bother?

The suit is public record. You are more than welcome to search it at http://orangeclerk.onetgov.net/. . I believe the original poster read it in a legal paper. She did not have to search it. The paper comes to her office.

aussiecreeder
09-14-2004, 11:08 AM
this may well be smaller than it is made out to but where does one draw the line? we have fans who say they have had bad experiences, journalists continually launching into him, other bands and his ex-bandmates particulary brian for obvious reaons. when one hears all of this stuff how can one honestly pretend it is all swell?

Kimvan
09-14-2004, 11:16 AM
Good grief.....

No I did not search it online (before posting originally). No, I did not go to the courthouse. I don't live anywhere near Orlando. My response was to Frankie, not to you. All I did was drop off a post I had read at another board. I used the "tip toe" phrase because I've seen what can happen over here. And that's precisely what did happen; it became so virulent and volatile that Steve had to close the thread. It was, apparently, beyond the capablity of some to discuss this in a civil manner.

And I'm more than willing to discuss it; with civility. I posted a Stapp related item. This is a Stapp forum. I am baffled at the misdirected anger.

The suit is public record. You are more than welcome to search it at http://orangeclerk.onetgov.net/. If anyone needs help navigating, I'll do my best to help. I believe the original poster read it in a legal paper. She did not have to search it. The paper comes to her office.

Oh, and would you kindly point out where I slandered anyone?

Thank you for your time.

The reason I have a problem with you posting this is, although this is a Stapp forum and it's Stapp-related, why do you feel the need to post only the negative "news" about Scott, among all the positive things that are happening for him? If you knew you'd get that kind of reaction here, hence the "tip-toes in, drops this off" comment, why feel the need to post it anyway? It just seems that there are some people who get great joy out of dragging Scott's name through the mud, whether things are true or not. There's enough negativity in this world, can't people focus on the positive for once?

RockGoddess
09-14-2004, 11:21 AM
That's fine KimVan, I can understand where you are coming from.

But I also am not afraid to post the not so flattering stuff along with the good.

I still don't see where I slandered anyone. And I don't understand the backlash.....


(Also I edited my above post because I have lost interest in continuing the conversation. But seeing as you responded to my original post, I felt I should as least respond to yours)

Kimvan
09-14-2004, 11:21 AM
this may well be smaller than it is made out to but where does one draw the line? we have fans who say they have had bad experiences, journalists continually launching into him, other bands and his ex-bandmates particulary brian for obvious reaons. when one hears all of this stuff how can one honestly pretend it is all swell?

I don't expect anyone to pretend it is all swell. I just can't stand when people have a need to post ONLY negative stuff. Where are these posters when things are going well and Scott's got positive things going on, which lately, finally, things have been looking up for him, after an extremely difficult period in his life. So of course, certain ones feel the need to break him down again any way they can. Where's the compassion? Or did all the positive things Creed brought into our lives with their great lyrics and music about unity, love and peace die with their demise? That is my point.

Kimvan
09-14-2004, 11:27 AM
quote -But I also am not afraid to post the not so flattering stuff along with the good.

I still don't see where I slandered anyone. And I don't understand the backlash.....-end quote

Because even IF stories are true, some things are just better off left "unsaid", it goes along with the whole negativity thing I posted about earlier.

RockGoddess
09-14-2004, 11:35 AM
Or did all the positive things Creed brought into our lives with their great lyrics and music about unity, love and peace die with their demise?

O.k. - I guess I'll continue. LOL

Kim, I agree with you completely! Creed made an amazing impact on my life. I will always love the music. And I've made amazing friends because of Creed. I however, no longer think Stapp is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I used to! But not anymore.

And I don't respond only to the negative things about him. I have posted in threads where I thought he looked good, looked healthy etc. When I first heard his single I commented on how good it was to hear that voice again. I would be more than happy to be the heralder of good news where Scott is concerned. But it's hard pressed to find anything out there. There have been some conflicting interveiws (in my opinion they were conflicting) and a single. No concerts, no musical guest appearances, no meetings with fans, no charity work, no cd release...... nothing! Some parties in South Beach maybe but that's about it. I will have no problem posting when I think Scott has done something really wonderful.

Jooji_2
09-14-2004, 11:37 AM
I still don't see where I slandered anyone. And I don't understand the backlash.....

Sorry but I disagree. I have seen you post slanderous comments on other occasions. Accusations which you cannot prove. And you never once used the term "alleged". That is generally how you prevent getting yourself dragged into court.

RockGoddess
09-14-2004, 11:42 AM
We were talking about the lawsuit post Jooji. Stay on topic.

And posting about the existence of a lawsuit hardly constitues "slander" on the part of the poster.

RockGoddess
09-14-2004, 11:45 AM
At any rate, the suit is out there. It may not be news some want to hear, and it may not bode well for Stapp. But it's out there. And Steve has chosen to keep the post up. It's his board.

Kim, thank you for discussing this with me in a decent manner.

Kimvan
09-14-2004, 11:57 AM
At any rate, the suit is out there. It may not be news some want to hear, and it may not bode well for Stapp. But it's out there. And Steve has chosen to keep the post up. It's his board.

Kim, thank you for discussing this with me in a decent manner.

No prob. Alicia. Perhaps you don't hear more positive news about Stapp because of where you get your "news". I've been hearing many positive things he's been doing lately, including what could be called charity. Representing Lost Keyword Records, who put out the Passion of the Christ cd, Scott presented a donation check for a very large sum to the Malibu Boys and Girls Club in August. :) God Bless

RockGoddess
09-14-2004, 12:06 PM
You are right! I did see that. Was he presenting on behalf of the record company?

eta: never mind I reread your post and answered my own question. lol

musiclover291
09-14-2004, 12:42 PM
Charity work the list goes on and on in Miami Stapp attended several charity events over the past year. You need to check all your sources before you make a statement. Personally what is the big deal about getting sued people not just celebrities get sued all the time. So what if he went to rehab he talked about his problems openly in the press and as far as AB anytime there is break up there is going to be two sides to any story because that is how things are going to be seen by each individual party. Stapp has moved on the whole Creed experience and Weather Tour was a bad experience to all he acknowledge that fact in many recent interviews that he made poor decisions and takes the blame. The problems come in when you post the information and make claims that you can't back up and fail to mention that Seven Dust was also getting sued. That speaks volumes in it's self. Like I said before I wish Stapp the best in his life and career.

RockGoddess
09-14-2004, 12:46 PM
and make claims that you can't back up

The court documents are now available for viewing on Smoking Gun. The only thing I ever claimed was that he was being sued. And whaddya know, he is! Go read for yourself.

And with that I'm out.

Again Kim, thanks for the convo.

Steve
09-14-2004, 12:57 PM
And just to provide the link for those who do not wish to find it:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0914041_scott_stapp_1.html

Shadow
09-14-2004, 01:03 PM
My two cents on the whole subject.

First - IF it is true Scott was in rehab - good for him for wanting to get help. And good for him for knowing he needed it.

The lawsuit - If the reason is what was posted here (Scott not paying a debt) then Jeff Cameron must have written documentation from Scott saying that Scott used Jeff to cover his ass. Now, doesn't that sound silly. Would Scott actually put any of that in writing? I think not.

Sweet should keep her nose out of other peoples business.

I used the "tip toe" phrase because I've seen what can happen over here. And that's precisely what did happen; it became so virulent and volatile that Steve had to close the thread. It was, apparently, beyond the capablity of some to discuss this in a civil manner.
Is this a joke? Steve closed the thread because it was getting out of hand. He did the right thing by closing it. However, I don't think he should have deleted all the posts. But he's the boss. There is no control over on that other board - and you can't tell me that things are "civil" over there. (Oh, wait, you might be right - they are civil because everybody bashes Scott, and worships the Tremonti's :rolleyes: ). This topic was over 13 pages last night at that other place - totally ridiculous.

musiclover291
09-14-2004, 01:03 PM
Thank you Steve for providing that link. Like I said before what is the big deal $60,000 is nothing Stapp and it is understandable that he went to rehab because I'm sure he became dependent on pain killers. It is so sad to me that anything regarding Stapp is taken way out of control and turned so negative. Rock on Stapp.

sweetrelief
09-14-2004, 01:28 PM
"Sweet should keep her nose out of other peoples business."

why is reporting news that is public record other people's business but google searching and emailing anyone and everyone for information about an individual that is not public record considered not an invasion of that person's privacy?

The Lithium
09-14-2004, 01:49 PM
Hey Frankie - are you the same "Frankie" as the big poster on PBF? Is so you problably know me as a big problem!! :D

farmgirl
09-14-2004, 01:52 PM
"Sweet should keep her nose out of other peoples business."

why is reporting news that is public record other people's business but google searching and emailing anyone and everyone for information about an individual that is not public record considered not an invasion of that person's privacy?

It may all be an invasion of privacy but the difference is in this case...an employee of a lawyer firm has no right to post items that they see at their office on a public message board. It's un-ethical! Can you honestly say your boss would have no problem with it?

Shadow
09-14-2004, 02:01 PM
It may all be an invasion of privacy but the difference is in this case...an employee of a lawyer firm has no right to post items that they see at their office on a public message board. It's un-ethical! Can you honestly say your boss would have no problem with it?
Thank you for responding for me. I wouldn't have been as kind as you are. So, let's just leave it at that.

Sweet, Let's find out what the law firm thinks about you posting information on BB's. You never know who you are dealing with. And do you actually think that it's right to show up at the court house just so you can run and put all the news onto a BB? Something is just not right with that picture.

sweetrelief
09-14-2004, 02:09 PM
ya'all keep missing the point. I did not see the information because I work for a law firm. It is public record, pubished in the newspaper and in legal advisories that are available to anyone who wishes to read them. A lot of people do who are not involved in the legal community. None of the parties involved have anything to do or in any way represented by my law firm with regard to this action. The lawyers here would get a good laugh out of it to think anyone would think public record should not be accessible to the public . . they use that resource all the time. How much clearer can it be.

sweetrelief
09-14-2004, 02:13 PM
I think you have me mixed up with someone, I have never "shown up" at the Courthouse . . my job takes me to the Courthouse.

Steve
09-14-2004, 02:28 PM
Just to defend sweetrelief somemore... I think in the original thread that I later closed and locked everyone was getting some information wrong. People made the assumption that sweetrelief obtained the information because it was going through her lawfirm. That, as she has stated, is not the case. The lawsuit was filed in Orange County. Once a lawsuit is filed it is public record. Being public record doesn't necessarily mean that you can obtain it through the Internet. It all depends on how that county handles their legal system. For instance, in my county (Milwaukee, WI) you can view information on any lawsuit by going to the county's court website. You can search for a party's name and all suits will be shown. But back to sweetrelief... she only posted what she read in a legal newspaper. She did nothing that was illegal or unethical. Please do not attack anyone for posting news on the site, whether or not you agree with it. If it's negative and you dislike it, ignore it.

Shadow
09-14-2004, 02:30 PM
:rolleyes: you totally missed the point

I will hit it down to the Courthouse for the trial . . should be interesting

I will be able to keep everyone informed of the truth despite what Stapp may or may not say
So then, these comments aren't yours from someplace else. :rolleyes:

Respond as you will, but I'm done discussing this. Say what you will about Scott (and I know you've said plenty) - it doesn't change how his diehard fans feel about him.

Have a nice day.

sweetrelief
09-14-2004, 02:34 PM
oh my god :D that's a joke . . . thanks for the smile :D

Shadow
09-14-2004, 02:34 PM
Just to defend sweetrelief somemore... I think in the original thread that I later closed and locked everyone was getting some information wrong. People made the assumption that sweetrelief obtained the information because it was going through her lawfirm. That, as she has stated, is not the case. The lawsuit was filed in Orange County. Once a lawsuit is filed it is public record. Being public record doesn't necessarily mean that you can obtain it through the Internet. It all depends on how that county handles their legal system. For instance, in my county (Milwaukee, WI) you can view information on any lawsuit by going to the county's court website. You can search for a party's name and all suits will be shown. But back to sweetrelief... she only posted what she read in a legal newspaper. She did nothing that was illegal or unethical. Please do not attack anyone for posting news on the site, whether or not you agree with it. If it's negative and you dislike it, ignore it.
Steve - are you kidding me or what? You believe the fact that she read this in a newspaper. Now I have heard it all.

Steve
09-14-2004, 02:36 PM
I'm sorry Shadow but it's the truth.

Shadow
09-14-2004, 02:42 PM
I'm sorry Shadow but it's the truth.
Steve, I know things are public information. Probably too much is and shouldn't be. That was not my point. You are obviously not familiar with who she is. And I'm sorry to disagree with you of all people.

sweetrelief
09-14-2004, 02:43 PM
who am I . . I'm even interested to hear this one. And Thanks Steve for being so understanding.

Bridge of Clay
09-14-2004, 03:03 PM
I'm beginning to think all of this is becoming funny... it's not like Stapp couldn't afford it... and it's not like he couldn't settle it before it went to court... I'm not saying he's innocent nor that he's guilty... I just think it's odd.

And I second Steve's post on sweetrelief. Once it's public record, it's public! lol

If her decision to post it was right or not... it depends on her intentions were good or not. I dunno if I would post it if I were in the same situation, but I'd probably comment it with my close friends... And maybe it was better this way, with she posting it for us first... Imagine if we had seen it on Court TV to learn it. It would be worse, imo.

sweetrelief
09-14-2004, 03:13 PM
hey Thanks . . it's really not that big a deal but I still wonder who I am!

musiclover291
09-14-2004, 03:16 PM
I have to say in my opinion if her intentions were good she would have posted like you did Steve with a link so that we could read the information her first post and what was stated was slander in relation to the smoking gun link. I agree Bridge of Clay Stapp has $60,000 grand we don't know the facts I'm sure if he wanted to hide the matter he would have paid the money before it hit the press. The timing makes you really think because he just release "Relearn Love" and promoting his single and then Sept. 2nd he gets hit with a lawsuit.

Frankie
09-14-2004, 03:22 PM
Thank you...who ever posted the link...I can't remember after wading past some things...All I wanted to see was a document.
We allow nothing of this nature to be posted at PBF without documentation.
Again thank you.

Steve
09-14-2004, 03:42 PM
I have to say in my opinion if her intentions were good she would have posted like you did Steve with a link so that we could read the information her first post and what was stated was slander in relation to the smoking gun link. I agree Bridge of Clay Stapp has $60,000 grand we don't know the facts I'm sure if he wanted to hide the matter he would have paid the money before it hit the press. The timing makes you really think because he just release "Relearn Love" and promoting his single and then Sept. 2nd he gets hit with a lawsuit.

The information wasn't posted online until after she posted. (The Smoking Gun info)

sweetrelief
09-14-2004, 03:43 PM
I thought everyone would know the link because I thought everyone was computer savy as far as public records, as soon as someone asked for it, I posted it. But I am still wondering . . who am I :D

RockGoddess
09-14-2004, 05:02 PM
Sweet, welcome to my nightmare. LOL

I actually had someone tell me at another board that public records were no one's business.......

At any rate, I simply took something that was public record, regarding Scott Stapp, and (after accidentally posting in the wrong forum) had it posted in a Stapp forum. The problem arises because people can't handle anything with an even remotely negative connotation.

As I stated at another site: This lawsuit could be completely frivolous in which case the court will throw it out; Cameron could be full of shit and Stapp could walk away an exonerated man. But the fact remains that a lawsuit has been filed. Deal with it!

And I apologize if my post was misleading as to how Sweet originally gained the information. I made the assumption that people knew how the legal community gets it's info on the legal happenings in the area. That was wrong on my part, and I apologize.

musiclover291
09-14-2004, 05:17 PM
That was my point. Maybe I wasn't clear I believe the information should've been posted with a link so that we can read the information and after reading the link it is no big deal. He broke away from management and they sued for money that they feel he should pay maybe Stapp feels he shouldn't pay the bill and the person sued. People all the time especially people in the spotlight are sued. Then the rehab again no big deal Stapp himself acknowledged being on medication to finish the tour he gain weight etc. I would be surprised if he didn't need rehab to recover. It's just ashame that everything this man does is taken in a negative light. Like I have said earlier Stapp rock on in Miami!!!

RockGoddess no problem I agree you could have posted the information but with a link I think that many Stapp fans myself included feels like why all the negative responses about Stapp this stuff happens everyday. I think that the original post came off very negative and I still wonder about the time of the suit around the time he launching his solo work and it just makes me wonder but your right we just have to wait and see.

RockGoddess
09-14-2004, 05:29 PM
I completely understand the need for verification and the want of a link so that people could check it out for themselves.

Here's where the problem arose: Sweet, due to the nature of her job, simply came across the info sooner than most simply because she works in the legal community and those things become news rather quickly.

The link wasn't available until someone from Smoking Gun (or whomever) actually went to the courthouse, paid to obtain copies of a public document, and then posted them online.

But in the meantime I was accused of posting rumor, and heresay. Like I have nothing better to do than to make up this shit. But whatever. You have your proof now. Stapp has in fact been sued.

Dogstar
09-14-2004, 05:50 PM
I completely understand the need for verification and the want of a link so that people could check it out for themselves.

Here's where the problem arose: Sweet, due to the nature of her job, simply came across the info sooner than most simply because she works in the legal community and those things become news rather quickly.

The link wasn't available until someone from Smoking Gun (or whomever) actually went to the courthouse, paid to obtain copies of a public document, and then posted them online.

If she read it in a legal newspaper, she could have copied/scanned the damn thing or maybe provided a link if that periodical was online. If not she should have waited until she could provide proof.
You in the past rarely post unless you have shit to stir up, RockGoddess. This all could have been avoided by gee, maybe waiting until you had the proof before dumping it over here and skipping the *tip toes in* bullshit comments that were intended to do just what they did...stir up shit.

RockGoddess
09-14-2004, 05:52 PM
I apologize for ruffling your feathers Dogstar.

hockeymom97
09-14-2004, 08:44 PM
For some of you who copied sweets comments, if they would have read further in the thread she did give someone who asked explicit instructions (because this person said she was computer illiterate) on a website to look it up. Therefore she did validate her post with documentation.

luvin monti
09-14-2004, 10:12 PM
:wtf:


I...uh....yeah! :)

Dogstar
09-14-2004, 11:36 PM
Maybe it was validated at the Pit, but it wasn't here, originally, which was the main problem I had with it. And if you're not a member at the Pit, you can't lurk, so there was no way for some of us to get the real story.

Echelon122
09-15-2004, 12:26 AM
Probably too much is and shouldn't be.

Then maybe he should have just repaid the debt...then it would have ended up like this. Just one check coulda kept the whole thing "off radar" I guess.

Go read the Orange County Clerk of Courts site..it's there.
The actual documents are now on the Smoking Gun site.

I'll vouch for Sweet as well. It's known that for a long time she and I were not friends and there were some times I really didn't like her, we had our battles. But in the last...roughly year, I've come to concider her a friend. I really don't think she'd post something if it in any way could impact her job.

If it'd had come out on the Smoking Gun before Sweet posted it, people wouldn't doubt it for a minute. Yet, Sweet posts it and gets shit on left right and sideways? And then the documents are up a day later that totally show she was correct in her info?

Now if this were some GOOD news about Stapp...I'm sure people would be really happy it was posted and Sweet's integrity wouldn't have been questioned. Like if Stapp loaned someone money, and they decided not to pay it back...and he took em to court wanting the contract filled....then it'd be ok and "hoorahh stapp" right?

The rehab happened in 2002. Back when everyone was still "friends". Seems a friend offered to help Stapp out and keep his name off the "accounts recievable" records of a rehab clinic...to help a friend "Get better" (since I don't know what he was in rehab for)...and Stapp never paid him back as agreed.

Please note, it is NOT JHMP suing him, rather just Jeff Cameron. That JHMP is suing Sevendust for BoC isn't really compareable.

This lawsuit could be completely frivolous in which case the court will throw it out;
Yep. That could completely happen. It depends on what facts and evidence are presented. And what he's asking for isn't what the jury could give too. They might also grant more...it really depends on what happens. Guess we'll see. It could also get settled out of court.


You believe the fact that she read this in a newspaper.

There are legal journals that are sent to lawyers/firms/whoever subscribes to them, and they're not a secret thing. Would you have to see THAT to believe it, or are the Smoking Gun documents enough?

If anyone wants to, you can look me up on Wisconsin's Public Record searches. There's something with my dad and the dentist and his teaches union a few years ago, and probably my speeding ticket, maybe my rear-ender from 2001. :)

Dogstar
09-15-2004, 01:12 AM
You missed the point. When it was posted here, there was no documentation to accompany it. If that was the case at the Pit, to my mind it shouldn't have been posted until there was something to back it up. You have to know that something like that is going to generate a lot of questions and suspicion without anything official to back it up.

farmgirl
09-15-2004, 01:12 AM
Then maybe he should have just repaid the debt...then it would have ended up like this. Just one check coulda kept the whole thing "off radar" I guess.

The rehab happened in 2002. Back when everyone was still "friends". Seems a friend offered to help Stapp out and keep his name off the "accounts recievable" records of a rehab clinic...to help a friend "Get better" (since I don't know what he was in rehab for)...and Stapp never paid him back as agreed.



But the point is...none of us know what happened other than what the documents say. There is a suit..but everyone is so quick to assume Stapp didn't pay a debt. There could be alot more to this than any of us know. The Dr. doesn't seem to have a very good rep...maybe his treatment didn't help him, therefore, I wouldn't pay it either. The fact is, none of us know the truth or the actual details. People are making way too much out of this.

TeriB19
09-15-2004, 10:17 AM
Now if this were some GOOD news about Stapp...I'm sure people would be really happy it was posted and Sweet's integrity wouldn't have been questioned. Like if Stapp loaned someone money, and they decided not to pay it back...and he took em to court wanting the contract filled....then it'd be ok and "hoorahh stapp" right?

Yes, but that wouldn't be nearly as controversial, nor would it stir up the shit that this original post was clearly meant to stir, right? The point here is, it was posted with no back up. Sure, the backup came later. But the initial intent of the poster was to cause trouble, IMO, and they certainly succeeded in that.

musiclover291
09-15-2004, 10:38 AM
Yes, but that wouldn't be nearly as controversial, nor would it stir up the shit that this original post was clearly meant to stir, right? The point here is, it was posted with no back up. Sure, the backup came later. But the initial intent of the poster was to cause trouble, IMO, and they certainly succeeded in that.

Amen I couldn't agree more.

Kimvan
09-15-2004, 11:22 AM
Amen, sista!

Echelon122
09-15-2004, 11:46 AM
JHMP is sueing Sevendust for breach of contract. It's not because of rehab it is because Sevendust are seeking new management and didn't fullfill their contract with JHMP. That is it, so don't go looking for more dirt or trying to start rumors because it's DEFINATLEY not the same reason Jeff Cameron is sueing Stapp

I was asked to post thist to clarify the difference between the two completley separate and independant lawsuits for different reasons and between different parties.

musiclover291
09-15-2004, 11:54 AM
JHMP is sueing Sevendust for breach of contract. It's not because of rehab it is because Sevendust are seeking new management and didn't fullfill their contract with JHMP. That is it, so don't go looking for more dirt or trying to start rumors because it's DEFINATLEY not the same reason Jeff Cameron is sueing Stapp

I was asked to post thist to clarify the difference between the two completley separate and independant lawsuits for different reasons and between different parties.

Question do you know who Jeff Cameron works for and what was his role with Creed?

Thanks

Steve
09-15-2004, 12:14 PM
Jeff Cameron's employer and his role with Creed/Stapp makes no difference. He is suing Stapp as an individual. His employer, JHMP, is not suing Stapp.

Let's stop all the nonsense about some conspiracy with Cameron and JHMP.

farmgirl
09-15-2004, 12:15 PM
The reason for his treatment, if even true, was not clarified. This Dr. does do rehab but also prescribes pain-killers. Nowhere is there proof this suit is for rehab...people are just assuming that.

musiclover291
09-15-2004, 12:41 PM
Jeff Cameron's employer and his role with Creed/Stapp makes no difference. He is suing Stapp as an individual. His employer, JHMP, is not suing Stapp.

Let's stop all the nonsense about some conspiracy with Cameron and JHMP.

Steve thanks for the information. I was not making any judgement. Just wondering who Jeff Cameron was and his relation to Creed because I was not sure if he is just a friend of Stapp's or was employed by Creed.

Jooji_2
09-15-2004, 01:55 PM
The inital post I believe stated that Stapp was being sued for "REHAB" costs...when actually the court papers don't indicate that specifically Neither would the information posted in the public record online.

The fact that the word "REHAB" was added, even though it wasn't indicated, pretty much indicates the malevolence with which is it was intended. :D

Echelon122
09-15-2004, 02:32 PM
Point 5 in the complaint
"From April thorugh June 2002 Plaintiff (Jeff Cameron) made payments totallin $60,000 to Dr. David Kipper, a physician in California, for certain medical treatments received by Defendant (Scott Stapp)"

Also from the article from Smoking Gun
Last November, the Medical Board of California charged Kipper with gross negligence and unprofessional conduct for, among other things, overprescribing habit-forming drugs and running an illegal detox program. Earlier this year, Ozzy Osbourne filed a complaint with the state board alleging that, during 2002 and 2003, Kipper overprescribed him addictive drugs that left him addled and hooked on powerful antipyschotics and tranquilizers.


Edited to add...
and Jeff Cameron works for JHMP/Bombtrax. But as Steve pointed out (As did others), It's Jeff as an INDIVIDUAL (which is stated on the documents) who is suing, NOT JHMP.

TremontiRx
09-15-2004, 03:54 PM
"There could be alot more to this than any of us know. The Dr. doesn't seem to have a very good rep...maybe his treatment didn't help him, therefore, I wouldn't pay it either."

Regardless, Stapp should have repaid his friend and taken issue with the doctor, if that's what he intended.

**Remembers to not pay doctor bills next time my antibiotic doesn't work.**

farmgirl
09-15-2004, 04:21 PM
"There could be alot more to this than any of us know. The Dr. doesn't seem to have a very good rep...maybe his treatment didn't help him, therefore, I wouldn't pay it either."

Regardless, Stapp should have repaid his friend and taken issue with the doctor, if that's what he intended.

**Remembers to not pay doctor bills next time my antibiotic doesn't work.**

IF he owes it. That's the thing. There could be reasons none of us know...that's my point. I don't see why all the drama to this thing to begin with.

Jooji_2
09-15-2004, 05:57 PM
Point 5 in the complaint

"From April thorugh June 2002 Plaintiff (Jeff Cameron) made payments totallin $60,000 to Dr. David Kipper, a physician in California, for certain medical treatments received by Defendant (Scott Stapp)"

Where in there does it state what that medical treatment was?


Also from the article from Smoking Gun.

"Last November, the Medical Board of California charged Kipper with gross negligence and unprofessional conduct for, among other things, overprescribing habit-forming drugs and running an illegal detox program. Earlier this year, Ozzy Osbourne filed a complaint with the state board alleging that, during 2002 and 2003, Kipper overprescribed him addictive drugs that left him addled and hooked on powerful antipyschotics and tranquilizers. "

And where in there does it state what type of treatment Stapp was receiving from Kipper?

I don't see the word REHAB in either of them.

TremontiRx
09-15-2004, 07:22 PM
"And where in there does it state what type of treatment Stapp was receiving from Kipper?

I don't see the word REHAB in either of them."

I don't see the point in this. He's not being sued for going to rehab...he's being sued for not repaying his friend. It has been presumed that he saw a "rehab" doctor for detox (seems logical to me :rolleyes: ) but it is really irrelevant to the lawsuit. He could have borrowed the money to buy $60,000 worth of new shoes. Point still remains...he didn't pay the debt.

RockGoddess
09-15-2004, 08:05 PM
Thank you TremontiRx for stating what would seem to be the obvious.

Jooji_2
09-15-2004, 11:42 PM
"And where in there does it state what type of treatment Stapp was receiving from Kipper?

I don't see the word REHAB in either of them."

I don't see the point in this. He's not being sued for going to rehab...he's being sued for not repaying his friend. It has been presumed that he saw a "rehab" doctor for detox (seems logical to me :rolleyes: ) but it is really irrelevant to the lawsuit. He could have borrowed the money to buy $60,000 worth of new shoes. Point still remains...he didn't pay the debt.

No....but he's being accused of stiffing a friend for charges for REHAB. If he hasn't paid the bill for the treatment, then I'm pretty sure there is a reason he has been advised not to. I'm sure that will be brought up when the case comes to trial. Ever thought that might be exactly what the whole point of this is? A trial. The same doctor insured that Ozzy Osbourne made it to the stage every nite, by whatever means necessary....why is it not presumed that he was hired to do the same in Stapp's situation :rolleyes: ? See that's the difference between us. I will consider every possibility while you only consider the one that you want to believe. You can rehash it every way you want.....but eventually each side will tell their version of the story. If a jury rules Stapp owes the dude the money, I'm sure it will be paid. You act as if you fronted the man the cash yourself.

Jooji_2
09-15-2004, 11:46 PM
Thank you TremontiRx for stating what would seem to be the obvious.

I see alot of obvious scenarios to explain the above discussion. What you consider obvious and I consider obvious are two very different things. You just don't like the fact that I don't agree with you. Sorry, but that will never happen. :D

TremontiRx
09-16-2004, 04:25 AM
No....but he's being accused of stiffing a friend for charges for REHAB. If he hasn't paid the bill for the treatment, then I'm pretty sure there is a reason he has been advised not to. I'm sure that will be brought up when the case comes to trial. Ever thought that might be exactly what the whole point of this is? A trial. The same doctor insured that Ozzy Osbourne made it to the stage every nite, by whatever means necessary....why is it not presumed that he was hired to do the same in Stapp's situation :rolleyes: ? See that's the difference between us. I will consider every possibility while you only consider the one that you want to believe. You can rehash it every way you want.....but eventually each side will tell their version of the story. If a jury rules Stapp owes the dude the money, I'm sure it will be paid. You act as if you fronted the man the cash yourself.
Oooookaaaaay :confused: Where did I act like I fronted the cash?

Jooji, if Mr. Stapp wants to take exception with this doc then it is his prerogative to do so. I don't think ANYONE would question his doing just that. But not repaying a friend who loaned him the money to see the doc?? That's what doesn't make sense.

Seems you're losing focus of the point of the case. Mr. Stapp isn't suing the doc here....the lawsuit isn't about the credibility of the doctor or the merits of his therapies. Mr. Cameron is suing to recoup the money he loaned out and was never repaid. You're confusing two separate issues....actually, I think you're assuming there to be an issue with the doctor and allowing that assumption to cloud your ability to discern the points laid out in the lawsuit.

At any rate, I hope Mr. Cameron is able to get his money back quickly, either through settlement outside of court or through a jury awarded payment. What a lousy outcome for someone who was doing a favor for a friend.

farmgirl
09-16-2004, 07:19 AM
Mr. Cameron is suing to recoup the money he loaned out and was never repaid. At any rate, I hope Mr. Cameron is able to get his money back quickly, either through settlement outside of court or through a jury awarded payment. What a lousy outcome for someone who was doing a favor for a friend.

How do any of us know this is the case? Just because someone is suing another person for owing them money...does not mean there are circumstances that none of us aware of as to WHY it wasn't paid back. People are innocent until proven guilty in this country...even the ones some of you don't like. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything and it could end up in court with someone having to defend themselves. Maybe this person wasn't a good friend...maybe there was something between the two of them such as a mis-understanding with the terms of the loan...who knows, but the parties involved.

I guess it boils down to not assuming the worse about a situation as some continually do so when it comes to this man, and not judging someone's every move without ALL THE FACTS. Like Jooji said, it will come out in trial.

ctfan
09-16-2004, 10:55 AM
How do any of us know this is the case? Just because someone is suing another person for owing them money...does not mean there are circumstances that none of us aware of as to WHY it wasn't paid back. People are innocent until proven guilty in this country...even the ones some of you don't like. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything and it could end up in court with someone having to defend themselves. Maybe this person wasn't a good friend...maybe there was something between the two of them such as a mis-understanding with the terms of the loan...who knows, but the parties involved.

I guess it boils down to not assuming the worse about a situation as some continually do so when it comes to this man, and not judging someone's every move without ALL THE FACTS. Like Jooji said, it will come out in trial.

I'll second that farmgirl!!! I'm not gonna judge, or assume or specualte that Stapp *stiffed* anyone for anything..... :D

RockGoddess
09-16-2004, 11:11 AM
You just don't like the fact that I don't agree with you.

Truthfully Jooji, I've never really given it that much consideration.

Bridge of Clay
09-16-2004, 12:09 PM
LOL! LOL! LOL!

The thing is:

~Stapp should have paid back. 60K for him is like shit to me...

~If the doctor is wrong, then fine... sue him! it's another issue, another lawsuit.

~Now if he didn't pay Jeff coz he's waiting for another process against the doc for mispractices, he still should've paid Jeff back... or at least commit the ammount for custody until it's settled...

It doesn't matter the reason, it still makes Stapp looks bad.

musiclover291
09-16-2004, 12:52 PM
LOL! LOL! LOL!

The thing is:

~Stapp should have paid back. 60K for him is like shit to me...

~If the doctor is wrong, then fine... sue him! it's another issue, another lawsuit.

~Now if he didn't pay Jeff coz he's waiting for another process against the doc for mispractices, he still should've paid Jeff back... or at least commit the ammount for custody until it's settled...

It doesn't matter the reason, it still makes Stapp looks bad.

Keep in mind he is accused of not paying back a loan doesn't mean he didn't. In America innocent until proven guilty. He may owe the money and he may not. In America anyone can sue for anything at anytime. To me it does not make Stapp look bad until the case goes to trial and Stapp pleas his case and the judge and jury makes a ruling. We all should stop making judgement until the case is heard. Remember the other case that he was sued for a bad concert in Chicago the judge dismiss the case. The same can be said in this case. I wouldn't be surprise if Stapp gets sued all the time it's part of life.

Bridge of Clay
09-16-2004, 12:59 PM
err... that's different... the other process was a joke.

musiclover291
09-16-2004, 02:29 PM
err... that's different... the other process was a joke.

I agree the other process was a joke and it could be the same in this case as well. We just don't know I don't think Stapp is losing sleep over it we just don't know all the details we just have to wait until the due process. I have really come to the conclusion in Stapp's case anything he does or anything that goes wrong in his life will be looked at in a negative light by some. It's really sad but that is the truth.

Jooji_2
09-16-2004, 11:17 PM
Oooookaaaaay :confused: Where did I act like I fronted the cash?

Jooji, if Mr. Stapp wants to take exception with this doc then it is his prerogative to do so. I don't think ANYONE would question his doing just that. But not repaying a friend who loaned him the money to see the doc?? That's what doesn't make sense.

Seems you're losing focus of the point of the case. Mr. Stapp isn't suing the doc here....the lawsuit isn't about the credibility of the doctor or the merits of his therapies. Mr. Cameron is suing to recoup the money he loaned out and was never repaid. You're confusing two separate issues....actually, I think you're assuming there to be an issue with the doctor and allowing that assumption to cloud your ability to discern the points laid out in the lawsuit.

At any rate, I hope Mr. Cameron is able to get his money back quickly, either through settlement outside of court or through a jury awarded payment. What a lousy outcome for someone who was doing a favor for a friend.

The point of the case is that Mr. Cameron paid some money for "treatment" Stapp received, and now he wants it back Nowhere does it state that Mr. Stapp requested the treatment, however. If I was pressured into accepting treatment that I didn't request, so that the "show might go on" as they would say, I might have a bit of a problem seeing where it is my responsibility to pay for it. Yeah....yeah...its Cameron suing and not Hanson management. I prefer to wait and see what a jury decides. And believe me, my ability to "discern" things is perfectly fine. Your keen interest in this matter and your ability to apparently just "know" what transpired between these two people is uncanny. I'm sure Jeff Cameron is honored to know that there are others out there spending so much of their time defending his honor and working to make sure he gets is bucks back. :D

TremontiRx
09-17-2004, 07:28 AM
Check out the court docs. It's all right there. I'm just reading the black and white. Items #6 and #7:

6 At the time Plaintiff made these payments, Defendant promised to reimburse Plaintiff for the full cost of the medical treatments.

7. Thereafter Plaintiff demanded reimbursement of the $60,000.00, but Defendant has refused to make such reimbursement to Plaintiff.

Your keen interest in this matter and your ability to apparently just "know" what transpired between these two people is uncanny. I'm sure Jeff Cameron is honored to know that there are others out there spending so much of their time defending his honor and working to make sure he gets is bucks back. Come back down to earth Jooji. We're just talking about this thing...I couldn't affect this lawsuit even I wanted to. And Mr. Cameron's honor doesn't even need defending. :laugh: Again...I'm just reading the black and white.

Bridge of Clay
09-17-2004, 12:13 PM
just to add something: Mr Cameron was pretty naive as well...

If the goal was to preserve Stapp identity on the bill, JHMP should've paid, the business, and not a person.

TeriB19
09-17-2004, 12:14 PM
Oh my God, how much longer can this topic live?

TremontiRx
09-17-2004, 06:32 PM
:poke: