“Teresa La Loggia has acted via her website, WHATSYOUREVIDENCE.COM, to discredit and denigrate the fully legal and fully proper lawsuit filed by Philip Berg against Barack Obama and the DNC.” Ron Polarik

by

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2106745/posts

Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 9:50:28 PM by Polarik

RETRACTION:

You may (or may not) have noticed that a recent post of mine concerning the website called, WHATSYOUREVIDENCE.COM, was removed because it contained incorrect assumptions and conclusions I made about the law firm, DickStein Shapiro LLP, in relation to the lawsuit filed by Philip Berg against Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee.

I hereby retract any and all statements and references, whether direct or indirect, that in any way led the reader to believe that a connection exists, or existed, between this law firm and Berg’s lawsuit. To my knowledge, as has been clarified by legitimate sources, there has never been any connection between the two, past, present, or future.

I respectfully request that any copies made of that original post be discarded.

With that said, the primary purpose of my original post was to refute a concerted effort made by the owner and operator of the website, WHATSYOUREVIDENCE.COM, to discredit and denigrate my research on the Obama COLB image, to attack my credibility, and to trash my family name, Polarik, through the use of insinuations, innuendos, false allegations, false statements, false or faulty conclusions, unsubstantiated information, and unreliable and patently biased sources that are also hostile to me personally.

Furthermore, this individual also made slanderous comments about me on her sources’ websites under the screen name, “WYE,” knowing full well that such detestable comments would never be acceptable on the owner’s website, WHATSYOUREVIDENCE.COM.

In addition to setting the record straight as to who I am and what I have done, I did also present information that should have been readily disclosed to the public — information that the public has a right to know — rather than being held in secret, hidden from public view and scrutiny.

Although I take full responsibility for the erroneous assumptions and conclusions that were made about the law firm stated above, I hold the owner and creator of the website, WHATSYOUREVIDENCE.COM, fully responsible for inviting these assumptions and conclusions from visitors to her website, given as a verifiable matter of fact, that the said owner and creator of said website did intentionally withhold from public view, the following information:

  • her true identity,
  • the expressed purpose of her website,
  • her sole responsibility for its content,
  • the name, address and phone number of the website’s actual owner, registrant, and administrative contact
  • the correct acknowledgments of her sources, and
  • the correct citations of the sources referenced

All of the above are, by her own admission, and it is now a matter of public record, by virtue of her letter to the Free Republic “demanding” that the previous post be removed, that Ms. Teresa La Loggia is the sole owner and operator of WHATSYOUREVIDENCE.COM as previously stated in my post.

In restating and reiterating what the public now knows is true and factual about the owner and operator of WHATSYOUREVIDENCE.COM, there is absolutely no intent, whatsoever, on my part to damage or disparage whatever credibility or rights to privacy that is further claimed by Ms. Teresa La Loggia in relation to what is a restatement of verifiable fact that Ms. Teresa La Loggia is

  • the sole owner and operator of the website, WHATSYOUREVIDENCE.COM
  • an employee of the law firm, DickStein Shapiro, LLP
  • only now affirming the previous two statements of fact , and
  • fully and wholly accepts responsibility for the content of her website.

It is also a matter of fact and public record, that she is not the listed owner, registrant, and administrative contact on the WHOIS domain registration database, and that the address provided for these is a foregin one.

It is also a matter of fact and public record, that her employer has made no statement, either expressed or implied, that they are either unaware of their employee’s actions, or are aware of them, and have no problem with what she does on her own time with her own resources: which gives her the benefit of the doubt, that she has not used company time and/or company resources in connection with the operation of and contributions to her website.

In addition, I hereby reaffirm my statements, as a loyal and valued contributor to the Free Republic, that Teresa La Loggia has acted reprehensibly and irresponsibly, anonymously and secretively via her website, WHATSYOUREVIDENCE.COM, to discredit and denigrate the fully legal and fully proper lawsuit filed by Philip Berg against Barack Obama and the DNC, through the use of false statements, faulty conclusions, unsubstantiated information, unreliable and biased sources, and the use of insinuations and innuendo.

With these retractions and restatements made, I look forward to reposting the valuable information that was contained in my previous post, pledging and ensuring that it will be fully factual, verifiable, and in complete compliance with forum rules.

Sincerely,

Ronald Polarik, MS, PhD

See also:

https://rosettasister.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/%E2%80%9Ci-have-never-fabricated-one-single-bit-of-my-evidence-the-only-thing-i-made-was-a-clone-of-obamas-fabricated-colb-anyone-who-says-that-i-fabricated-evidence-is-a-stinking-liar%E2%80%9D/

http://obamacrimes.com/

http://www.americasright.com/

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:polarik/index?brevity=full;tab=comments

Phil Berg Teresa La Loggia Barack Obama Ron Polarik Jeff Schreiber

7 Responses to ““Teresa La Loggia has acted via her website, WHATSYOUREVIDENCE.COM, to discredit and denigrate the fully legal and fully proper lawsuit filed by Philip Berg against Barack Obama and the DNC.” Ron Polarik”

  1. rosettasister Says:

    “Ronald Polarik, MS, PhD”

    Who knew?!

  2. Teresa La Loggia Says:

    ——— ——— ———
    Polarik accuses me of a “concerted effort … to discredit and denigrate my research on the Obama COLB image, to attack my credibility, and to trash my family name, Polarik, through the use of insinuations, innuendos, false allegations, false statements, false or faulty conclusions, unsubstantiated information, and unreliable and patently biased sources that are also hostile to me personally.”
    ——— ——— ———

    I respectfully disagree with Polarik’s contention. The (expressly stated) purpose of http://www.WhatsYourEvidence.com is to evaluate the allegations of the Berg complaint – to include both
    (a) information SUPPORTING Berg’s allegations (such as Polarik’s analysis, among many other things), and
    (b) information REFUTING Berg’s allegations (such as other experts who disagree with Polarik’s analysis.

    On this, I note that in the information from people who took issue with Polarik’s analysis, great care was taken to remove all personal attack words (thus, the bracketed language), to remove inflammatory characterizations, both of him, and of his work.

    Moreover, the information most certainly does not trash his family name. We merely reported our understanding that Polarik was a screen name, and not his real name. We made no statements whatsoever about any family name. We stated, specifically: “Note: We have searched both http://www.whitepages.com and http://www.peoplefinder.com, and they have no record of a person with the last name “Polarik” on file. Thus, it appears that this person is not using his real name.”

    With all due respect, we did not characterize, good or bad, that family name. We merely reported on the results of a search for that name.

    ——— ——— ———
    Polarik also accuses me of making “slanderous comments” about him on websites under the screen name WYE.
    ——— ——— ———
    Again, I respectfully disagree. Polarik was, as I understand it, referring to an initial question I raised on another blog looking into these issues. In that comment, I asked whether that blogger had received reports, similar to those reported to WYE in (unpublished) comments, taking issue with Polarik’s analysis.

    What Polarik seems to have missed is that (1) the blogger promptly responded that he had not heard that report, and was unaware of any information supporting that report; and (2) I promptly responded with the following: “Thanks. It is for precisely THIS reason that at http://www.whatsyourevidence.com, we don’t post mere “reports” as evidence of any fact (one way or the other), unless the “reporter” provides a source.”

    ——— ——— ———
    Polarik also accuses me of intentionally withholding from public view personal information.
    ——— ——— ———
    To the extent that Polarik’s complaint is that I did not post my legal name, address, and affiliation, he is correct.

    I find it … ironic … to receive this complaint from a person who has publicly admitted that his screen name of “Ron Polarik” is a combination of his first name and his father’s family name (at least implicitly acknowledging that it is not his real name) – i.e., who has “intentionally withh[e]ld from public view,” the information he complains I did not disclose.

    —- The upshot is that declining to provide real name/personal contact information is not at all an uncommon practice (including on this site). It makes sense, given the spambots that regularly troll the internet, and given the generalized safety risk inherent in including such information on any blog of any type, political or not.

    However, as anyone who has commented on the site and provided contact information knows (and there are quite a few of those), upon request, I have always fully disclosed the requested information.

    Moreover, as anyone generally familiar with the web knows, people could easily find out much more about me. A simple Google for Tesibria (the first word in the url upon redirection from http://www.whatsyourevidence.com), makes crystal clear my politics, my book and music tastes, my favorite blogs/discussion boards, and more. — Just as a simple Google for “Polarik” reveals Polarik’s politics and related information.

    So, why didn’t I include that directly on the site? Because the posts are not intended to be “political” – but to be an evaluation of allegations.

    In this regard, I note a couple things. (1) WhatsYourEvidence.com includes — usually with direct quotations (to avoid mischaracterization) — Berg’s allegations, and then, when known/reported to us, direct links to sources SUPPORTING his allegations. It is for this reason that many conservatives and others who SUPPORT Berg’s Berg’s suit have thanked WYE for providing this resource. While they disagree with some of the conclusions, they (say in comments) that they are glad to have this resource. (2) WhatsYourEvidence does NOT include any personal attacks. As noted above, criticism was purposefully edited to remove such attacks, and WYE does not include the personally critical information about Mr. Berg posted elsewhere on the internet. (Despite receiving multiple comments, with such information and suggestions to do so.) IF the purpose of WYE was “political,” that information certainly would have been included.

    —-Polarik is correct that I did not include website registration information (domain registration). The fact that upon registration of any domain name, services (at least Register.com) defaults to private domain registration indicates that this is industry standard. The fact is that I own the domain address, and I “own” the Typepad account to which it redirects. Again, for the reasons stated above, I did not include that information.

    However, I take issue with other Polarik claims:

    — I did not “intentionally withhold from public view” the “expressed purpose of [my] website.” In fact, there is an “About” page, which “express[ly] sets forth the purpose of the site. (http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/about.html)

    — I am unaware of any incorrect citations for sources referenced. In every single post, the readers are encouraged to provide additional information. If a reader finds an incorrect citation, please report it, and it will be corrected as promptly as possible.

    — To the extent that Polarik takes issue with the fact that personally identifiable information concerning sources – i.e., people who provide information for publication on the site, I’ll accept that “charge.” Of *course* I don’t. And Polarik’s reaction to WYE should explain exactly why I don’t.

    ——— ——— ———
    Polarik also asserts that “It is also a matter of fact and public record, that she is not the listed owner, registrant, and administrative contact on the WHOIS domain registration database, and that the address provided for these is a foregin (sic) one.”
    ——— ——— ———

    This is, at a minimum, misleading, and at least partially inaccurate. The “public record” at WHOIS — available at http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=whatsyourevidence.com&type=domain – shows:
    Domain Name: WHATSYOUREVIDENCE.COM
    Registrar: REGISTER.COM, INC.
    Whois Server: whois.register.com

    (Note: No foreign address.) Register.com is a popular domain registration service, whose offices are in New York City. Now, while I’m not sure where, exactly, the corporation operating as Register.com is located. But, its headquarters are located in NY, NY USA (See http://www.register.com/policy/servicesagreement.rcmx – “24. Governing Law” and “29. General.”)

    As noted above, Register.com, by default, registered that information privately. However, to anyone who wishes to obtain the documentary evidence that the O/R/A contact address provided for the website is my personal address can e-mail me and I will be happy to provide it, provided that they provide the same personal information.

    ——— ——— ———
    Polarik ends his post with an adverb-laden, inflammatory conclusion.
    ——— ——— ———
    I respect Polarik’s disagreement with my conclusions. I so respect that disagreement that I have not and will not personally attack or flame him. I so respect that disagreement that I have not – and will not – publish information from others who do, including any personally identifiable information that could result, for him, such as harassing phone calls, etc – despite the fact that he has not shown me the same respect by his actions resulting in such circumstances for me.

    However, I reject Polarik’s contention that WhatsYourEvidence.com contains “false statements’ or “unsubstantiated information” on the website. If any inadvertently inaccurate information is posted, it will be corrected immediately upon receiving notice of that information. Moreover, the only “unsubstantiated” information on the website would be allegations made in the lawsuit for which we have been unable to locate any source. (I note, yet again, if a reader finds any information that is not sourced/substantiated, upon notification, that oversight will be promptly corrected.)

    I also reject the logic behind the complaint that the site uses “unreliable and biased sources.” After all, WhatsYourEvidence cites Polarik (a prolific poster on FreeRepublic), WorldNetDaily (a very anti-Obama, conservative publication, Washington Times, Classical Values (a conservative blog), multiple government websites, or websites providing legal information, as well as a wide variety of other publications. Yes, some may be from independents, democrats, or other. I believe that that is only fair – to cite to sources available, providing links, so that the reader can make their own evaluation as to the type and level of bias in the source.

    As for “unreliable” – that too is in the eye of the beholder. Which is why WhatsYourEvidence provides live links to information – so that readers can make their own evaluation as to the veracity of the source.

    Finally, I firmly believe that it is a fundamental right (as in the FIRST Amendment right) to be able to publicly express a conclusion. And as fundamental a right to disagree with someone else’s conclusion. Polarik has evaluated information, and drawn a set of conclusions. Mr. Berg has evaluated information, and drawn a set of conclusions. Surely I have a fundamental right to do the same, even if that conclusion is different from the one they reached.

    I leave it to the reader, after reviewing WhatsYourEvidence.com, to draw your own conclusion.

    Sincerely,
    Tes

  3. rosettasister Says:

    Teresa (Tes),

    BTW, your name is one which is dear to my heart.

    Family name, including my daughter’s.

    I published this back on October 16th.

    Which isn’t long ago, but seems long ago.

    I’ve been waiting to hear back from you regarding info you emailed me.

    May I publish?

    Either way is fine.

    Take care.

  4. Tes Says:

    Hey – just want to make sure you’ve gotten my recent e-mails. (Not for publication)

  5. rosettasister Says:

    No, Tes.

    But I’ll go and check now.

    And I get the message.

  6. rosettasister Says:

    Polarik Says:
    October 25, 2008 at 4:42 am edit

    Rose:

    I have posted a set of retractions and restatements on the Free Republic forum to differentiate between the major parts of my original article that were correct, and the few parts that were in error.

    I am finishing up on a revised and expanded article that will include 98% of my original post, Ms. La Loggia’s letter, and my point-by-point counterarguments to them.

    If La Loggia thinks that she has the right to demand and desist that my article be pulled or edited from your site, then I also have the right to demand and desist that Ms. La Loggia remove the slanderous comments and patently false statements that she made of me on her website, and which still appear where I originally found them.

    She still does not get it that Ron Polarik is a real name, NOT a screen name, whereas her name is nowhere to be found on her website, on her comments listed here, or ON THE REGISTAR DATABASE.

    So, right off the bat, her claim that her name and address appear on the WHOIS registrar database record is patently false: it lists a domain registry service with a FOREIGN ADDRESS, exactly as I had stated in my original post.

    As I said, 98% of my original post was true, accurate, and beyond reproach and will be included in my new, expanded article.

    Please contact me at my email address so that I can submit to you directly.

  7. Kevin Says:

    I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the detailed and verifiable information on WhatsYourEvidence.com. It has saved me much time and effort.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: