Sunday, November 01, 2009

More Lies From Lin-Lin

When, oh when, will this endless stream of pathetic prevarications that keep arriving in your scribe's mailbox come to an end? The other day Lin-Lin seemed to suggest that her factual misstatements of the past were a "dead horse" and that we should "move on." But more dead horses have just come in the mail, and clearly Lin-Lin herself is unable to move on.

Let's look at some of the choice gems in Lin-Lin's latest, which features a series of "while you were out" telephone message slips. "Peter, this is at least the 4th time I have called to see if you are willing to debate me...I can only assume that you don't want to he held accountable for your actions and positions...." This, dear reader, is as clear-cut an example of a non-sequitur as you are likely to see in print. Peter knows from experience that Lin-Lin does not want to debate, but to engage in another mud-slinging contest. He has no interest in doing that again. And it has nothing to do with his willingness to be held accountable for his actions and positions.

Another "memo" asks, "As a member of the BET for 20 years, why didn't you prepare Greenwich for this fiscal crisis? It seems taxes have skyrocketed and Greenwich is still on [sic] a [sic] $8 million budget hole." So Lin-Lin is blaming Peter Tesei for the Wall Street meltdown? She thinks he should have seen this coming twenty years ago? What inanity is this?!

Nor have taxes "skyrocketed" - they have grown at the same modest 3-4% rate as historically set by the BET. And what is this nonsense about Greenwich being "on" an $8 million hole? Lin-Lin claims to have been an English teacher; it seems this part of her so-called resume is as suspect as some of the other false claims she has made.

And, of course, Lin-Lin trots out the "dead horse" yet again: "Please do not hire a personal friend [sic] with no experience [sic] to be our Dockmaster [sic]. Also, please remember that both Republicans and Democrats think that buying your pal [sic] a brand new boat [sic] with taxpayer dollars is unnecessary."

Those two sentences alone, addressed directly to Peter Tesei, are full of so many lies that Peter himself now has a prima facie case against Lin-Lin for libel.

Personally, Peter, your scribe suggests that you go for it. The procedure is simple: send Lin-Lin and her committee (including Brook Urban, who seems to be shilling for Lin-Lin by allowing her address to be used as the source of these scurrilous mailings) a letter (by certified mail or in-hand service by an indifferent person) demanding an immediate retraction. If none is forthcoming, file the complaint, to wit: "On or about October 30, 2009, in the Town of Greenwich, Connecticut, the defendant Lin Lavery mailed or caused to be mailed throughout the Town of Greenwich a brochure which clearly and repeatedly defamed the plaintiff, Peter Tesei...."

Peter, this is not a joke. Ask any lawyer (well, maybe not the mercurial Ed Krumeich) whether a case would lie against Lin-Lin for her lies and defamation. Dollars to doughnuts, they would confirm what your scribe has said, and you would win. Big. As in driving Lin-Lin right out of this Town forever, disgraced and perhaps even tarred and feathered, as she so richly deserves to be.


Post a Comment

<< Home