I am compelled by the present circumstances to declare that I can admire Rob Eichmann for one thing (if one thing only): he is nothing if not absolutely persistent in whatever mission he undertakes. While it is true his command of the language hovers just above the tenth grade level and most of his higher cognitive operations come to us courtesy of Wee Willy Winkler, his steadfast determination to destroy a conservative Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate – in spite of the preponderance of facts and evidence that contradict him – is breathtaking.
Bullshirt artists always get the details wrong, and Qarmout’s campaign blogger is no exception. Like this blooper, for example:
“Lorillard ultimately backed off and in December of 2004, Judge William G. Bassler signed an order dismissing the case without costs or prejudice in return for the defendants’ assurance they would drop their counter-suit.”
Really? The case was dismissed in December 2004? Then how do you account for the document filed by Bader Qarmout and his co-defendants on June 2, 2005, in which Qarmout and his co-defendants proposed a settlement agreement that included allowing on-site inspections of the Qarmout convenience stores “not more than once per day”? Wow, a pretty tight inspection schedule for someone who now claims they didn’t do anything wrong.
Would the Qarmout campaign care to explain?
This case has a lot to it and I look forward to hearing more from the Qarmout campaign about it.
Rockin’ Robbo needs to brush up on his reading comprehension: “Judge William G. Bassler signed an order dismissing the case without costs or prejudice in return for the defendants’ assurance they would drop their counter-suit.” The breadth and scope of that “assurance” became the object of contention with regard to the settlement.
Over the course of the following six months, Lorillard insisted that, in order to consummate the settlement, Qarmout, et. al. pledge they would never again sell counterfeit Newport cigarettes – despite the fact that the evidence in the case clearly demonstrated that neither G&S nor Q&S convenience stores knowingly engaged in such a practice. It was tantamount to asking someone to pledge he would never again beat his wife – in the absence of any proof he ever did so.
Understandably, Qarmout and his fellow defendants balked at the outrageous nature of the suggestion and countered with the proposal that – as part of their good-faith assurance to drop the counter-suit – Lorillard Tobacco would be permitted to inspect the inventory of both stores “not more than once per day.”
Lorillard rejected the arrangement and the suit was ultimately settled on those terms. What Rockin’ Robbo seems unable to comprehend is that Lorillard failed to prosecute its case and failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Bader Qarmout knowingly engaged in deceptive trade practices.
Eichmann’s insistence on treating this case as if Qarmout were found guilty and then using that (along with other half truths and distortions) as a cudgel to defame him goes beyond the limits of reason and into the realm of unbridled malice.
It is for the reader to decide if this is the kind of behavior that accurately represents movement conservatism in New Jersey today.