This post is an editorial by Jodi Riddleberger.
The untold side of the Brannon case – Jodi Riddleberger | Posted March 16, 2014
By Jodi Riddleberger
In the game of politics, perception is reality. Truth is an afterthought. And much of the mainstream media are more than happy to spin, omit and deceive in order to propagate their progressive political agenda.
Take, for example, the recent attention Republican Senate hopeful Dr. Greg Brannon received as he had his day in court. If you only read what some of the larger news organizations published about the civil case, you might have thought Brannon enjoyed kicking puppies in his spare time. There’s more to this story, though, and it might be news to you, although it’s not news to those who’ve turned to alternative information sources in their pursuit of truth. Reliable blog posts and Internet talk radio shows have proven they give a broader perspective on the happenings of Brannon’s civil case.
Pete Kaliner, a North Carolina radio talk show host, spent an hour with Robert Rice , the CEO of the tech company that the lawsuit centered around. There were 15 investors who lost money when the start-up went belly-up — including Brannon himself and the civil case’s two plaintiffs, Sam Lampuri and Larry Piazza. In the interview, Rice painted Piazza as quite the bully and said that Piazza promised to “ruin” Brannon’s run for the Senate. Of the 15, Lampuri and Piazza were the only two investors who decided to pursue a civil case.
Brannon had been nothing more than a sort of “cheerleader” for the tech firm and had shared information with prospective investors. It’s reported that Brannon and Piazza had been long-time friends, so when the deal fell through, Brannon felt terrible. In fact, Brannon offered to reimburse Piazza, by cashing in his own 401K. Did Piazza take the offer? No, he did not. For some reason, Piazza refused the offer, but then decided to take the matter to court.
Source to the link the provided above: http://www.wwnc.com/onair/pete-kaliner-46655/brannon-codefendant-ruling-defies-logic-12094947/
In the aforementioned interview, Rice said Brannon was the least involved in the company — he simply shared information and was a proponent of the new product. Yet Brannon was the only one found liable in court (for misleading the plaintiffs), even though there were two other defendants. How is that possible?
Promising to “ruin” someone, demanding a dispute be settled in court and specifically targeting Brannon would suggest that there is indeed a story behind the story.
In his Daily Haymaker article (http://dailyhaymaker.com/?p=7230), Brandt Clifton questions whether the jury’s liable decision was a consequence of confusion. “Brannon’s fate may have been sealed thanks to the manner in which the judge answered some jury questions … The judge refused the jury’s request to review the transcript of defendant John Cummings’ testimony. … The jurors also came back with another cryptic question: “Does not testifying mean omission?” The judge and the lawyers for both parties appeared taken aback. Did they mean “admission”? Was the jury suggesting that not testifying was equivalent to admitting that you are guilty? The judge responded by reading the dictionary definition of “omission.” … The jurors returned a short time later with a verdict form that showed them first voting to find Brannon not liable. That was crossed out, and replaced with a finding of liability.”
Brannon hasn’t been very vocal about the case since the verdict was read. But, he has said, “I completely disagree with this verdict and feel that I was treated unfairly by the court. I will defend my integrity and will be appealing this decision.” This is a process that could last up to a year.
It would appear that Brannon didn’t take the stand in his own defense because his legal team was certain such a frivolous civil case would be easy to win — that the plaintiffs case was a bit of a joke. It’s no laughing matter at this point, though. Brannon has been a forerunner in the Republican primary for months, garnering major supporters and endorsements along the way.
It’s nice to think that the facts will eventually prevail. For the moment, however, the full story is known only by those who seek it fervently.
Greensboro resident Jodi Riddleberger, a founder of Conservatives for Guilford County, is a News & Record Town Square community columnist.
Comment from the Company CEO Robert Rice on this editorial.
Robert Rice – “Hi Suzanne. My testimony in court and in deposition was under oath and I stand by it all.
It is important to note that the Jury found in my favor, *unanimously*. There was no misleading of the investors whatsoever, particularly the two plaintiffs. One of the odd things is that the plaintiffs agreed that they were told the exact same thing, consistently, from myself, Dr. Brannon, Kirkbride, and Cummings. Cummings was never sued, Kirkbride was dismissed early on, and only Dr. Brannon and I made it to court. If we all said the same thing, and the Jury found that I made no misrepresentations of any kind, how is it possible that Dr. Brannon was found liable?
The fact that the jury found Dr. Brannon liable was a shock to everyone, but there were a number of odd things about the whole jury trial, particularly in regards to the jury instructions, some of their questions to the judge, and a ton of other evidence that we were not allowed to present in court.
Its easy to call something a conspiracy theory if it doesn’t fit with your world view, but if you do your research and get the court records and transcripts, you can see for yourself that there is indeed more to the story here, and that the mainstream press didn’t cover things completely fairly and certainly did make Dr. Brannon look very poorly.
I’ve known him since 1995, and he is one of the most honest, hard-working, intelligence, and genuine people I know. Try showing up at an event where he is speaking and see him firsthand.”
And then there is THIS little unrelated tidbit:
“By conducting an FEC search for political campaign contributions, we see that a Bryan Collins in Raleigh who listed his occupation as Public Defender contributed the sum of $500 to the Hagan Senate Committee in 2008.
I’m no lawyer, and I can’t possibly pretend to understand all the technicalities of impartiality. That said, does anyone think it smells a little funny that a Judge known to support one candidate for office would be allowed to try a case involving that candidate’s potential future opposition?”
Bryan Collins is the JUDGE who resided over the Civil Trial.
And NOW there has been a FORMAL Complaint filed against Judge Bryan Collins.
Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Eighteenth Day of March in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Fourteen.