Originally Posted by ~enigma~
Sorry, but Rodriguez never "removed himself from the lawsuit" as far as the law is concerned. He launched his suit in October 2004, and the evidence shows that even after the case was transferred in early 2005 to NY (despite Rodriguez' attempts to prevent it from being transferred from PA to NY, where Berg was not licensed to practice and had to obtain permission to argue the motion to dismiss that was brought there after the transfer), Rodriguez kept him on as counsel and continued to try to further his case in NY after the transfer.
In early 2006, Rodriquez swore an affidavit in support of his resistance to the government's motion to dismiss his action in NY, in which he reiterated his belief in the numerous conspiracy theories that formed the basis of his lawsuit.
Rodriguez did not distance himself from Berg, even according to the link Rodriguez sent to Enigma, until after
the lawsuit was dismissed by the NY court. The defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in NY on June 26, 2006, dismissing his claims against The United States of America, Department of Homeland Security and FEMA, and Rodriguez had until July 7, 2006 to show cause why his lawsuit should not be dismissed as against all of the other defendants as well. He did not do so and an order dismissing his claim against all defendants was issued on July 17, 2006.
In the link provided, Rodriguez posted - in September 2006 - that his lawsuit had not been dismissed at all.
That is not true. As noted above, his claims were dismissed on June 26, 2006, as against the only defendants whom he had served with his lawsuit, and on July 17, 2006 his claims were dismissed as against all remaining defendants. (Nor is it true that he is the "Last Survivor of the North Tower" as he refers to himself in his post).
Of course, it is open to William to provide documentation to prove his assertions; it is open to him to back up his claim that he "fired" Berg prior to that; it is open to him to provide documentation that he objected to the claims made in his own lawsuit prior to it being dismissed by the NY court less than a year ago in July 2006; it is open to him to explain when he "read the whole case" for the first time; it is open to him to set out which of the myriad of conspiracy theories asserted in his lawsuit - and in his sworn affidavit in 2006 - that he currently supports or does not support, etc.
It is open to him to provide evidence of anything he wishes to refute the public record, but so far he has not done so. It is open to him to agree to a live interview by a non-truther, without pre-set, pre-fab questions, etc.
It is open to him to provide evidence to "set the record straight" if he feels that he has been maligned by the public record to which he has ascribed his name, including the affidavits that he signed and swore were true. It is open to him to say that when he swore to the truth of his affidavits that he didn't really mean it, or whatever he wishes to now say.
So far, though, he has not addressed any of this in any meaningful fashion.
So, I will repeat, as it stands at present, the court documents are pretty clear - and are a matter of public record. In the absence of any refutation of them by Mr. Rodriguez to date, well, the records speak for themselves.