Where did it go and why...

[Dan Kone]

You, Mr. Kone are a liar. Nowhere in the original post does it even mention Bret's probation.

I'm not lying. It gave a timeline of events. You are correct in saying that time line didn't mention bret's probation. That information came directly from bret in a now deleted post off my visitor wall. Matching up the timeline to the information from bret, the time line concludes that bret got off probation (sept 18th) about three days after getting fired.

 

[beware]

Theres a saying if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its a duck! and Bret Your a snitch!
Reality,
Go hang out with your boy Bret, your handle Reality Checker suggests you are his BOY, im done trying to justify anything to you, It doesnt matter what you think. believe it or not.
My posts are for people who don't want to be where my friend is now, In Court

And i do have a california ID and i am a registered member of the collective just trying to help people in need, sick people who really need medicine!

If anybody else has questions e-mail me your number at [email protected]

ill call you back on a prepaid as my other phone was taken by Bret and his LAPD posse

 

[beware]

Hey Dan you can bring a horse to the water but you cant make him drink. Reality Checker is Bret's Biatch

 

[Dan Kone]

Easy to get, yes. Will that note you have provide you with an affirmative defense if you don't live in california? No. That's a problem. That would also mean the collective had out of state members, a no no.

No. The real problem is that the court documents clearly stat that the informant had previously cooperated with the LA sheriffs dept and everyone else working on the grow was from Arizona! That's getting REALLY close to proof that bret is a snitch.

 

[Dan Kone]

Have you thought about this? If alwaysclosing1 started the thread, and alwaysclosing1 is now banned for life for alleged spamming, wouldn't it make sense that every post and thread by alwaysclosing1 would be deleted?

And yet bret admitted to getting the thread deleted.

Look man. Everyone here saw bret caught in a huge lie. When the accusation first came out everyone here clearly saw bret deny he ever even do business with the guy. You can't tell people here that didn't happen because everyone saw it.

And the question remains unanswered, why did bret come on here denying any association with the OP? If he wasn't the snitch and this was simply a matter of a business dispute, why didn't bret just give his side of the story instead of posting a lengthy denial that he even knew the guy? Bret clearly stated that he "have never worked for or with" the OP. Only after bret was caught in that lie did he change his story.

Now on top of all that it's come out that this informant has cooperated with the LA sheriff more than once and yet everyone else working there was from Arizona and Bret gets fired 2 weeks before the place gets raided! Come on now, realistically who else can the snitch be?

 

[Dan Kone]

Hey Dan you can bring a horse to the water but you cant make him drink. Reality Checker is Bret's Biatch

I'm actually wondering if it isn't one of Bret's lawyers.

 

[Matt Rize]

No. The real problem is that the court documents clearly stat that the informant had previously cooperated with the LA sheriffs dept and everyone else working on the grow was from Arizona! That's getting REALLY close to proof that bret is a snitch.

yayayaYIKES!
I think I just peed my pants a little. No bueno mayn.

[video=youtube;zIRwd1S26Ik]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIRwd1S26Ik[/video]

 

[reality checker]

I'm not lying. It gave a timeline of events. You are correct in saying that time line didn't mention bret's probation. That information came directly from bret in a now deleted post off my visitor wall. Matching up the timeline to the information from bret, the time line concludes that bret got off probation (sept 18th) about three days after getting fired.

No. your friend said he was fired October 1, thats a little more than 3 days after probation ended.

 

[reality checker]

Theres a saying if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its a duck! and Bret Your a snitch!
Reality,
Go hang out with your boy Bret, your handle Reality Checker suggests you are his BOY, im done trying to justify anything to you, It doesnt matter what you think. believe it or not.
My posts are for people who don't want to be where my friend is now, In Court

And i do have a california ID and i am a registered member of the collective just trying to help people in need, sick people who really need medicine!

If anybody else has questions e-mail me your number at [email protected]

ill call you back on a prepaid as my other phone was taken by Bret and his LAPD posse

So it is you who was busted, not your friend.

 

[reality checker]

And yet bret admitted to getting the thread deleted.

Look man. Everyone here saw bret caught in a huge lie. When the accusation first came out everyone here clearly saw bret deny he ever even do business with the guy. You can't tell people here that didn't happen because everyone saw it.

And the question remains unanswered, why did bret come on here denying any association with the OP? If he wasn't the snitch and this was simply a matter of a business dispute, why didn't bret just give his side of the story instead of posting a lengthy denial that he even knew the guy? Bret clearly stated that he "have never worked for or with" the OP. Only after bret was caught in that lie did he change his story.

Now on top of all that it's come out that this informant has cooperated with the LA sheriff more than once and yet everyone else working there was from Arizona and Bret gets fired 2 weeks before the place gets raided! Come on now, realistically who else can the snitch be?

Whoever went to the cops on the 20th of september. Bret was fired October 1, according to your friends original post. who were the previous workers? are any of them disgruntled?

 

[Dan Kone]

Whoever went to the cops on the 20th of september. Bret was fired October 1, according to your friends original post. who were the previous workers? are any of them disgruntled?

You're ignoring the fact that they were all from Arizona and according the the police officer said the informant had cooperated with him before. Come on now. Combined this with the fact that this is the second time bret has been accused of this before in the same police jurisdiction and the fact that bret had the best motivation to snitch, this really isn't that hard to figure out.

Why you're defending someone who's very likely a snitch is beyond me. Maybe he's your "friend" now, but do you really want friends where you have to always wonder if they are going to sell you out? I wouldn't. To each their own I guess.

 

[reality checker]

You're ignoring the fact that they were all from Arizona and according the the police officer said the informant had cooperated with him before. Come on now. Combined this with the fact that this is the second time bret has been accused of this before in the same police jurisdiction and the fact that bret had the best motivation to snitch, this really isn't that hard to figure out.

Why you're defending someone who's very likely a snitch is beyond me. Maybe he's your "friend" now, but do you really want friends where you have to always wonder if they are going to sell you out? I wouldn't. To each their own I guess.

The proof will be at trial. and when the informant is NOT Bret, would you come on here and publicly apologize?

 

[Dan Kone]

The proof will be at trial. and when the informant is NOT Bret, would you come on here and publicly apologize?

IF the name of the informant is released and it's not bret, yes, absolutely.

 

[Matt Rize]

IF the name of the informant is released and it's not bret, yes, absolutely.

they have no idea how awesome you are dan, or they would not have even asked. . you're the man!

I hope that RC is correct, really do.

:end scene fade out: haha

 

[Dan Kone]

they have no idea how awesome you are dan, or they would not have even asked. . you're the man!

:close scene: haha

thx man. I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong.

This time I'm 100% convinced I'm right. It's the only thing that makes any sense. No other possible situation really matches up with what happened. But if I am wrong, I'd owe bret an apology (I'd still think he was a total scumbag though, that I'm sure of).

I'm very much interested in the truth. So far one side has given a very consistent story, the other has been caught inventing a story then not given any reasonable explanation for the evidence against him.

 

[reality checker]

I'm very much interested in the truth. So far one side has given a very consistent story, the other has been caught inventing a story then not given any reasonable explanation for the evidence against him.

.
What evidence is there against him?
your friend has claimed he has a voicemail of a threat to call police, and the only thing on there is turning the matter over to the attorneys and go to court:
The timeline given - hired sept 1, fired oct 1, threatened oct 5, and the police paperwork states they were contacted september 20. That timeline does not fit. and thsi is the timeline YOUR FRIEND PROVIDED!

And the thing I find most curious about your friend is this: he claimed he was just a handyman, but seems to have some inside, corporate information on payroll, etc. If he was just a handyman, how would he know if the agreement called for additional workers, weekly schedules, etc? He wouldn't be privy to that information.
I actually called the court on friday to check the story out. Know what I found out? According to the LA county inmate website, your friend was released from jail with no bond. The court clerk, Myrna, told me that there has not been any arraignment, and they were "waiting for arrest warrants to be filed." Why would they need to file arrest warrants, if he had already been arrested? Something doesn't sound right about that.

 

[reality checker]

IF the name of the informant is released and it's not bret, yes, absolutely.

I wonder if your friend will.

 

[Dan Kone]

When bret came here the first thing he did was denying any association with the op, then when proven false he got the thread deleted and threatened to sue everyone who discussed it. Also, with a group of people all from AZ, I don't see how those people can be previous informants in LA. Doesn't add up.

Unless you can explain that stuff I simply do not believe bret's constantly changing story. It doesn't seem like anyone else could have done it. Then combined that with his multiple accusations of snitching in that country combined with the police confirming they've used this snitch before, brets lying and threats, plus the fact that he's the only one that has any obvious motivations to snitch and this all paints a pretty clear picture.

 

[reality checker]

When bret came here the first thing he did was denying any association with the op, then when proven false he got the thread deleted and threatened to sue everyone who discussed it. Also, with a group of people all from AZ, I don't see how those people can be previous informants in LA. Doesn't add up.

Unless you can explain that stuff I simply do not believe bret's constantly changing story. It doesn't seem like anyone else could have done it. Then combined that with his multiple accusations of snitching in that country combined with the police confirming they've used this snitch before, brets lying and threats, plus the fact that he's the only one that has any obvious motivations to snitch and this all paints a pretty clear picture.

As I understand it, he was under a confidentiality agreement. since your friend violated it, it was no longer in effect. Your friend stated and posted a voice mail that he claimed had bret threatening to call the cops. Did you hear that on the voicemail? I didn't.
Bret was NEVER accused of being an informant for LA county. Mr. Rubin claims he works for the CIA. You have even claimed Mr. Rubin is correct, without even seeing the videos that he edited together. Mr. Rubins case was in 2006. Then the next accusation is in 2011. Both are incorrect. Please do your research on the Temple 420 raid before you take Mr. Rubin at his word. Why would you do that BTW? If your friend had never been busted, and you saw that video, would you just blindy believe it?

YOur friend claims he had paperwork with bret's name on it, yet the paperwork he provided does not list a name. In fact, the details in the statement exonerate Bret from being the informant, as the police became aware of the alleged grow september 20. your friend stated Bret was fired October 1 and made the alleged threat Oct 5. Timeline doesn't fit.

If your friends company conducted business with previous consultants the way they seem to have conducted business with apothecary, It would not suprise me in the least that people may be very upset with your friend's employers. Maybe you can ask your friend if any previous partners or employees they let go before they hired apothecary were dissatisfied or if he had any altercations with any of them.

Beyond this, you will just have to go to court and see for yourself.

 

[Dan Kone]

As I understand it, he was under a confidentiality agreement. since your friend violated it, it was no longer in effect.

Yeah, that's probably the weakest excuse I've ever heard. A confidentiality agreement forced bret to come over here and lie about ever knowing the guy? I don't think so.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how a bunch of people who live in Arizona are more likely to have former experience being an informant in LA than Bret Bogue, the guy who's been accused of being exactly that in LA before. And no, I don't care that Mr Rubin seems to speculate that bret is in the CIA. The fact is that he was busted in LA county after an encounter with Bogue after he claims bret bogue brought him 25 pounds. Yeah, I know, that guy is lying. Everyone is lying except bret who always tells the truth right?