"David" <hdsienkiewicz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105209797.929534.176950@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Uncle Davey wrote:
> > "David" <hdsienkiewicz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1105208578.631895.96340@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > Uncle Davey wrote:
> > > > "David" <hdsienkiewicz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1105206274.039511.263840@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > Uncle Davey wrote:
> > > > > > "David" <hdsienkiewicz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:1105185391.175441.161200@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > < snip >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By the way, Davey, you're showing a rather remarkable lack
> of
> > > > > curiosity
> > > > > > > about the things Jason has been asked - and has dodged - in
> > > these
> > > > > > > groups, particularly with respect to his shenanigans in
> court.
> > > > > > > No interest at all, eh?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm watching it all, and have no comments at this time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Really!
> > > > >
> > > > > And why not?
> > > > >
> > > > > When you had no evidence at all, you had no problem making all
> > > kinds of
> > > > > noises, but now that we have some rather interesting
> information
> > > coming
> > > > > out, you want to reserve your opinion?
> > > > > That's your right, Davey.
> > > > >
> > > > > But let's make a note of it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You haven't shown anything of substance yet.
> > >
> > > Of course I have.
> > >
> > > > The 2000 USD was a clerical error. Unfortunate, but there you go.
> > >
> > > Um, no.
> > >
> > > You're taking Jason's word for that, but what I have shows
> otherwise.
> > >
> > > Why do you think I asked him how many times he filed this case?
> > >
> > > > Not his fault, and I'm willing to bet not your fault, but you
> made
> > > capital
> > > > out of it anyway.
> > >
> > > Well, actually, it IS his fault.
> > >
> > > Even if we accept that it's an error, he had MONTHS to correct it.
> > >
> > > MONTHS, Davey.
> > >
> > > The date on the abstract that I posted was in August.
> > >
> > > > Which was big of you.
> > >
> > > Well, thank you, Davey.
> > >
> > > Always happy to be of service.
> > >
> > > > But you troll along merrily anyway.
> > >
> > > You keep believing that, Davey.
> > >
> > > Ask Jason how many times he filed his case.
> > >
> > > Ask him if any of them were rejected - and why.
> > > Ask if if he's ever filed any other civil actions pro se.
> >
> > If you know the answers, why don't you just give them?
>
> A better question is "why don't you ask him?"
In trollish circles, this technique is known as "let's you and him fight".
>
> > Not trolly enough for you, that way?
>
> In case you haven't noticed, I tend to allow others to dig the holes in
> which they wind up being buried.
I know your clever techniques. You even weren't above dragging his wife and
kid into them.
>
> Then I nail the coffin shut.
Hmmn. Prosecutor AND funeral director. I call that moonlighting.
> You'll need to decide if it's "trolly" or an "evil lawyer trick," or
> both.
>
> Either way, it tends to work. For example, I set up and then nailed
> Jason on the $2000 that he claimed was NOT in the court documents
> ANYWHERE.
>
> He walked right into it, and provided me with evidence that he is not
> forth-right and honest with the readers - and you, Davey.
>
That was not proven by you, there was every chance he could have failed to
notice the court error.
I am always seeing in my line of work how easy it is for people not to
notice this kind of numerical error.
If I accused them of motive on each occasion I would be excrucitely, and
time and goodwillwastingly wrong.
I have other ways of analysing and deciding the origin and importance of
errors I spot as a result of my tests, and if you think I am blinkered here,
you are wrong.
If I, an auditor, hadn't spotted it, your case would be strong, but as it
is, it isn't.
> Jason's convenient "oath to God" was, of course, his way of retreating.
> He knows he's no match for me, and I'm not even all that good at this.
> He should be pretty happy that he didn't have to face a lawyer in a
> real court of law.
>
> Then again, maybe that's why he didn't show up.
> You might ask him THAT, too, Davey.
He was his own attorney, so obviously there was a risk he might not show.
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 |
|