Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "David" <hdsienkiewicz@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: Question to Marky Bilbo
Date: 8 Jan 2005 11:06:58 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 213
Message-ID: <1105211218.243778.269750@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
References: <crhca3$7vt$0@pita.alt.net>
<1105185391.175441.161200@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
<crp3l6$v2l$0@pita.alt.net>
<1105206274.039511.263840@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
<crp825$9j0$0@pita.alt.net>
<1105208578.631895.96340@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
<crp8ma$aua$0@pita.alt.net>
<1105209797.929534.176950@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
<crpad3$ebo$0@pita.alt.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.105.117.89
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1105211222 25202 127.0.0.1 (8 Jan 2005 19:07:02 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:07:02 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <crpad3$ebo$0@pita.alt.net>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=68.105.117.89;
posting-account=ieRKiwwAAAAoKzdg6ksf7y5q5t5ATy7e
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:3804
Uncle Davey wrote:
> "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".
No, Davey, I'm simply asking you why you don't ask HIM?
YOU are the one being challenged now - not Jason.
> > > 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.
Anything that I said about Jason's family was in sincere concern for
their welfare, Davey.
It is his responsibility to support and provide for them. So now, they
weren't dragged into anything.
Of course, I didn't go so low as Jason did when he took a comment from
Robyn and decided to use her 6 year old child to then imply that she
was unfit as a parent.
> > Then I nail the coffin shut.
>
> Hmmn. Prosecutor AND funeral director. I call that moonlighting.
What pays the bills, eh?
> > 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.
For MONTHS, Davey?
The case was dismissed in December. The abstract that I posted was
from August.
At the very least, it was incompetent in someone presuming to act pro
se, and it certainly was inattentive.
> I am always seeing in my line of work how easy it is for people not
to
> notice this kind of numerical error.
This is not on a par with the occasional accounting error, Davey - this
was a declared amount demanded for damages in a civil suit.
> If I accused them of motive on each occasion I would be excrucitely,
and
> time and goodwillwastingly wrong.
See above.
> 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.
Ah, I see.
Well, let's just say that if you want to test my legal knowledge
against your own, YOU'RE wrong.
Okay, you're turn. I'm wrong.
Then it's my turn. You're wrong.
> If I, an auditor, hadn't spotted it, your case would be strong, but
as it
> is, it isn't.
We're not talking about an audit, Davey.
> > 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.
He could have been hit by a bus, too, but he wasn't.
The court actually TRIED to get a hold of him. It did not have a good
phone number.
Jason made a great deal of noise about this case and even used it to
threaten others with legal action. It was months in preparation and
I'll tease you, Davey - it was filed more than once.
And he couldn't be bothered to show up when it came time to make his
case?
If you're going to make excuses for him, you'll have to do better than
that.
But chin up, Davey! He couldn't do any better.
|
| 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 |
|