Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "David" <hdsienkiewicz@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: Question to Marky Bilbo
Date: 9 Jan 2005 03:16:32 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 320
Message-ID: <1105269392.402046.177820@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$0@pita.alt.net>
<1105211218.243778.269750@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
<crpbsg$h14$0@pita.alt.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.105.117.89
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1105269396 1945 127.0.0.1 (9 Jan 2005 11:16:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 11:16:36 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <crpbsg$h14$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:3810
Uncle Davey wrote:
> "David" <hdsienkiewicz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1105211218.243778.269750@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
< snip >
> > No, Davey, I'm simply asking you why you don't ask HIM?
> >
> > YOU are the one being challenged now - not Jason.
< snip >
> > 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.
< snip >
> > > That was not proven by you, there was every chance he could have
> > failed to
> > > notice the court error.
> >
> > For MONTHS, Davey?
>
> I expect it was filed away in a drawer for months.
You EXPECT?
So you're arguing from speculation, eh, Davey?
A guess.
You don't have the courage to go and ask Jason, "what the hell
happened?"
> Either you notice these things straight off or you don't
> see them for months, maybe for ever.
Jason filed a civil suit against another human being more than once -
and he couldn't be bothered to check and make sure it was correct?
Actually, Davey, there have been some inconsistencies in Jason's story
that I haven't even pounced on yet.
I guess now is a good time.
Patience. We'll get to it.
> I don't suppose he kept getting it out to look at it, like some kind
of
> ruddy gloat sheet.
>
> You might do that funny stuff, but that doesn't mean everybody does
it.
That I would suggest that Jason keep track and insure that a LEGAL
DOCUMENT has the correct information in it is hardly "funny stuff,"
Davey, particularly if one is going to act pro se.
Nor did I suggest that he keep "getting it out to look at it."
I'd just like to know why this thing that Jason now claims is an
"error" wasn't noticed until AFTER I brought it up in a newsgroup.
Jason filed. The typing was done, the paperwork sent out to both
parties, and between August and December, no one noticed - not even
ONCE - that the amount of damages requested was an error?
And Davey, the amount of damages, according to Jason, himself, could
NOT have been $200.
Wait for it.
At any rate, that was a significant aspect of the case, but it was in
"error" and never noticed until AFTER I posted it and AFTER I
specifically challenged Jason about that SPECIFIC statement on the
abstract, which should have been rather plain and obvious.
I mean, it's not like that section is lost in a mound of verbiage.
It's rather prominent.
Somebody this unattentive - and I'm being charitable, here - to
something that important on a legal document is someone you would have
running a "ministry" and managing the money that is donated by
well-meaning people?
> > 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.
>
> Huh. I've had no better from my lawyers in my divorce. I wish I had
acted
> pro se then.
I can't address that, Davey, not being familiar with the details, but I
can guess that this is why you have such a bugaboo in your bonnet about
lawyers.
Regardless, it's a red herring from THIS situation.
> > > 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.
>
> And that transaction is an holy cow among transactions why, exactly?
Did I say it was a "holy cow among transactions?"
In your zeal to defend the indefensible - using nothing more than
speculation and excuse-making, mind you, you don't have a whit of
evidence - you seem to want to repaint the situation into something
it's not.
For that particular court case, which included Bill obtaining an
attorney at his own cost across a third of the distance of the United
States, it was pretty important, don't you think.
Set yourself away from Jason's ass, and be objective.
Be Bill.
You're in Colorado. You hired a lawyer to defend yourself.
The demand is for $2,000. Forget Jason's excuses and his complete
failure to provide any mitigating or explanatory evidence, all Bill
knew was that Jason was demanding $2,000.
And you have to get a lawyer.
Wow. Suddenly, it's a "holy cow among transactions," isn't it?
> It's only money, one way or another. And 200 USD is not exactly a
great deal
> of money.
It wasn't $200, Davey.
$2,000.
That's what the court documents said.
And let's remember that Jason pretended that, upon recent
investigation, he found it had been changed to ZERO because it was less
than $500.
Hold that thought. We'll come back to it.
> Now more than ever.
I can't address the current exchange rate, Davey, and it's not relevant
here.
> > > 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.
>
> You're wrong.
I have evidence.
You don't.
You're wrong.
Worse, you're acting as a sycophant again.
> > > 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.
>
> I'm comparing the level of errorspottingness on documents you might
expect
> from me to someone untrained in error spotting who might be inclined
to take
> a court document on trust and not give it a second look.
Take a look again at the document, Davey:
http://www.geocities.com/hdsienkiewicz/JG_DOC_A.jpg
"Demand: $2000"
That's the only monetary amount mentioned on a piece of paper that can
hardly be called "cluttered" with legal verbiage or a number of
figures.
One of the reasons for the generation of an abstract such as this is to
help insure accuracy.
You want to blow this off as the court clerk making a mistake and Jason
being inattentive to the issue - from August until December, mind you.
> Do try to keep up.
I think I'm doing all right, Davey.
If I'm rejecting your arguments out of hand as speculation and based on
wishful thinking, that's because they ARE speculation and based on
wishful thinking.
> > > > 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.
>
> Whooosh!
Yes, you missed it.
> > The court actually TRIED to get a hold of him. It did not have a
good
> > phone number.
>
> They probably added another nought on the end of that as well.
"Probably?"
More speculation and wishful thinking.
The Court had the correct number for the Judson Street address, Davey.
Now what?
They called looking for him.
> > 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.
>
> Ooh, you teaser you.
You love it and you know it.
> > 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.
>
> The fact is, David, that ...
>
> _Nobody_ does it better
>
> Makes me feel sad for the rest.
>
> Nobody does it, like the English do
> Baby, we're the best.
>
> <crash> oh well, there goes another copyright.
I think that falls under "fair use," Davey.
But the point is that Jason couldn't even be bothered to show up for
court.
I have a theory as to why, based on what I have observed about Jason
and this whole affair.
I'll get to it shortly.
|
| 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 |
|