Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: Question to Marky Bilbo
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 13:29:08 +0100
Organization: www.usenetposts.com
Lines: 337
Message-ID: <crr82s$cai$0@pita.alt.net>
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> <1105269392.402046.177820@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2741.2600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2742.200
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:3811
"David" <hdsienkiewicz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105269392.402046.177820@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
>
well, as you know, everyone is listening.
you've been spending most of your on-line life postin' in a trollster's
paradise.
but tell me, why are we too blind to see, that the ones we hurt are you and
me?
<crash!> and another.
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 |
|