"David" <hdsienkiewicz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105274552.950036.152770@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Uncle Davey wrote:
> > "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.
>
> And for the record, we can note that none of the substance I posted
> above got a response.
>
> I'll take that as a concession that you, at least, are arguing from a
> position of wishful thinking and speculation.
>
> I can always tell when you have nowhere else to take your arguments
> once they have been rebutted.
>
Were we arguing about something? You simply said you were going to present
in short ordah a theory on why Jason allegedly did not show up for court,
and I said, in so many words, troll on.
If trolling be the food of conversion, troll on. Give me excess of it.
<crash!> sorry Shakespeare.
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 |
|