Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Snoopy]

Yes, whatever...

Might I suggest this thread return to its original topic??

[Bob Pickle]

Yes, whatever...

Might I suggest this thread return to its original topic??

Sounds fine to me, but:

That thought does not cause me to chuckle, and I fail to understand why Artiste found that so funny as you say, and why she can't ever reply to the actual subject matter, when any who are not you, post. I did follow up the title of the post which she quoted with an example of what I was talking about, but whatever...

I did reply to Ian's bogus "example," and she has thus far failed to reply to my reply.

If I emailed a draft subpoena by November 12, 2007, in what way were our subpoenas due to frustration about delays in the Massachusetts court over two motions that weren't filed until Dec. 18, 2007, and June 25, 2008?

But any reply by Ian/Cindy should be made in a thread dedicated to that topic, not here.

[Cindy]

Do you honestly expect people to accept that you are too dense and unable to address the documented evidence here that this is your only thoughts or reaction and answer to what was posted?

What documented evidence? You didn't provide any, did you?

No, that would have been me... I think Nosir Myzing was just asking Artiste about her response to it.

Apparently you are trying to explain how our subpoenas of December 6 and 12, 2007, really could be issued after the plaintiffs' motions of Dec. 18, 2007, and June 25, 2008. Lots of luck.

I can't see that anyone said that here, Bob, because NO ONE DID.

By the way, you quote above where Jerrie Hayes refers to a proposed protective order she submitted "as part of Plaintiffs’ 26(f) Report." Could you please provide a link to where one can actually read that document as it was sumitted to the court with that report? Hint: see Doc. 18 at http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/. Then quote for us the actual text of that proposed order. Hint: Jerrie never submitted any such proposed protective order with the 26(f) report.

Since the parties couldn't agree and file a joint report, how about I quote you and Gailon Joy instead from your separate filing that same exact day -way back in July of 2007?

Defendants further assert that the Plaintiffs’ proposed STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING CONFIDENTIALITY is a contempt of the Honorable Court and a veiled effort to impound discovery grossly violating the clear order of the court as the Plaintiffs continue their efforts to sidestep local rule 7(a) in an effort to avoid full disclosure to the contributing public.

And how about I quote from Jerry Hayes letter to you way back in Nov of 2007:

...These materials, however, include extremely sensitive and confidential business information and will not be disclosed by Plaintiffs without a protective order in place.

Plaintiffs circulated a proposed protective order as part of their proposed 26(f) Report.
Please review it and let me know if you are in agreement as to its terms and will stipulate to it governing this case. If not, we will need to negotiate a mutually agreeable protective and confidentiality order prior to your inspection of and prior to Plaintiffs' disclosure of the materials at issue. Please let me know if you no longer have a copy of Plaintiffs' proposed Protective Order and I will forward another for your review....

Please stop pretending the issue never came up until after you filed your subpoenas. It is not the truth and is actually deceptive, Bob as you are giving the wrong impression to others..

[Cindy]

Yes, whatever...

Might I suggest this thread return to its original topic??

Sounds fine to me, but:

That thought does not cause me to chuckle, and I fail to understand why Artiste found that so funny as you say, and why she can't ever reply to the actual subject matter, when any who are not you, post. I did follow up the title of the post which she quoted with an example of what I was talking about, but whatever...

I did reply to Ian's bogus "example," and she has thus far failed to reply to my reply.

If I emailed a draft subpoena by November 12, 2007, in what way were our subpoenas due to frustration about delays in the Massachusetts court over two motions that weren't filed until Dec. 18, 2007, and June 25, 2008?

But any reply by Ian/Cindy should be made in a thread dedicated to that topic, not here.

Cool your jets plz. I was replying when you posted this.

I have no objection to either you or another administrator moving your offtopic posts and my replies (both times just quoting you and then replying to what you said)  to a new thread if that is deemed appropriate.

[Bob Pickle]

Please stop pretending the issue never came up until after you filed your subpoenas. It is not the truth and is actually deceptive, Bob as you are giving the wrong impression to others..

You're missing the point. The plaintiffs never submitted any proposed confidentiality order to the court until Dec. 14, 2007. Thus, there were no delays in the court when I was working on our subpoenas by November 12, 2007. And thus Simpson lied about this point.

My first email to Jerrie Hayes appears to have been on November 14, 2007, two days after I already had a draft of the subpoena for Remnant worked on.

There is simply no way that replies from Jerrie Hayes to me about confidentiality orders led me to decide to issue subpoenas.

[Murcielago]

And the point you are trying to make?  

Pickle's half truths- sewing confusion, deception & lies

Pickle's sewing???

Is he making quilts, taking up dressmaking, or what?

Just a guess, but it looks like Artiste was making a play on words with the mis-spelling that she quoted.

Nice attempt at a save George.  Do you think the explanation would apply if i went back and found the last similar post by Artiste?

A save from what? Its a joke based on the difference between "sewing" and "sowing," and comes with a chuckle at the thought of Pickle sewing quilts and dresses.

hmmm, well for what it's worth as I am the one who wrote it I didn't misspell anything, George.  I wasn't talking about Pickle "sowing confusion" as in planting seeds of doubt, I really meant "sewing confusion" as in patching together his half truths...That thought does not cause me to chuckle, and I fail to understand why Artiste found that so funny as you say, and why she can't ever reply to the actual subject matter, when any who are not you, post. I did follow up the title of the post which she quoted with an example of what I was talking about, but whatever...

Oh, I see. Sorry, I misunderstood. I was just struck funny at the thought of Bob making quilts and dresses. Anyhow...

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Please stop pretending the issue never came up until after you filed your subpoenas. It is not the truth and is actually deceptive, Bob as you are giving the wrong impression to others..

You're missing the point. The plaintiffs never submitted any proposed confidentiality order to the court until Dec. 14, 2007. Thus, there were no delays in the court when I was working on our subpoenas by November 12, 2007. And thus Simpson lied about this point.

My first email to Jerrie Hayes appears to have been on November 14, 2007, two days after I already had a draft of the subpoena for Remnant worked on.

There is simply no way that replies from Jerrie Hayes to me about confidentiality orders led me to decide to issue subpoenas.

Looks as though more than just Simpson has a problem getting their arms around the case. They just need good clerks or interns to keep the facts correct, a constant challenge for such a complex case!!! But for Simpson, he is demonstrating one of three serious problems, way too rushed and we all know haste makes waste, incompetence, but we would not want to think such a thing of a member of the bar, or seriously factually challenged in the custom if "Liar, Liar"...we report, you decide...can I expect to be sued now for defamation?

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

[Bob Pickle]

Seems to me that you said that if one made one of the statements you just made, Simpson would sue.

But it seems to me that one might be able to prove by a preponderance of evidence that that particular statement is correct.