Print

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

[Daryl Fawcett]

Isn't this something that can be easily verified, therefore, why not produce the actual documentation that will settle this question as to whether she actually said that there wasn't any IRS criminal investigation going on in relation to 3ABN?

[Bob Pickle]

Daryl, no one has disputed whether she said it or not. What the question is is why she said it. Did she think there wasn't one because someone lied to her, or did she know there really was one going on?

There is presently no documentation other than my written statements, unless they bought a transcript of the hearing. I heard what I heard and in my remarks to the magistrate I countered what I heard, and then I wrote my question on BlackSDA in response to Greg based on what I myself heard in that hearing.

[Daryl Fawcett]

In that case, as the transcript would prove what was actually said, and, as it is a known fact that there is an IRS criminal investigation against 3ABN, what she said wasn't true, therefore, that should settle this aspect of the matter.

[Bob Pickle]

But while we know what she said, we don't know why she said what she said. Did she know the truth or not?

[Cindy]

1. Isn't this something that can be easily verified, therefore, why not produce the actual documentation that will settle this question as to whether she actually said that there wasn't any IRS criminal investigation going on in relation to 3ABN?

2. In that case, as the transcript would prove what was actually said, and, as it is a known fact that there is an IRS criminal investigation against 3ABN, what she said wasn't true, therefore, that should settle this aspect of the matter.

It is my understanding that the litigants and attorneys involved in the case have access to the transcripts.

So, I too wonder why there is no documentation being given here by Mr Pickle, except Mr Pickle's words, as he admits.

There is presently no documentation other than my written statements, unless they bought a transcript of the hearing.

I still maintain if the issue has any validity whatsoever it should be brought up and addressed and settled in court first. They certainly have access to the transcripts....

[Snoopy]

I fail to see how pointing out previous cases to which Ms. Hayes was a party is any different from bringing up Gailon Joy's bankruptcy case or his marital status per related documents.       Potshots???

as it looks like she did a good job in the cases, but I am thinking that most of you (unless you, yourself are one who likes making derogatory comments and want to join Mr Pickle in taking potshots at Jerrie Hayes) would rather hear about what happened at the status conference since that was brought up...

[Daryl Fawcett]

This is something that only she can answer, if she already hasn't done so and she chooses to do so.

Outside of that, we really can't document whether she knew or not at the time she said what she said that is documented in the transcript.

But while we know what she said, we don't know why she said what she said. Did she know the truth or not?

[Cindy]

But while we know what she said, we don't know why she said what she said. Did she know the truth or not?

Who is "we"?

Mr Pickle and the mouse in his pocket?

[Bob Pickle]

Who is "we"?

Mr Pickle and the mouse in his pocket?

Gailon and I qualify as "we."

It is my understanding that the litigants and attorneys involved in the case have access to the transcripts.

Want to pay for the transcript?

This is something that only she can answer, if she already hasn't done so and she chooses to do so.

Daryl, should be easy for the other side to say what they told her.

[Daryl Fawcett]

Then, as you and Gailon were both there and heard what she said with your own ears, which can be easily proven one way or the other, and as Ian seems to be questioning it, the onus is on Ian to present the proof.

[anyman]

That seems like some pretty weak logic there Mr. Fawcett. Is there a place where Mr. Pickle says that he and Mr. Joy were there in the court room when the attorney is supposed to have made this comment? Seems like you are also assuming that Mr. Pickle is remembering the comment clearly and that he isn't reworking it to make his accusations sound realistic. This Mr. Pickle and Mr. Joy are always using the words honest, transparent, open so it seems as if it would be a smart thing for them to provide some unbiased third party proof, like that transcript to support their claims when they make them the very first time. This Ian doesn't have to prove that Mr. Pickle is fudgin the truth it seems obvious at this point. That would mean that he needs to provide some backup for his claims.

Then, as you and Gailon were both there and heard what she said with your own ears, which can be easily proven one way or the other, and as Ian seems to be questioning it, the onus is on Ian to present the proof.

[Daryl Fawcett]

Since the proof is out there and that it is my understanding that the transcript is available, I am asking somebody to, either provide us with a copy of that transcript, or a link to where it can be obtained.

[Bob Pickle]

It will cost someone to get it. It isn't free. But she said what she said, and I corrected her statement when I responded to the magistrate.

[Artiste]

For the links below to work, go to http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/default.aspx and click "Civil, Family & Probate Case Records." Then do a search by "Party" rather than "Case." Put in Hayes as a last name and Jerrie as a first name, and then click search. The links below should then work, or you can use the links on the resulting search results page.
___________________________

Had a status conference today.

Not sure what it is with Jerrie Hayes, but it seems she likes to make derogatory comments about us being pro se litigants every chance she gets. She did it again today.

Not sure why. She was pro se in her divorce case and in a suit against her by Washington University. For the case against her by Riverview Associates it doesn't say whether she was represented by counsel or not.

Of course, maybe since she is a lawyer she can go pro se without other lawyers looking down on her, a privilege I can't claim. Think that's it?

It sounds like a lawyer intimidation technique to me.

[Artiste]

It will cost someone to get it. It isn't free. But she said what she said, and I corrected her statement when I responded to the magistrate.

It's pretty common for lawyers to make statements like that which they can defend if shown to be wrong by saying that they had heard something different, or that it was their understanding at the time.

The court doesn't usually stop to quibble about something like that.