Rick Simons' Opposition to WTS Motion in Conti case is brilliant--Check it out @ Alameda Sup Ct Website (page 9)

Scott77

"Dumping legal citations or research is probably not going to help any lay people. They don't have the background to understand it. The material is written by lawyers for lawyers. I mentioned that you never state what your view is. You never express any emotion. We would love to hear your opinions. ...Legal skills are important but the primary attribute treasured is creativity with the law...Why can't we all cooperate on tihs forum? People bring different strengths and outlooks. This thread provides a minor example..."

Band on the Run

Hi BOTR,

From now on,this is the direction we are going to take. Thank you for those beautful ideas. Iam going for some beer time soon.

Scott77

Justitia Themis

Yep, ya got me 144,001! ...didn't use you're.

Lawyers are expected to be specific, and to get their facts straight. You are foolishly attempting to rewrite history, but I'm going to hold you to your own words...You didn't claim that you had previously questioned the WTBTS' ability to substitute real property; rather, you claimed that you had previously expressed the opinion that you didn't think that the WTBTS would be able to make the real property substitution at issue.

Oh good lord. The above is what this kerfluffle is about? That's my big "lie"? questioned v. thought? ROTGLMAO!!!!

144,001, people here aren't stupid; don't insult their intelligence by trying to play that as a "lie."

Though I thank you for clarifying your argument. I had given you the benefit of the doubt by thinking that perhaps you just hadn't noticed the dates. Now, you look even more like a childish ass.

Clearly, your ego is bruised and battered by my statement that I didn't think you a lawyer. BOTR once posted she had doubts as to whether I was law student; I didn't bother even responding...just not worth my time. Why am I worth your time 144,001?

As I previously posted, you might want to examine why you are responding so emotionally. Nevertheless, I will leave you sitting on the floor screaming 'JT is a liar.' The grown-ups have other things to do...

144001

Trying to pretend you didn't lie doesn't work here, Justiitia.

Earlier, you lied when you stated that you had previously posted your opinion that you didn't believe that the WTBTS was legally entitled to substitute real property for the bond. In fact, you had not previously expressed that opinion because you lacked the courage to do so. Instead, you waited until others, myself included, expressed that opinion, then tried to hide your failure to have previously expressed an opinion on the subject by lying that you had already stated the same opinion in a previous post. Show us the post, Justitia. It doesn't exist.

Lawyers have a bad reputation, in large part due to the public perception that they are dishonest. I see that you are working hard to keep the stereotype going . . .

Justitia Themis

i JT, Was you trying to hit 'two birds with one stone'? Scott77

I'm sorry Scott. I don't understand your post. If you are asking if I was targeting you, the answer is no. I was just posting a recent and convenient example of where 144,001 has told someone to stop making personal attacks. If I am misunderstanding the post, let me know, and I will try to clear things up.

BTW, I am going to have to disagree with you about posting case law and secondary sources. I believe there are many capable and talented people on this board (Ann O'Malley for one) who could take the citations I post and do quite a bit of research with them, especially with the help of a law librarian.

Justitia Themis

Why am I worth your time 144,001?

144001

Slides a Newcastle to Scott . . . "Cheers!"

144001

Great news!!!!!

Today, the Alameda County Court issued its ruling on the motion by the WTBTS to: [1] substitute the Patterson property as collateral instead of the appeal bond that is costing the WTBTS about $86K/year; or [2] to reduce the required amount of the appeal bond.

The Court's decision was to deny the motion in its entirety, because the law simply does not allow what the WTBTS was requesting.

The decision was proper and the WTBTS cannot appeal it. They do have other alternatives, but given the realities of this case, they will have to accept the Court's decision on this as final.

Cheers to Ms. Conti and her lawyers!!!!!

Rick Simons' Opposition to WTS Motion in Conti case is brilliant--Check it out @ Alameda Sup Ct Website

Scott77

Justitia Themis

144001

Justitia Themis

Justitia Themis

144001

144001

AnnOMaly

Gayle

ziddina

Share this