First: Kill All The Lawyers

This thread !!!!!!!!

 

Fact. Thank you
Right is right and wrong is wrong.
Steven Isenhower #52

 

I can't be anymore clear on this point; I'm not part of the lawsuit. I haven't blindly defended anyone, however I do have knowledge of the financial workings. Based on what I've seen, studied and been exposed to, the allegations surrounding those points have no merit. I've admitted that something could have been changed or doctored (unsure of my exact wording) but find it highly unlikely. How does that make me unethical? How would it make me a liar?

Maybe.

 

Maybe we don't kill ALL the lawyers. I like Dits and D'earl is okay. Maybe we kill 99% and only castrate the rest so they don't breed.

 

This is an important one...don't want this one to get away...

 

In all fairness, you weren't elected either.

 

According to court, he first asked for seperate counsel in March 2015, right out of the gate.

If I read correctly, he doesn't think a lawyer can represent both a victim and the thief.

I continue to think this is a spam account as you have hurt the cmra's case, such as it is, to an amazing degree.

Your attitude would explain why an organization would be better of entirely rebuilt - after all, if you as a professing bod member know nothing, then you have failed, defendant or not.

 

You are correct.

 

The suit may very well be designed to draw things out but it doesn't explain all the multiple motions filed by the BOD both as an entity and as individuals trying to get certain aspects of the suit thrown out or changed. It doesn't explain a BOD member trying to not be served. Plenty of dragging out has been done by the BOD as well. From what I have seen I would so more so.

 

I understand that you're not named. You explained that from the get-go ... In the very same post you state that due to that fact that you can't speak to specifics. You have since begun trying to speak to specifics. I've laid this out multiple times for you. Either you can't speak to specifics because you don't know them, in which case any defense you make is blind, or you can speak to specifics (as you've attempted), and you lied about your lack of knowledge from the get go. Really no middle ground there going off of your own posts/statements. Again, a very simple point that you seem determined to misunderstand. No different than my pc statement.

 

Spam account. I feel like it's important for you to state that...for some reason. Interesting that one other person has used that exact same statement "I continue to think this is a spam account..." the first time coming after a veiled threat that was then edited...and not before it was screen grabbed.

Regardless...your attitude of wanting to dismantle a club to then be rebuilt in your image is far more dangerous...and more egotistical than anything I can type here.

 

I know nothing of the suit. I am not involved. I am not briefed. I do not meet with the legal team. I am not told anymore than what statements have been released by the legal team. I know precisely what I have read on the internet concerning the suit. Nothing more. I do have access to the financial records. Reading the allegations and seeing the financial information that I have access to, I have concluded that those allegations have not merit...again, based on what I have had access to.

Calling me a liar seems to go against your personal PC policy. Still wondering why you care? You stated that you don't intend to race with my club (because of me I think), you don't care for my approach, you don't understand my reasoning and you my friend seem intent on simply being the ass that you've accused me of being. Welcome to the cesspool. You're fitting right in.

 

Random bitchy posts : 2,419,356

Dead lawyer count : 0

 

Maybe some lawyers die in the movie version of this soap opera.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

 

Ahhh fuck I didn't realize that was what this thread was about.

 

You are not a detective are you?