Mitt Romney sold a drugged horse

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Riot

It was not "dismissed". Please, inform yourself of the accurate basics of the case before you get all high and mighty about other posters say.

That's right. It says "Mrs. Romney was dropped from the lawsuit before it was settled out of court."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/us...pagewanted=all

Originally Posted by Riot

The existence of that document is in the expert witness testimony that you said you read. But apparently did not.

The vet's testimony includes the existence of a document saying the the judge prevented defendants from talking about . . . what? Come on, give an old dog a bone. Where in his testimony is this document mentioned? Or does my old computer not open up documents within documents?

[Riot]

[quote=OldDog;871852]That's right. It says "Mrs. Romney was dropped from the lawsuit before it was settled out of court."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/us...pagewanted=all

Yes. After 18 months of winding it's way through the court system, immediately prior to going to jury trial.

The vet's testimony includes the existence of a document saying the the judge prevented defendants from talking about . . . what? Come on, give an old dog a bone. Where in his testimony is this document mentioned? Or does my old computer not open up documents within documents?

No. I said the Defendant Sanctions documents existence is revealed in the vet's testimony. The vet mentions it's existence right up front.

In spite of Romney's scrubbing Ann's name from the lawsuit, and getting it settled out of court, they forgot to get the expert witness statement hidden, and the expert witness statement reveals that the judge put sanctions on the defendants.

All you have to do is read.

I would love to know what the judge sanctioned the defendants for, before the case came to trial.

[pointman]

[quote=Riot;871854]

Originally Posted by OldDog

That's right. It says "Mrs. Romney was dropped from the lawsuit before it was settled out of court."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/us...pagewanted=all

Yes. After 18 months of winding it's way through the court system, immediately prior to going to jury trial.



No. I said the Defendant Sanctions documents existence is revealed in the vet's testimony. The vet mentions it's existence right up front.

In spite of Romney's scrubbing Ann's name from the lawsuit, and getting it settled out of court, they forgot to get the expert witness statement hidden, and the expert witness statement reveals that the judge put sanctions on the defendants.

All you have to do is read.

I would love to know what the judge sanctioned the defendants for, before the case came to trial.

So you are concerned about sanctions against a party (which you have zero clue as to what and why a court would impose such for) in a non-descript lawsuit which you have tortured to besmirch the reputation of a person not even named in it, but have zero concern that the nation's top law enforcement official has refused to respect a lawful subpoena and that the President of the United States has either illegally invoked executive privilege or confirmed his or a staff member very close to the President's involvement by invoking executive privilege?

Wow.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by pointman

So you are concerned about sanctions against a party (which you have zero clue as to what and why a court would impose such for) in a non-descript lawsuit which you have tortured to besmirch the reputation of a person not even named in it, but have zero concern that the nation's top law enforcement official has refused to respect a lawful subpoena and that the President of the United States has either illegally invoked executive privilege or confirmed his or a staff member very close to the President's involvement by invoking executive privilege?

Wow.

Geeshus cripes! That's a ridiculous, idiotic segue from one false assumption to a completely unassociated straw man, and a lie, of epic, unbelievable proportions! Well done!

Pointman, try hard to contribute something to this subject beside your repeated nasty, rude name-calling and gibberish ad hominem attacks. Those are the arguments of a loser and you know it.

Yes, Pointman - I would love to know why the judge issued "Defense Sanctions" against Ann Romney, the farm owned by she and her husband, her trainer and his wife. For what type of things, Mr. Lawyer, would a judge issue "Defense Sanctions" regarding, before a case came to trial? Any examples? What is this usually for? Why is this usually done?

[OldDog]

No responses to the rest of my questions?

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by OldDog

No responses to the rest of my questions?

Pie Charts take time

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by geeker2

Pie Charts take time

[Riot]

Originally Posted by OldDog

No responses to the rest of my questions?

No. Because you have proven you are disingenuous and unserious about the facts in this case. You have already shown repeatedly that you haven't bothered to read carefully what has already been posted.

Several times you've gotten all indignant and demanding about specific information, demanding "where is the link?" for things that were included in documents already given you.

That you alleged you had "read". But clearly had not.

The two main documents have been posted here. There is much more out there in the press if you simply use google.

I'm not catering to your further demands for "information", because you've already proven you couldn't be bothered to read what has already been given you.

You're either astoundingly lazy, or clearly unserious about anything other than public posturing.

I doubt you're lazy.

So if you truly have any serious interest in discussing this case - which I doubt, you are merely posturing for public effect - YOU post the acts surrounding the case that you acknowlege you are awares of, and we'll go on with further discussion from there.

[OldDog]

Frankly, I have no interest in your opinion of me -- I could not care less. I would like to know, however, if there is any substance to many of the rest of your claims (which aren't substantiated in your links), in particular the one in which you claimed that the Romneys refunded the purchase price. That I would be very interested in. If you cannot prove it, I will assume that it cannot be proven, which is what I have suspected all along.