Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 06-28-2012, 09:20 AM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDog View Post
BS You posted a link to one testimony, with a link to the NYT article that I quoted, to which you responded

Okay, where is the complaint? I've asked you for more information and asked you your sources for statements that you've made that aren't in your link, but you haven't provided them. I've searched for more information, but all I find are variations of the NYT article and web blog posts. I'm finished searching for links to substantiate your claims.

Links. Post them if you want anyone here to believe that your initial post was anything more than a smear attempt. Otherwise it's just more politically motivated BS.
The link is in post #1 of this thread, idiot. Click on it and read the whole thing - including the 24 pages of expert opinion. If you are looking for the court case, and have been paying attention, it was dismissed and the original court lawsuit has never been published (and I've never said it was). All the facts of the case mentioned by me are available within published newspaper articles over the past week.

Nice to see that after seven pages of bullsh.iat ad hominem, some of you guys appear to be interested in bothering to find out some factual information on the case.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts

Last edited by Riot : 06-28-2012 at 09:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 06-28-2012, 09:23 AM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis View Post


But then of course she couldn't take 6 pages of posts to smear a guy who most likely had no idea whatsoever that he even owned the friggin horse in the first place, much less connived a scheme with a vet to purposely unload damaged goods.
Mitt talks to Eberling regularly. He pays the bills. Romneys have a house on the California ranch Eberling works off of, and stay there regularly (they don't ride in public). Romney is the mortgage-holder on the ranch named in the complaint. Romney loaned Eberling the money to get the ranch going. Romney knows exactly what horses they own, per Ann's deposition.

The facts stand: A horse owned by Ann Romney was unsound, but doped sound, and sold for a profit. Mitt Romney is an owner in the horse business the family owns. Mitt takes the profit, and the deductions, on his published income tax form.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts

Last edited by Riot : 06-28-2012 at 09:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 06-28-2012, 09:46 AM
Clip-Clop Clip-Clop is offline
The Curragh
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Manningtown, Colorado
Posts: 2,727
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis View Post


But then of course she couldn't take 6 pages of posts to smear a guy who most likely had no idea whatsoever that he even owned the friggin horse in the first place, much less connived a scheme with a vet to purposely unload damaged goods.
to make $20K
__________________
don't run out of ammo.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 06-28-2012, 10:09 AM
OldDog's Avatar
OldDog OldDog is offline
Santa Anita
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: rancho por el mar
Posts: 3,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
The link is in post #1 of this thread, idiot. Click on it and read the whole thing - including the 24 pages of expert opinion.
It's 21 pages, and all of it is one man's testimony. The whole thing doesn't include the opinion, all of it is his opinion. You give no reference to any other "facts" in the case, save one man's testimony. Calling me an idiot doesn't change the fact that you keep citing other information without a source, other than what one must assume is your own imagination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
If you are looking for the court case, and have been paying attention, it was dismissed and the original court lawsuit has never been published (and I've never said it was). All the facts of the case mentioned by me are available within published newspaper articles over the past week.
Fine. Bring them on, then.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 06-28-2012, 10:23 AM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDog View Post
It's 21 pages, and all of it is one man's testimony. The whole thing doesn't include the opinion, all of it is his opinion. You give no reference to any other "facts" in the case, save one man's testimony. Calling me an idiot doesn't change the fact that you keep citing other information without a source, other than what one must assume is your own imagination.

Fine. Bring them on, then.
The additional pages are the drug report, also photocopied into that story.

I posted a good solid link to the original story, with much detail - and you said you've read the NYT piece. But much of what you complain about as being non-existent is actually within those stories.

As I've said, the rest is readily available in the various news media accounts of this in recent times, expanding upon those two stories.

So I suggest you specify in detail what information you cannot find in those stories, that you object to, and why.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 06-28-2012, 11:33 AM
OldDog's Avatar
OldDog OldDog is offline
Santa Anita
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: rancho por el mar
Posts: 3,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
The additional pages are the drug report, also photocopied into that story.

I posted a good solid link to the original story, with much detail - and you said you've read the NYT piece. But much of what you complain about as being non-existent is actually within those stories.

As I've said, the rest is readily available in the various news media accounts of this in recent times, expanding upon those two stories.

So I suggest you specify in detail what information you cannot find in those stories, that you object to, and why.
Yes, again, your original link is one man's testimony. Pardon me for thinking that one man's testimony isn't enough to mandate a settlement in favor of the plaintiff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
This was clearly not dismissed as "there was no case".
Why exactly was it dismissed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
Why don't you ignore the reporters, and read the actual complaint yourself?
Because I can't find it, and you either can't or won't provide it. You provided a link to one person's testimony in it. As I have said, other information and testimony just might have some bearing on the case and why it was dismissed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
Unlike you, I did take the time to read the entire complaint before I even posted the thread, and thus have the facts informing my opinion.
*See above*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
I'll guess that $125,000 profit on the lame horse Ann couldn't ride any longer helped offset the farm business deduction losses (like that $77,000), to make one of those 2 out of 7 years profitable on Mitt's tax return. So he can continue to claim the horses as a business, rather than an unprofitable hobby.
Yes, you are guessing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
Why did the settlement include getting Ann Romney's name off all the legal documents?
How do you know what the settlement included? Is it published?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
So dang - Mitt is running for President, and the press still dug up this story - even though they settled out of court in exchange for removing Ann's name from the court records to try and hide the lawsuit
And your source for "in exchange for removing Ann's name" is...? All I read is that Ann Romney was dropped from the suit. Is that the same as settling?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
It sounds like Mitt Romney got Ann's name off the court case, in exchange for a refund of the $125,000 plus expenses
Sounds like? How do you know that the Romney's refunded the $?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
What do you suppose the judge prevented the Defendants from talking about? What do you think that was all about? The evidence regarding Defendants the judge said wouldn't be released?
I don't know that the judge prevented the defendants from talking about anything. Where did you read/hear this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
And I still wonder what Defendant Sanctions the Romney's requested be lifted by the judge?
I don't know "what Defendant Sanctions the Romney's requested be lifted by the judge." Do you? I don't even know that the Romney's made such a request. Where did you read/hear this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
Romneys pay off the filer of the lawsuit, try to have them sign confidentiality agreements (fail), and after the lawsuit moves through court for 18 months, panic and settle immediately before lawsuit goes to a judge in exchange for removing Romneys name from it
Again, where do you get your information that the "Romneys pay off the filer of the lawsuit?" Give me the source so that I will know that it's true. Or am I an idiot for asking?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
After 18 months, immediately before the lawsuit was to be heard in court, the lawsuit was settled out of court, at the request of the Romney's, in exchange for reimbursement of the sale price of the horse
Source? Or is it just supposed to be "obvious" that the Romney's paid? Where did you read/hear this? That's all I am asking for. If it's true, it's relevant. But I'm not accepting it as fact unless/until it's sourced.

Earlier I asked you about this "payoff," or "reimbursement," you said
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
The statements of the horse owner, and of her lawyer, and of opposing lawyers, publicly, combined with what ultimately happened to the horse.
So, when I asked you for the sources of these public statements, all I got was
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
Good grief? why start now?
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 06-28-2012, 11:46 AM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDog View Post
Why exactly was it dismissed?
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.

Quote:
I don't know that the judge prevented the defendants from talking about anything. Where did you read/hear this?
The existence of that document is in the expert witness testimony that you said you read. But apparently did not.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts

Last edited by Riot : 06-28-2012 at 12:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 06-28-2012, 11:48 AM
pointman's Avatar
pointman pointman is offline
Saratoga
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,693
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clip-Clop View Post
Once you buy something it is yours and you deal with it. If you didnt do your homework or research correctly that is your problem. Falls under the personal responsibility theory the courts are very diligently removing.
In the troll's world there is no such thing as responsibility for what you purchase. If you purchase a home and take a mortgage you cannot afford, don't worry, it is those greedy banks fault for tricking you into taking a mortgage you cannot afford. You are not responsible for knowing whether or not you could afford that mortgage when you signed on the dotted line.

If you don't want to work but want healthcare, don't worry, you don't have responsibility for helping yourself, the rich will pay for it.

If you buy a horse from a Presidential candidate, don't bother getting the horse vetted, if it doesn't work out for you, just blame that greedy Presidential candidate for dumping bad goods on you. You don't need to take any responsibility for having checked out whether you made a wise purchase.

Welcome to the Obama world, the land of no responsibility.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 06-28-2012, 11:49 AM
bigrun's Avatar
bigrun bigrun is offline
Del Mar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: VA/PA/KY
Posts: 5,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDog View Post
Yes, again, your original link is one man's testimony. Pardon me for thinking that one man's testimony isn't enough to mandate a settlement in favor of the plaintiff.


Why exactly was it dismissed?


Because I can't find it, and you either can't or won't provide it. You provided a link to one person's testimony in it. As I have said, other information and testimony just might have some bearing on the case and why it was dismissed.


*See above*


Yes, you are guessing.


How do you know what the settlement included? Is it published?


And your source for "in exchange for removing Ann's name" is...? All I read is that Ann Romney was dropped from the suit. Is that the same as settling?


Sounds like? How do you know that the Romney's refunded the $?


I don't know that the judge prevented the defendants from talking about anything. Where did you read/hear this?


I don't know "what Defendant Sanctions the Romney's requested be lifted by the judge." Do you? I don't even know that the Romney's made such a request. Where did you read/hear this?


Again, where do you get your information that the "Romneys pay off the filer of the lawsuit?" Give me the source so that I will know that it's true. Or am I an idiot for asking?


Source? Or is it just supposed to be "obvious" that the Romney's paid? Where did you read/hear this? That's all I am asking for. If it's true, it's relevant. But I'm not accepting it as fact unless/until it's sourced.

Earlier I asked you about this "payoff," or "reimbursement," you said

So, when I asked you for the sources of these public statements, all I got was




Good dog, put in some time there...reading that tired me out, gonna take a nap...
__________________
"If you lose the power to laugh, you lose the power to think" - Clarence Darrow, American lawyer (1857-1938)

When you are right, no one remembers;when you are wrong, no one forgets.

Thought for today.."No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit
they are wrong" - Francois, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, French moralist (1613-1680)
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 06-28-2012, 11:55 AM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pointman View Post
In the troll's world there is no such thing as responsibility for what you purchase. If you purchase a home and take a mortgage you cannot afford, don't worry, it is those greedy banks fault for tricking you into taking a mortgage you cannot afford. You are not responsible for knowing whether or not you could afford that mortgage when you signed on the dotted line.

If you don't want to work but want healthcare, don't worry, you don't have responsibility for helping yourself, the rich will pay for it.

If you buy a horse from a Presidential candidate, don't bother getting the horse vetted, if it doesn't work out for you, just blame that greedy Presidential candidate for dumping bad goods on you. You don't need to take any responsibility for having checked out whether you made a wise purchase.

Welcome to the Obama world, the land of no responsibility.
Bad day for the Obama-haters in their fantasyland of imagined reality, huh
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 06-28-2012, 11:59 AM
pointman's Avatar
pointman pointman is offline
Saratoga
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,693
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
Bad day for the Obama-haters in their fantasyland of imagined reality, huh
No, it is a bad day for the prospects of the future of the United States of America you dope.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 06-28-2012, 12:04 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pointman View Post
No, it is a bad day for the prospects of the future of the United States of America you dope.
It doesn't look like I'm the dope. 40 million new people will have health insurance, terrible abuse and bankruptcy due to the private healthcare system have been majorly reformed, those that have insurance benefit from new consumer protections and decreased costs, and the cost of healthcare in the United States will decrease from our massive 17% of GDP, to hopefully down to the 9% every other first world country pays.

That's a good thing. And if only Newt Gingrich had bothered to get this Republican plan passed in 1993, when the Republicans first introduced it, we wouldn't be having this attack on the Kenyan Muslim Communist who finally got it done, now.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 06-28-2012, 12:07 PM
pointman's Avatar
pointman pointman is offline
Saratoga
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,693
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
It doesn't look like I'm the dope. 40 million new people will have health insurance, terrible abuse and bankruptcy due to the private healthcare system have been majorly reformed, those that have insurance benefit from new consumer protections and decreased costs, and the cost of healthcare in the United States will decrease from our massive 17% of GDP, to hopefully down to the 9% every other first world country pays.

That's a good thing. And if only Newt Gingrich had bothered to get this Republican plan passed in 1993, when the Republicans first introduced it, we wouldn't be having this attack on the Kenyan Muslim Communist who finally got it done, now.
The cost of healthcare will go down, you just go for the Obama BS hook line and sinker. Amazing.

Thank god the American people are smarter than you and will be sweeping your agenda and deity out the door in a few months.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 06-28-2012, 12:13 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pointman View Post
The cost of healthcare will go down, you just go for the Obama BS hook line and sinker. Amazing.

Thank god the American people are smarter than you and will be sweeping your agenda and deity out the door in a few months.
Maybe get some psychological help for your anger and hate?

Many of us here are tired of dealing with your rude sh.i.t. temper tantrums.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 06-28-2012, 12:21 PM
pointman's Avatar
pointman pointman is offline
Saratoga
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,693
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
Maybe get some psychological help for your anger and hate?

Many of us here are tired of dealing with your rude sh.i.t. temper tantrums.
If I say that someone is something everyone will believe they are! I am Riot, the smartest person on earth!
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 06-28-2012, 12:24 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pointman View Post
If I say that someone is something everyone will believe they are! I am Riot, the smartest person on earth!
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 06-28-2012, 12:39 PM
OldDog's Avatar
OldDog OldDog is offline
Santa Anita
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: rancho por el mar
Posts: 3,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 06-28-2012, 12:45 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

[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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 06-28-2012, 01:54 PM
pointman's Avatar
pointman pointman is offline
Saratoga
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,693
Default

[quote=Riot;871854]
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDog View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 06-28-2012, 02:10 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pointman View Post

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?
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.