|
From: | RJack |
Subject: | Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled |
Date: | Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:40:41 -0500 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) |
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/19/2010 3:26 PM, RJack wrote:For one wrongly decided non-precedential case:Court vs. crank again.How many times have you been told that unverifiable settlement agreements are imaginary?<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_%28litigation%29> The settlement of the lawsuit defines legal requirements of the parties, and is often put in force by an order of the court after a joint stipulation by the parties. In other situations (as where the claims have been satisfied by the payment of a certain sum of money) the plaintiff and defendant can simply file a notice that the case has been dismissed
Sorry Hyman. Unverifiable settlement agreements are illusory. Claim all the unverifiable agreements you wish Hyman. People are not foolish enough to prove a negative. If you claim a settlement agreement then you produce it. Bullshit walks and money talks. "Captain Moglen scared them out of the water!" http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php ROFL. ROFL. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack :)
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |