Re: Barrett and Polevoy get creamed in a court case they instigated!!

On Sep 5, 10:30 am, brightwinger <awthraw...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 5, 6:57 am, Mark Probert <markprob...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





brightwinger wrote:
On Sep 4, 6:55 am, Mark Probert <markprob...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
brightwinger wrote:
On Sep 2, 9:50 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
brightwinger wrote:
On Sep 2, 9:02 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 2, 7:21 pm, brightwinger <awthraw...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The two fools got all uppity and sued 'cuz they got their feelings
hurt. But they lost...how badly did they lose?
They got wiped across the floor kind of loss...so bad that the judge
ordered them to put up $433,000 as a bond!
Why?
What I'd like to know: where has Polevoy been since I posted his
threat (from years ago) about dissing Barrett?
Medusa
Let me amend my previous comments. It's not JUST court costs that the
monkey suits are on the hook for...they are likely to be liable for
the defendant's legal fees!
In other words, their lawsuit so so far out of line the judge
considers their nut case to be a nuisance intended to intimidate the
defendant.
Incorrect. IIRC, theCalifornia anti-SLAPP law provides for legalfees to
the winning party, even is it is a 51-49 verdict.
Maybe I was mistaken, maybe you got disbarred from the practice of law
due to incompetence instead of stealing your customer's money, you
money grubber...the anti-SLAPP provisions only come into play when
it's apparent...due to a determination that the assholes who brought
the case didn't have a case, but were trying to intimidate the
defendant.
That was my point, asswipe. Your were bleating and braying about how the
award was determined by other factors, none of which matter.

Ad hominem deleted. Ad hominem is what idiots like DimWinger resort to
when they have no facts or logical argument.

My second comments do not disagree with my initial remarks. Thanks for
playing.

That would be true if I had a reading comprehension level below yours.
However, since I do not, then you are again showing your lack of reading
comprehension skills.

So with your 'superior reading skills,' you understood when the State
of New York demanded that you supply the records regarding your
client's money...which you were entrusted to take care of!

I mean, the order was plain enough. But you refused to comply! As a
result, your license to practice law went POOF!

Or maybe it's not that at all...maybe you just can't read all that
well which explains both your disbarment and why you still haven't
grasped that my two comments are congruent.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BWWHAHAHAHAHA
Pot = Kettle




.

Loading