Posted On: 10/04/2013 11:12:14 AM
Post# of 8059
hearing ca Oct 14 re discovery so TX trial will be delayed some-
Bob and Shirley were both present for a deposition Aug 2-geo deposed bob but chose not to depose shirley-odd
in an otherwise simple TX case like this its strange to depose bob again and CWRN claims geo has regularly violated notice requirements to do so- i/ve dealt w crafters in court so i know imo what geo is doing -trying to get the judge so frustrated at these things that the judge misplaces the blame on cwrn-
geos attorney should be aware of those notice requirements
crafters gain the greatest control over somebody when they get somebody to blame an innocent party for what another party-often the crafter themselves-has done
thats why shorters keep trying to get longs to blame cwrn for what shorters have done via ce dtc sec etc, even interfering in CWRN business relationships
i believe the jva specifies the equipment belongs to cwrn except for the 3 small ex's and payloader noted in geos original complaint-so TX case is not that complicated
again CWRN 's case against Geo in CA-where imo the whole thing should have been decided because the jva repeatedly specified CA as the proper venue, is much larger,and the ball will be in CWRN's court
Bob and Shirley were both present for a deposition Aug 2-geo deposed bob but chose not to depose shirley-odd
in an otherwise simple TX case like this its strange to depose bob again and CWRN claims geo has regularly violated notice requirements to do so- i/ve dealt w crafters in court so i know imo what geo is doing -trying to get the judge so frustrated at these things that the judge misplaces the blame on cwrn-
geos attorney should be aware of those notice requirements
crafters gain the greatest control over somebody when they get somebody to blame an innocent party for what another party-often the crafter themselves-has done
thats why shorters keep trying to get longs to blame cwrn for what shorters have done via ce dtc sec etc, even interfering in CWRN business relationships
i believe the jva specifies the equipment belongs to cwrn except for the 3 small ex's and payloader noted in geos original complaint-so TX case is not that complicated
again CWRN 's case against Geo in CA-where imo the whole thing should have been decided because the jva repeatedly specified CA as the proper venue, is much larger,and the ball will be in CWRN's court
(0)
(0)
