EEGC > From: Paul Batista > Date: November 29,
Post# of 63824
Posted On: 11/30/2014 6:44:53 AM
EEGC
> From: Paul Batista <batista007@aol.com>
> Date: November 29, 2014 at 11:44:18 AM EST
> To: "crazyjogger949@aol.com" <crazyjogger949@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: jv meeting oct 08
>
> Thanks for the note. I'm in the middle of the holiday with my family. I don't look at Investorshub at all. It's a sick comic book controlled by bribes. Thanks for your help on that front.
>
> To answer your specific question, Justice Oing during the trial will have in front of him every piece of paper and fact that he deems is relevant. No trial lawyer in his right mind can accurately predict the testimony or documents a judge will at the time of trial admit as evidence. I feel extremely comfortable about Empire's position at trial but I never make predictions about outcomes. Apparently only
> the lunatic Drunken Sailor and his sick cohorts are able to predict the future.
>
> As things stand, the judge's rulings thus far have been highly favorable to Empire. But a judge's rulings before trial are no predictors of the result of an actual trial. Although the judge did rule out of the case the claim that Empire had a joint venture with Smart Win, he left fully intact Empire's central claim that Smart Win breached its contract with Empire and ruled that Empire is entitled to prove ALL the damages that flowed from that breach by Smart Win. If damages are awarded in Empire's favor on the breach of contract claim, those damages could be the same as if the alleged joint venture had remained a part of the case. In other words, nothing was lost to Empire by the judge's ruling that there was no joint venture. Damages for Smart Win's contract breach could be the same as for a joint venture breach.
>
> Again, this case, while important to Empire, is a perfectly routine commercial case among thousands in the New York courts and it is only the lunatic ravings by the corrupt Drunken Sailor and his cohort of lunatics who control Investorshub that has turned a perfectly routine, plain vanilla case into the trial of the century. Drunken Sailor, his cohorts and Investorshub are all obviously corrupt and ludicrous and obviously all receiving bribes for their constant commentary.
>
> You can use this email any way you see fit or not at all. None of these emails, including the thousands of berserk ravings on Investorshub by Drunken Sailor, can be used at trial or will influence Justice Oing, who is an outstanding jurist and who I now understand is the
> object of much of the idiotic commentary on Investorshub, a cowardly organization that hides itself behind the anonymity of the Internet.
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 29, 2014, at 11:04 AM, crazyjogger949@aol.com wrote:
>
>> hello atty batista,
>>
>> i trust the unveiling of your new book went well.i realize you must be very busy and maybe not be following eegc ihub but i feel eegc has the upper hand in the court battle thanks to your fine efforts..i like to break their chops by reminding them of judge oings ruling re the money spigot and they in response have taken to bashing you more.what iam curious about is in mr wans testimony on page 99 in regards to the smart win joint venture meeting with empire energy on oct 08.i understand their sydney attorney drew up documents for a joint venture and imo the new terms were so bad for empire energy that malcolm and john garrison did not sign them..my question is does judge oing have a copy of this joint venture document?hopefully you know and are allowed to tell me as my wish is to drive these bashers in more of a frenzy..they hate hearing about the word truth.
>>
>> sincerely.
>> glenn w. gillery
>>
Reply, Reply All or Forward | More
Paul Batista
To
me
Nov 29 at 12:02 PM
FYI. Same thanks to you.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Paul Batista <batista007@aol.com>
> Date: November 29, 2014 at 11:58:47 AM EST
> To: "crazyjogger949@aol.com" <crazyjogger949@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: jv meeting oct 08
>
> O and if I didn't say so I appreciate your support.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 29, 2014, at 11:04 AM, crazyjogger949@aol.com wrote:
>
>> hello atty batista,
>>
>> i trust the unveiling of your new book went well.i realize you must be very busy and maybe not be following eegc ihub but i feel eegc has the upper hand in the court battle thanks to your fine efforts..i like to break their chops by reminding them of judge oings ruling re the money spigot and they in response have taken to bashing you more.what iam curious about is in mr wans testimony on page 99 in regards to the smart win joint venture meeting with empire energy on oct 08.i understand their sydney attorney drew up documents for a joint venture and imo the new terms were so bad for empire energy that malcolm and john garrison did not sign them..my question is does judge oing have a copy of this joint venture document?hopefully you know and are allowed to tell me as my wish is to drive these bashers in more of a frenzy..they hate hearing about the word truth.
>>
>> sincerely.
>> glenn w. gillery
>>
Reply, Reply All or Forward | More
Click to reply all
> From: Paul Batista <batista007@aol.com>
> Date: November 29, 2014 at 11:44:18 AM EST
> To: "crazyjogger949@aol.com" <crazyjogger949@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: jv meeting oct 08
>
> Thanks for the note. I'm in the middle of the holiday with my family. I don't look at Investorshub at all. It's a sick comic book controlled by bribes. Thanks for your help on that front.
>
> To answer your specific question, Justice Oing during the trial will have in front of him every piece of paper and fact that he deems is relevant. No trial lawyer in his right mind can accurately predict the testimony or documents a judge will at the time of trial admit as evidence. I feel extremely comfortable about Empire's position at trial but I never make predictions about outcomes. Apparently only
> the lunatic Drunken Sailor and his sick cohorts are able to predict the future.
>
> As things stand, the judge's rulings thus far have been highly favorable to Empire. But a judge's rulings before trial are no predictors of the result of an actual trial. Although the judge did rule out of the case the claim that Empire had a joint venture with Smart Win, he left fully intact Empire's central claim that Smart Win breached its contract with Empire and ruled that Empire is entitled to prove ALL the damages that flowed from that breach by Smart Win. If damages are awarded in Empire's favor on the breach of contract claim, those damages could be the same as if the alleged joint venture had remained a part of the case. In other words, nothing was lost to Empire by the judge's ruling that there was no joint venture. Damages for Smart Win's contract breach could be the same as for a joint venture breach.
>
> Again, this case, while important to Empire, is a perfectly routine commercial case among thousands in the New York courts and it is only the lunatic ravings by the corrupt Drunken Sailor and his cohort of lunatics who control Investorshub that has turned a perfectly routine, plain vanilla case into the trial of the century. Drunken Sailor, his cohorts and Investorshub are all obviously corrupt and ludicrous and obviously all receiving bribes for their constant commentary.
>
> You can use this email any way you see fit or not at all. None of these emails, including the thousands of berserk ravings on Investorshub by Drunken Sailor, can be used at trial or will influence Justice Oing, who is an outstanding jurist and who I now understand is the
> object of much of the idiotic commentary on Investorshub, a cowardly organization that hides itself behind the anonymity of the Internet.
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 29, 2014, at 11:04 AM, crazyjogger949@aol.com wrote:
>
>> hello atty batista,
>>
>> i trust the unveiling of your new book went well.i realize you must be very busy and maybe not be following eegc ihub but i feel eegc has the upper hand in the court battle thanks to your fine efforts..i like to break their chops by reminding them of judge oings ruling re the money spigot and they in response have taken to bashing you more.what iam curious about is in mr wans testimony on page 99 in regards to the smart win joint venture meeting with empire energy on oct 08.i understand their sydney attorney drew up documents for a joint venture and imo the new terms were so bad for empire energy that malcolm and john garrison did not sign them..my question is does judge oing have a copy of this joint venture document?hopefully you know and are allowed to tell me as my wish is to drive these bashers in more of a frenzy..they hate hearing about the word truth.
>>
>> sincerely.
>> glenn w. gillery
>>
Reply, Reply All or Forward | More
Paul Batista
To
me
Nov 29 at 12:02 PM
FYI. Same thanks to you.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Paul Batista <batista007@aol.com>
> Date: November 29, 2014 at 11:58:47 AM EST
> To: "crazyjogger949@aol.com" <crazyjogger949@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: jv meeting oct 08
>
> O and if I didn't say so I appreciate your support.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 29, 2014, at 11:04 AM, crazyjogger949@aol.com wrote:
>
>> hello atty batista,
>>
>> i trust the unveiling of your new book went well.i realize you must be very busy and maybe not be following eegc ihub but i feel eegc has the upper hand in the court battle thanks to your fine efforts..i like to break their chops by reminding them of judge oings ruling re the money spigot and they in response have taken to bashing you more.what iam curious about is in mr wans testimony on page 99 in regards to the smart win joint venture meeting with empire energy on oct 08.i understand their sydney attorney drew up documents for a joint venture and imo the new terms were so bad for empire energy that malcolm and john garrison did not sign them..my question is does judge oing have a copy of this joint venture document?hopefully you know and are allowed to tell me as my wish is to drive these bashers in more of a frenzy..they hate hearing about the word truth.
>>
>> sincerely.
>> glenn w. gillery
>>
Reply, Reply All or Forward | More
Click to reply all
(0)
(0)