I didn't buy your premise, which is the amazing blogger, said to have sent this POS crashing with his great writing skills, was suppose to go through all the nearly 2000 pages with the FBAR, and because he didn't then what the FBAR turned over was FALSE and can't be certified. How do you know they weren't?
Judge Stephens explained clearly, the burden to prove ANYTHING is false belongs to the two bad hombres, right? They not only have to prove something is false, but they have to prove it did damage.
Now, when the hearing for damages happens, and SFRX goes through all the "alleged" false claims, then they can present their case to the Judge with their documents, such as the agreement with full transition to 80/20. I don't recall SFRX submitting such a document, do you?
Where is it? Why haven't they submitted it to the Court?
But again, I seriously doubt the FBAR turned over bogus documents. Further, I seriously doubt Kyle is going to suggest they did.Here's the transcript. Huffman admitted they were authentic. They'll get admitted as the damages hearing moves forward and foundations are laid. Huffman might be whispering in your ear as you write about some procedural flaw, but that doesn't pass the smell test. Well, I guess it does, because it's BS.
This is from Mary's deposition.....
Q. All right. And are you responsible for
23 maintaining the file in front of us today?
24 MR. FUGETT: I can answer that. I mean,
25 she's responsible for some of it, but it's not one
1 person that's responsible for that file. We got it
2 from three different sources, including the three
3 different witnesses that we're here today -- that
4 will be here.
5 MR. KIDD: All right. And just for the
6 record, I'd like to point out that the -- the
7 plaintiff has stipulated to the authenticity of the
8 documents in question. Therefore, I will not be
9 laying foundation.
10 MR. HUFFMAN: No. I stipulate to
11 authenticity, not admissibility that you don't have
12 the grounds for if you don't have a witness who's
13 familiar with the documents.
14 MR. KIDD: I misspoke. I meant to say
15 authenticity. I apologize.
16 MR. HUFFMAN: Right.
17 Okay. So I expect you'll lay the
18 foundation.
19 MR. KIDD: Okay. Yeah. Sure thing.
20 BY MR. KIDD :
21 Q. All right. Are you able to identify the
22 contents of this file?
23 MR. FUGETT : I think you'll have to show
24 her individual documents. I think some of them -- I
25 think she'll be able to pretty much identify just
1 about anything --
2 MR. KIDD: Okay.
3 MR. FUGETT: But in terms of looking at
4 over two -- possibly over 3,000 pages of documents,
5 I'm not comfortable with my witness looking at that
6 stack and saying that she can do that for all of
7 them.
8 MR. KIDD: Okay.
9 BY MR. KIDD:
10 Q. All right. Well, are you familiar with
11 this exhibit for identification?
12 MR. FUGETT: Go ahead and take a look at
13 it. They want to see if you're familiar with it.
14 But again I have to ask, you mean you want
15 her to go look at every page and see if she's
16 familiar with everything because that's going to
17 take awhile. I mean, she can do it, but it's just a
18 lot of documents.
19 MR. KIDD: Understood.
20 MR. FUGETT: If you have any specific
21 documents that you have in mind, or what type of
22 documents -- and you can show her. That might speed
23 it up, but if not, we'll do what you want us to do.
24 It just might -- I don't want her to just really
25 quickly just say yes real quick when she hasn't
1 looked at everything.
2 Again, most of the stuff she probably has
3 looked at, but these are documents from the files of
4 three different individuals, all of them involved in
5 this case. But I don't feel comfortable with her
6 giving a blanket acknowledgement on every single
7 thing that's in that file because some of it might
8 not be hers.
After Mary was deposed by Evan, Mr. Fugett said this......
1 MR. FUGETT: I -- I will object very hard
2 to any reopening of the deposition of Dr. Glowacki.
3 We did not schedule this. We did it under this --
4 we did it under the schedule that we've been given
5 pursuant to the subpoena. To the extent that any
6 party was not ready to ask Dr. Glowacki questions --
7 or any of the witnesses -- that's not on us, and --
8 so we would object to bringing her again to this.
9 Now, to the extent that you want additional
10 documents or you want documents certified, you know,
11 that's something we can work with you with. But if
12 you mean to recess this deposition, no. We object
13 to that, and we're not going to allow Dr. Glowacki
14 to be -- testify again in this case absent an order
15 from court. I don't know if that's what you were
16 asking or not, but I want to make sure that's clear.
17 I think the --
18 MR. KIDD: Okay. We're all clear. We're
19 all good.
20 MR. FUGETT: -- I think the attorney on the
21 phone may have some questions.
Huffman questioned Mary and NEVER objected to the FBAR certifying documents after the deposition.
So when Huffman goes before Judge Stephens in the upcoming damages hearing (not yet scheduled) they can say the not having the 80/20 claim by the Defendant was false. In doing so Huffman will be laying the foundation to present among other things
*the emails from Roger in which Mary was copied....
https://www.scribd.com/doc/315419918/Darrell-Inquiry-1791-92
https://www.scribd.com/doc/315155856/Emails-C...-s-Inquiry
*the correspondence from Mary to Kyle stating Roger was correct and that they had no such agreement and the news was FALSE....
https://www.scribd.com/doc/315053337/Email-Aug-27-15
*and of course the permit itself.....
Now let's get the hearing schedule and see which one of us is right.
Deal or no deal?
Or do you just want to argue the case on a message board?
Let's see the documents Kyle.
Your sheeple don't have them.
Judge Stephens explained clearly, the burden to prove ANYTHING is false belongs to the two bad hombres, right? They not only have to prove something is false, but they have to prove it did damage.
Now, when the hearing for damages happens, and SFRX goes through all the "alleged" false claims, then they can present their case to the Judge with their documents, such as the agreement with full transition to 80/20. I don't recall SFRX submitting such a document, do you?
Where is it? Why haven't they submitted it to the Court?
But again, I seriously doubt the FBAR turned over bogus documents. Further, I seriously doubt Kyle is going to suggest they did.Here's the transcript. Huffman admitted they were authentic. They'll get admitted as the damages hearing moves forward and foundations are laid. Huffman might be whispering in your ear as you write about some procedural flaw, but that doesn't pass the smell test. Well, I guess it does, because it's BS.
This is from Mary's deposition.....
Q. All right. And are you responsible for
23 maintaining the file in front of us today?
24 MR. FUGETT: I can answer that. I mean,
25 she's responsible for some of it, but it's not one
1 person that's responsible for that file. We got it
2 from three different sources, including the three
3 different witnesses that we're here today -- that
4 will be here.
5 MR. KIDD: All right. And just for the
6 record, I'd like to point out that the -- the
7 plaintiff has stipulated to the authenticity of the
8 documents in question. Therefore, I will not be
9 laying foundation.
10 MR. HUFFMAN: No. I stipulate to
11 authenticity, not admissibility that you don't have
12 the grounds for if you don't have a witness who's
13 familiar with the documents.
14 MR. KIDD: I misspoke. I meant to say
15 authenticity. I apologize.
16 MR. HUFFMAN: Right.
17 Okay. So I expect you'll lay the
18 foundation.
19 MR. KIDD: Okay. Yeah. Sure thing.
20 BY MR. KIDD :
21 Q. All right. Are you able to identify the
22 contents of this file?
23 MR. FUGETT : I think you'll have to show
24 her individual documents. I think some of them -- I
25 think she'll be able to pretty much identify just
1 about anything --
2 MR. KIDD: Okay.
3 MR. FUGETT: But in terms of looking at
4 over two -- possibly over 3,000 pages of documents,
5 I'm not comfortable with my witness looking at that
6 stack and saying that she can do that for all of
7 them.
8 MR. KIDD: Okay.
9 BY MR. KIDD:
10 Q. All right. Well, are you familiar with
11 this exhibit for identification?
12 MR. FUGETT: Go ahead and take a look at
13 it. They want to see if you're familiar with it.
14 But again I have to ask, you mean you want
15 her to go look at every page and see if she's
16 familiar with everything because that's going to
17 take awhile. I mean, she can do it, but it's just a
18 lot of documents.
19 MR. KIDD: Understood.
20 MR. FUGETT: If you have any specific
21 documents that you have in mind, or what type of
22 documents -- and you can show her. That might speed
23 it up, but if not, we'll do what you want us to do.
24 It just might -- I don't want her to just really
25 quickly just say yes real quick when she hasn't
1 looked at everything.
2 Again, most of the stuff she probably has
3 looked at, but these are documents from the files of
4 three different individuals, all of them involved in
5 this case. But I don't feel comfortable with her
6 giving a blanket acknowledgement on every single
7 thing that's in that file because some of it might
8 not be hers.
After Mary was deposed by Evan, Mr. Fugett said this......
1 MR. FUGETT: I -- I will object very hard
2 to any reopening of the deposition of Dr. Glowacki.
3 We did not schedule this. We did it under this --
4 we did it under the schedule that we've been given
5 pursuant to the subpoena. To the extent that any
6 party was not ready to ask Dr. Glowacki questions --
7 or any of the witnesses -- that's not on us, and --
8 so we would object to bringing her again to this.
9 Now, to the extent that you want additional
10 documents or you want documents certified, you know,
11 that's something we can work with you with. But if
12 you mean to recess this deposition, no. We object
13 to that, and we're not going to allow Dr. Glowacki
14 to be -- testify again in this case absent an order
15 from court. I don't know if that's what you were
16 asking or not, but I want to make sure that's clear.
17 I think the --
18 MR. KIDD: Okay. We're all clear. We're
19 all good.
20 MR. FUGETT: -- I think the attorney on the
21 phone may have some questions.
Huffman questioned Mary and NEVER objected to the FBAR certifying documents after the deposition.
So when Huffman goes before Judge Stephens in the upcoming damages hearing (not yet scheduled) they can say the not having the 80/20 claim by the Defendant was false. In doing so Huffman will be laying the foundation to present among other things
*the emails from Roger in which Mary was copied....
https://www.scribd.com/doc/315419918/Darrell-Inquiry-1791-92
https://www.scribd.com/doc/315155856/Emails-C...-s-Inquiry
*the correspondence from Mary to Kyle stating Roger was correct and that they had no such agreement and the news was FALSE....
https://www.scribd.com/doc/315053337/Email-Aug-27-15
*and of course the permit itself.....
Now let's get the hearing schedule and see which one of us is right.
Deal or no deal?
Or do you just want to argue the case on a message board?
Let's see the documents Kyle.
Your sheeple don't have them.
