Do you even understand what the fuck you are reading, how much weight to give it, how much weight the parties are giving to it, how depositions are used in court proceedings, preparations and/or even latitude to explore topics?
You linked one deposition of one witness, Gavin Andressen, and have you even put that one portion of a document that you read into context? Are there other depositions from the same witness on the same topic or different topics? Are there documents that describe limitations on issues or scope of allowance that might not even be raised in the process of taking the deposition?
Your assertion that you studied a portion of one document hardly even coming close to address some of my earlier points about your failure/refusal to substantiate your earlier lame ass collusion claims and to get caught up into likely irrelevance or even swimming in fact gathering that has not even been put into context until you see motions or briefings of attorneys (and that might not even be clear unless you understand the procedural posture.. and even account for both parties describing the procedural posture and issues and perhaps getting rulings from the judge, if warranted.. and sometimes there might be a preliminary steps judge, a settlement judge and a trial judge), so how much would a portion of the testimony of one witness tell us about the extent to which the parties might be colluding in a case that has already generated hundreds of other court documents and has even changed its procedural posture a few times.
Yeah, you say that they might not be adequately exploring certain topics with certain witnesses by why the fuck would they be asking Gavin about anything related to the trust when he hardly has any clues about the trust?
try to read it.
Get the fuck out of here.
You are the one with the obligation to show which parts, if any of your evidence supports or proves your point, which the assertion that you and I have been discussing has been your assertion that the parties are colluding or conspiring, and you don’t have anything to back up your assertions besides vague and non-specific assertions that defy the nature of the proceedings and even shows that you don’t even seem to understand the various documents that you are citing as supposed proof.
and take your stupid hat off and put on a hat that says "i dont care about gavins testimony, what tone/line of questioning is iRA's defense side displaying in this document'
Huh? I already stated that it hardly even matters what kinds of questions are being asked. Do you even understand what depositions are and the context of discovery? Frequently depositions explore all kinds of areas but they allow the parties to find out what potential witnesses might testify to if called, and it also allows the parties to lock the witness into certain areas of testimony so they might not get surprised down the road regarding something that a witness proclaims to know and they are caught with their pants down at trial because they did not even ask the witness about that area in order to lock in their testimony.
as you say instead of going into gavins FACTUAL account of the signing process, they skip alot of things that the community think should have been asked. and instead jump straight to asking about the tri-party trust owners. several times
i do see a glimer of possible awakedness from you because you even asked
'why the fuck would they be asking Gavin about anything related to the trust when he hardly has any clues about the trust? '
so keep that exact mindset you had when you said that, in mind.
Again, don’t be trying to get my assertions to prove your lame points about collusion or conspiracy.
If you believe that there is collusion or conspiracy, you better be a whole hell of a lot more specific than to just focus on questions asked to one witness in a deposition in a kind of context that you don’t even seem to understand what the fuck the purpose of a deposition is. You probably need to do a lot more studying and work out what your items of proof are before you are making such lame ass claims of collusion and conspiracy based on that kind of framework of what the parties supposedly did or failed to do in the context of taking a deposition.
again its not one portion of gavins testimony you need to be concentrating on.
Well, you better fucking direct me specifically to the part that I need to see and you better make your argument way more coherent and cogent if you expect to get anywhere with such assertions of collusion and conspiracy.
again for emphasis because after many many posts you seem to remain unsure of the point.
Probably you need to clarify your point then if you believe that I am not getting it. You alleged collusion and conspiracy, and more or less I have been suggesting that: 1) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, 2) you have neither provided convincing evidence nor logic to support your extraordinary claims, 3) what you have provided tends to be without any kind of convincing context which causes reasonable suspicions that you don't even understand what you are citing as your supposed vague ass evidence, and 4) your logic, to the extent that any exists, also does not really reveal that you understand either the procedural situation for what you are citing or the reason that certain pieces of evidence, such as deposition testimony might end up being developed by the parties either to discover what the witness might know about any given topic or to lock in witness testimony, even if the witness does not know too much in that area.
its about IRA's defense teams method of questioning that you need to really understand.
I have not seen anything that is out of ordinary. Probably you need to specifically point this out, if you have some specific examples, and tell us specifically which pages and what documents and what they are doing specifically that you believe to be collusion or conspiracy… if that continues to be your current claim.
So for example, you assert that you read the first 115 pages of that deposition (then presumably you gave up after that. According to you, "the first 80 pages are waffle." O.k. Then, according to you, there is possibly something kind of meaningful on page 88 and then according to you, the rest just shows that Ira’s attorney fails to pursue lines of questioning that he should have pursued, and shows that Ira’s attorney is not really trying hard enough.
Great evidence and outlining of the meaning of such evidence, franky1. You have really put forth your collusion and conspiracy case with that baloney!!!!
i was saying about how ira and CSW are playing a game of trying to keep the trust as valid valued and contracted in reality for a game that is of CSW benefit. i said how ira's defense team were not even trying to deeply explore the possibility that CSW has never had any collateral in a trust(a thing the community want proven) so while you cry like a baby about gavins responses. atleast take another read but from the prospective of the defense teams questioning.
You are not able to point out this part with specificity? And why would the testimony of one witness matter? I don’t get your evidence or your logic, so I see no need to further investigate points that you failed and refused to make, so far.
And, by the way, you have been stringing along evidence and logic all along, too.
So in this situation when you first made your claim about collusion and conspiracy, you should have already backed up your claim(s) from that point, but instead, after I asserted that you failed and refused to support your claim, thereafter, you strung along seemingly lame and insufficient evidence after the fact, using the deposition of Gavin Andresen as an example, as if it even come close to supporting your collusion and conspiracy claims. Weak franky1. Weak.
all along ira's defense team have not been seeking to call out CSW as a fraud in terms of never having collateral. but instead subtly trying to validate the collateral and make it just game of who owns it
From the latest judge ruling, I heard that the judge had rejected Ira’s motion to get default sanctions which were claims that asserted that CSW’s side had been defrauding the court through fraudulent evidence, etc, and the judge ruled against Ira’s team (by the way, Ira is the plaintiff, not the defense) and said that the sanctions issues would be left for trial. I am having troubles understanding how Ira’s legal team is supposedly not trying hard enough when they had been submitting motions to attempt to get the judge to rule about fraudulent evidence being submitted by CSW and trying to get sanctions against CSW for that, and the judge rejects Ira's team's motions and rules the fraud issue to be a matter to be presented at trial rather than getting a ruling on the motions that Ira’s team was presenting. Are you suggesting that Ira’s team should not have made those motions? Or what? The motions of ira’s team should have been stronger ones? Better argued? Got into more details of the kinds of frauds that they are proclaiming that CSW committed at various stages of the proceedings? Ira's team is not trying hard enough?
but hey.. you can throw your hands around and get angry that im calling this whole case is meaningless drama that wont result in csw demise.
Why would I be angry? You have failed and refused to establish your claims. That’s on you.
and instead just used to delay things so CSW can escape a tax bill and escape his 'money men' from chasing him..
but a real actual court case that will see to CSW demise will have to come from a different case with a different party making a court claim against CSW
Maybe. We will see what issues are presented at court, and likely the parties will be able to present oral arguments briefs or both. We will see what Ira's team will argue. Also, we will see their opening statements at trial, too. I hope that Ira's team is ready because it seems like the trial is coming up soon.
by the way. i had read many documents and stuff. i am not as niave as you think
You are coming off as pretty dumb to me, at least so far. You seem to not understand what you are reading on a regular basis, including but not limited to your desire to prove this collusion and conspiracy point.
but over the years i have noticed how many others 'dont see the need to go through every detail of bullshit'
If you make a claim, you have the burden to provide evidence and argument in support of your claim before any obligation gets put upon anyone else to rebut your lame ass claim. If you have not even come close to succeeding in your part, then why the fuck should you expect any others to do your work for you? People who poo poo your nonsense have no obligation to do shit that you expect them to do, such as research to tell you that you have not proven your claim.
so pointing out more details would just make them(you) more angry,
You likely are just projecting anger out of your own ineptitude to prove whatever lame points you are attempting to make.
and just miss the point entirely..
You seem to be the one missing the point, if you just throw out shit and you do not hardly back it up. Seems to be your MO.
as shown in the last few posts where you keep trying to redirect to to sound like im talking about gavin. when the reality all along is im talking about the defense teams questioning
Sure, fair enough. If your claims are about the purported collusion and conspiracy about the legal teams, then provide some examples beyond that one piece of evidence. I was merely just asserting the deficiencies that were likely in your claims even if you were able to establish sloppiness in such context of a deposition that may end up going all over the place in terms of discovery of witness testimony and also locking in the witness, especially if the witness might have knowledge about an area that is going to be brought up during trial.. various aspects of the trust, for example… and gavin seems to say that he did not know very much about various aspects of the trust..
so instead of arguing with me on a forum.
I am arguing how lame you are in regards to making assertions that you fail and refuse to back up and then when you do attempt to back them up, you do it with shitty examples that would hardly even prove your point if something juicy might happen to be there in that one interview with gavin… blah blah blah.
take that spare time and actually look into IRA's defense teams methods.
You take some time and try to provide evidence (and perhaps logic) to establish your seemingly baseless and contrary to reality conclusions.
because its clear that some people get too defensive if not spoonfed the answers from a party they like and too defensive if spoonfed too much from a party they dont like..
instead they attack the messenger instead of just reading the message
No one is attacking you, you poor lil ting-a-lie. You have an obligation to point out evidence and logic to support the conclusions/assertions that you make.
so the only solution is to do your own friggen research.
Not if you are making the claim. If you make the claim, you need to provide evidence.
because your just wasting time trying to get answer from me because you seem to instantly ignore it before exploring it when im the one saying it.
You are the one who made the collusion and conspiracy claim… not me.
so go check for yourself using the 'critical thinking cap' on iras defense team.
dont go blowing it into drama of gavin or me or others people. concentrate, for once on the defense teams questioning.
I have already provided more than enough critical thinking to help you out so that you might realize that you need evidence to attempt to substantiate your case, to the extent that you have any case.
just ask your self and keep in mind
couple paragraphs about proof session validity. but dozens upon dozens of pages asking about the trust and its parties involved.
ask yourself what 'evidence' are they trying to achieve. what aspects are they trying to avoid
You probably need to ask yourself, and then provide us evidence of what you see. I see nothing unusual in the various questions that they ask even if I might not know all of the issues that might be presented at trial and also that reasonably parties will explore all kinds of areas of evidence in depositions including locking witnesses into testimony for issues that might be presented at trial through other witnesses.
You seem to NOT understand very many of these trial preparation dynamics, even though you want to be a smartie pants and proclaim that you know how things are going to play out or not play out and what might happen in this proceeding versus what might happen in other proceedings, and largely it appears that you don’t know shit but want to present a lot of baseless speculation on an ongoing basis while blaming others for not cooperating with your attempts to string them along.
:
