Daryl and quaddie, it isn't that simple.
First of all Local Rule 7.1 requires parties to confer before any motion is filed. Simpson never conferred with Gailon about a motion to dismiss, and he only mentioned the concept to me in passing when talking about possibly settling. And in that conversation he explicitly told me that he would not file such a motion.
Secondly, on Wednesday, October 22, 2008, Walt Thompson testified under oath in his affidavit that the board the previous week had voted to have the lawsuit dismissed. That tells me that before Simpson called me on Friday, October 17, he already knew what the board had voted.
Thirdly, on October 22, 2008, Simpson told the magistrate in southern Illinois that 3ABN was going to produce more documents in the near future to us. The next day he files his motion to dismiss, and at 5:55 pm on the 23rd, informs me that they won't be producing anything on the 27th after all, since they had filed their motion to dismiss.
Fourthly, I doubt that Walt Thompson's affidavit was written up and gotten to him and signed by him and notarized between the end of the hearing in southern Illinois the morning of Oct. 22 and the end of the business day that very same day. Thus, I think Simpson knew at the time he made his comments to the magistrate that they weren't going to be producing any documents to us on the 27th. And yet he talked as if they were. I believe that was morally wrong, and I believe that was a violation of the 9th commandment and the conditions laid out in Rev. 21:7-8, 24-27; 22:14-15 for entrance into the New Jerusalem.
I have said many times that I don't think we need term limits for politicians. Folks have agitated the concept of three strikes and you're in for life. I think we need a law that says three lies and you're out of office. That should accomplish the same thing as term limits.
And I think lawyers who prevaricate and aren't strictly honest and above board should lose their license.
Except for the whining part, this was a respectfully stated post.
What is said one day can be different even only a few days later, which can be determined by new information, concerns, etc.
Thinking about what some lawyers do. Like Greg Simpson telling me that he would not file a motion to dismiss, and then filing one anyway just six days later.
Why do you assume he was lying Bob? Have you even considered the possibility that subsequent to your conversation a different decision was made? I can't imagine they were under any obligation to tell you they had changed their minds. But let's assume they had told you they were about to file for a dismissal, what would be different now? That seems like a far more reasonable issue for discussion than you whining and making accusations that may not be accurate.
Author
Topic: If one accuses a lawyer of lying, is that defamation per se? (Read 5416 times)
