Advent Talk

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to Advent Talk, a place for members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church! 

Feel free to invite your friends to come here.

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Yet another example of Simpson misleading the court.  (Read 7797 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4061
    • Pickle Publishing
Yet another example of Simpson misleading the court.
« on: January 05, 2009, 01:03:08 PM »
I just noticed this point. Here's what Simpson said on October 30 to the judge:

Quote
They are no worse off than they were before the lawsuit began. They're in exactly the same legal position whether -- in fact, they're in a better position legally than when the case began, because the three years statute of limitations for defamation has expired as to some of the, if not all, of the original statements that they've made.

But I did not decide to become involved until August 13, 2006, and Gailon did not get the Dryden letter until August 15. So what allegedly defamatory statements is Simpson talking about that were made prior to October 30, 2005?

Can anyone name any statement Gailon or I have made that the three-year statute of limitations has run out on?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2009, 01:49:00 PM by Bob Pickle »
Logged

Johann

  • Guest
Re: Yet another example of Simpson misleading the court.
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2009, 03:27:10 PM »
Is this why the case was dropped by DS? Misleading information by the lawyer?
Logged

Snoopy

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3056
Re: Yet another example of Simpson misleading the court.
« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2009, 07:01:44 PM »

HA!!  Yeah - DS sure wouldn't want to be associated with anything misleading...
Logged

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4061
    • Pickle Publishing
Re: Yet another example of Simpson misleading the court.
« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2009, 07:06:16 PM »
Quote from: Johann on January 05, 2009, 03:27:10 PM
Is this why the case was dropped by DS? Misleading information by the lawyer?

No, I think Danny dropped the lawsuit in order to avoid discovery while spinning the whole thing as a win for himself. And I think the lawyers pushed for it in order to try to avoid getting sued themselves for abuse of process and misuse of civil proceedings.

Down south when you go into the kitchen at night and turn on the light, the cockroaches scurry for cover. They hate disclosure.

"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God" (John 3:19-21).

Danny claimed to have evidence against Linda, claimed that he would bring it out in court, and yet refused to bring it out into the light even when served with a request to produce under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34.

Danny needs to quit being like a cockroach and let Jesus turn him into someone who does truth and comes to the light.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »