Mitt Romney sold a drugged horse

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Riot

Still waiting for any one of you to make some plausable argument, based upon the facts of the case as revealed in the (unfortunately revealed to the public even through attempts to hide it's existence) expert witness testimony, showing any possible scenario that the Romney's were completely ignorant of their horses' health problems at sale time?

Still waiting for the rest of the testimony and evidence introduced, which may have something to do with why the Ebelings and Ann Romney were dismissed from the complaint, and why the vet didn't pay any damages. One person's testimony does not a slam dunk make.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Still waiting for the rest of the testimony and evidence introduced, which may have something to do with why the Ebelings and Ann Romney were dismissed from the complaint, and why the vet didn't pay any damages. One person's testimony does not a slam dunk make.

you are wasting your time. If Riot reads something and forms an opinion based on what she believes that person is guilty. End of story. There is no gray area, no presentation of facts, and definitely no use of our constitutional legal system prior to passing judgement.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by wiphan

you are wasting your time. If Riot reads something and forms an opinion based on what she believes that person is guilty. End of story. There is no gray area, no presentation of facts, and definitely no use of our constitutional legal system prior to passing judgement.

wait, so a person not named in the suit, and a person removed from the suit, a suit ultimately settled without money being paid...is still a legit suit against those two? now, that is interesting.
i guess anyone ever charged or anyone who has a suit filed against them, is guilty regardless of the ultimate outcome. that's scary. good thing that isn't actually how things work here. hopefully it will always remain innocent til proven guilty, and not the other way around.

[Danzig]

check out this absurdity, on fast and furious:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/26/opinio...ntent=My+Yahoo


i am amazed that a reporter would write this. unreal.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

wait, so a person not named in the suit, and a person removed from the suit, a suit ultimately settled without money being paid...is still a legit suit against those two? now, that is interesting.
i guess anyone ever charged or anyone who has a suit filed against them, is guilty regardless of the ultimate outcome. that's scary. good thing that isn't actually how things work here. hopefully it will always remain innocent til proven guilty, and not the other way around.

LOL. Romneys pay off the filer of the lawsuit, try to have them sign confidentiality agreements (fail), and after the lawsuit moves through court for 18 months, panic and settle immediately before lawsuit goes to a judge in exchange for removing Romneys name from it ... and you think there was no money exchanged? And there was "no basis" for the suit?



Reality. Clearly not for everyone.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

you are wasting your time. If Riot reads something and forms an opinion based on what she believes that person is guilty. End of story. There is no gray area, no presentation of facts, and definitely no use of our constitutional legal system prior to passing judgement.

How's that information about the defense attorneys in Walker's John Doe information being found to be the ones spreading the leaks sitting with you?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Still waiting for the rest of the testimony and evidence introduced, which may have something to do with why the Ebelings and Ann Romney were dismissed from the complaint, and why the vet didn't pay any damages. One person's testimony does not a slam dunk make.

No. One person's testimony caused Romney's to rush to settle the lawsuit, after 18 months, immediately before it was supposed to go before a judge. Unfortunately for Romney's, they failed to get confidentiality agreements signed. The other parties refused.

[pointman]

Once again the arrogant omniscient crazy lady proves she has no concept of the legal system, law or lawsuits. Thanks for the laughs!

How many cats do you own?

[Riot]

The lawsuit was not dropped. The lawsuit wasn't dismissed. After 18 months, immediately before the lawsuit was to be heard in court, the lawsuit was settled out of court, at the request of the Romney's, in exchange for reimbursement of the sale price of the horse, Ann's name being taken off the papers legal, and no further action.

Nobody has to be a lawyer to be able to read

Watching the Obama-haters trip over themselves to defend the drugging a lame horse with painkillers to sell it is telling. And sad.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Riot

The lawsuit was not dropped. The lawsuit wasn't dismissed. After 18 months, immediately before the lawsuit was to be heard in court, the lawsuit was settled out of court, at the request of the Romney's, in exchange for reimbursement of the sale price of the horse, Ann's name being taken off the papers legal, and no further action.

Nobody has to be a lawyer to be able to read

Watching the Obama-haters trip over themselves to defend the drugging a lame horse with painkillers to sell it is telling. And sad.

What is sad is that numerous posters in numerous threads have told you how arrogant and stupid you are and you believe that everyone else is the problem, not you.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by pointman

What is sad is that numerous posters in numerous threads have told you how arrogant and stupid you are and you believe that everyone else is the problem, not you.

What I "believe" is that Derby Trail is inhabited by several well-known common bullies, dick.wads that clearly possess very small, and very insecure, egos.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Riot

What I "believe" is that Derby Trail is inhabited by several well-known common bullies, dick.wads that clearly possess very small, and very insecure, egos.

That is hilarious coming from the biggest bully on Derby Trail!

[AlreadyHome]

Originally Posted by Riot

What I "believe" is that Derby Trail is inhabited by several well-known common bullies, dick.wads that clearly possess very small, and very insecure, egos.

lol wow bullies @DT. very funny wow hahahahah

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Riot

Romneys pay off the filer of the lawsuit, try to have them sign confidentiality agreements (fail), and after the lawsuit moves through court for 18 months, panic and settle immediately before lawsuit goes to a judge in exchange for removing Romneys name from it ... and you think there was no money exchanged?

Originally Posted by Riot

No. One person's testimony caused Romney's to rush to settle the lawsuit, after 18 months, immediately before it was supposed to go before a judge. Unfortunately for Romney's, they failed to get confidentiality agreements signed. The other parties refused.

Originally Posted by Riot

The lawsuit was not dropped. The lawsuit wasn't dismissed. After 18 months, immediately before the lawsuit was to be heard in court, the lawsuit was settled out of court, at the request of the Romney's, in exchange for reimbursement of the sale price of the horse, Ann's name being taken off the papers legal, and no further action.

RE: "Payoff the filer," "in exchange for reimbursement of the sale price of the horse." Do you have any proof, or are you speculating? How do you know that there was a settlement "at the request of the Romneys?" How do you know that the filer didn't simply decide that she didn't have a good case against them? And IF they were "paying off" the filer, why wouldn't a confidentiality agreement have been a part of any settlement? More likely the absence of an agreement that the Romneys supposedly sought indicates that there was no payoff.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by OldDog

RE: "Payoff the filer," "in exchange for reimbursement of the sale price of the horse." Do you have any proof, or are you speculating? How do you know that there was a settlement "at the request of the Romneys?" How do you know that the filer didn't simply decide that she didn't have a good case against them? And IF they were "paying off" the filer, why wouldn't a confidentiality agreement have been a part of any settlement? More likely the absence of an agreement that the Romneys supposedly sought indicates that there was no payoff.

The statements of the horse owner, and of her lawyer, and of opposing lawyers, publicly, combined with what ultimately happened to the horse.

Continuing to say, "Ann Romney wasn't involved in the suit" shows undeniable ignorance of how the lawsuit, after 18-months of going through the court system, and days from going before a judge with a jury trial, was settled.

[Antitrust32]

I dont think anyone is denying that Ann Romney's name at one time was on the currently resolved lawsuit.

The problem with this thread starts with the title of the thread... which is disingenuous at best.. and an outright lie at worst.

Mitt Romney was not involved in this lawsuit, and it wasnt even his own horse!

end of story.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Riot

The statements of the horse owner, and of her lawyer, and of opposing lawyers, publicly, combined with what ultimately happened to the horse.

Continuing to say, "Ann Romney wasn't involved in the suit" shows undeniable ignorance of how the lawsuit, after 18-months of going through the court system, and days from going before a judge with a jury trial, was settled.

Where are these statements published? I would like to read them so that I might be "ignorant" no more.