Mitt Romney sold a drugged horse

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Riot

The additional pages are the drug report, also photocopied into that story.

I posted a good solid link to the original story, with much detail - and you said you've read the NYT piece. But much of what you complain about as being non-existent is actually within those stories.

As I've said, the rest is readily available in the various news media accounts of this in recent times, expanding upon those two stories.

So I suggest you specify in detail what information you cannot find in those stories, that you object to, and why.

Yes, again, your original link is one man's testimony. Pardon me for thinking that one man's testimony isn't enough to mandate a settlement in favor of the plaintiff.

Originally Posted by Riot

This was clearly not dismissed as "there was no case".

Why exactly was it dismissed?

Originally Posted by Riot

Why don't you ignore the reporters, and read the actual complaint yourself?

Because I can't find it, and you either can't or won't provide it. You provided a link to one person's testimony in it. As I have said, other information and testimony just might have some bearing on the case and why it was dismissed.

Originally Posted by Riot

Unlike you, I did take the time to read the entire complaint before I even posted the thread, and thus have the facts informing my opinion.

*See above*

Originally Posted by Riot

I'll guess that $125,000 profit on the lame horse Ann couldn't ride any longer helped offset the farm business deduction losses (like that $77,000), to make one of those 2 out of 7 years profitable on Mitt's tax return. So he can continue to claim the horses as a business, rather than an unprofitable hobby.

Yes, you are guessing.

Originally Posted by Riot

Why did the settlement include getting Ann Romney's name off all the legal documents?

How do you know what the settlement included? Is it published?

Originally Posted by Riot

So dang - Mitt is running for President, and the press still dug up this story - even though they settled out of court in exchange for removing Ann's name from the court records to try and hide the lawsuit

And your source for "in exchange for removing Ann's name" is...? All I read is that Ann Romney was dropped from the suit. Is that the same as settling?

Originally Posted by Riot

It sounds like Mitt Romney got Ann's name off the court case, in exchange for a refund of the $125,000 plus expenses

Sounds like? How do you know that the Romney's refunded the $?

Originally Posted by Riot

What do you suppose the judge prevented the Defendants from talking about? What do you think that was all about? The evidence regarding Defendants the judge said wouldn't be released?

I don't know that the judge prevented the defendants from talking about anything. Where did you read/hear this?

Originally Posted by Riot

And I still wonder what Defendant Sanctions the Romney's requested be lifted by the judge?

I don't know "what Defendant Sanctions the Romney's requested be lifted by the judge." Do you? I don't even know that the Romney's made such a request. Where did you read/hear this?

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

Again, where do you get your information that the "Romneys pay off the filer of the lawsuit?" Give me the source so that I will know that it's true. Or am I an idiot for asking?

Originally Posted by Riot

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

Source? Or is it just supposed to be "obvious" that the Romney's paid? Where did you read/hear this? That's all I am asking for. If it's true, it's relevant. But I'm not accepting it as fact unless/until it's sourced.

Earlier I asked you about this "payoff," or "reimbursement," you said

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.

So, when I asked you for the sources of these public statements, all I got was

Originally Posted by Riot

Good grief? why start now?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Why exactly was it dismissed?

It was not "dismissed". Please, inform yourself of the accurate basics of the case before you get all high and mighty about other posters say.

I don't know that the judge prevented the defendants from talking about anything. Where did you read/hear this?

The existence of that document is in the expert witness testimony that you said you read. But apparently did not.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Riot

It was not "dismissed". Please, inform yourself of the accurate basics of the case before you get all high and mighty about other posters say.

That's right. It says "Mrs. Romney was dropped from the lawsuit before it was settled out of court."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/us...pagewanted=all

Originally Posted by Riot

The existence of that document is in the expert witness testimony that you said you read. But apparently did not.

The vet's testimony includes the existence of a document saying the the judge prevented defendants from talking about . . . what? Come on, give an old dog a bone. Where in his testimony is this document mentioned? Or does my old computer not open up documents within documents?

[Riot]

[quote=OldDog;871852]That's right. It says "Mrs. Romney was dropped from the lawsuit before it was settled out of court."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/us...pagewanted=all

Yes. After 18 months of winding it's way through the court system, immediately prior to going to jury trial.

The vet's testimony includes the existence of a document saying the the judge prevented defendants from talking about . . . what? Come on, give an old dog a bone. Where in his testimony is this document mentioned? Or does my old computer not open up documents within documents?

No. I said the Defendant Sanctions documents existence is revealed in the vet's testimony. The vet mentions it's existence right up front.

In spite of Romney's scrubbing Ann's name from the lawsuit, and getting it settled out of court, they forgot to get the expert witness statement hidden, and the expert witness statement reveals that the judge put sanctions on the defendants.

All you have to do is read.

I would love to know what the judge sanctioned the defendants for, before the case came to trial.

[pointman]

[quote=Riot;871854]

Originally Posted by OldDog

That's right. It says "Mrs. Romney was dropped from the lawsuit before it was settled out of court."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/us...pagewanted=all

Yes. After 18 months of winding it's way through the court system, immediately prior to going to jury trial.



No. I said the Defendant Sanctions documents existence is revealed in the vet's testimony. The vet mentions it's existence right up front.

In spite of Romney's scrubbing Ann's name from the lawsuit, and getting it settled out of court, they forgot to get the expert witness statement hidden, and the expert witness statement reveals that the judge put sanctions on the defendants.

All you have to do is read.

I would love to know what the judge sanctioned the defendants for, before the case came to trial.

So you are concerned about sanctions against a party (which you have zero clue as to what and why a court would impose such for) in a non-descript lawsuit which you have tortured to besmirch the reputation of a person not even named in it, but have zero concern that the nation's top law enforcement official has refused to respect a lawful subpoena and that the President of the United States has either illegally invoked executive privilege or confirmed his or a staff member very close to the President's involvement by invoking executive privilege?

Wow.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by pointman

So you are concerned about sanctions against a party (which you have zero clue as to what and why a court would impose such for) in a non-descript lawsuit which you have tortured to besmirch the reputation of a person not even named in it, but have zero concern that the nation's top law enforcement official has refused to respect a lawful subpoena and that the President of the United States has either illegally invoked executive privilege or confirmed his or a staff member very close to the President's involvement by invoking executive privilege?

Wow.

Geeshus cripes! That's a ridiculous, idiotic segue from one false assumption to a completely unassociated straw man, and a lie, of epic, unbelievable proportions! Well done!

Pointman, try hard to contribute something to this subject beside your repeated nasty, rude name-calling and gibberish ad hominem attacks. Those are the arguments of a loser and you know it.

Yes, Pointman - I would love to know why the judge issued "Defense Sanctions" against Ann Romney, the farm owned by she and her husband, her trainer and his wife. For what type of things, Mr. Lawyer, would a judge issue "Defense Sanctions" regarding, before a case came to trial? Any examples? What is this usually for? Why is this usually done?

[OldDog]

No responses to the rest of my questions?

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Yes, again, your original link is one man's testimony. Pardon me for thinking that one man's testimony isn't enough to mandate a settlement in favor of the plaintiff.


Why exactly was it dismissed?


Because I can't find it, and you either can't or won't provide it. You provided a link to one person's testimony in it. As I have said, other information and testimony just might have some bearing on the case and why it was dismissed.


*See above*


Yes, you are guessing.


How do you know what the settlement included? Is it published?


And your source for "in exchange for removing Ann's name" is...? All I read is that Ann Romney was dropped from the suit. Is that the same as settling?


Sounds like? How do you know that the Romney's refunded the $?


I don't know that the judge prevented the defendants from talking about anything. Where did you read/hear this?


I don't know "what Defendant Sanctions the Romney's requested be lifted by the judge." Do you? I don't even know that the Romney's made such a request. Where did you read/hear this?


Again, where do you get your information that the "Romneys pay off the filer of the lawsuit?" Give me the source so that I will know that it's true. Or am I an idiot for asking?


Source? Or is it just supposed to be "obvious" that the Romney's paid? Where did you read/hear this? That's all I am asking for. If it's true, it's relevant. But I'm not accepting it as fact unless/until it's sourced.

Earlier I asked you about this "payoff," or "reimbursement," you said

So, when I asked you for the sources of these public statements, all I got was

Good dog, put in some time there...reading that tired me out, gonna take a nap...