I've been served

At 11:10 AM EDT 04-08-04.

There will be some additions to my website, hopefully I will
have them up by this evening.
--
K6AZ WEB PAGES

http://www.k6az.com/web_pages.htm

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 11:33:04 -0400, K6AZ is alleged to
have written:


At 11:10 AM EDT 04-08-04.

There will be some additions to my website, hopefully I will
have them up by this evening.
--
K6AZ WEB PAGES

http://www.k6az.com/web_pages.htm

Was there a Cease and Desist order attached about the ACG sections of your
website?

Bruce

"K6AZ" wrote in message
...

At 11:10 AM EDT 04-08-04.

There will be some additions to my website, hopefully I will
have them up by this evening.

Man this thing is looking ugly (in my humble uninformed opinion)

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 11:39:30 -0400, Bruce Hickmott wrote:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 11:33:04 -0400, K6AZ is alleged to
have written:


At 11:10 AM EDT 04-08-04.

There will be some additions to my website, hopefully I will
have them up by this evening.

Was there a Cease and Desist order attached about the ACG sections of your
website?

No, but I have been expecting one or possibly a separate lawsuit.

As I have said many times, the website stays up unless there is a court
order who has the proper jurisdiction (in this case, that would be federal).
--
K6AZ WEB PAGES

http://www.k6az.com/web_pages.htm

"PCameron" wrote in message
...

"K6AZ" wrote in message
...

At 11:10 AM EDT 04-08-04.

There will be some additions to my website, hopefully I will
have them up by this evening.

Man this thing is looking ugly (in my humble uninformed opinion)


and is just starting. I'd guess ah and company have a lot of little
surprises in mind. typical legal tactics in civil litigation are to attempt
to disrupt people's lives as much as possible.

Bob Peterson wrote:
"PCameron" wrote in message
...

"K6AZ" wrote in message
. ..

At 11:10 AM EDT 04-08-04.

There will be some additions to my website, hopefully I will
have them up by this evening.

Man this thing is looking ugly (in my humble uninformed opinion)



and is just starting. I'd guess ah and company have a lot of little
surprises in mind. typical legal tactics in civil litigation are to attempt
to disrupt people's lives as much as possible.


if it were just ACG/AH/DH I wouldn't worry, especially after how they
handled themselves at the hearing. But now they have a legal team doin'
the thinkin'. Best turn out the dawgs pah the revenuers be comin'

Winde

if it were just ACG/AH/DH I wouldn't worry, especially after how they
handled themselves at the hearing. But now they have a legal team doin'
the thinkin'. Best turn out the dawgs pah the revenuers be comin'

Winde

since they are not telling their lawyers what is on eric's website, they
lawyers are going to be blindsided

as soon as the lawyers see how hard it might be to get paid (check out the
bancruptcy) and how weak the case is, (check out erics site and read all of it)
they will be gone or will take over acg to pay legal fees

what happened to their last few lawyers? The letter writer? the bankrupcy
lawyer? what about the other firms (legal or not) ah bankrupted out on? i think
this firm ought to get all the money in advance or dump the case

once you know the case is weak and that getting paid is going to be a big
problem a smart lawyer ought to run away

the lawyers have not seen much
only what the hagers want to show

when the facts come out we will see how important this case is to the
plaintiffs lawyers

as it is
it doesnt look important enough to research
look at all the posts they will have to read

tick tock
the lawyers meters are running

i have heard it is much harder to sue than defend a suit

I would not worry too much about the lawyers getting paid. Lawyers always
take care of themselves first. They know this type of case is likely to
result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for themselves, and
must figure either AH is good for it, or the case is likely to result in
verdicts in their favor.

Smart plaintiffs do not use bankruptcy lawyers for this type of action. it
makes sense to go with someone that has expertise in this particular area.

Since a big chunk of their case is posted on Eric's website, its a good bet
they check it out pretty regularly.

Don't make the mistake of thinking the case is weak because you see it that
way. Think of it from a jury's point of view that knows nothing about
numismatics, cause its a cinch that no one that ever so much as bought a
proof set will be on the jury.

"Dispydoodleitis" wrote in message
...
if it were just ACG/AH/DH I wouldn't worry, especially after how they
handled themselves at the hearing. But now they have a legal team doin'
the thinkin'. Best turn out the dawgs pah the revenuers be comin'

Winde

since they are not telling their lawyers what is on eric's website, they
lawyers are going to be blindsided

as soon as the lawyers see how hard it might be to get paid (check out the
bancruptcy) and how weak the case is, (check out erics site and read all
of it)
they will be gone or will take over acg to pay legal fees

what happened to their last few lawyers? The letter writer? the bankrupcy
lawyer? what about the other firms (legal or not) ah bankrupted out on? i
think
this firm ought to get all the money in advance or dump the case

once you know the case is weak and that getting paid is going to be a big
problem a smart lawyer ought to run away

the lawyers have not seen much
only what the hagers want to show

when the facts come out we will see how important this case is to the
plaintiffs lawyers

as it is
it doesnt look important enough to research
look at all the posts they will have to read

tick tock
the lawyers meters are running

i have heard it is much harder to sue than defend a suit

Bob brings up an excellent point, and it ought to be considered by the defense
team's attorneys. A jury is supposed to be made up of your PEERS. In this
case, the entire jury (or at least a decent mix of it) should be collectors and
dealers.

Jerry

"Bob Peterson" writes, in part:

Don't make the mistake of thinking the case is weak because you see it that
way. Think of it from a jury's point of view that knows nothing about
numismatics, cause its a cinch that no one that ever so much as bought a
proof set will be on the jury.

From Jerry Dennis:

Bob brings up an excellent point, and it ought to be considered by the defense
team's attorneys. A jury is supposed to be made up of your PEERS. In this
case, the entire jury (or at least a decent mix of it) should be collectors and
dealers.

This 'ploy' has been tried (no pun intended) quite a few times in the past, in
courts (mainly by defendants who represent themselves), and failed.

The judicial system has the duty to interpret the law and dispense justice. Of
the several definitions of "peer", the courts use the one that says a peer is:
"one belonging to the same societal group".

Otherwise, our courts would be severely hampered by a senseless technicallity.
For example: where would they have been able to find 12 "Charlie Mansons"?

Scott Peterson is on trial in California on a charge of a double murder of his
wife and her child. Should he be allowed, if found guilty, to have a mistrial,
due the fact that the jury wasn't 12 people who were murderers (his proven
'peers'?).

If you have a requirement of a 6-jury class-action lawsuit for 46 defendants,
are we then required to have a jury of 276, six for each defendant? The legal
system would come to a standstill if the judges allowed any / all varieties of
individual comprehension of all the terms.


8-|
- Coin Saver
I doubt that i shall ever see
a poem as lovely as a tree