No Topic

[jaymac]

<title>congrats to psitech Laurie McDougall jaymac ljmcdougall@telus.net</title>
On 6/19/01 8:51:21 AM, Kimberly Snow wrote:<br>
>Congratulations Psitech, for<br>
>winning the court case against<br>
>the thieves. I knew you<br>
>would, but it's nice to see in<br>
>print.<br>
><br>
>Kimberly<br>
<br>
<br>
I wonder what's to stop ed from photo copying all the files? or would that contravene the court order as well? I hope so - So I guess this means a big party at the psi-tech offices?? hehehehehe<br>
<br>
<br>
congrats on winning the case!<br>
<br>
<br>
Laurie<br>

<title>No Topic Clem Hewitt hewittc hewitt@nctc.net</title>
HELP PLEASE ; I HAVE MISPLACED MY GLASSES , I HAVE LITERALLY TORN THE HOUSE APART TRYING TO FIND THEM , TO NO AVAIL . THEY ARE THE KIND THAT TURN DARKER IN SUNLIGHT . WOULD APPRECIATE ANY AND ALL HELP IN LOCATING THEM. THANKS CLEM HEWITT P.S. CONGRATULATIONS ON WINNING YOUR $2,000,000.00 LAW SUIT AGAINST ED DAMES JONI ..........<br>

[johnm]

<title>congrats to psitech John M johnm n9vbt@hotmail.com</title>
On 6/24/01 10:29:33 AM, Carol Strauss wrote:<br>
>still say the man looks like a<br>
>hippie.<br>
<br>
And that is wrong, how? <big>I</big> resemble that remark! <big></big> <br>
<br>
John M.<br>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br>
Reality is fractal. It has a pattern with no discernable pattern. The finer you divide it, the more it remains the same.<br>

[Sheryll]

<title>congrats to psitech Sheryl Lynn Sheryll sheryll@pobox.alaska.net</title>
On 6/19/01 8:51:21 AM, Kimberly Snow wrote:<br>
>Congratulations Psitech, for<br>
>winning the court case against<br>
>the thieves. I knew you<br>
>would, but it's nice to see in<br>
>print.<br>
><br>
>Kimberly<br>
<br>
The question I have is why didn't Ed fight the case. If you notice it was a default judgement, which means that the person being sued did not respond to the case. Was he not served (I would think it unlikely that they couldn't find him.)? Does he plan to file bankruptcy to avoid any payment (I'm not sure if that can be done.)? Is he going to fight it on appeal? It does seem strange that Ed would not fight a $2,000,000 litigation. He must have a trick up his sleeve. I would suspect that we will hear more about this before it is over. <br>
<br>
Sheryl<br>
<br>

[jaymac]

<title>congrats to psitech Laurie McDougall jaymac ljmcdougall@telus.net</title>
On 6/24/01 9:12:24 PM, Sheryl Lynn wrote:<br>
>On 6/19/01 8:51:21 AM, Kimberly Snow<br>
>wrote:<br>
>>Congratulations Psitech, for<br>
>>winning the court case against<br>
>>the thieves. I knew you<br>
>>would, but it's nice to see in<br>
>>print.<br>
>><br>
>>Kimberly<br>
><br>
>The question I have is why didn't Ed<br>
>fight the case. If you notice it was a<br>
>default judgement, which means that the<br>
>person being sued did not respond to the<br>
>case. Was he not served (I would think<br>
>it unlikely that they couldn't find<br>
>him.)? Does he plan to file bankruptcy<br>
>to avoid any payment (I'm not sure if<br>
>that can be done.)? Is he going to fight<br>
>it on appeal? It does seem strange that<br>
>Ed would not fight a $2,000,000<br>
>litigation. He must have a trick up his<br>
>sleeve. I would suspect that we will<br>
>hear more about this before it is over.<br>
><br>
>Sheryl<br>
><br>
<br>
perhaps Ed intends to honor the terms of the judgement - return the stolen goods OR pay a 2million fine by a deadline date. I do not know the law, but it seems to me that the defendant probably has to have been served, or they could reasonably argue that they did not know they were being sued etc. and have the judgement put aside. <br>
I also suspect that the fact that he did not defend himself would not weigh favorably for him in an appeal, which I think can only go ahead if there is a perceived "mistake" in law, or an error by the judge.<br>
Seems to me to be cut and dried here - stolen goods, caught, did not defend self - ?? he had the chance. cry me a river....<br>

[Sheryll]

<title>congrats to psitech Sheryl Lynn Sheryll sheryll@pobox.alaska.net</title>
On 6/25/01 11:02:31 AM, Laurie McDougall wrote:<br>
>On 6/24/01 9:12:24 PM, Sheryl Lynn<br>
>wrote:<br>
>>On 6/19/01 8:51:21 AM, Kimberly Snow<br>
>>wrote:<br>
>>>Congratulations Psitech, for<br>
>>>winning the court case against<br>
>>>the thieves. I knew you<br>
>>>would, but it's nice to see in<br>
>>>print.<br>
>>><br>
>>>Kimberly<br>
>><br>
>>The question I have is why didn't Ed<br>
>>fight the case. If you notice it was a<br>
>>default judgement, which means that the<br>
>>person being sued did not respond to the<br>
>>case. Was he not served (I would think<br>
>>it unlikely that they couldn't find<br>
>>him.)? Does he plan to file bankruptcy<br>
>>to avoid any payment (I'm not sure if<br>
>>that can be done.)? Is he going to fight<br>
>>it on appeal? It does seem strange that<br>
>>Ed would not fight a $2,000,000<br>
>>litigation. He must have a trick up his<br>
>>sleeve. I would suspect that we will<br>
>>hear more about this before it is over.<br>
>><br>
>>Sheryl<br>
>><br>
><br>
>perhaps Ed intends to honor the terms of<br>
>the judgement - return the stolen goods<br>
>OR pay a 2million fine by a deadline<br>
>date. I do not know the law, but it<br>
>seems to me that the defendant probably<br>
>has to have been served, or they could<br>
>reasonably argue that they did not know<br>
>they were being sued etc. and have the<br>
>judgement put aside.<br>
>I also suspect that the fact that he did<br>
>not defend himself would not weigh<br>
>favorably for him in an appeal, which I<br>
>think can only go ahead if there is a<br>
>perceived "mistake" in law, or an error<br>
>by the judge.<br>
>Seems to me to be cut and dried here -<br>
>stolen goods, caught, did not defend<br>
>self - ?? he had the chance. cry me a<br>
>river....<br>
If a person cannot be served in person, it is possible to serve them by placing adds in a public publication for say three times. I'm not sure of all the nuances to this and it may vary between jurisdictions. It is possible that he was never personally served. It should be an interesting case as it proceeds. As for him returning the material, has it been proven (to a juries beyond a reasonable doubt) that Ed had anything to do with the theft? Allegations aside ( I'm sure Joni is convinced that he did.) can it be proven in a court of law? Why was he not charged with criminal charges? I suspect the evidence wasn't there. With all respect to Joni et al, I have always found that there are three sides to every story. His, her's and the truth. I have no opinion as to who is correct in this but both sides have claimed that the other is at fault. Who is correct? You RVers should be able to determine the truth. <br>
<br>
Sheryl<br>

[Thurstan]

<title>congrats to psitech Thurstan Alex Davies Thurstan email@thurstan.com</title>
maybe he remote viewed the payment of the fine and found it was preceded by the kill shot.<br>
<br>
........in which case what was the due date on the payment ?!<br>

[kholmar]

<title>congrats to psitech William Colston kholmar bill2@earthling.net</title>
maybe he is just still drunk and hasnt noticed.<br>

[Pele]

<title>congrats to psitech *update* Jonina Dourif Pele jonidourif@psitech.net</title>
<i>On 6/25/01 11:14:35 PM, Sheryl Lynn wrote:If a person cannot be served in person, it is possible to serve them by placing adds in a public publication for say three times. I'm not sure of all the nuances to this and it may vary between jurisdictions. It is possible that he was never personally served. </i><br>
<p><br>
<b>He was personally served.</b><br>
<p><br>
<i>It should be an interesting case as it proceeds. As for him returning the material, has it been proven (to a juries beyond a reasonable doubt) that Ed had anything to do with the theft? </i><br>
<p><br>
<b>Ed did not steal the files (Bonsall did) and he is not being sued by me, for theft. If you read the document carefully, you'll see he is being sued by PSI TECH and, CEO, Dane Spotts</b><br>
<p>
<i>Allegations aside ( I'm sure Joni is convinced that he did.) can it be proven in a court of law? Why was he not charged with criminal charges? I suspect the evidence wasn't there.</i>
<p><br>
<b>Slander against me is included in the corporate lawsuit for which there is plenty of evidence.</b><br>
<p><br>
<i> With all respect to Joni et al, I have always found that
there are three sides to every story. His, her's and the truth. I have no opinion as to who is correct in this but
both sides have claimed that the other is at fault. Who is correct? </i>
<p><br>
<b>Ed is also trying the "who said-he said-she said" tactic to confuse and portray this as a "personal issue". In actuality, it is not personal at all. Ed made a deal, signed contracts, received the benefits, and didn't honor his end of the deal. Pretty straight forward, simple, cut and dry corporate law.</b><br>
<p><br>
<i> You RVers should be able to determine the truth.Sheryl</i><br>
<p><br>
<b>That's right, we can.</b><br>