Can you put this in English? I am not sure what you are intending to say but I do not understand it.
Are you trying to imply that something nefarious is going on because someone responded?
For the record, CH proclaimed to the whole world (and I celebrated) that they had me on ignore but kept responding to me.
With this latest filing by Deninger, things certainly are not going the way the K-Klan thought they would. I can only imagine the conversations between daughter and parents. Oh well, karma is a you know what.
That is indeed sad but true. A friend who is a captive agent for another major auto insurance carrier told us that USAA shot itself in the foot a little bit when it dropped it’s “officers only” requirement. He said cancellations for non-payment went way up, as did its claim ratio (higher percentage of claims vs number of members). The general understanding was that officers tend to have a more mature and “settled” outlook regarding their responsibilities as adults, while young enlistees are often much more “loosey-goosey” (his term) in their lifestyle. Although older, more mature career non-coms are usually more like officers regarding their outlook on life, there were floods of young enlistees that came in primarily to capitalize on the tuition reimbursement aspect, and the increased claim payouts and policy abandonments had a negative impact on USAA’s level of service and its reputation.
At one point in time, I had you on ignore. The reason I had you on ignore was that I wanted to screen out your annoying QFPing.
At a subsequent point in time, when at the request of the moderator you were no longer doing the annoying QFPing, I took you off ignore. I do not have you on ignore at the present time.
Not likely. This is not related to the motions presented for judgement.
ETA: Deininger has amended his complaint against the plaintiff, effectively adding a count for which they are seeking relief and therefore a count to be decided at trial.
the motions being decided tomorrow are for order of deposition and production of documents - it doesn’t really matter what is in the counterclaim as those motions would exist anyway.
If I was JK and RG, I would assume, knowing RG mentioned the cameras to Heymer, that those/any cameras had already been removed or the recordings collected by the PD.
If they in fact returned to gather those (cameras, tapes, whatever), what made them think it wasn’t already in police custody?
All along I’ve agreed, it looked like they went back that day to get those and other incriminating material… Now I’m wondering if there’s more to it.
Low. Amended claims don’t have much impact on trying to get discovery. All the amended claims does is show the judge they actually have a reason for the discovery requested, it’s not just a fishing expedition.
well, for one, they knew the recordings were in cloud storage and not on the physical devices so unless they produced the video, then all they would have seized is the device itself.