We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : JBII - The Secret Catalyst Turns Plastics into Oil -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Reseller Mike who wrote (685)9/4/2014 1:46:59 PM
From: Rawnoc  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 704
Doubtful. We're talking about an attorney's office that said it didn't receive the fax. What are the odds that the attorney's office is lying AND it can be proven it is lying?

A receipt on the sender's end of a Fax isn't good enough. Most faxes are electronic these days anyway and any number of things could have gone wrong. I speak from frustrating experience how many times I've had to resend electronic faxes and vice-versa. You should ALWAYS follow up with a phone call and verify receipt of the fax. It's a pretty simple procedure that two attorney firms are more than capable of doing. If that wasn't done, the Plantiff is attempting to play dirty and it won't fly.

But what do I know....I only called every legal thing accurately from day 1.

I'll take a biscuit.

To: Reseller Mike who wrote (685)9/4/2014 2:04:04 PM
From: Rawnoc  Respond to of 704
I just saw this on pacer:

The attorney signed under penalty of perjury that he didn't receive the Fax until July 31. I doubt the lawyer would take that huge of a risk and lie to a judge under penalty of perjury and risk jail time. Furthermore, even if he did lie (yeah right), the odds of proving he lied are astronomically low.

Finally, since it's been 30 days from July 31 anyway, who gives a shit? As long as the attorney has already filed the necessary responses by the time the judge rules next, the judge won't give a shit at the attempt to nitpick let alone prove the nitpick is even valid.

If this is the bow-wow crow, it's not looking too good for Seneca.