Re: Bob L

[Frank Olson <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:

>
> Technically speaking, that is true, Jim.  When they make statements to
> the court, true or otherwise, and you fail to respond in accordance with
> court rules, their claims go forward unchallenged. As far as the court
> is concerned they're right.  We all know that they're wrong and that you
> should have won the case.  But by choosing not to show up or hire
> representation, you lost by default.

Man, oh man...  You really don't understand the law do you?  And here I
thought you'd actually taken some classes in law.  The judge hasn't
ruled Brinks "right" so much as the fact that they've ruled Jim "In
Contempt".  That doesn't mean that everything Sableman's said is "by
default" correct.  It simply means that Jim's entered into a whole new
world of "nasty".  Brinks can be as "nasty" as they want now.  They're
the ones that can call the shots and have the Federal Marshal haul his
ass to Texas.  Jim still has the opportunity to present his side of the
story.  Unfortunately he's also severely prejudiced the court against
him.  Judge Boyle doesn't take kindly to individuals that "thumb their
noses" at the court.


> I understand that the costs are
> outrageous.

Sort of like what you charge for an outdated burg panel, you mean...


> but the court doesn't care about that.

On the contrary, the court very much cares.


> This is how crooked
> mega-businesses steam roller little guys like you all the time.

Nope.  Wrongo!  Most "little guys" would have at least filed a proper
appearance.  Jim decided to ignore the whole process.  It would have
been a simple matter to answer every one of Sableman's accusations,
which is the way Jim should have handled it.  A "point by point"
response would have clearly demonstrated that Brinks case was not only
pure bass-shit, they clearly didn't have a bass-hope in hell.


> What I
> can't understand is why you chose not to go to the contempt hearing.

I thought his reasons were sound.  Judge Boyle didn't think so, however.


> Do
> you realize the judge can issue a bench warrant for your arrest?

Only if Brinks decides they want to go that way.  It was Brinks' motion,
so it's Brinks' "call".  You really don't know the law do you...  Sort
of like you don't know NFPA...


> They
> can also seize your assets (except your home, of course) to pay off the
> judgments.

So far, there's been no actual "judgement" involving monetary
compensation (either punitive or otherwise).  Where have you been?  The
Amazon??


>
> Alienating the federal judge hasn't exactly helped your case either. Why
> let these guys do this to you?  If you wanted, you could have easily
> beaten them.  Their case is as flimsy and baseless as a

Bass fable.