Re: Bob L

["Doug" <not@xxxxxxxx>]

So someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that a
default judgment along with preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
order had already been made, and I was further under the impression that the
contempt hearing was for Jim allegedly ignoring the preliminary injunction.

My knowledge of the law is very limited but I'm not sure how a civil
contempt motion could be made, if a judgment of some sort hadn't already
been made against Jim.

So I'd be obliged if someone could lay it out in five or six lines what
actually has transpired, I'm not really interested in who knows or thinks
they most about the law or opinions on whether Jim could have handled it
better, IOW just the facts Ma'am, Its also my hope, probably forlorn, that
this thread doesn't morph into a discussion of whether that line was ever
uttered in the original series.


Doug

--

"Frank Olson" <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:DucZi.196282$1y4.172503@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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 Sort of like what you charge for an outdated burg panel, you mean...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.