RE: [AlpacaTalk] for Libby
Stephanie,
That is not a "throwing out" …it is a ruling. If Libby was responding to Stachowski's request….then it is Libby who is correct. That is not a smoke screen.
The court did not make any ruling in the documents we have here that calls this a disclosure.
As I have said before. An agreement is a creature of contract law. As such it cannot contract to avoid the reach of other law. If it attempts to do so, it becomes a conspiracy to avoid the law rather than a contractual agreement. Everyone who is a party to such a conspiracy would be open to a felony charge of conspiracy.
To offer up the agreement in a court of law does not make it a disclosure as it is within the ambit of the court procedure.
Stephanie, unless you have a law degree and are license to practice in your home state….you cannot competently judge the legal effect of a document and working in a law office or being a paralegal would not give you that background. This is not a slur or a smoke screen…rather it is a statement of obvious fact.
Best Regards,
Allison
From: AlpacaTalk@yahoogro
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 10:31 AM
To: AlpacaTalk@yahoogro
Subject: RE: [AlpacaTalk] for Libby
Allison, you are not the only one on the planet that
can read court documents. The court threw it out
saying that it was not relevant. Mary Reed's attorney
requested they not be included in the trial because
Mary was not an expert witness on the LOL case.
Libby's lawyers said that Mary failed to show how
entering this information would subject her to further
humiliation than had already been done.
The point is not whether there was reason to believe
that A. Stachowski is a reliable expert witness
(which was why the agreement was submitted) but that
Libby straight out said that Dr. Stachowski submitted
them himself, which is completely false. Libby is
trying to throw up smoke and mirrors and you are
helping her. Again, the court found that she did in
fact breach her confidentiality agreement and the
plaintiff was the one that submitted the documents.
Libby deliberately was trying to make Ana out to be
lying to us regarding this information, when Libby was
the offender.
Stephanie
--- Allison Moss-Fritch <aemoss17@comcast.
> Hello Folks,
>
>
>
>
>
> This is why laymen should not read legal documents
> and then think that they know what the document
> means or what its effect is. Contract law allows
> you to make any contractual agreement which is not
> in violation of law. That means that such a
> confidentiality agreement has limitations. One of
> those limitations is that it cannot have a reach
> which contravenes other valid laws.
>
>
>
> If you read all the legal documents here…the
> papers require that all potentially relevant papers
> and information be submitted in response to the
> Request for Production of Documents.
>
>
>
> Just because two folks enter into a confidentiality
> agreement does NOT mean that they are free to refuse
> to disclose it in a court of Law…a confidentiality
> agreement does not have the force to avoid the law.
> When a person is asked under oath about such a
> thing…they are bound by the law TO DISCLOSE…not
> to avoid disclosure if it is potentially relevant.
>
>
>
> She had no choice. Had they not wanted it to come
> out…then they should not have asked.
>
>
>
> You can’t hide from the law certain facts or
> agreements when you are under oath, just because
> you’d agreed to do so.
>
>
>
> Such an agreement is binding only to the edges of
> the laws which would restrain its effect. Testimony
> under oath is one of those limitations.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Allison
>
>
>
> From: AlpacaTalk@yahoogro
> [mailto:AlpacaTalk@yahoogro
> Stardust Alpacas
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 9:52 AM
> To: AlpacaTalk@yahoogro
> Subject: RE: [AlpacaTalk] for Libby
>
>
>
> Libby,
>
> From what I have read of those court documents, you
> did submit that confidentiality agreement to your
> attorney, which breached the agreement, then
> submitted
> that info to the court. The court threw it out
> saying
> that it was not relevant to the LOL suit. So, what
> is
> incorrect? Last time, you said that Dr. Stachowski
> submitted that agreement himself. Completely false.
>
> Contacting you privately would only allow for
> misinformation regarding the truth, unfortunately.
>
>
> Stephanie
> Stardust Alpacas
>
> --- libby@alpacafarm.
> <mailto:libby%
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To all,
> >
> > There is incorrect information below. If anyone
> has
> > any questions or
> > concerns, feel free to contact me.
> >
> > Thanks, Libby
> >
> > Libby Forstner
> > Magical Farms
> > 330-722-4820
> > libby@alpacafarm.
> <mailto:libby%
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Floyd Romanik"
> >
> > <floyd@indiansumm
> >
> > eralpacas.com>
> > To
> > Sent by:
> > <AlpacaTalk@yahoogro
> <mailto:AlpacaTalk%
> > AlpacaTalk@yahoog
> > cc
> > roups.com
> >
> >
> > Subject
> > RE:
> > [AlpacaTalk] for Libby
> > 02/23/2008 11:11
> >
> > AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please respond to
> >
> > AlpacaTalk@yahoog
> >
> > roups.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dick,
> >
> > I guess I’m unsure if you’re trying
> to support
> > Libby or insult her. I’m
> > referring to your quote from Hubbard. "The purpose
> > of a law suit is to
> > harass and discourage rather than win. The law can
> > be used very easily to
> > harass, and enough harassment on somebody will
> > generally be sufficient to
> > cause professional decease. If possible, of
> course,
> > ruin him utterly. "
> >
> > Seriously, Libby was just doing what she felt was
> > right when she signed on
> > to the Intervener filing against AOBA and appeal,
> > when she as ARI President
> > filed suit against Mary Reed and of course when
> she
> > filed suit against Land
> > O Lakes in Federal court and again when not
> > satisfied through the state
> > district courts. Unfortunately, she was not
> correct
> > when she violated the
> > confidentiality agreement she signed as ARI
> > President.
> >
> > So are you supporting Libby or insulting her? Or
> are
> > you maybe trying to
> > justify some kind of double standard where some
> are
> > allowed to bring
> > lawsuits and others are not as you seem to believe
> > they’re initiated to
> > simply â€Å"harassâ€Â?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Ana
> >
> > Floyd and Ana Romanik
> > Indian Summer Alpacas
> > Chepachet, Rhode Island
> > Phone: (401) 568-7759
> >
> > ____________
> > From: AlpacaTalk@yahoogro
> <mailto:AlpacaTalk%
=== message truncated ===
____________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
posted by Chaddo at 10:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home