RE: [AlpacaTalk] for Libby
Again,
Libby said in an email recently to Ana that Anthony
Stachowski was the one who willingly submitted the
confidentiality agreement to the court. Libby said
that she absolutely did not submit it herself and then
asked Ana why she was trying to drag Stachowski's good
name through the mud. No one believes that Libby feels
that way after the LOL case anyway, but that is not
the point.
Should I find this email again? It was just a few days
ago.
The point is that she willingly mislead every reader
here by saying that she had nothing to do with it. Her
documents provided to the court show she was doing
everything possible to have them included in the trial
which had nothing to do with Mary Reed.
It has nothing to do with Ana either, but I sure know
there is a lot being done to discredit her at every
turn. So, being that Libby took the opportunity to say
that Ana is lying (which she was not) it makes one
question Libby's honestly as well over such a
ridiculous topic. When people make white lies out of
the small things, it makes you wonder about the big
ones. Isn't that the whole reason Libby wanted that
ARI confidentiality agreement included in this case,
to give the court some doubt as to whether Stachowski
makes a good expert witness?
Allison, as for licking of wounds, as you well know,
if Ana chooses to continue with a lawsuit, it is her
right. Not yours.
Interesting how people are allowed to say whatever
nasty things they want about the Romanik's, but when
someone dares to question Libby, we have no right to
raise any questions, even if they are valid. Sorry,
but it ain't that way.
What a pile...
Stephanie
Stephanie
-- Allison Moss-Fritch <aemoss17@comcast.
> Hello again,
>
>
>
> Once again, Libbyâs submission is something which
> the law bound her to do. It does not constitute a
> breach of the agreement which can have no force
> which contravenes otherwise valid law. In this case
> the valid laws which are limiting the reach of the
> agreement are the laws on discovery in another court
> case. Her attorney in receiving the material which
> answered the discovery request also breached neither
> the agreement nor the law. That attorney was bound
> by the laws of discovery to disclose it if it was
> arguably within the reach of the discovery request.
> Any âfuzzyâ material would be subject to a
> ruling by the Judge as to whether it was
> relevantâ¦the Judge has a right and a duty to see
> all the information that MIGHT respond to the
> requestâ¦and the JUDGE alone has the duty/right to
> determine what will be used as a final, formal
> response to the discovery request.
>
>
>
> So both Libby and her counsel were bound to disclose
> and submit the information. That a Judge later
> determined that it was not relevant did not make the
> response an unwarranted disclosure.
>
>
>
> This is a Court of Law situation and very few of you
> have either the background or the experience to
> judge what happens there with any true understanding
> of whether or not Libbyâs actions were correct. I
> do have that knowledge and I am certain that she did
> nothing incorrectly. You are not in a position to
> judge this matter competently and therefore should
> not do so.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Allison E. Moss-Fritch
>
> New Moon Alpacas
>
> Santa Clara, CA
>
> 408/248-3581
>
> http://www.newmoona
>
>
>
> From: AlpacaTalk@yahoogro
> [mailto:AlpacaTalk@yahoogro
> Stardust Alpacas
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 9:53 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 Iââ¬â¢m unsure if youââ¬â¢re trying
> to support
> > Libby or insult her. Iââ¬â¢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
> > theyââ¬â¢re initiated to
> > simply ââ¬Å"harassââ¬Â?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Ana
> >
> > Floyd and Ana Romanik
> > Indian Summer Alpacas
> > Chepachet, Rhode Island
> > Phone: (401) 568-7759
> >
>
=== message truncated ===
____________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.
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 4:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home