Sorry….Romanik's counsel…not Stachowski's counsel….should be in the first lines…one's typing fingers become confused. This has so little to do with the major or minor points of Romanik's matter…although well within the ambit of discovery. It is what is called in court terms "proof of a collateral matter'…..as I said, relevance of discovery is much broader than what may be introduced at trial.
Best Regards,
Allison
From: AlpacaTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AlpacaTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Allison Moss-Fritch
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 4:29 PM
To: AlpacaTalk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [AlpacaTalk] for Libby
If you look at the public trial records…Libby is correct; Stachowski's counsel made a discovery request which REQUIRED Libby to produce many documents…including the agreement. Libby did not DISCLOSE it….she was REQUIRED to offer it up in discovery. That it came out and was used at trial was through Stachowski's attorneys…not Libby's.
If you are asked to produce a document which is private…you must do so and your promise to keep it private does not have weight with the court. Whether the court, upon viewing it, turns it over to the other side is up to the COURT. Whether the opposing side uses it is up to them once it has been provided.
So in this one, plainly Libby is correct.
The emails have nothing to do with it. Whether they say anything wonderful or awful has nothing to do with the happenings at trial as they follow rather than precede them.
If they happened to mis-state something…that does not make it true. There is no willing misleading going on. She was ordered to comply with discovery and did so. The documents discovered happened to have broader implications than just one person…that sometimes happens. Those persons would have had a right to complain TO THE COURT at that time. There is nothing in the record showing that they did so. If it then bothered them…it is unfortunate but not Libby's fault.
That is just the way the law is. There is an old axiom of law that you can't "sit on your rights" and yet complain that you have been h armed. In other words, it is up to you to intervene and complain that you'd be adversely affected by the action the court is allowing or requiring…and Mary S. apparently did not do so. She is too late to do so now. That is not the fault of the other side.
Allison E. Moss-Fritch
New Moon Alpacas
Santa Clara, CA
408/248-3581
http://www.newmoonalpacas.com
From: AlpacaTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AlpacaTalk%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:AlpacaTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AlpacaTalk%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Stardust Alpacas
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 4:15 PM
To: AlpacaTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AlpacaTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: 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.net <mailto:aemoss17%40comcast.net> <mailto:aemoss17%40comcast.net> > wrote:
> Hello again,
>
>
>
> Once again, Libby’s 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 “fuzzy†material would be subject to a
> ruling by the Judge as to whether it was
> relevant…the Judge has a right and a duty to see
> all the information that MIGHT respond to the
> request…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 Libby’s 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.newmoonalpacas.com
>
>
>
> From: AlpacaTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AlpacaTalk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:AlpacaTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:AlpacaTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AlpacaTalk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:AlpacaTalk%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
> Stardust Alpacas
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 9:53 AM
> To: AlpacaTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AlpacaTalk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:AlpacaTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
> 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.com <mailto:libby%40alpacafarm.com> <mailto:libby%40alpacafarm.com>
> <mailto:libby%40alpacafarm.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.com <mailto:libby%40alpacafarm.com> <mailto:libby%40alpacafarm.com>
> <mailto:libby%40alpacafarm.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Floyd Romanik"
> >
> > <floyd@indiansumm
> >
> > eralpacas.com>
> > To
> > Sent by:
> > <AlpacaTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AlpacaTalk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:AlpacaTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:AlpacaTalk%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > 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
> >
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Message posts are the opinion of individuals posting and are not necessarily endorsed or approved by Yahoo! or the moderator of this group. The purpose of this discussion group is to ensure that all points of view can be aired. It is the responsbilty of all individuals who post to treat others with respect and civility.
