Wolfgang gambit...
Look how quickly posters jumped onto the post . Jeff having received e-mail from Riley has been discussed for days and before thinking about my question the boys have decided many things including making statements regarding manipulation of stocks, manipulation of civil service,alibi,
and that it "lends credence" to Riley's "service".
The problem one did not note or care to consider is, if for example one uses Outlook Express, and you place individuals or messages on block, they are automatically deleted, and the recipient is unaware of anything coming in, therefore, service is invalid. It is not an issue regarding the case but there is no denying a problem exists for the proponents of this.
Posters certainly concluded a lot from that post...<s> from what I should have posted, to I manipulate civil procedure and stocks. Wow...(note no opinion there, just a false statement (not qualified) made by Pugs)
ragingbull.com
By: FBN_Destroyer
Reply To: 25015 by Ray-Jay-Johnson Tuesday, 29 Feb 2000 at 10:22 AM EST
Post # of 25027
RJ,
You make an obvious observation about tonto (Tod Pauly) , he was served the waiver & summons in accordance with FRCP & he is also being/or , has been, served via server, but his post ;
To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (24772)
From: tonto
Tuesday, Feb 29, 2000 8:15 AM ET
Reply # of 24773
Jeff, did you receive e-mails from Riley? I placed Riley and Pugs on block sender at my
old address and if he did send anything it was deleted. My children also use the
computer...
demonstrates how methodical they are in the use of these threads as a 'tool', not only to manipulate the stocks they target en masse, but now how they (Pauly) manipulate civil procedure. These guys with so much to say on message boards about our investment are doing everything w/i their power to evade service & tell the court what they tell investors here every day.
FBN Destroyer
ragingbull.com
By: Ray-Jay-Johnson
Reply To: 25014 by iii_john Tuesday, 29 Feb 2000 at 9:14 AM EST
Post # of 25027
Johniii- I kind of had mixed feelings about tomnto's post.
On the one hand I was laughing, but on the other, I felt a little sad for him.
The post appears to be a little desperate, as if he was trying to create an "alibi" about not recieving the email, and summons.
IMO he should have just stated in a declaritive sentence "I never recieved any summons".
It also, IMO lends credence to Riley's posts about emails being an acceptable method of serving.
I can't understand why people facing possible legal trouble
don't know enough to "keep their mouths shut".
Ron Reece was warned to keep his shut, but he couldn't.
The FBN crowd was warned also, they didn't and look what happened.
Now they all are facing more legal issues, and they still don't have enough sense to "zip it".
All the "jokes" that are being made by the basher crew isn't going to lower their legal bills, I don't believe.
IMO they need to join "Masochists Anonymous".
ragingbull.com
By: iii_john
Reply To: 25010 by alert1 Tuesday, 29 Feb 2000 at 8:24 AM EST
Post # of 25030
Oh my.
What is this?
Message 12999720
What is your buddy Tonto trying to say? (or do?)
ragingbull.com
By: iii_john
Reply To: 25015 by Ray-Jay-Johnson Tuesday, 29 Feb 2000 at 9:21 AM EST
Post # of 25030
Maybe they all think that just because they have gotten away with so much crap for so long, things will always be the same?
Who knows?
But to me it sure looks like some is trying to do a lot of 'ducking'.
ragingbull.com
By: Ray-Jay-Johnson
Reply To: 25018 by iii_john Tuesday, 29 Feb 2000 at 9:28 AM EST
Post # of 25029
It's an attempt IMO to publically deny knowledge of the summons.
I thought he handled it very badly.
As I posted, he should have just stated he never recieved anything from anyone, and left it at that.
I also believe a case could be made that nothing should be posted one way or another.
ragingbull.com
By: FBN_Destroyer
Reply To: 25032 by yardslave Tuesday, 29 Feb 2000 at 11:10 AM EST
Post # of 25033
(2) Service may be effected by any person who is not a party and who is at least 18
years of age. At the request of the plaintiff, however, the court may direct that service
be effected by a United States marshal, deputy United States marshal, or other person
or officer specially appointed by the court for that purpose. Such an appointment must
be made when the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. õ 1915 or is authorized to proceed as a seaman under 28 U.S.C. õ 1916.
******************************
(B) shall be dispatched through first-class mail or other reliable means;
*Check with the court, EMAIL is acceptable with reciept of service
________________________________________________
A. Summons and Service
1. Form of Summons and Method of Service
Under Rule 4(a), Fn22 the form of a summons in all federal actions is now uniform; a federal
summons is no longer required to conform to the form of a summons in the state in which the district
court is located. As noted by the Committee, the form of a summons in most states conforms
generally to that in federal court, and requiring the use of a distinctive state form in federal court only
served as a trap for an unwary party or attorney. Fn23
The 1983 revisions to the rule relieved the marshal's office of the duty of serving most
summonses. Therefore, the plaintiff can have the summons served by any non-party who is over the
age of 18. Fn24 However, in actions brought in forma pauperis, or by a seaman, the court must
appoint a marshal or some other person to effect service. Fn25 A party may also move for the
appointment of a marshal for service, and the court should make such an appointment if it seems
necessary to keep the peace. Fn26 It is no longer necessary that the marshal's office perform service
for the United States. Like any private litigant, the United States now may have any person who is
over 18 and not a party effect service. In addition, the Department of Justice still has the option of
having the marshal's office effect service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. õ 651. Fn27
2. New "Waiver of Service" Provision
The "service by mail" Fn28 provisions of former Rule 4(c)(2)(C)(ii) and (D) have been
replaced by a new "waiver of service" provision, Fn29 which is intended to encourage defendants to
waive the formal service of a summons.
_________________________________________
You are a real retard dude.
FBN Destroyer
ragingbull.com
By: iii_john
Reply To: 25107 by yardslave Tuesday, 29 Feb 2000 at 1:28 PM EST
Post # of 25143
Normal human beings make assumptions daily. I agree with that. But most of them don't go shooting their mouth off on a public message board about their 'assumptions', acting like they are 'facts'. <ggg>
Get over it. |
