Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mmmary who wrote (8272)	4/30/2005 3:12:29 PM
From: olivier asser	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

I'm not permitted to give legal advice, not yet and so far it doesn't look like you need any, except I can say I've learned that judges don't like loaded dockets, like parties who file the minimum they need to keep the proceedings moving along. That's why for example it was interesting watching my friends Berber and Moor go berserk in Texas calling me a "menace to the judicial system" whose "primary aim" was "to make his opponents miserable, especially Berber" (I'll bet with his $300+ million LOL), moving to have me declared a vexatious litigant and for injunctive relief, and the kind they tried for was to basically get an order saying I could never sue them anywhere on earth ever again without permission. They filed I don't know how many e-mails, which is the same kind of mistake I made in VA last year filing thousands of pages of SI posts, courts don't like that kind of flood-pleading. They got a one page response from me, which I'm sure they didn't think they would get, after they filed about 2,000 pages of exhibits I'm sure they thought I would retaliate with 20,000, but not this time ;-). (Now let me read her letter.) It is interesting to discuss your case, especially because you're the first person I have come across representing themselves, albeit on the other side, very interesting to me how your litigation has played and is playing out.

To: mmmary who wrote (8272)	4/30/2005 3:27:20 PM
From: olivier asser	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

OK, well this is interesting to me because it's a case I'm not in so it's easier to take a step back and look at the dispute the way a non-party might. That letter was too long, that's for sure, not coherently tied together. Had I been her, I would have focused on writing style discrepancies (if any, and there must be some Mary or why would a federal judge have asked you about it, but OK my briefs have I hope improved dramatically during litigation so there is a reasonable explanation) and yes why sent from that address in what Oregon. Fair question. But still maybe no letter would have been best. The judge's warning letter to you was a good development for her, best to leave that alone then. Like what one defense attorney said in California oral argument after my former attorney's blew it and the judge had tentatively ruled against me, judge asked you want to say anything, and she says, "Not unless the Court's ruling has changed" and then the judge said that's what I always say when you're winning best to say as little as possible, which is what I did in VA on 2/25, I think the judge was a little taken aback that a pro se would show up for oral argument and have so little to say, lol, but I had won so wasn't going to do much talking.