|
Post by sittingtight on Sept 1, 2011 0:47:48 GMT -5
that was an excellent read boogie.... thank you ver..... zzzzzzzzzzzz... snore. [wow boring... but thanks] hack Just trying to prove a point here.. Sorry you fell asleep in my class...... In Foran v Cobbe and Kelly, Supreme Court, 13 June 1996, the Supreme Court allowed a plaintiff to introduce additional evidence under O.8 rule 8 RSC. The Court said the evidence was relevant and of sufficient weight that it might have influenced the decision of the trial judge. But in Blehein v Murphy [2000] 2 IR 231, Denham J reiterated that only in exceptional circumstances would an appellant be allowed to amend a notice of appeal to include a ground not argued in the High Court. Under the by-laws of Nevada cmkm... Urban Casavant could not say a word (Re: take the 5th) in any Court unless it was at a Federal level court..... OR the claims would revert back to the original OWNERS... Who is the eye wittiness that Al H. has to blow this lawsuit wide open? ?? the Supreme Court allowed a plaintiff to introduce additional evidence under O.8 rule 8 RSC.The Court said the evidence was relevant and of sufficient weight that it might have influenced the decision of the trial judge. What evidence?? Al H. said he has it and I for one believe he does....... WHERE IS URBAN CASAVANT and why has he not been arrested? ?? I can't see it as being new evidence entered in to the law suite, I see it as the 4,A's.... Along with proof of 90% of the float (IMO only) still held by Urban.... Why No Arrest after 7 years? ? If there was a Brokers meeting put together by R. Maheu, I would expect Urban Casavant to be there to represent the Company they all tried to FK.... GET'M Al IMO ONLY ST and Broke
|
|
|
Post by ishmel on Sept 1, 2011 5:53:31 GMT -5
Bwaahhhahahahahah. You're going with obscure chances that new evidence is ever allowed. That comes wayyyyy late in the procedural process. First one has to get there. Second one has to show that said evidence wasn't present at the previous appeals.
So anything you can lend to explain how in the worlds can any piece of evidence force individuals to release monies from a privately held company they are not associated with.
It won't happen.
This is like suing your neighbor to release funds from a bank he doesn't work at. Lol.
Any y'all wonder where my frustration comes from.
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Sept 1, 2011 6:04:42 GMT -5
I can see no one does their Homework anymore... Did you look up USSC Rule # 8....? NO!!!!!!!!! You didn't.......? Shame on you all.... Supreme Court Rules main page search | Supreme Court collection SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S. - RULES ..Part II. Attorneys and Counselors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 8. Disbarment and Disciplinary Action 1. Whenever a member of the Bar of this Court has been disbarred or suspended from practice in any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar of this Court, the Court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this Court and affording the member an opportunity to show cause, within 40 days, why a disbarment order should not be entered. Upon response, or if no response is timely filed, the Court will enter an appropriate order. 2. After reasonable notice and an opportunity to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken, and after a hearing if material facts are in dispute, the Court may take any appropriate disciplinary action against any attorney who is admitted to practice before it for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar or for failure to comply with these Rules or any Rule or order of the Court. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm leaving for Washington D.C. early tomorrow morning for a meeting.. See you guys when I get back... Play safe..
|
|
|
Post by ishmel on Sept 1, 2011 6:05:08 GMT -5
What a shocker. Rule 08 doesn't exist!
I'm tearing up right now. This is funny.
Only time new evidence can be shown in higher courts is 1. After the final decision is first issued base on information from the lower courts only. 2. Has to challenge the constitutionality of the final decision 3. Has to be considered by all members of the SC.
|
|
|
Post by raidermike99 on Sept 1, 2011 6:22:46 GMT -5
Umm Boogie, you do know that this case is for damages against individuals. Even if hodges wins. What are we supposed to do. Wait for these individuals to fork the cash over. That's a dead end as well. Well Tyler has been waiting for a while to collect.
|
|
|
Post by gjfromfla on Sept 1, 2011 7:29:13 GMT -5
Anyone get there package yet? Still waiting here.... Any updates?
|
|
|
Post by hacksawjim on Sept 1, 2011 8:25:31 GMT -5
Just trying to prove a point here.. Sorry you fell asleep in my class...... In Foran v Cobbe and Kelly, Supreme Court, 13 June 1996, the Supreme Court allowed a plaintiff to introduce additional evidence under O.8 rule 8 RSC. The Court said the evidence was relevant and of sufficient weight that it might have influenced the decision of the trial judge. But in Blehein v Murphy [2000] 2 IR 231, Denham J reiterated that only in exceptional circumstances would an appellant be allowed to amend a notice of appeal to include a ground not argued in the High Court. it was good info... just long... my compliment was sincere.
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Sept 1, 2011 8:35:21 GMT -5
Just trying to prove a point here.. Sorry you fell asleep in my class...... In Foran v Cobbe and Kelly, Supreme Court, 13 June 1996, the Supreme Court allowed a plaintiff to introduce additional evidence under O.8 rule 8 RSC. The Court said the evidence was relevant and of sufficient weight that it might have influenced the decision of the trial judge. But in Blehein v Murphy [2000] 2 IR 231, Denham J reiterated that only in exceptional circumstances would an appellant be allowed to amend a notice of appeal to include a ground not argued in the High Court. it was good info... just long... my compliment was sincere. You are a good guy Hack...
|
|