dealerjim
|
posted on June 3, 2002 06:30:27 AM new
I absolutely don't know that. If they're not paying you then there must be something seriously wrong with you. Have you considered having a labotamy or do you just want to be known as PrayPal's village idiot?
|
Coonr
|
posted on June 3, 2002 06:35:46 AM new
Yep sure looks like your infatuated with PayPal and need psychological help.
|
club1man
|
posted on June 3, 2002 06:56:13 AM new
Simple coon hound if you want to see the proof have the gutless wonder release the protective order. Bet he won't.
[ edited by club1man on Jun 3, 2002 06:59 AM ]
|
Coonr
|
posted on June 3, 2002 07:09:01 AM new
Your the only one that says they have this protective order. Can you release that? If not, I would question its existance.
|
club1man
|
posted on June 3, 2002 07:53:43 AM new
This is a scan of the first page of payponzi's brief I've edited out last names bar # and phone numbers and I'm sure you find problems with that.
CONFIDENTIAL - FILED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER
1 2
NICOLE , Bar No. SUSAN M. NO, Bar No. DAVID , Bar No. PERKINS COlE LLP
180 Townsend Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, California 94107-1909 Telephone: (415)
Facsimile: (415)
3 4
5 6
7
Attorneys for Claimant P A YP AL, INe.
8 9
10 11
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION
12 13
P A YP AL, INe.,
Claimant,
14 15
Ys.
16 17
, HANNELORE , AND STONEY ,
18 19
Respondents.
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
CASE NO. 74 E 181 0050401 SAT
POST-HEARING ARBITRATION BRIEF
CONFIDENTIAL - FILED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER
POST-HEARING ARBITRATION BRIEF
[33737-0010/1) Y020o30 0121
|
Coonr
|
posted on June 3, 2002 08:25:00 AM new
Stoney,
That is not a SCAN. A scan would result ibn a picture file. Which line in that garbage says you cant release any info?
|
club1man
|
posted on June 3, 2002 08:37:57 AM new
your behind times. it is scaned into ms word as editeble text. A pic couldn't be copied onto this forum. Or I don't know how to do it.
Just what do you think this means
CASE NO. 74 E 181 0050401 SAT
POST-HEARING ARBITRATION BRIEF
CONFIDENTIAL - FILED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER
POST-HEARING ARBITRATION BRIEF
[33737-0010/1) Y020o30 0121
|
mrfoxy76
|
posted on June 3, 2002 08:49:25 AM new
club1man i dont know why you let coonr wind you up all the time.
silence is the best and only answer.....
if you are confident lets the facts talk for themselves....
I do feel bad you lost all this cash via paypal. From EVERYTHING I have read I think there is more to it but we will never know.
|
Coonr
|
posted on June 3, 2002 08:54:48 AM new
I knew sooner or later we would agree on something.
Or I don't know how to do it.
|
club1man
|
posted on June 3, 2002 08:59:20 AM new
Actually, Mrfoxy he doesn't bother me in the least, I'm kinda fond of him as he's become like a little puppy dog following me around. He leads very well. LMAO
Thank you for your response and i'm confident that the truth WILL come out.
|
ltlcrafty1
|
posted on June 3, 2002 10:46:35 AM new
coonr - Re: "Jim, You know full WEEL I do not work for Paypal."
It would have been more ACCURATE to say "You know I'm full of SH*! when I say I don't work for PayPal." (and it would have been spelled correctly, too).
BTW - Do you understand the meaning of the line:
CONFIDENTIAL - FILED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER
Or does someone need to explain that to you, too?
[ edited by ltlcrafty1 on Jun 3, 2002 10:51 AM ]
|
Coonr
|
posted on June 3, 2002 10:59:46 AM new
ltlcrafty1,
Keep trying. Your only discrediting yourself.
That one line means nothing. I can say this post is CONFIDENTIAL - POSTED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER and that has no legal bearing.
|
Coonr
|
posted on June 3, 2002 11:00:49 AM new
Oh, I put those speeling mistakes in to give you something to do. 
[ edited by Coonr on Jun 3, 2002 11:01 AM ]
|
club1man
|
posted on June 3, 2002 11:14:33 AM new
ROFLMAO Sounds like coon dog is in good spirits. Probably lousiania moon shine. He is, you know, the only one who speaks the truth.
|
Coonr
|
posted on June 3, 2002 12:22:29 PM new
No Stoney, your still wrong. Others here tell the truth. It's just a few of us who do not have an ax to grind.
|
ltlcrafty1
|
posted on June 3, 2002 03:17:45 PM new
coonr - RE: "Oh, I put those speeling mistakes in to give you something to do."
Nice cover! How long did it take you to think that one up?
Re the fact that you obviously don't have a clue about much of anything: When a court document is confidential - filed under protective order - it means it is not an 'open record of the court'. The party filing the protective order is the only one other than the judge that can have it removed. If you don't believe him, call the court yourself - you're the one looking for the proof. And you're not going to believe it until you hear it for yourself.
The only one discrediting themselves here lately is yourself. And you know that, so you resort to replies that amount to "No I'm not, YOU ARE!!", "Neener Neener Neener", and "I knew that!!"
As for your opinion that I'm discrediting myself - I really couldn't care less what you think. You do nothing but irritate people and defend a company that has done a lot of harm to a lot of people, and continues to do so everyday. For that you are a moron. And if it is true that you're NOT getting paid to post in defense of them, then you're a bigger moron than I originally thought.
|
Coonr
|
posted on June 3, 2002 03:26:24 PM new
ltlcrafty1, nice reply for a 12 year old.
You said, When a court document is confidential - filed under protective order - it means it is not an 'open record of the court'.
Unless Stoney is lying to us this is NOT a court document, and this is not a court case.
|
club1man
|
posted on June 3, 2002 04:57:33 PM new
Well coonr I sure hope you don't get forced into arbitration because you sure don't know what your talking about.
Call me a liar, it's just your way of defending them. Call the AAA and ask them. I don't doctor records that's a payponzi thing.
|
andrew123s
|
posted on June 3, 2002 05:37:20 PM new
Club1man, if it doesn't violate the protective order, you should scan the protective order as an image, upload it to some site, and put a link to it on Auction Watch if these people don't believe the text w/case numbers.
|
club1man
|
posted on June 3, 2002 05:53:26 PM new
Thanks Andrew but some of these people wouldn't believe it that way. I might have been bordering on violation with what I put up today. Having to prove myself will be done better in front of an appeals judge or jury. But when it's over I will post every work on this case so poeple will be aware of payponzi's dirty tactics.
|
ltlcrafty1
|
posted on June 3, 2002 09:35:34 PM new
coonr - re: "ltlcrafty1, nice reply for a 12 year old."
Oh come on, you could've come up with something better than that, couldn't you? From your mentality, I would have expected at least an "I know you are, but what am I?"
But I guess the one you posted is at just about the same level.
|
club1man
|
posted on June 3, 2002 10:10:55 PM new
Okay guys this is unproductive and the personal attacks need to stop. God almighty with all that's going on in this world let's try to be civil to one another. I know it's hard but the whole purpose here is to discuss payponzi. Not go on a rampage cussing one another. If that continues Payponzi wins. VENI VEDI VICI. And I'm gonna ask that both of you sit back, chill out and apologise to one another. I hope i'm not gonna hear "well he she goes first". Please I like conversing with both of you whether it be negative or positive. But I sad now because of this. :{
|
