Shanus-REA suit

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

We sure seem to have strayed from the jury verdict, if we ever were there at all.

That's partly on me, Peter.

I think the jury verdict is interesting, but, as you alluded to, the whole thing is not yet set in stone, because there could be further motions submitted, or an appeal.

As things stand currently, I'd be more likely to discuss the verdict in depth if I could pour over the court transcript.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

That's partly on me, Peter.

I think the jury verdict is interesting, but, as you alluded to, the whole thing is not yet set in stone, because there could be further motions submitted, or an appeal.

As things stand currently, I'd be more likely to discuss the verdict in depth if I could pour over the court transcript.

Bill hopefully at some point they will be released, or with only minor redactions. That day is probably some time off. But even knowing what we know, and subject to the caveat about further proceedings which I noted in my post, it still seemed an event worthy of reporting and discussing. I would guess that if the defendant had a different name, we would be having a much livelier discussion.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bill hopefully at some point they will be released, or with only minor redactions. That day is probably some time off. But even knowing what we know, and subject to the caveat about further proceedings which I noted in my post, it still seemed an event worthy of reporting and discussing. I would guess that if the defendant had a different name, we would be having a much livelier discussion.

Honestly, Peter, for my part, the name(s) involved don't have as much to do with my hesitancy to jump into this with both feet, though I could certainly see this being a factor with other posters who have had long-standing relationships with the co-defendants. I'm just somewhat leery of participating in discussions of legally determined guilt-where what we say becomes, in essence, part of public record-without knowing everything that transpired. Am I being overcautious? Probably. But absent complete information, it's too easy to misstate something, and get into hot water.

I'm probably rambling a bit, and it's possible I overreacted to Mark's post, too. I've never had any issue with him, but it sure seemed that he was being patronizing. I've been up 16 hours without sleep...

Mark, if I did misinterpret your comment, then I apologize.

Peter, I'll come back to this a little later tonight, after I've seen my pillow for a while. When I'm lucid again, I can tiptoe through my feelings on what's transpired, thus far.

[Leon]

There was only one defendant. Neither of us are lawyers but I apparently have slept at more Holiday Inns.

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Honestly, Peter, for my part, the name(s) involved don't have as much to do with my hesitancy to jump into this with both feet, though I could certainly see this being a factor with other posters who have had long-standing relationships with the co-defendants. I'm just somewhat leery of participating in discussions of legally determined guilt-where what we say becomes, in essence, part of public record-without knowing everything that transpired. Am I being overcautious? Probably. But absent complete information, it's too easy to misstate something, and get into hot water.

I'm probably rambling a bit, and it's possible I overreacted to Mark's post, too. I've never had any issue with him, but it sure seemed that he was being patronizing. I've been up 16 hours without sleep...

Mark, if I did misinterpret your comment, then I apologize.

Peter, I'll come back to this a little later tonight, after I've seen my pillow for a while. When I'm lucid again, I can tiptoe through my feelings on what's transpired, thus far.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

There was only one defendant. Neither of us are lawyers but I apparently have slept at more Holiday Inns.

REA and Mr. Lifson were both defendants.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

REA and Mr. Lifson were both defendants.

Ok there were 2, my mistake. But I am pretty sure Bill was inferring the hobbyists knew both defendants and he meant Corey and Rob not meaning members knew Rob's other company....Bill originally, probably meant to say "litigants". But I am wrong, there were 2 defendants. More to come I am sure....

[Rich Klein]

Since several people in the discussion in the thread are from the DFW area we can hash this out in person. And I have the ideal venue, my next show on June 9-10 at the Comfort Inn and Suites Plano East. There is a nice sitting area where they serve the breakfasts and I'll be happy to facilitate the discussion.

Rich

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Leon

Ok there were 2, my mistake. But I am pretty sure Bill was inferring the hobbyists knew both defendants and he meant Corey and Rob not meaning members knew Rob's other company....Bill originally, probably meant to say "litigants". But I am wrong, there were 2 defendants. More to come I am sure....

Nope, by co-defendants, I meant Rob, and REA. I am not familiar with REA's history prior to the time when I joined this forum. I don't know if Rob was a founder, or not. If not, it's quite possible that long time hobby enthusiasts might have had a working relationship with somebody other than Rob at REA.