Bob L

Giuliani has done only one thing since the terrorist attacks. He has made himself a lot of money going around giving speeches about 9/11. He likes to hold himself forth as the leader of the heroes. Perhaps you remember those heroes -- the NYPD and NYFD who were killed trying to save others. Here's what the *real* heroes have to say about Giuliani:

Robert L Bass spewed more nonsense:

Your "word" means nothing, Bass. You've yet to prove I lied about anything. You're scum, Bass. And when you can't get win through honest debate, you hide behind anonymous news servers like the coward you are to post your rubbish.

It was never "down".

Isn't that just pathetic?? You "cruise" the group for much the same reason (looking for ways to hurt people that don't agree with you)...

Bring 'em on. There's nothing whatsoever in this version of Tech-Help! that is the least bit offensive to anyone and there's certainly no Brinks IP there (there never was to begin with). Sableman's not interested in "facts" or the truth, though. In fact, the two of you are so much alike in this one respect, it proves conclusively that you must have spawned from the same swamp sludge.

As if that will *ever* happen... Their only "weapon" is innuendo, lies, and deceit. Which also happens to be *your* modus operandi as well.

It was never "down", Bass. You simply forgot to "refresh" your browser and then, in classic Bass style, you open your fat hole to spew more nonsense.

You got it all wrong Frank. Brinks already proved in a Federal Court of Law that all anonymous ASA postings are from Jim Rojas...get with the program dude.

Jim Rojas Sock puppet for Jim Rojas

Frank Ols> Robert L Bass spewed more nonsense:

I've been with the program for weeks. Bass OTOH has been languishing in the Amazon

Technically speaking, that is true, Jim. When they make statements to the court, true or otherwise, and you fail to respond in accordance with court rules, their claims go forward unchallenged. As far as the court is concerned they're right. We all know that they're wrong and that you should have won the case. But by choosing not to show up or hire representation, you lost by default. I understand that the costs are outrageous. but the court doesn't care about that. This is how crooked mega-businesses steam roller little guys like you all the time. What I can't understand is why you chose not to go to the contempt hearing. Do you realize the judge can issue a bench warrant for your arrest? They can also seize your assets (except your home, of course) to pay off the judgments.

Alienating the federal judge hasn't exactly helped your case either. Why let these guys do this to you? If you wanted, you could have easily beaten them. Their case is as flimsy and baseless as an Olson flame.

Wrong again.

Actually several have. You just choose to interpret what I've said with your usual "slant".

Of course I did. I even credited *you* with one of my installation tips after I realized what you were suggesting was too dangerous for someone with "a modicum of tool skills" to attempt.

Man, oh man... You really don't understand the law do you? And here I thought you'd actually taken some classes in law. The judge hasn't ruled Brinks "right" so much as the fact that they've ruled Jim "In Contempt". That doesn't mean that everything Sableman's said is "by default" correct. It simply means that Jim's entered into a whole new world of "nasty". Brinks can be as "nasty" as they want now. They're the ones that can call the shots and have the Federal Marshal haul his ass to Texas. Jim still has the opportunity to present his side of the story. Unfortunately he's also severely prejudiced the court against him. Judge Boyle doesn't take kindly to individuals that "thumb their noses" at the court.

Sort of like what you charge for an outdated burg panel, you mean...

On the contrary, the court very much cares.

Nope. Wrongo! Most "little guys" would have at least filed a proper appearance. Jim decided to ignore the whole process. It would have been a simple matter to answer every one of Sableman's accusations, which is the way Jim should have handled it. A "point by point" response would have clearly demonstrated that Brinks case was not only pure bass-s*it, they clearly didn't have a bass-hope in hell.

I thought his reasons were sound. Judge Boyle didn't think so, however.

Only if Brinks decides they want to go that way. It was Brinks' motion, so it's Brinks' "call". You really don't know the law do you... Sort of like you don't know NFPA...

So far, there's been no actual "judgement" involving monetary compensation (either punitive or otherwise). Where have you been? The Amazon??

Bass fable.