Didn't understand the slam at AP either. And you go Tom! 3-5 years
of bankrupcy litigation wouldn't make buying a unit right before the
election a good investment. I'd have asked for the same clause.
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "bluebishop82"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nice backtrack. Now you're just projecting your lack of
> understanding on to me. My original post made no mention of the
> bankruptcy clause. It was your original post that tried to make
it
> seem the redevelopment rights would stay clear of the bankruptcy
> court (that was the point of your post), which you clearly concede
> now that it won't.
>
> As for your assertion that the lawyers you work with
> aren't "practicing in AP" (as if that is beneath them), well,
that's
> just you pointing out again your disdain for people from Asbury
Park
> and this area in general, which is how we met in the first place,
> isn't it?
>
> As for you calling me an "ambulance chaser," when my adversary has
> nothing left to retort with but name calling, that's when I know
> I've won the arguement.
>
> By the way, if you read that old triCity article, you will find I
> never called into question your abilities in your field. I
wouldn't
> do that. I made the point that I thought you would have a conflict
> on one matter: valuing the triangle property, due to your comments
> about (and obvious feeling toward) the parties. Having a conflict
> on a case is not a knock against your abilities. I've been
> conflicted out of a number of cases for a variety of reasons.
>
> Oh, before I forget. There was a mistake of law in your question
to
> Jim Aaron - Bankruptcy Court is a court of equity, not law.
>
> Look, you aren't outmatched in this conversation because law is my
> field. You're just outmatched by a guy from AP.
>
>
> --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "dfsavgny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "bluebishop82"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > I never said it was "no good." I've read your bragging about
> the
> > > lawyers you deal with being the best there is. Go ask one of
> them
> > > what proceedings you could expect from creditors if this
> provision
> > > is triggered.
> >
> >
> > Tom, there is always litigation, that's why there are lawyers.
> You're
> > good at sound bites but short on proof as always. I hope you go
> into
> > court with more than that. Say what you will but your original
> post
> > made it seem as if the clause was not worth the paper it was
> written
> > on. I am sure you are aware that any creditors would see the
> agreement
> > and see that the city has a reverter clause. Also, creditors
have
> the
> > right to remedy any defaults but all have to be approved by the
> city.
> > I will defer to you on bankruptcy law. Be sure that the
attorneys
> I
> > work with do not chase ambulances or practice in AP or Toms
River.
> In
> > the end you are right that there will be litigation, but
> litigation is
> > not necessrily bad. Sometimes it is the only choice when one
party
> to
> > a contract will not perform. Your rationale says that one should
> not
> > ask that party to perform as agreed to in the contract lest they
> > litigate. That is my very early point about having a gun when
they
> > other guy knows you'll never pull the trigger. Do you know where
> that
> > gun will land up? You'll need a proctologist to remove it.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
