"Your position doesn't make sense to me… Every sizeable development I
have worked on resulted in multiple litigations. None... stopped the
developments and all reached substantial completion within 3 or 4
years. …here is development …lagging behind that time standard
without any litigation. …you know …courts are reluctant to stop
anything for more than a very short time. …you don't really believe a
word you say… Why are you doing this?"
After a fairly spirited pissing contest between Dan and Tom, Mark
wrote the above. Did I miss something or is this where it died?
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Tommy: Your position doesn't make sense to me based on a legal or
> business concerns. I have been on the government side of real estate
> law for about 10 years (with NYS, NYC and Roosevelt Island). Every
> sizeable development I have worked on resulted in mutiple litigations.
> None of those litigations stopped the developments and all reached
> substantial completion within 3 or 4 years. What you have here is
> development that is lagging behind that time standard without any
> litigation. So your concerns should probably be reversed as it appears
> litigation moves developments forward. In any event you know (as does
> any 1st year law student) that courts are reluctant to stop anything
> for more than a very short time. So my personal opinion is that you
> don't really believe a word you say yourself. Devil's advocacy is good
> only when it has a legitimate purpose. Why are you doing this?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bluebishop82 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, 21 May 2005 01:35:36 -0000
> Subject: [AsburyPark] Re: Bankruptcy Clause in Agreement
>
> 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.
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/
