On Jan 7, 2008, at 12:37 PM, Craig White wrote:
> so now they will drop the case because 'pursuing the case futher will
> not be cost effective from a purely financial point of view'
>
> How can I think anything other than you flip your opinions around from
> one message to the next. These were y
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 12:10 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Craig White wrote:
>
> > OK, accepting that, why on earth did you say that you expected them to
> > drop the Howell case?
> >
> > You seem to flip your opinions around from one post to the next.
>
> What I sai
On Jan 7, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Craig White wrote:
> OK, accepting that, why on earth did you say that you expected them to
> drop the Howell case?
>
> You seem to flip your opinions around from one post to the next.
What I said was that unless they could prove he actually erased files
from his d
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 10:31 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2008, at 9:56 AM, Craig White wrote:
>
> > The public relations aspect is clearly of lesser concern...look at
> > Thomas, a single mother. On a scale of public relations nightmares,
> > picking on old ladies, young children, youn
On Jan 7, 2008, at 9:56 AM, Craig White wrote:
> The public relations aspect is clearly of lesser concern...look at
> Thomas, a single mother. On a scale of public relations nightmares,
> picking on old ladies, young children, young mothers with children are
> the next least desirable from a publi
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 06:22 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2008, at 11:00 PM, Craig White wrote:
>
> > It's possible given that this case was
> > dropped and then refiled by RIAA that RIAA will drop it and possibly
> > have to cover the legal costs of Weed...that has happened several
>
On Jan 6, 2008, at 11:00 PM, Craig White wrote:
> It's possible given that this case was
> dropped and then refiled by RIAA that RIAA will drop it and possibly
> have to cover the legal costs of Weed...that has happened several
> times
> so far and my reading of this is that is entirely possibl
On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 22:41 -0700, der.hans wrote:
> Am 06. Jan, 2008 schwätzte Craig White so:
>
> > wow - want to see what good lawyering looks like when practiced by
> > defending against a claim by RIAA?
> >
> > http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=capitol_weed_071226AmendedAnswerCoun
Am 06. Jan, 2008 schwätzte Craig White so:
wow - want to see what good lawyering looks like when practiced by
defending against a claim by RIAA?
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=capitol_weed_071226AmendedAnswerCounterclaims
It gets interesting on page 12 where it is asserted that
On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 21:55 -0700, Technomage-hawke wrote:
> On Sunday 06 January 2008 21:11, Craig White wrote:
> > wow - want to see what good lawyering looks like when practiced by
> > defending against a claim by RIAA?
> >
> > http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=capitol_weed_071226Ame
On Sunday 06 January 2008 21:11, Craig White wrote:
> wow - want to see what good lawyering looks like when practiced by
> defending against a claim by RIAA?
>
> http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=capitol_weed_071226AmendedAns
>werCounterclaims
>
> Craig
>
I read that... can I say it? OU
Craig White wrote:
> wow - want to see what good lawyering looks like when practiced by
> defending against a claim by RIAA?
>
> http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=capitol_weed_071226AmendedAnswerCounterclaims
>
> Craig
>
WOW! I'd have to say this is the first time I've enjoyed readi
wow - want to see what good lawyering looks like when practiced by
defending against a claim by RIAA?
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=capitol_weed_071226AmendedAnswerCounterclaims
Craig
---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lis
13 matches
Mail list logo
