Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Andersen Update

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Andersen Update

    It seems this is Barbara's attempt to remind judge about her case.

    11:16:20.pdf
    Attached Files

  • #2
    I smell "legal fatigue".

    Comment


    • #3
      After setting her sites on the finder , she no longer needs the hacking/stalking person. Interesting it is , Law that is . . .
      Net Flicks

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Goldilocks View Post
        It seems this is Barbara's attempt to remind judge about her case.

        11:16:20.pdf
        What a bunch of nonsense. Anderson equates medium article finder with finder that forrest said may interview along with himself to the judge.

        Comment


        • #5
          Got to read this one carefully a few times.

          Comment


          • #6
            I read it so carefully my head was sideways like a dog when it hears a weird sound. Almost spilled my Coker-Cola on a piece of Amish furniture!

            Comment


            • #7
              I read it carefully . Get mad at the messenger if you like , but this just further confirms my belief that they are negotiating behind the scenes . When ANY lawyer , whether inept or polished , uses wording of "willing to drop claim " if so and so whatever , tells that conversations are being had not privy to the court . ........What changed her tune ? ....The answers I already know .

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Fenndery View Post
                I read it carefully . Get mad at the messenger if you like , but this just further confirms my belief that they are negotiating behind the scenes . When ANY lawyer , whether inept or polished , uses wording of "willing to drop claim " if so and so whatever , tells that conversations are being had not privy to the court . ........What changed her tune ? ....The answers I already know .
                I think one of the many motions / docs to read showed how frustrated she is with the attorney that he would not engaged and discuss the strategy of his defense and case and how she wants responses from him. I don’t recall the date, too many filing to follow, but that made me think he is not engaging. And she continues to file additional motions / paperwork, even to the point when she finds new information ($17 a square inch) that confirms her solution. I think this goes back to her original claim that she had the right solution, rather than the latest premise that it was pulled and a fake solve. Is there even a person anymore that hacked and has it, no, right, as she now thinks it is Forrest and fake? So the premise of that supena is to have F tell her the person so she can determine if he hacked her. But she now thinks F did, so there is no hacker, so that changes the original response by the judge of the supena?

                But in summary, I think by the one filing that the attorney seems to be taking the silent approach and letting her continue give filing after filing, which contradicts the basic premise on what her case is based off of. But that is just my opinion, I am just reading along day by day as you all are.
                “Positivity triumphs over negativity” - famous quote by the famous Cowlazars 2018

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by kpro View Post

                  I think one of the many motions / docs to read showed how frustrated she is with the attorney that he would not engaged and discuss the strategy of his defense and case and how she wants responses from him. I don’t recall the date, too many filing to follow, but that made me think he is not engaging. And she continues to file additional motions / paperwork, even to the point when she finds new information ($17 a square inch) that confirms her solution. I think this goes back to her original claim that she had the right solution, rather than the latest premise that it was pulled and a fake solve. Is there even a person anymore that hacked and has it, no, right, as she now thinks it is Forrest and fake? So the premise of that supena is to have F tell her the person so she can determine if he hacked her. But she now thinks F did, so there is no hacker, so that changes the original response by the judge of the supena?

                  But in summary, I think by the one filing that the attorney seems to be taking the silent approach and letting her continue give filing after filing, which contradicts the basic premise on what her case is based off of. But that is just my opinion, I am just reading along day by day as you all are.
                  Courts do consider alternative claims. The theme is the same with all Anderson Claims and Erskine as well. Their basic claim is they were denied the treasure that they think they had a right to.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Quest View Post

                    Courts do consider alternative claims. The theme is the same with all Anderson Claims and Erskine as well. Their basic claim is they were denied the treasure that they think they had a right to.
                    Yes, alternative claims can be given, but if the premise of a supena is given based on one claim, and the person filing decides to rule out that premise and go with another claim, it seems the change in strategy could nullify the logic / reasoning for awarding the supena. I am not sure if this is possible, but seems to me likely, since the entire reason the supena was granted seems to be due to hacker person that now is not in this alternative claim. Wow, this is getting interesting.
                    “Positivity triumphs over negativity” - famous quote by the famous Cowlazars 2018

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Wow, she is all over the place. I wonder if the judge will admonish that behavior coming from a law practitioner. At least she has been more successful than Trump's lawyers.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                         
                        Net Flicks

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Well, Barbi just jeopardized her case with yesterday's Youtube show where she admits that she thinks Forrest pranked us all and the chest is still out there. When the judge sees the video I'm sure he will throw out her case on the basis she doesn't believe it's true any more.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Walking Among Lions View Post
                            Well, Barbi just jeopardized her case with yesterday's Youtube show where she admits that she thinks Forrest pranked us all and the chest is still out there. When the judge sees the video I'm sure he will throw out her case on the basis she doesn't believe it's true any more.
                            I dont think judge would watch 6 and a half hours of nonsense in order to see it. I could barely watch 5 minutes

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Quest View Post

                              I dont think judge would watch 6 and a half hours of nonsense in order to see it. I could barely watch 5 minutes
                              You can find the minute mark where she says it.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X