|
bamalucky
|
 |
« Reply #165 on: September 02, 2008, 05:28:09 pm » |
|
I wonder what it would say Lie.They need more practice being convincable |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
|
|
|
|
112233
|
|
« Reply #166 on: September 02, 2008, 05:29:36 pm » |
|
I thought they would send the bat signal to their friendly reporters
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mtnchick
|
|
« Reply #167 on: September 02, 2008, 05:30:40 pm » |
|
I thought they would send the rat signal to their friendly reporters
Fixed. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Classic comment from Urbi to a poster who said they were leaving:
"Once again, we note that your threats are hollow and you come across like a sad, lonely blowhard.
I doubt anyone here gives a shit about you. We pretty much all know that you are a vile and unethical parasite of a human being with an abnormal craving for attention."
|
|
|
|
xraider
|
|
« Reply #168 on: September 02, 2008, 05:31:08 pm » |
|
Just checked PACER. Nothing filed since Gaerke status report of August 15.
That means no retraction, no errata, no correction.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Prosper missed me. They lifted my suspension a day early.
|
|
|
|
bamalucky
|
|
« Reply #169 on: September 02, 2008, 05:33:23 pm » |
|
The rat appears to no longer wear the cheer outfit for a certain company.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
|
|
|
|
Urbi_et_Orbi
|
|
« Reply #170 on: September 02, 2008, 05:40:57 pm » |
|
The rat appears to no longer wear the cheer outfit for a certain company.
Off the dole? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
AmexFan
|
|
« Reply #171 on: September 02, 2008, 06:06:07 pm » |
|
The Motley Fool article is now the #1 recommended article in the past 7 days! Undoubtedly, because Prosper can't stuff the ballot box on this one.
It appears that articles are headlined there only for a week. The previous #1 with 50-some recommendations may have dropped off because the article reached the age to drop off. Nevertheless, it's good the Prosper article is #1 now with 40 recommendations, and should last until the time it's a week old. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
A good cup of coffee sometimes can be the
greatest morning antidote against feeling like
one is not the sharpest knife in the toaster.
|
|
|
|
onthefence
|
|
« Reply #172 on: September 02, 2008, 10:49:10 pm » |
|
http://www.prospers.org/forum/fool_article-t9098.0.html;msg148571#msg148571I wonder what it would say -- "Whoops, our attorneys made an error in the BK court in Ohio, and now that we are aware of it, we will correct it immediately"? Or maybe "I assure everyone that this scurrilous article is completely false; unfortunately, our lawyers have told us we cannot comment further because doing so would be a violation of the Gaerke's privacy"? I think Prosper is just hoping the article will fade away over time.
What would prosper do if they didn't have the fine commenter's here on prospers.org to test bed their possible responses to any given bad situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Lobby permission granted |
|
|
|
xraider
|
|
« Reply #173 on: September 03, 2008, 07:48:10 am » |
|
OTF, at this point, whether Prosper is worried about how the people here will react, it should be far more concerned about the court's reaction. What if the judge or one of his law clerks reads the Motley Fool article?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Prosper missed me. They lifted my suspension a day early.
|
|
|
|
onthefence
|
|
« Reply #174 on: September 03, 2008, 07:50:57 am » |
|
OTF, at this point, whether Prosper is worried about how the people here will react, it should be far more concerned about the court's reaction. What if the judge or one of his law clerks reads the Motley Fool article?
The only way I see that happening is if someone sent it to them or the lawyers. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Lobby permission granted
|
|
|
|
112233
|
|
« Reply #175 on: September 03, 2008, 07:52:40 am » |
|
OTF, at this point, whether Prosper is worried about how the people here will react, it should be far more concerned about the court's reaction. What if the judge or one of his law clerks reads the Motley Fool article?
what would be a typical response from the court if they knew about this? would they allow prosper to fix the error and move on? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
xraider
|
|
« Reply #176 on: September 03, 2008, 08:03:07 am » |
|
OTF, one of the real risks of lawsuits is that judges and their staff do find very relevant things in the paper, online or whatever and it colors their perception of the case. The debtor's lawyer has read the lobby posts on .org, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he shares this. It also wouldn't surprise me one bit if the judge or one of his staff is a Motley Fool fan. We've had that type of serendipity before in our cases.
112233, it depends on the judge. Federal judges in particular can get very upset if they think someone is less than respectful of their obligations. If the court learns that the "correction" has resulted from someone being caught, there well may be an order to show cause, requiring an explanation of the (1) basis for the mistake (was it the lawyer's misunderstanding, the client's hubris, something else); and (2) why the party waited so long to correct it after learning about the mistake. If the judge is not satisfied with the explanation, there could be sanctions imposed and/or a report to the state bar. If it's REALLY bad, the lawyer could be suspended from practice before that court. The court could issue a published ruling chiding the party and the lawyer.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Prosper missed me. They lifted my suspension a day early.
|
|
|
|
BrassKnuckles
|
|
« Reply #177 on: September 03, 2008, 09:00:13 am » |
|
If the judge is not satisfied with the explanation, there could be sanctions imposed and/or a report to the state bar. If it's REALLY bad, the lawyer could be suspended from practice before that court. The court could issue a published ruling chiding the party and the lawyer.
So really, PMI could care two sh*ts... they'll let their lawyer hang out to dry and hire a new one. No muss, no fuss.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
xraider
|
|
« Reply #178 on: September 03, 2008, 09:05:36 am » |
|
Yes. In federal court, it's mostly on the lawyers. However, there is a crime/fraud exception to the attorney client privilege, so if the lawyers think they're going to get in TOO much trouble, they can flip it onto Prosper.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Prosper missed me. They lifted my suspension a day early.
|
|
|
|
Urbi_et_Orbi
|
|
« Reply #179 on: September 03, 2008, 10:52:57 am » |
|
Prosper was made aware of the situation months ago - and actively kept the information off the COM forum, via the actions of their moderator. I should not take much of a scholarly mind to conect the dots here. I absolutely think this info should be transmitted to the court. I have not checked, but it would not surprise me if the "interesting gues activity" show a record of FraudMan reading the Gaerke thread a long time ago. ETA: Sure enough, July 10... http://www.prospers.org/forum/interesting_guest_activities-t6135.0.html;msg132427#msg132427FraudMan 02:12:14 PM Viewing the topic Anyone on Ashley Gaerke's loan (possibly in the name of Oakland Gaerke)?. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 03, 2008, 11:00:44 am by Urbi_et_Orbi »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
