Author Topic: Question for Scott or any other attorney out there....  (Read 1798 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Carey

  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Question for Scott or any other attorney out there....
« on: January 21, 2004, 07:14:00 PM »
What does this mean...

"THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Plaintiff's emergency Motion for Temporary Injunction and the Court having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise advised in the Premises, it is hereupon,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED said Motion be, and the same is hereby Denied without prejudice."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Question for Scott or any other attorney out there....
« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2004, 09:49:00 PM »
Carey dear, Why don't you just ring up Spence?
Hasn't already tossed you aside has he?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Question for Scott or any other attorney out there....
« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2004, 10:22:00 PM »
Quote
On 2004-01-21 18:49:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Carey dear, Why don't you just ring up Spence?

Hasn't already tossed you aside has he?



"


Anonymous, your cheap shots are par for the course and getting really tiresome. Isn't it time you started dealing with reality instead of wishful thinking?  

 :roll:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Question for Scott or any other attorney out there....
« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2004, 10:34:00 PM »
Quote
On 2004-01-21 16:14:00, Carey wrote:

"What does this mean...



"THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Plaintiff's emergency Motion for Temporary Injunction and the Court having heard argument of counsil, and being otherwise advised in the Premises, it is hereupon,

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED said Motion be, and the same is hereby Denied without prejudice."



"


I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

The guy doing the suing in this case wanted the judge to tell the chick being sued that she couldn't do something that was upsetting the guy, while the case was still going through the courts, and the judge said no, he wasn't going to tell the chick being sued not to do whatever it was.

The "without prejudice" bit means if something important changes the guy doing the suing can come up with better reasons for the judge to tell the chick she can't do whatever-it-is until the case is finally decided, that the judge is willing to think about it.

(I used guy and chick here not because of anything about this particular case, but so you could tell who I was talking about where.)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Question for Scott or any other attorney out there....
« Reply #4 on: January 21, 2004, 10:42:00 PM »
Well good, that's one for "the chicks".

 :wave:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Carey

  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Question for Scott or any other attorney out there....
« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2004, 10:46:00 PM »
That is kinda what I was thinking it was saying too.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Question for Scott or any other attorney out there....
« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2004, 12:14:00 PM »
Carey, I'm confused. Is this the same lawsuit that was filed by PURE also naming Ginger (Fornits) as a defendant?

 :???:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Carey

  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Question for Scott or any other attorney out there....
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2004, 12:52:00 PM »
Yes.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »