as for jayjuan and doomad
ira's request is ira's request
......
its funny how you think iras ACTUAL request is 'irrelevant baloney'.
I am not sure if I can speak for doomad, exactly, but it seems to me that both of us believe that the actual charges of the case (which thereby focus the court on which issues it is going to attempt to resolve) remains how we should be considering these matters.
In other words, you just don't make up new shit that the court is supposedly resolving, even if the topic comes up tangentially in the case and proclaim that is "what the case is all about."
In other words, you are a dimwitted twat, franky1.
your circle of fans will just get smaller the more ignorant you become
Said the person who doesn't even have a circle because no one wants to listen to him.
You're totally on your own. How about, instead of talking to us mindless sheep, you find some people who understand your unrivalled genius and you can go preach your franky1 gospel at them?
The
amazing franky1 has defied all logic and previous geometrical theories by magnificently creating a circle of one!!!!!!!!!
funny part is. you pretend that its about the coins.
I am not pretending anything, so there is no need for you to recharacterize my position into some strawman that you can knock down.
My position is wait and see, and also my position is that the case has parameters that are attempting to be worked out.
I don't disagree with you that there are underlying agendas, but I do disagree with your ongiong conspiracy angle that craig and ira are conspiring.
yet all thats being requested is to establish the trust and its IP contents are validated
Not an issue in this case. Snap out of it, franky.. if you can?
no talk at all of ira should buy out CSW at a discount.
no talk about if CSW should buy out IRA at a premium
Could be parts of back settlement discussions.. who knows? but not an issue in the case.
i know you wanna play roulette about the coins drama. but its nothing about the coins
its establishing the partnership and establishing whats included.. not how it should be split
Oh? I thought that Ira was trying to get damages from craig on behalf of Dave's estate?
your games of splits, coins, buyouts, if's, shoulds, coulds.. is your speculative mumbo jumbo roulette wheels of misdirection
I'm just going by the case. It's not like I am following every little detail, like you seem to be doing in your attempt to find things that you can make up shit, while ignoring the actual issues that are attempting to be sorted in the actual case and the actual ways that cases proceed in the usa, and this one happens to be in florida.
ira's request is pretty clear. it says asking to establish the partnership and its assets into fact.. it does not say split, payout,buyout
I have not heard whether the terms of the partnership were being disputed. I thought that CSW stipulated that there was a partnership. I am not sure how much more of the details of the supposed partnership might actually be in dispute, currently. Again, I am not following the matter very closely because it hardly means anything at this point... and sure there may be a settlement or there might be a ruling and sure there might be some drama.. and sure, they are getting close to the court date, so likely the drama is coming closer, in the event that the court date is not delayed or some overall settlement is not reached.
We have already seen all kinds of delays, yet
the latest news seems to be that the trial is currently set to start on October 13 - which is still a long time to have new developments, settlement of issues or even potentially raising of some new issues (perhaps?)
so.
sticking to the actual point about what ira's request is trying to establish.. this same request is something that is beneficial to CSW and of no actual hardship/punishment to him if it is established
something CSW has been wanting to be made some how publicly/legaaly deemed as fact for many years
its no mistery
I doubt that the case is going so much in favor of craig as you believe that it is, even though craig et al are trying to figure out various ways to maneuver to prepare for any kind of outcome, including outcomes that they would deem as adverse.
but lets see you waste more mindless posts saying im wrong simply because i dont follow your fanclub memberships theory
it has been funny watching you trip over yourself many times ignoring and calling ira's words/case documentation irrelevant or that it must be wrong because franky pointed it out.. (lamest excuse ever)
You sound hurt, franky. I doubt that my earlier posts are even close to as problematic as you make them out to be.
but all the time being ignorant of the words of the case to then spread the utopian hope of a roulette wheel gamble that ira 'may' 'if' he 'could' 'later' 'try' to seek damages. 'if' CSW doesnt pay the court costs.
it has been funny how many may's if's should's could's you threw into your theory.. yet all i had to do was screen shot the actual request and then dumb it down into 5yo speak..
then funny again how you cant grasp the basics even then
its weird how you are just not understanding CSW's long game that he has been playing for years
To the extent that I have employed "ifs," "mays" or other conditionals is because I prefer to speak of the future in terms of probabilities rather than presuming an outcome that has not yet happened. It would not be very healthy psychologically or even financially to prepare for the future in such a way that you already know what is going to happen, because you will kind of end up being screwed (or at least screwed in the head) when your view of the future does not play out as expected, which seems to be the case more than not.
Of course, there are some matters that are more within personal control and can be planned, but when there are a number of actors involved, even irrational, manipulative or crazy actors, then it becomes much more difficult to predict the future in regards to the involvement of those kinds of actors with any degree of certainty.. but still does not mean that there might not be some attempts to predict or even to prepare for the unexpected... or the various kinds of preparations that involve knowns and unknowns and even unknown, unknowns.
Does not make preparation futile, and of course, you have some pie in the sky theories in which you want to foist your view of the future upon others, which seems even more ridiculous when you want others to accept unknowns as if they were known, and you are not even able to provide substantial, meaningful and/or convincing evidence to assist in that direction, and frequently you provide evidence of the opposite.. evidence that does not even support your pie in the sky conclusions, but instead support the opposite conclusions.
I am not saying that you do this all the time, but you do it enough to cause almost no one to want to go along with your fantasylandia theories, but does not stop you from repeating and persisting with such nonsense.. which surely causes some of us to just want to make fun of you and your theories, even if you might have some good and valid points in there, from time to time (rarely, but sure from time to time there might be some good and valid points in there).
anyway see you in october
and please just avoid going into your crazy would of payouts/buyouts.. your just not helping yourself
Ok. sure.. between now and October, there could be some further material developments, but sure until then, there seems to be ongoing trial preparations for both sides... and I cannot imagine the case going completely into dark mode or not even having some potentially interesting twists and developments prior to the October trial... until then, truce it is. #nohomo
