dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6
share rss forum feed

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

1 recommendation

reply to Epiralawler

Re: If TekSavvi doesn't fight on Jan 14th, I'm leaving them.

said by Epiralawler :

First of all I am not a lawyer, nor am I certified to practice law in the province of Ontario.

Nor would it seem that you are fully versed in the indisputable facts....

It's Voltage, not Vonage.
It's the 14th, not the 13th.
Nor is it a foregone conclusion that CIPPIC will be granted standing in this case.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by Epiralawler :

First of all I am not a lawyer, nor am I certified to practice law in the province of Ontario.

Nor would it seem that you are fully versed in the indisputable facts....

It's Voltage, not Vonage.
It's the 14th, not the 13th.
Nor is it a foregone conclusion that CIPPIC will be granted standing in this case.

No, its not a foregone conclusion. However, considering the past suits CIPPIC has intervened in, as well as all the information in the motion to intervene (ie CIPPIC already knows what's going on and doesn't need an extension to catch up on the case), chances are the Judge will allow it. The only reason the Judge didn't allow CIPPIC's lawyer to talk on the 17th, was because a formal motion to intervene hadn't been submitted to the courts, and Voltage's lawyer got cranky about that and pointed it out..

The judge didn't have to read CIPPIC's notice of intent to motion to intervene on the 17th with additional background info on Voltage and take it's information under advisement before making his adjournment ruling, but he did.

Anyways, attached is CIPPIC's motion to intervene. Major arguments have been saved for further filings/in court.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by Epiralawler :

First of all I am not a lawyer, nor am I certified to practice law in the province of Ontario.

Nor would it seem that you are fully versed in the indisputable facts....

It's Voltage, not Vonage.
It's the 14th, not the 13th.
Nor is it a foregone conclusion that CIPPIC will be granted standing in this case.

and if Cippic gets no standing its game over for your data and privacy.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by Epiralawler :

First of all I am not a lawyer, nor am I certified to practice law in the province of Ontario.

Nor would it seem that you are fully versed in the indisputable facts....

It's Voltage, not Vonage.
It's the 14th, not the 13th.
Nor is it a foregone conclusion that CIPPIC will be granted standing in this case.

No, its not a foregone conclusion. However, considering the past suits CIPPIC has intervened in, as well as all the information in the motion to intervene (ie CIPPIC already knows what's going on and doesn't need an extension to catch up on the case), chances are the Judge will allow it. The only reason the Judge didn't allow CIPPIC's lawyer to talk on the 17th, was because a formal motion to intervene hadn't been submitted to the courts, and Voltage's lawyer got cranky about that and pointed it out..

The judge didn't have to read CIPPIC's notice of intent to motion to intervene on the 17th with additional background info on Voltage and take it's information under advisement before making his adjournment ruling, but he did.

Anyways, attached is CIPPIC's motion to intervene. Major arguments have been saved for further filings/in court.

lets play pretend why would i as judge when both parties agreed to pass the data form one to other allow you to take my time and effort to hear this....argue away and then ruling....dont put your eggs all in one basket people say and that's what has happened ask yourself what rulings has that judge mad ein past that gives you a clue.