|[News] Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit||ANN.lu|
|Posted on 25-Sep-2003 20:26 GMT by Rich Woods||147 comments|
Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit
Although I have known about this action since last weekend I have refrained from posting this info until I had the court documentation available. It has just become available today.|
23 MOTION Requesting Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant by Amiga Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Temp5, ) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
24 DECLARATION of DIANA S. SHUKIS in Support of 23 MOTION RequestingLeave to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant, filed by Defendant Amiga Inc. re (Temp5, ) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Defendant Amiga Inc re 23 MOTION for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel, 24 Declaration of Diana S. Shukis. (Temp5, ) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
Amiga's attorney's have filed a motion before the Federal Court to withdraw as Attorneys for Amiga - effectively leaving them with no counsel.
This means that they could default on their action(s) and counter-claims.
The documents are available at:
Certificate of Service To Withdraw
Withdrawal of Counsel 1
Withdrawal of counsel 2
|List of all comments to this article|
|Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 61 of 147||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 25-Sep-2003 20:31 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 58 (Anonymous):|
> > By stating that this whole thread is useless (I'm summarizing, not quoting
> > you directly).
> That is your view of my opinion, and frankly it is ludicrous.
You keep using offensive adjectives, and expect kindness in return? You're pretty amusing, you know?
Anyway, let's see, how do you define this post of yours if not provocative and no-point-making?
"You think you know the reasons for one lawyer withdrawing, that from what I can see is pure speculation based on your own personal viewpoint."
1) No one knows the reasons, and no one stated he/she knows them.
2) It's obvious that is pure speculation based on one's viewpoints, no one is saing the opposite. You're just pointing out the obvious.
"Who replace? Someone from the same lawfirm perhaps? Maybe another one?"
You clearly haven't read the papers, as you'd know that that's not a possibility. Yet, in the sentence just above that one, you claim that the others are just speculating. Well, at least they speculate on the ground of FACTUAL claims, not imaginated ones as yours.
"Cue round of "oooh Im so witty Im going to post something about only being able to pay them in monopoly money ha ha ha""
You said it, no one else before or after you said it. Do you like so much making up quotes to prove your moot points? That's called intellectual disonesty, pal.
"Or you could go no win no fee. Either or, the hype on here and the spin on how to interpret this bit of court red tape is fascinating. I'm amazed that otherwise intelligent people cannot see this in themselves."
you are saying that what we are doing - that is speculating on this issue - is "fascinating", and it even "amazes" you that inspite of our intelligence we can't see it. So, who's the one saying that what the others think or say or do is "amazing" and "fascinating", of course in the ironical sense of those words?
You, no one else but you.
Want more? I hope not, this should suffice for the rest of the thread, wanadoo.
|List of all comments to this article (continued)||