Playback mpd3

Ghasley,
As far as I am aware, being of retirement age and having time on one's hands is not yet an indictable offense. It seems, by your lengthy rebuttals, that you have as much time on your hands as I have on mine.

You stated, "After reading your last post you, very eloquently I must admit, validated that you materially misrepresented the outcome of the case. In simple English, the parties obviously had some sort of understanding with which to proceed or EMM would never have sent product." With all due respect, I validated nothing of the sort. The issue is not that the two parties had "some sort of understanding". The issue is precisely what that understanding was and if it constituted the basis in law for the claims made by Mr Tinn.

The court clearly decided Mr. Tinn's statements regarding the verbal understanding between himself and EMM did not constitute the basis in law for Mr. Tinn's claims, that Mr. Tinn was perpetually trying to change the "facts" he wished the court to consider as the basis for his suit, and that he could not prove his claims because no matter what version of the facts he presented they did not constitute proof in law. In fact, the court found that a lot of what was presented by Mr. Tinn were "sham facts". In the end, the court essentially threw that part of Mr. Tinn's suit out the window.

Further, you stated "Your introduction of this topic to this thread however will lend doubt of your neutrality to the fair minded person." Neutrality? Fair-minded person? The court was not neutral in its fair-minded judgment against Mr. Tinn. In fact, its judgment was not neutral at all. Its judgment was crystal clear -- that Mr. Tinn had attempted to use smoke and mirrors to build a case against EMM in order to win a judgment against EMM. Further, the court's judgment was that Mr. Tinn had misrepresented many of the facts of the case and that he had furthermore misrepresented his relationship with EMM to customers.

In closing, you have stated that I have mischaracterized the case. A close reading of the case shows that I have done nothing of the sort. A close reading of the case shows I have characterized it exactly as the court did. It is you who have tried to turn the court's judgment in favor of Mr. Tinn -- where the court clearly did not do so.

Regarding your casting aspersions on my reasons for posting this information here, if you would care to contact Mr. Tinn or Mr. Meitner and ask them if they have ever heard of my name their responses will be in the negative. If you ask anyone at their companies if they have ever heard of my name the only person who may answer in the affirmative is the person who processed my repair at EMM.

I feel it is time to put this matter to bed and let the thread resume its intended direction.

Sabai, all I have ever intended to point out is the fact that in your initial post
you stated the following:

"The matter was decided in favor of EMM."

which was not completely accurate. That's what I was referring to by stating
that you mischaracterized the court's findings. Anyone who has seen a few
of these misunderstandings matriculate through the courts will likely agree
that this one was a tie. They both failed to memorialize their understanding
in writing and, as is usually the case when emotions run high, selective
memory kicks in.

I will reiterate however that I believe you have unfairly slammed Mr. Tinn,
which was probably unintentional on your part. Oh, and as far as spare
time goes, you are correct that I have alot of spare time on my hands
especially this time of year. I'm very fortunate to have accumulated several
months of vacation annually. Good luck with your well earned retirement.

FWIW, I have successfully gotten my MPS5 registered and have gotten access to the drivers.

Ghasley,
You stated, "Sabai, all I have ever intended to point out is the fact that in your initial post you stated the following:

"The matter was decided in favor of EMM."

which was not completely accurate."

You are correct here. My statement was not accurate on all points. But a close reading of the court documents shows that all major issues were decided in favor of EMM. Mr. Tinn was to receive full compensation for services rendered if that compensation had not yet been received by him.

Regarding your statement that I mischaracterized the court's findings, may I refresh your memory about the court record regarding the lack of any oral agreement, let alone any written agreement, between Mr. Tinn and EMM:

"As the proponent of the agreement, Tinn has not met his burden of demonstrating that sufficient facts exist upon which reasonable jurors could find clear and unequivocal proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an oral contract existed. Tinn maintains that the parties entered into a binding oral agreement in October 2005, but his own testimony shows they could not have."

Retirement is good, thanks -- because I am productively busy. Retirement can be the death knell for folks who put their feet up and think that they have arrived. You arrive when the Good Lord decides it is your time. Until then, keep productive and you'll do fine.

Ghasley,
As a coda to my earlier remarks, regarding your statement: "In simple English, the parties obviously had some sort of understanding with which to proceed or EMM would never have sent product."

May I refer you to this statement in the court documents:

"As the proponent of the agreement, Tinn has not met his burden of demonstrating that sufficient facts exist upon which reasonable jurors could find clear and unequivocal proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an oral contract existed. Tinn maintains that the parties entered into a binding oral agreement in October 2005, but his own testimony shows they could not have."