Please come to the source, I will answer all your questions.

[_RobertPitsor]

Helping others, Genealogy, Church, Family, God, Reading, Work

A lot of things make me laugh. I am not any different than anyone else.
Except the labels; mentally ill, gay, bottom feeder.

Robert,

I asked you a question like this a while back on the thread.

What do you do in life that brings you joy or happiness?

What makes you laugh?

[_harmony]

As I said the LDS lawyers are unscrupulous.

Which LDS lawyers? The ones on your side or the ones on the church's side?

[_harmony]

Are you a lawyer? If so, do you want to the case. Because you'll win. Even though the statute has run out. Thanks for the profile, your talents could be used in better places. FYI 1 and 2 were not correct in this case. #3 is almost correct.

Hypothetically if the church found a witness placing Paul and I at a gay bar instead of Motel 6 just 2 days before trial. How credibile would that be? Consider I was 13 years old, and looked 8 on a good day.

Doesn't matter. 13 is not old enough to consent.

I have been very honest here, to the best of my ability and corrected any misunderstandings. So, please understand the above hypothetical is simular to what happened. ( no there was not a witness a forgery maybe) But whatever happened to stop the Seattle lawyers had nothing to do with me and can be proven as false as I have the evidence.

Who said you weren't honest?

Rocket, you really should check your dates! I did not take any of this to the papers, it was done by the Seattle lawyers and they threatened to drop my case if I did not do it. I was also told at that time there would be more to follow. So, check your dates of when this case was dropped and the article published.

I don't usually get along all that well with the Crock, but he is accessing legal documents the rest of us have no access to, and reporting what he finds. I don't think it's wise to jump on him, when he's only reporting what's recorded as legal history for this lawsuit. Just because the message might not be what anyone wants to hear doesn't mean we should attack the messenger.

And if the statue of limitations is gone, I don't see how anything can be done via the courts now.

[_RobertPitsor]

Harmony,
To my knowledge I had no LDS lawyers on my side. Though I never asked the Seattle team if they were LDS. If they were, they were not forthcoming with that information.

As I said the LDS lawyers are unscrupulous.

Which LDS lawyers? The ones on your side or the ones on the church's side?

[_rcrocket]

But whatever happened to stop the Seattle lawyers had nothing to do with me and can be proven as false as I have the evidence.

I've only been speculating as to the reason. I don't know. What was the real reason?

Why did you dismiss the case, knowing the statute of limitations would expire?

What unscrupulous things did the Church's lawyers do?

Harmony,
To my knowledge I had no LDS lawyers on my side. Though I never asked the Seattle team if they were LDS. If they were, they were not forthcoming with that information.

I didn't mean to imply he had LDS lawyers. I was recruited by the firm and met LDS partners.

[_JohnStuartMill]

It seems he took his battle to the press; his accounts show that he has a troubled mental history and is gay. (The two combined are, indeed, symptomatic of abuse.)

Indeed. Many gay youths have a troubled mental history because their conservative churches and families abuse them by telling them that their romantic feelings are evil.

[_Jersey Girl]

Why did you dismiss the case, knowing the statute of limitations would expire?

Why did the statute of limitations expire at that time, crock?

At what point, in your opinion, did the statute of limitations begin "ticking" in this case?

At what point, in your opinion, did it expire...and why?

[_RobertPitsor]

The staute has a loop hole and can be argued. I still have time on this count (one year left). There are also others that can be pursued.

Maybe the messenger should check his dates before stating things out of turn. Possible I felt personally attacked with the statement of taking it to the papers, and the disregard to write about me in the 3rd person.

As I seem to be ruffling feathers, maybe I should take my leave? Any further questions?

Are you a lawyer? If so, do you want to the case. Because you'll win. Even though the statute has run out. Thanks for the profile, your talents could be used in better places. FYI 1 and 2 were not correct in this case. #3 is almost correct.

Hypothetically if the church found a witness placing Paul and I at a gay bar instead of Motel 6 just 2 days before trial. How credibile would that be? Consider I was 13 years old, and looked 8 on a good day.

Doesn't matter. 13 is not old enough to consent.

I have been very honest here, to the best of my ability and corrected any misunderstandings. So, please understand the above hypothetical is simular to what happened. ( no there was not a witness a forgery maybe) But whatever happened to stop the Seattle lawyers had nothing to do with me and can be proven as false as I have the evidence.

Who said you weren't honest?

Rocket, you really should check your dates! I did not take any of this to the papers, it was done by the Seattle lawyers and they threatened to drop my case if I did not do it. I was also told at that time there would be more to follow. So, check your dates of when this case was dropped and the article published.

I don't usually get along all that well with the Crock, but he is accessing legal documents the rest of us have no access to, and reporting what he finds. I don't think it's wise to jump on him, when he's only reporting what's recorded as legal history for this lawsuit. Just because the message might not be what anyone wants to hear doesn't mean we should attack the messenger.

And if the statue of limitations is gone, I don't see how anything can be done via the courts now.

[_Jersey Girl]

crock,

With regards to the "unscrupulous" remark:
He stated that any lawsuit brought against the church is held up as long as possible in appeals.



He also said that the case was dismissed without prejudice.

What does that mean? Dismissed without prejudice?

[_Jersey Girl]

As I seem to be ruffling feathers, maybe I should take my leave? Any further questions?

If people left this board because they were ruffling feathers, there would be no posters at all here! :-)

You can leave if you want, of course, but I think we're trying to fully understand what has gone on with you, Robert.

It is difficult to communicate on a board like this, but since that's what we have, I think we should all try to be more patient with each other.