Ex parte motion to recover bond
Tilman Hausherr
Ward) wrote:
> Therefore, the defendant prays the court to remit $5,000.00
>to him as a result of prevailing on the trade secret claim and
>retain the remaining $5,000.00 pending the outcome of the
>defendant’s appeal on the copyright claim.
LOL! I bet it will cost them more than $5000 in attorney's fees just to
challenge this.
Tilman
--
(C) Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
Annoy scientology by buying books: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
Arbe
POSTED AND E-MAILED
Grady - Do you have to file a seperate motion to recover YOUR COSTS
relating to the trade secret portion of the case ??
And a quick calc shows that 5 grand would buy about 2.2 years of
$200/month payments at 5 % intrest. Perhaps those payments could be put
in escrow pending any appeals..
------
In article <360a9996...@news.supernews.com>, gr...@gradyward.com wrote:
+>IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
+>CALIFORNIA
+>
+>RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a Scientology Corporation,
+>
+> Plaintiff,
+>
+> v.
+>
+>GRADY WARD, an individual,
+>
+> Defendant.
+>
+> NO. C-96-20207-RMW (EAI)
+>
+>DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE MOTION TO RECOVER PORTION OF BOND
+>
+>
+>
+>Date: Time: Ctrm: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
+>
+>
+> On September 23, 1998, the defendant consulted with
+>attorney for the plaintiff, Thomas R. Hogan, and he agreed to
+>communicate with the court the position of the defendant with
+>respect to the $10,000.00 bond.
+>
+> On September 15, 1998, Judge Jeremy Fogel entered an Order
+>in this case reflecting his view of settlement negotiations between
+>the parties. Part of that Order was a consent to judgment, although
+>without an admission of liability, in favor of the plaintiff. This
+>Order was a final judgment regarding plaintiff’s copyright claim.
+>On July 21, 1997, Hon. Ronald M. Whyte, entered an Order dismissing
+>the plaintiff’s trade secret claim with prejudice. This Order was a
+>final judgment regarding plaintiff’s trade secret claim and
+>resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendant, Grady Ward. The
+>plaintiff chose not to appeal this judgment, so that it now final.
+>
+> Since the defendant prevailed on ½ the claims of the
+>plaintiff, he is entitled to ½ the $10,000.00 bond that that
+>plaintiff was required to post to obtain a preliminary injunction.
+>Since the defendant is appealing the Order by Judge Jeremy Fogel,
+>the plaintiff is not yet entitled to ½ of $10,000 until such an
+>appeal has run.
+>
+> Therefore, the defendant prays the court to remit $5,000.00
+>to him as a result of prevailing on the trade secret claim and
+>retain the remaining $5,000.00 pending the outcome of the
+>defendant’s appeal on the copyright claim.
+>
+>(attached: July 21, 1997 Order of Judge Whyte dismissing
+>plaintiff’s claim with prejudice)
+>
+> Respectfully submitted,
+>
+>DATED: September 24, 1998
+>______________________________________ GRADY WARD, in pro per, in
+>forma pauperis
+>
+>“Judgment,” includes any decree or order from which
+>the right of appeal lies. TMF Tool Co. v. Muller, 913 F.2d 1185,
+>1188 (7th Cir. 1990) “every final judgment shall grant the relief
+>to which the party whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if
+>the party has not demanded such relief in the party’s pleadings.”
+>Albermarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 45
+>L.Ed. 2d 280 (1975)
+>
+>2 DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE MOTION TO RECOVER PORTION OF BOND No.
+>C-96-20207-RMW (EAI)
+>
+>
+>Here is the attached order of Judge Whyte
+>entering judgment in favor Grady Ward:
+>http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/2868/GradyWard/LEGAL/TS_DISMISS.pdf
+>
+>
+>--
+>Grady Ward gr...@gradyward.com 2F07 AD38 11D4 8493 7143 5E1C E699 2FF2
+>(707) 826-7712 voice (707) 826-0360 fax http://www.gradyward.com/
------
Way to go grady
--
* ARBE -- ARSCC SP2 -- Remove ARBE from e-mail to respond
* Damages limited to what you paid me for my opinion
gerry armstrong
wrote:
>
>
>IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
>CALIFORNIA
>
>RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a Scientology Corporation,
>
> Plaintiff,
>
> v.
>
>GRADY WARD, an individual,
>
> Defendant.
>
> NO. C-96-20207-RMW (EAI)
>
>DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE MOTION TO RECOVER PORTION OF BOND
<as they say, snip>
> Therefore, the defendant prays the court to remit $5,000.00
>to him as a result of prevailing on the trade secret claim and
>retain the remaining $5,000.00 pending the outcome of the
>defendant’s appeal on the copyright claim.
>
VWD Have you given any thought to retaining me as an expert witness
in your future litigations?
I think you will need experts and other professionals and I would like
to be in on the ground floor with my own down line.
Although I am certified as "The best paralegal in the history of the
world," my expertise really is in witnessing expertly. Let me know
what claims you have.
Gerry
Al Landeck
In article <360a9996...@news.supernews.com>,
Grady Ward <gr...@gradyward.com> wrote:
>
>
>IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
>CALIFORNIA
>
>RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a Scientology Corporation,
> Plaintiff,
> v.
>GRADY WARD, an individual,
> Defendant.
> NO. C-96-20207-RMW (EAI)
>
>DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE MOTION TO RECOVER PORTION OF BOND
>
[snip]
Let me guess Grady? This would be a nice start toward a $35,000
bank note...
Bwahahahahahahaha
Albert
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNgwZe4Zil1trMzqdAQHt6gQAs/vO6ofJLgL0U/E/HsPt5SDI0zo4JxBT
a5+dZl/B0ZLouaDOX2nrWxdH+aObl7w8IuTYg6d55AC/Z8o/gowRaJgTGYPB4xtF
1ej7ymUyZVomCzpCVOcJahwBBDvcdxgdf4lnyNrrp419XjsYuMjg4t4IahGHtKHO
VOoyK1e2QIU=
=uVGA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Landeck
Why is Scientology illegally using tax exempt money to lobby congress?
woodn...@my-dejanews.com
>to him as a result of prevailing on the trade secret claim and
>retain the remaining $5,000.00 pending the outcome of the
>defendant’s appeal on the copyright claim.
Do you recall the words "not one thin dime"? What do you think they meant,
Grady? And how do you think they apply to you? Woody.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Arbe
=>On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 19:15:10 GMT, gr...@gradyward.com (Grady Ward)
=>wrote:
=>>DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE MOTION TO RECOVER PORTION OF BOND
=>> Therefore, the defendant prays the court to remit $5,000.00
=>>to him as a result of prevailing on the trade secret claim and
=>>retain the remaining $5,000.00 pending the outcome of the
=>>defendant’s appeal on the copyright claim.
=>
=> Do you recall the words "not one thin dime"? What do you think they meant,
=>Grady? And how do you think they apply to you? Woody.
=>
=>
****
Yo- woodenhead !! Since CO$ has already posted the bond, the decision to
give Grady " one thin dime " is in the hands of the judge. Since Grady
already prevailed on the "trade secrets" issue, the question is really
"how many thin dimes " are appropriate.
Since the claim was dismissed with predjudice, CO$ can't raise that issue
with Grady again withut some severe rework (not likely )...
And BTW - Grady should be able to get his documented costs ..
Ask the COBRA to explain it to you over your rice and beans..
-----