Ponderable

espola said:
I'm happy for Johnson. He's a small-town guy just like me (and maybe you, I don't know enough to tell). I wish I could ask him personally about whether the agreement puts a crimp in his dreams of ranching. I would also ask him which of his neighbors he thinks ratted him pout to the Feds.

But not happy for his lawyer. When a lawyer makes a statement, the first thing I think is "Why did he say that? Is there any way to prove or disprove what he said?"

How about you?
Click to expand...
Well e, look at what has occurred. The stock pond is still there. _ No doubt.
The state of Wyoming has never disputed that proper permits were obtained. - You have nothing from any source that says otherwise.
The EPA has agreed to what the court has ordered. - According to the settlement documents.

The above speaks volume as to proof that what the lawyers claim has occurred.
Your concerns about some mysterious neighbor was apparently of no concern to the courts and no neighbors were mentioned by the Johnson's or the EPA.
You want me to produce evidence to back your assertion that the state didn't permit the pond.
The fact that the pond is there and the court says it can stay, should tell you something e.
 
Lion Eyes said:
Well e, look at what has occurred. The stock pond is still there. _ No doubt.
The state of Wyoming has never disputed that proper permits were obtained. - You have nothing from any source that says otherwise.
The EPA has agreed to what the court has ordered. - According to the settlement documents.

The above speaks volume as to proof that what the lawyers claim has occurred.
Your concerns about some mysterious neighbor was apparently of no concern to the courts and no neighbors were mentioned by the Johnson's or the EPA.
You want me to produce evidence to back your assertion that the state didn't permit the pond.
The fact that the pond is there and the court says it can stay, should tell you something e.
Click to expand...

The lawyers' press release claimed some things that are not in, and in some cases, contrary to, the language of the settlement. I never said the state didn't permit the pond. I just want to read the actual language of the various permits and documents, since the secondary source to its language (Johnson's lawyer) has demonstrated he is not to be trusted.
 
espola said:
The lawyers' press release claimed some things that are not in, and in some cases, contrary to, the language of the settlement. I never said the state didn't permit the pond. I just want to read the actual language of the various permits and documents, since the secondary source to its language (Johnson's lawyer) has demonstrated he is not to be trusted.
Click to expand...
Contrary ? Okay...
Perhaps you wouldn't mind listing the contradictions?
Lawyers giving their slant on things is nothing new. The silence from the EPA is note worthy.
As far as the original permits & documents, you'll either have to search for those documents or accept the story as reported since the state was not a party to the action.
You seem to be convinced that something nefarious must have happened...good luck with that.
 
Lion Eyes said:
Contrary ? Okay...
Perhaps you wouldn't mind listing the contradictions?
Lawyers giving their slant on things is nothing new. The silence from the EPA is note worthy.
As far as the original permits & documents, you'll either have to search for those documents or accept the story as reported since the state was not a party to the action.
You seem to be convinced that something nefarious must have happened...good luck with that.
Click to expand...

The last time I hired the services of a lawyer, I listened to him explain away some faulty paperwork he had submitted for us with a few big whoppers. He knew he was lying, I knew he was lying, he knew I knew he was lying, my wife knew he was lying, and when she saw me fidgeting in my seat, she grabbed my hand and gave me a "Shut up!" look. Everybody in the room knew he was lying except the judge (and third parties waiting for their turns to be quiet while their lawyers minced the truth for them). If the judge had asked me, I would have had to tell the truth - I was under oath.
 
espola said:
I'm sure Trey Gowdy thinks they are accurate. However, some of the movie scenes are at odds with official records or have been disputed by the participants. There was no "Stand down" order given at the CIA compound - that group fought its way into the Consulate within a hour after the attack started, but were driven out by the attackers before they could find Stevens, who was still alive then, but hidden in the smoke of the burning buildings. The CIA compound was itself attacked throughout the rest of the night. There were no Navy helicopters within fuel range of Benghazi, and a special ops team that was dispatched from Malta was called back since they were not yet there by the time the attack was over.
Click to expand...
link please
 
espola said:
Not entirely. Due to the obvious abuses perpetrated in the long term of J. E. Hoover, a law was passed that the FBI director is appointed to a 10-year term by the President, upon consent of the Senate. His term can be extended by permission of those 2 bodies, but only shortened voluntarily or under unusual circumstances (none of which have occurred since the law was passed). The Director before Comey, Robert Mueller, was appointed by w and served 12 years (because Obama and the Senate wanted to keep him), 4 and half of those years under Obama. Comey came into office in September 2013, so he has a long time to go.
Click to expand...
He may not want to be there for a long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top