Even when you do respond to me you don't actually respond.

I assume Dragonball's posed the question is the same reason I did. He claims that there were no such emails in all the emails he received. You "believe" it was in one of the attachments. Given that such an email would strongly support one of your claims, and your previous deceitfulness, a reasonable person would assume that document does not exist or at the very least does not strongly support your claim.

Did the backer really claim that the client is bound to privacy by attorney-client privilege?

Definitely looks that way.

Yup. And some people blame Dragonball for coming off as "patronizing and abrasive" in these threads. He couldn't have been any more patient and respectful given who he was dealing with. It must be so frustrating.

Easy to see how this comment of mine was not clear. Not claiming I am "bound" to it, as it is my privilege / designed to protect me, so I can choose to violate it. Rather, my comment was meant to convey that IMO it is inappropriate to expect me to answer a question that would require me to violate it. Regarding the question of the emails being admitted into trial evidence, it is a moot point since I don't know the answer. All I know is that they were submitted in a pre-trial phase ... In any case, keeping with my intention to simply truthfully tell my story as people requested I do, and not reopen debate, I am opting out of all further discussion in this thread. If someone has a question specifically for me, please message me privately and I will do my best to answer it, bearing in mind limitations on what I (and anyone else involved in this case) is at liberty to say.

You lost the case. Two weeks ago. The only thing left to "protect" now is the finish of your car from the rigors of the sun and the abrasive properties of road grime.

You literally cannot violate attorney-client privilege by answering the question. You would be waiving the privilege.

Holy ****.

Lynne


You mention in the document that there were negotiations prior to the suit being filed and the trial...but that neither party could come to an agreement.

It was kind of glossed over....so I was wondering if you could elaborate more considering there may have been cash on the table at that point and you ended up (I presume) paying attorneys fees and recouping nothing...except an admission that there was a 5K loan but no judgement or ability to collect on it.

Do you post transcripts of your chats? I can't even figure out were you hold your chats looking at your blog or if they are public. Can you clarify please?

Suggestion: Take laptop and throw it against the wall or concrete floor as hard as you can, then go out and buy the exact same laptop and re-download the file. See if it looks any better on a $4000 laptop.

People have a mistaken belief that contracts, laws or regulations are going to make people behave in a manner other than they are inclined to act. So even though someone seeking a stake may agree to the terms in this agreement it should seem clear that if a person was in deep make up they would be most likely not be willing or able to satisfy the make-up if the contract were terminated. Their argument could then be the same as yours that it takes a long time for variance to play out and you are not giving them that chance and nit picking their obligations you outlined. I believe the contract as written was too one sided in your favor and you should not be surprised that someone desperate for backing would sign it and worry about any negative consequences later. It’s important to note that had Lee anticipated he would never be liable for that make up when he signed the contract he would have been correct.

Had I been on the jury I would have sided with you, that he does owe you the money. However, the outcome shows you why you are better off relying on judgment and analysis of possible outcomes over a contract. Not saying you shouldn't have a written agreement, but that the written agreement isn't what gives you the most protection as you now understand.

The bottom line is I believe staking arrangements should have a specified term and specified amount of play, otherwise holes can be dug that no one can get out of. A player desperate for backing will sign anything and that means if you don’t put yourself in their shoes you are liable to enter an agreement you know will not be honored in an adverse outcome.

Okay, so I guess I am not opting out of some purely informational questions lol ... This is a question that a couple other people have asked me privately ... Sorry, but nether I nor anyone else involved in the case can elaborate on this because it is not a matter of public record and conceivably runs the risk of the "other side" being able to claim defamation (that is, such a claim by Lee if I were to disclose, or vice versa). In fact, in a comment by Zeitlin in the original thread about this case, he says he cannot comment on the amount of an offer that Lee made to me. Moreover, even in the absence of defamation considerations and formal rights to privacy, there are certain aspects of any legal situation that IMO should not be disclosed out of ordinary respect and common courtesy ... I hope you understand. Considerations related to defamation, rights to privacy and common courtesy as they relate to this case have not, to the best of my recollection, been explicitly discussed in the 2+2 threads but they do play a part in what I have not said and, I believe, in what Zeitlin (Dragonball) has not said although I obviously cannot speak for him.

Thank you for your comments ... In the almost six years since Lee and I signed the contract, I've learned a lot about better aligning expectations, as well as what makes a better poker staking contract. As I learned more, I made adjustments, starting more than a year before the lawsuit was instituted. The contract I currently use actually incorporates some of the ideas in your comments, along with other things I have learned.

When is this airing on Lifetime?