Lanny v. Kirstie McLellan Day

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Corral

I admire your contributions to this forum most of the time but sometimes I think you forger this is just a DISCUSSION forum on the internet.

Real evidence comes out in legal process. Which this is not

No, that is not at all the disconnect. You are confusing this place for a WILD AND BASELESS SPECULATION FORUM. There is a huge difference between pertinent and productive discussion and irresponsible, alarmist conspiracy theory.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Corral

Well perhaps. But my comment was to point out that there is more to this story than what is public. Lanny is no fool, so he’s obviously covering for something or someone. To make the bald conclusion that it cannot possibly be his former employer who is influencing his position on this seems a bit short sighted for someone like yourself who makes their living asking questions on stuff others would presume is obvious, digging for dirt in unlikely places, making arguments just for the sake of it, or protecting others from foreseeable risk.

he might be, if he honestly thinks more than a handful would care to read a book about what he's been up to since he quit playing.

I believe Textcritic hit the nail on the head in his post about Lanny perhaps feeling "buyers remorse."
I can't imagine there would have been any interest from any publisher for a manuscript about what Lanny has been up to in the past 20 years.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Corral

Yes of course. And we are to take all your assertions without evidence at face value because.... as you put it to someone else here ... “you are a good lawyer”

Nice pat on the back for yourself there.

What assertions without evidence? I can read the paper and the statement of claim - which sets out the contractual provision in question. I can read what they’ve each said on the record.

As for me being a good lawyer - well my hourly rate and the fact people pay it = res ipsa loquitur.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

he might be, if he honestly thinks more than a handful would care to read a book about what he's been up to since he quit playing.

I believe Textcritic hit the nail on the head in his post about Lanny perhaps feeling "buyers remorse."
I can't imagine there would have been any interest from any publisher for a manuscript about what Lanny has been up to in the past 20 years.

Most of which has been well publicized.

There may also have been some some stuff which he figured would be downplayed but was more detailed than he’d have liked - his mom’s accident, his failure to get traction in management, etc.

[browna]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Most of which has been well publicized.

There may also have been some some stuff which he figured would be downplayed but was more detailed than he’d have liked - his mom’s accident, his failure to get traction in management, etc.

Absolutely likely that something or things that are a bit more salacious and sensational in nature will be brought up or focused on in the requisite promotional tour and media appearances.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

What assertions without evidence? I can read the paper and the statement of claim - which sets out the contractual provision in question. I can read what they’ve each said on the record.

As for me being a good lawyer - well my hourly rate and the fact people pay it = res ipsa loquitur.

The newspaper and the statement of claim are hardly evidence LOL.

BTW, what is your hourly rate?

I assume like most lawyers it’s outrageous.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

The newspaper and the statement of claim are hardly evidence LOL.

BTW, what is your hourly rate?

I assume like most lawyers it’s outrageous.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

They aren’t evidence - they are claims, which presumably will have at least some evidence behind them, as opposed to the Corral conspiracy theory which has nothing at all. No lawyer would make a statement in the paper or in a statement of claim that they can’t bring at least some evidence on. And the contractual provision McLellan-Day is citing is very common “consent not to withheld unreasonably “.

Hourly rate is just shy of $700. CPers might get a discount.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Hourly rate is just shy of $700. CPers might get a discount.

****in rights! I'm holding you to this.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by jayswin

****in rights! I'm holding you to this.

He doesn't do small-time criminal law. I keed, I keed. I am assuming that's a tax law or corporate law rate, but good to see prices are up. I have not had to think about hourly rates in 13 or 14 years.
P.S. I am surprised anybody thought that there would be interest in a Lanny book at this point. Unless this is where we finally hear about him orgying with Margaret Trudeau and the Stones.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

What assertions without evidence? I can read the paper and the statement of claim - which sets out the contractual provision in question. I can read what they’ve each said on the record.

As for me being a good lawyer - well my hourly rate and the fact people pay it = res ipsa loquitur.

LOL like your hourly rate means much. Every shmo downtown with a suit on and a law degree pushes paper for that rate

[Corral]

I’m going to move on from this. Frankly I don’t care at all what the story is behind this litigation anyways. Always fun to jab on CP though.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Corral

LOL like your hourly rate means much. Every shmo downtown with a suit on and a law degree pushes paper for that rate

You didn’t get what I was saying, I guess.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Corral

I’m going to move on from this. Frankly I don’t care at all what the story is behind this litigation anyways. Always fun to jab on CP though.

When you bring along factual substantiation or, minimally, a little bit of credible knowledge, you’ll get a little bit more respect.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Corral

LOL like your hourly rate means much. Every shmo downtown with a suit on and a law degree pushes paper for that rate

Um, no, this is not remotely correct.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by timbit

When you bring along factual substantiation or, minimally, a little bit of credible knowledge, you’ll get a little bit more respect.

Or to put it more colloquially, next time don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Or to put it more colloquially, next time don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Yep, hunting bear with a butter knife, often, is not a great idea.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Corral

I’m going to move on from this. Frankly I don’t care at all what the story is behind this litigation anyways. Always fun to jab on CP though.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

They aren’t evidence - they are claims, which presumably will have at least some evidence behind them, as opposed to the Corral conspiracy theory which has nothing at all. No lawyer would make a statement in the paper or in a statement of claim that they can’t bring at least some evidence on. And the contractual provision McLellan-Day is citing is very common “consent not to withheld unreasonably “.

Hourly rate is just shy of $700. CPers might get a discount.

I know they aren’t evidence, it was you who said they were.

But making any kind of assessment based simply on the statement of claim and a newspaper article is laughable at best.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I know they aren’t evidence, it was you who said they were.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes, I used the term loosely. But McLellan’s words, and Lanny’s words, as reported, are evidence, albeit unsworn and second hand.

As it is, there won’t be any further public disclosures, since they went into a private arbitration. I will see if I can get wind of who the arbitrator is.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yes, I used the term loosely. But McLellan’s words, and Lanny’s words, as reported, are evidence, albeit unsworn and second hand.

As it is, there won’t be any further public disclosures, since they went into a private arbitration. I will see if I can get wind of who the arbitrator is.

A reporters interpretation of what these people say is not even close to evidence.

You didn’t use the term loosely, you used it incorrectly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk