Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="59 Dano" data-source="post: 5211258" data-attributes="member: 23516">Why would there be a presumption that he was drunk if there&#039;s no mention of intoxication?&nbsp; The ATA thing, you don&#039;t know what you&#039;re talking about. ATA shut down while the contract with FedEx was still active.As for Fred buying a venue change to get a favorable verdict, no.&nbsp; You don&#039;t know what you&#039;re talking about.&nbsp; The case was tried in the US District Court, Southern District of Indiana.&nbsp; FedEx appealed, unsuccessfully, to the same court.&nbsp; It filed another appeal with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.&nbsp; If by &quot;[t]hat&#039;s what money buys,&quot; you mean, &quot;They followed proper procedures in the court system,&quot; OK.Why claim he was drunk when you admit there&#039;s nothing to suggest he was?Why claim he bought a court decision when the facts of the case are so readily available?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="59 Dano, post: 5211258, member: 23516"] Why would there be a presumption that he was drunk if there's no mention of intoxication? The ATA thing, you don't know what you're talking about. ATA shut down while the contract with FedEx was still active. As for Fred buying a venue change to get a favorable verdict, no. You don't know what you're talking about. The case was tried in the US District Court, Southern District of Indiana. FedEx appealed, unsuccessfully, to the same court. It filed another appeal with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. If by "[t]hat's what money buys," you mean, "They followed proper procedures in the court system," OK. Why claim he was drunk when you admit there's nothing to suggest he was? Why claim he bought a court decision when the facts of the case are so readily available? [/QUOTE]

Verification