|W. Kevin Vicklund
<quote>Kevin, I am fed up with you. Commenters like you are to blame for a lot of the problems I have been having on this blog (the PT staff is often very nasty too).
If I am â€œbanned,â€œ then why donâ€˜t you just ignore me? Instead you continue to respond to me.</quote>
You have only yourself to blame for being banned. I tried to point out that you were violating the rules, I even gave you an incentive to stop violating the rules, something I might point out no one else did, and you threw it in my face. You knew - you had been specifically <i>warned</i> - you were violating the rules and that it would eventually lead to a ban.
Frankly, I wish you hadn't deliberately gotten yourself banned. I had fun demolishing your arguments with detailed, factual arguments of my own. So I'm pissed that I have to stew and let you post your lies, distortions, and ignorant statements without being allowed to refute them, lest I also get a ban. The only recourse I have left is to get your posts removed. I'd much rather dispute them freely. (Note to moderators - this is not a criticism of PT's excellent standards)
<quote>Where in the depositions? I have not been shown any references. It just seems strange to me that the insurance company would restrict the board to just one attorney or to attorneys approved by the company. Generally, I do not just take peopleâ€˜s word on something that seems strange to me.</quote>
Check out the depostions found at the NCSE webpage. I think Nilsen and Baksa made them (it's been a whilesince I looked at the depositions), but they are in a format I can't simply cut and paste. Besides, there are many other sources that explain why the company would restrict coverage from outside representation.
<quote>BTW, I finally found out how that attorney-client message got into the Dover opinion â€” the trial testimony revealed that the defendants gave the message to the plaintiffs (though I have no idea why, as the message was damaging to the defendants). However, I had to find the reference myself â€” <b>no one showed it to me</b>. I still think that Judge Jones should have put an explanation in the opinion.<i>emphasis added</i></quote>
You lie. I know which references you are referring to, and I personally posted them here several months ago. Besides, all you had to do to get that information was to resume posting under the rules. In fact, the Judge did make an implicit explanation of how the plaintiffs got it and how the priviledge was waived.