quote:

---

First, what proposal is he actually responding to? He seems to be tilting at windmill rules that weren't even proposed.

---

quote:

---

Randy's response:

quote:

---

These guys are hilarious. "Agree let me pick the standard of proof and then give me your best argument. Then I will make the final ruling. If I prevail, you pay be $5,000 and I will both agree i won."

Um, the "standard of proof" isn't the correct legal term to use in this instance at all, but rather it is the elements one has to prove to support fraud claim. And that was decided by the Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit, which is where...in real life...those elements were laid out. Hence, the court opinion I cited. The "standard of proof" is whether a claim has to be proven by the claimant by "preponderance of the evidence," "clear and convincing evidence," or "beyond a reasonable doubt."

I'm not surprised a member the Hitler Youth would suggest a legal structure where a party to the action chooses the standard of proof and then is also the judge who decided the matter. Which one of us doesn't believe if the ags didn't get what they want they wouldn't immediately claim the decision was meaningless because the jury misapplied the law? Then the Hitler Youth would start stalking jury members, their spouses and their little children for the purposes of harassment and threaten to put a bullet in the head of the jury members who their believed were taking bribes. After all, all that is an **** "tradition."

Nobody ever discussed there being a judge. The case would be given to a jury, you illiterate dumbass, who would then decide it.

The facts are not an issue here. Neither is the law. This is a case ripe for summary judgment with no need for discovery. This would never be a jury trial in federal court. Only an **** would want to put a question of law before a jury to decide.

Virtually every legal source out there makes it clear that "fraud" is a question of fact, not a question of law. This idiot clear has absolutely no clue what the **** he's talking about. Do I need to lay out Rule 56's Summary Judgment standard?

Why don't we try it this way - Mutually agree on an independent third party to decide the matter, stipulate to the facts and allow the third party to issue a ruling. Each party can argue whichever precedent they choose. FRCP, I will file the opening brief, we do it just to settle the matter. Make the briefs available to the public once they are filed

Nobody in America is going to stipulate to the facts on a question of fact, which is what fraud is. Each party can argue "whatever precedent they choose"? Buddy, I laid out what is required to show fraud in the court to which claims of fraud against the USPTO are appealable. That's how it works in real life. Sure, a party can argue "whatever precedent they choose" in any case. But the fact-finder (the jury) APPLIES the precedent that governs the matter before it to the facts they believe were proved in the case. In cases of fraud against the USPTO, that guiding precedent is In re Boise, which I cited. If you allow the third party to issue a ruling where there is no guiding standard of precedent like you're suggesting, you're asking the third party...who you're advocating is acting as a judge because we're dealing with a "question of law" (which we aren't) to become a fact-finder. Judges aren't fact finders in non-bench trials, you dumbass. You're asking them to apply "the law" to a set of facts...but what is "the law" they're applying to the facts if you don't want them to apply the governing precedent? Are you advocating that the law that really does apply to claims of fraud like this one shouldn't apply? Do you even know what you're actually saying here?

---

First, what proposal is he actually responding to? He seems to be tilting at windmill rules that weren't even proposed.

Second, his response solidifies that you guys are wrong about who is the real Randy. No way this guy is a real lawyer, and it gets back to what I've been saying for a while now. I want Randy (or anyone) to point out how any case for fraud has been made. Even assuming Randy's points are entirely true, I want to see him demonstrate the actual standards for fraud.

On that matter, why is Randy upset about the standard to apply? He's the one that keeps screaming fraud from the rooftops. He mentioned fraud, not us. Why should that not be the standard that applies?

And I would LOVE to see how the fraud case can be made via MSJ, given the high bar of evidentiary proof and burden on the party alleging fraud.

---

quote:

---

When is the retard going to admit that his criticisms of the origin of the Aggie War Hymn were completely wrong?

---

quote:

---

When is the retard going to admit that his criticisms of the origin of the Aggie War Hymn were completely wrong?

---

quote:

---

But all I gotta do is call make a phone call to some old Aggie friends of yours to verify

---

quote:

---

He still doesn't understand the difference between a legal question and a factual one. He wants to claim fraud and demands that we stipulate to his made "facts" - you know, those claims that we've never even made:

quote:

---

That would be stipulated to. The whole thing would break down once they actually had to stipulate to what their 12th Man tradition was prior to the fabrication of the radio play in 1939. remember, in Aug 2012 they were still claiming they originated the term in 1922 and it didn't even exist before then. In Feb 2014 they still claimed they hailed Gill as a hero, carried him off the field after the game and that ever since Jan 2, 1922, when their tradition supposedly started, they have held E. King Gill as the school's 12th Man. They will never stipulate to either of those versions of events.

---

Oh, and another post on that thread exhibits how Randy's straw men are latched onto by the masses. He made some straw man claim that we're demanding that 4 Aggies judge the outcome, and naturally other posters are asking why Tandy would ever agree to that. Good question, seeing as that has never been proposed

---

quote:

---

In Feb 2014 they still claimed they hailed Gill as a hero, carried him off the field after the game

---