Rick wrote:
> You made an absolute statement that the plaitiff failed to make
> his case even though you were not at the hearing. I do not see
> how that has anything to do with wizard's joke about the
> property line.

Rick, I have previously prefaced that my comments are based upon what has been posted to this forum. If someone posts here that they attended the court hearing and that "Scardino was unable to articulate to the judge where he was (parked)," I accept that as a true statement. If you believe that I shouldn't, please post who you believe the liars are, and why I should believe you and not them.

> Then why are you making claims about the plaitiff failing to
> make his case when you are lacking critical information.

I have made statements based upon posts here from court attendees, and my limited knowledge of the law. Rick, you have attacked me as though Mike Castro is fully liable. You should, by your own words, be supportive of my position. Shouldn't Mike, you, or anyone else be considered innocent until a negative judgment is passed down from a court of law? Why are you convinced of Mike Castro's liability before the judgment?

I have yet to see YOU or anyone else post any proof that the alleged damage was done anywhere near Bowen Ranch, or that Mike Castro was in any way involved. Where are your witnesses or hard evidence for you to blame Castro? Where?

You have also failed to answer my previous question: Why didn't Scardino simply report this to his insurance company?

And why hasn't Scardino filed a criminal complaint against Mike Castro? Or does he know that he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on and he doesn't want to get sued by Castro for defamation and malicious prosecution.

> > jobe earlier wrote: "In court Mike told the judge Scardino was on BLM land."
Rick, you wrote: "Heresay."

Well, it was reported and I'll accept it as true. But really, it's not even material. No one truly knows when or where the damage actually occured. Without solid proof that the incident occured on Mike Castro's property, the law won't hold Castro liable.

> > The "claim" being discussed in the thread dealt with the claim
> > of whether Scardino was on Mike Castro's property or not; not
> > the (overall) case claim against Castro.

> Your wording implies otherwise.

Rick, please try to just read it straight, and just try to stop implying that my wording implies other then that which I write. No wonder you sound so confused.

I know that it must just eat you that Mike Castro might be found totally innocent of Scardino's claims; however, I see the possibility of Mike Castro being totally vindicated. I live in reality. No one has posted anything here in which a "judge" could hang on Mike.

BTW, you seem quick to blame Castro. You apparently visit the hot springs frequently. Perhaps you are just trying to push your own culpability in this matter upon Mike Castro. Is that it? There appears to be the same amount of evidence on you as there is on Mike! Be a man and step forward and acknowledge the rap.

That's why Castro will likely walk; we have a judicial system to protect you.