Larry Silversteins insurance

Docker said:
I don't expect to find the truth in JREF aka shilltown.
Click to expand...

So what are you here for?

Honestly, there are lots of people here who have researched this stuff extensively. This isn't the type of forum where teenagers Google around and play connect the dots.People here know what they're talking about. If you had any concern for the truth at all, you'd listen to them, instead of labelling them shills.
 
Docker said:
If two men come into your house and steal your property, do you claim double insurance because 2 men did it not 1?
Click to expand...

But that's not what happened. A more apt analogy would be if two men, working together, broke into two houses that you own that happen to be next store to each other and they robbed both. Since two houses were robbed, regardless of their common ownership and regardless of the relationship between the criminals, two separate houses were still robbed. Thus, the owner could claim two robberies.
 
yodaluver28 said:
But that's not what happened. A more apt analogy would be if two men, working together, broke into two houses that you own that happen to be next store to each other and they robbed both. Since two houses were robbed, regardless of their common ownership and regardless of the relationship between the criminals, two separate houses were still robbed. Thus, the owner could claim two robberies.
Click to expand...

But he couldnt claim double the value of all combined property.
 
Docker said:
But he couldnt claim double the value of all combined property.
Click to expand...
First of all, there were something like 23 insurance companies involved. Some of the policies were written so that the 9/11 attacks counted as 1 event, some so that it was 2. So some had to pay for 2 events, others only for 1. It has all been hashed out in the courts already, and upheld on appeal.

You really don't know anything about this, do you?
 
gumboot said:
I think WildCat confused you with Docker because of your Avatar.
Click to expand...
Were y'all not aware that you can read these forums with avatars and signatures turned off? I can't imagine someone being aware of that and choosing to see the clutter of all that.
 
WildCat said:
First of all, there were something like 23 insurance companies involved. Some of the policies were written so that the 9/11 attacks counted as 1 event, some so that it was 2. So some had to pay for 2 events, others only for 1. It has all been hashed out in the courts already, and upheld on appeal.

You really don't know anything about this, do you?
Click to expand...

No, he clearly doesn't know anything about it, and he is clearly incapable of engaging his brain long enough to get a clue. The short answer was presented to him quite some time ago in this very thread but, not surprisingly, he is not interested in the truth, he is not interested in facts, and he is not interested in evidence.

This is all a game to "Docker", his predecessors, and his cohorts. Pretty sad, really.
 
Docker said:
Stop pretending to be a lawyer.
Click to expand...

That's your entire argument? An insult? Not a single word disputing a single fact that I laid out? Not even a hint that judges could be bought or that the entire legal fight was just for show? Not even an insult about lawyers in general? Just that I am not credible because I'm pretending to be a lawyer, your proof being that I used the word "basically." It must be very sad in your head.

By the way, you can never insure property for more than its replacement value. You can get five home insurance policies, if it burns down you're only going to recover the money to build a new one. One occurrance or two, it really doesn't matter - Silverstein cannot as a matter of law walk away with more than his loss.

But then again, you would know that if you did any research before posting your questions.
 
This guy is all over the map. He denies he believes in any theories, actually believes them all, says the opposite of what he implies, and continiously stirs up nonsense. He never has a point of view. He never provides evidence.

He is a troll in every sense of the word.

PS, here are 250 instances where supreme court justices used the word "basically"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/casesearch.pl?cirestriction=basically&court=us
 
kookbreaker said:
He's not very good at this, is he?
Click to expand...

The evidence to date suggests that the only things he's good at are: starting BS threads; spouting complete and utter nonsense without any basis in fact; ignoring the facts and evidence that are provided to him; trying to change the subject to some other random tinhat theory every time he gets caught with his pants down on a previous one; and running away like a child.
 
Anti-sophist said:
PS, here are 250 instances where supreme court justices used the word "basically"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/casesearch.pl?cirestriction=basically&court=us
Click to expand...

123 instances of New York courts in the 2nd Department using the word "basically": Here

Including:

The parties previously entered into a stipulation of settlement on June 6, 2005 which basically obligated respondent to construct a canopy. 102 Elmont Realty Corp. v. Berikal, Inc., 2006 NY Slip Op. 50498

And this case from just last week:

Basically, the accounting entries for expensing pension obligation are: debit "Pension Expense" and credit "Pension Liability." People v. Grasso, et al., 2006 NY Slip Op. 52019
 
Loss Leader said:
That's your entire argument? An insult? Not a single word disputing a single fact that I laid out? Not even a hint that judges could be bought or that the entire legal fight was just for show? Not even an insult about lawyers in general? Just that I am not credible because I'm pretending to be a lawyer, your proof being that I used the word "basically." It must be very sad in your head.
Click to expand...

Why don't you post a picture of yourself with one of those wigs on - that would be enough proof for most CTists.
 
qarnos said:
Why don't you post a picture of yourself with one of those wigs on - that would be enough proof for most CTists.
Click to expand...
Lawyers in the USA do not wear them.

Neither do judges.

Of course I'm assuming that he is observant enough to notice where LossLeader is from.
 
CptColumbo said:
Lawyers in the USA do not wear them.

Neither do judges.

Of course I'm assuming that he is observant enough to notice where LossLeader is from.
Click to expand...

Unless they rebuilt the Old York.:rolleyes:

Edit: You know what? I take that back because I just heard a guy on a sport radio show complain about all of the Overseas NFL games that will be in Mexico and Canada next year. Ignorance is just sad at times. :(
 
Last edited:
CptColumbo said:
Lawyers in the USA do not wear them.

Neither do judges.

Of course I'm assuming that he is observant enough to notice where LossLeader is from.
Click to expand...

I think they should though, perhaps LL could start wearing one in court.
I think its a trend that might catch on.
 
qarnos said:
Why don't you post a picture of yourself with one of those wigs on - that would be enough proof for most CTists.
Click to expand...

Don't think I don't want to - powdered wig and a big, black coat, gripping the lapels and strutting around like John Cleese in a Monty Python sketch where the witness has to knock on the coffin to prove he's dead.
 
CptColumbo said:
Lawyers in the USA do not wear them.

Neither do judges.

Of course I'm assuming that he is observant enough to notice where LossLeader is from.
Click to expand...

Thankfully, the wigs were abandoned in Canada long ago. :)

We still wear the robes and waistcoats, though, when appearing in certain levels of court (not in certain levels of courts of first instance, but everything from Superior Court on up, basically)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom