Can you understand this? - CSRNation2024-03-28T10:08:59Zhttp://csrnation.ning.com/forum/topics/can-you-understand-this?feed=yes&xn_auth=noI do hear "revelation of -- s…tag:csrnation.ning.com,2013-06-04:1736041:Comment:12718402013-06-04T21:08:54.850ZRhonda Hall Breuwet, RDR CRR CLRhttp://csrnation.ning.com/profile/RhondaHallBreuwetRMRCRR
<p>I do hear "revelation of -- subject to the attorney-client matters." Don't hear the "privileged" in there, though.</p>
<p>I do hear "revelation of -- subject to the attorney-client matters." Don't hear the "privileged" in there, though.</p> I do not think it sounds like…tag:csrnation.ning.com,2013-06-04:1736041:Comment:12719962013-06-04T12:39:18.369ZJaniece Younghttp://csrnation.ning.com/profile/JanieceYYoung
<p>I do not think it sounds like what he suggests at all.</p>
<p>I do not think it sounds like what he suggests at all.</p> It's just funny the way peopl…tag:csrnation.ning.com,2013-06-04:1736041:Comment:12720852013-06-04T01:19:27.054ZAlice Clarkhttp://csrnation.ning.com/profile/AliceClark
<p>It's just funny the way people hear what they expect to hear. That's not what the Judge said, but it could be what he was thinking he said and could have been what the attorneys heard because it was what they would expect him to say. If I hear from him, I'll add one last postscript here.</p>
<p>It's just funny the way people hear what they expect to hear. That's not what the Judge said, but it could be what he was thinking he said and could have been what the attorneys heard because it was what they would expect him to say. If I hear from him, I'll add one last postscript here.</p> Agree wholeheartedly, Quyen.…tag:csrnation.ning.com,2013-06-04:1736041:Comment:12719942013-06-04T01:12:17.935ZMary Ann Payonkhttp://csrnation.ning.com/profile/MaryAnnPayonkCSRRDRCCPCBC
<p>Agree wholeheartedly, Quyen.</p>
<p>M.A.</p>
<p>Agree wholeheartedly, Quyen.</p>
<p>M.A.</p> NO . . . WAY. He's WRONG. Un…tag:csrnation.ning.com,2013-06-03:1736041:Comment:12720832013-06-03T23:14:19.621ZQuyenhttp://csrnation.ning.com/profile/QuyenNDo
<p>NO . . . WAY. He's WRONG. Unless he's actually the attorney who said it. Not in a milllion years. Even if he is the attorney who said it, it doesn't sound anything like what he said it's supposed to be. But, hey . . . if I were you, at this point, I'd be beyond the point of caring.</p>
<p>NO . . . WAY. He's WRONG. Unless he's actually the attorney who said it. Not in a milllion years. Even if he is the attorney who said it, it doesn't sound anything like what he said it's supposed to be. But, hey . . . if I were you, at this point, I'd be beyond the point of caring.</p> This is actually not even pho…tag:csrnation.ning.com,2013-06-03:1736041:Comment:12718322013-06-03T23:09:27.460ZAlice Clarkhttp://csrnation.ning.com/profile/AliceClark
<p>This is actually not even phonetically close. I haven't heard back from the Judge, but emailed one of the attorneys just in case I didn't get an answer from him. This makes much more sense even though I don't hear it (I would use the acronym for hitting my head on my desk if there was one). I am so happy that I don't have to transcribe tapes because telephonic hearings are almost the same:</p>
<p><strong>It should be subject to redaction for the revelation of <em>attorney-client…</em></strong></p>
<p>This is actually not even phonetically close. I haven't heard back from the Judge, but emailed one of the attorneys just in case I didn't get an answer from him. This makes much more sense even though I don't hear it (I would use the acronym for hitting my head on my desk if there was one). I am so happy that I don't have to transcribe tapes because telephonic hearings are almost the same:</p>
<p><strong>It should be subject to redaction for the revelation of <em>attorney-client privileged matters</em>, and I’m also…</strong></p> I'm probably too late for the…tag:csrnation.ning.com,2013-06-03:1736041:Comment:12720802013-06-03T20:08:48.882ZDebbie Taggarthttp://csrnation.ning.com/profile/DebbieTaggart
<p>I'm probably too late for the party here, but I hear: ...no, nothing to redact for the revelation of substantive agreed plant matters. </p>
<p>I'm probably too late for the party here, but I hear: ...no, nothing to redact for the revelation of substantive agreed plant matters. </p> Re-plan???
tag:csrnation.ning.com,2013-06-03:1736041:Comment:12718252013-06-03T17:38:18.536ZRosalie DeLeonardishttp://csrnation.ning.com/profile/RosalieHenshall
<p>Re-plan??? </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Re-plan??? </p>
<p> </p> I think it would kind of make…tag:csrnation.ning.com,2013-06-02:1736041:Comment:12720712013-06-02T22:10:52.805ZQuyenhttp://csrnation.ning.com/profile/QuyenNDo
<p>I think it would kind of make sense if their development ripped out plant habitation near the creek.</p>
<p>I think it would kind of make sense if their development ripped out plant habitation near the creek.</p> Well, if it has to do with la…tag:csrnation.ning.com,2013-06-02:1736041:Comment:12719792013-06-02T18:16:24.324ZJaniece Younghttp://csrnation.ning.com/profile/JanieceYYoung
<p>Well, if it has to do with land, could it be "plat" matters as in a plat of ground?</p>
<p>Well, if it has to do with land, could it be "plat" matters as in a plat of ground?</p>