Again, you’re avoiding the topic at hand. I’ll be more than happy go through your list of assertions one by one to discuss the facts you have to support those assertions.
But let’s remain focused on the assertions you’ve made that we’ve been debating. One, ant this point, you would agree that the law says a judge can enter a default judgment if someone refuses to comply with discovery, correct?
Two, you asserted that Jones actually did comply with discovery orders based solely on the fact that Jones said that himself and you believed him. Correct?
And we know, from the evidence, that Jones in fact did not comply. Which means a few things:
- Your assertion that Jones complied is an example of you having your facts completely wrong
- A default judgement against Jones was entirely appropriate in this case given his egregious failure to comply
Once we’ve resolved these assertions, I’ll be more than happy to start going through your other assertions one by one.
If you're as right about this as you believe yourself to be, then this should be an exercise you welcome because it will give you a chance to vindicate yourself.
www.sports-reference.com
