(10-05-2021 01:03 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-05-2021 12:27 PM)pesik Wrote:  so your point is we should ignore obvious misdeeds if it doesnt affect us personally???

you also twisted what mark did.. he bumpd this thread last night braggin the UC had won becuase the case was dropped..then said what i posted would age horribly
.. and later stated somethng about claims that wasnt clear (i think he was trying to state it had been refilled but in a shady way to not be able to tell the meaning, so his earlier post still had validility)

I responded last night that i googled and he was refilling and the dismissal meant nothing...in the MORNING AFTER mark edited his claims post to more clearly state that an identical case had been refilled

also zero people 0% would repsond with "good call"...after a bad attempt at a call out...

WTF? You just like to lie about everything sometimes to make yourself look good.

This was my first post about it. There was no editing involved:

(10-04-2021 09:11 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Brannen has dismissed all claims against uc, Cunningham and Pinto. It's without prejudice so it doesn't have to be the end but hopefully this ends that saga.

Also posted on twitter prior to posting on here and said this could mean he'd be refiling in another court.

I did modify one post to change the court, when it was noted Brannen had refiled I assumed it was Common Pleas, but it was actually Court of Claims...I changed Common Pleas to Court of Claims in my post.

i clearly wasnt referring to your first post.. but the post you edited this morning that more clearly stated the case had been re-filed. that wasn't clearly stated last night

im confused
" edited his claims post to more clearly state that an identical case had been refilled""
what indication about that insinuates the 1st post????