Results 191 to 199 of 199
-
12-25-2013, 12:24 AM #191
Re: Tom Knight's Interrogatories
The taxpayers deserve a refund from his crappy legal services.
-
12-25-2013, 02:20 AM #192
Re: Tom Knight's Interrogatories
TOM KNIGHT HERE IS MY XMAS WISH TO YOU !! GO F YOURSELF YOU SHORT POWER HUNGRY PRIK...O AND HAPPY NEW YEAR YOU F-HEAD...MERRY MO FO XMAS :devil: :devil:
-
12-25-2013, 04:40 AM #193
Re: Tom Knight's Interrogatories
Originally Posted by HOMEY IS BAK
-
12-25-2013, 05:33 AM #194
Re: Tom Knight's Interrogatories
Originally Posted by HOMEY IS BAK
-
12-25-2013, 03:16 PM #195
Re: Tom Knight's Interrogatories
And my xmas wish to you leave whizz at the door. Many to take your place. Good riddance. He will be here longer than you loll
-
12-25-2013, 05:07 PM #196
Re: Tom Knight's Interrogatories
[quote=all rise]
Originally Posted by "ho ho ho":2vjpwe7m
Sgt. Bob Graham was wrongfully fired by Mr. Tom Knight. As a result of Mr. nights wrongful termination, the BOCC awarded Sgt. Graham A half million to a million dollars. Whatever the exact amount was, it was a lot of money. And it's all due to Tom Knights negligence and incompetence. Case closed.
The next court case to be heard is the Knight/Iorio case. And the court room is the perfect place for the facts of that case to be laid out in the open because Knight cannot manipulate the court system. Case closed.
Everybody is watching this court case. :cop:
-
12-25-2013, 08:14 PM #197
Re: Tom Knight's Interrogatories
[quote=Guest][quote=Wrong yet again]
Originally Posted by "all rise":un1tjrsc
Graham wasn't "awarded" anything. Some county wonk with no backbone decided to "settle out of court" to avoid legal fees to fight for what was right. If it went to court, the SSO would have won. :shock:
The amount was NOT $700,000. The amount was $597,593.00, with payment by the County, in the amount of $357,593.00; and with payment by Ace Insurance Company, in the amount of $240,000.00.
Based on Court decisions, Graham would NOT have won at trial:
Example:
" Conclusion
"Sheriff Knight's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 23) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Sergeant Graham's motion to strike Sheriff Knight's expert (Doc. 33) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Sergeant Graham may object at trial or submit a motion in limine. The clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Sheriff Knight and against Sergeant Graham on Counts V and VI."
Well researched and explained!!!!!!
Thank You.[/quote:un1tjrsc]
Ditto.
-
12-25-2013, 08:55 PM #198
Re: Tom Knight's Interrogatories
Originally Posted by Knight/Iorio Case
-
12-25-2013, 11:11 PM #199
Re: Tom Knight's Interrogatories
The Graham lawsuit almost flew under the radar until someone posted it here. The Iorio case never had a chance to fly under the radar because it was front page news from day one. Its good that the public gets to follow this case to ensure that Knights dirty deeds and dirty tactics are swept under the carpet and away from public disclosure. Knight has a tremendous amount of heartburn and hatred right now.
Bookmarks