Phil refuses to answer virtually any questions about the case including information that is public.
I think I've been quite liberal in my discussion of public information. I'm not going to talk here about discussions with my attorney.
Originally Posted by
pmocek
Originally Posted by
Boggie Dog
Pmocek, is it wise to hash this out here before your court date?
I don't intend to hash anything out. I can't stop other people from discussing public information, and I'm comfortable posting, as I have, information that anyone could receive by filing a public disclosure request or by querying the court's Web site.
As I've repeatedly stated, I'm not ready to talk about my personal experience. To avoid any confusion over this, I'm going to bow out at this point.
I'll provide updates as I'm able.
Originally Posted by
ND Sol
Phil is just providing info he has received through discovery
The information I posted was received in response to public disclosure requests.
Originally Posted by
ND Sol
I know that Phil can answer on his own, but from what I have read, Phil is just providing info he has received through discovery and the language of the laws he has been charged with violating. By providing that info, we can act as back benchers and discuss the aspects of his case. Perhaps he might even find a nugget or two from our discussions.
Regarding the public disclosure materials, see posts
585 and
590.