Ken Parks and his ETC Ministries
Posted by:
Sojourn
()
Date: July 22, 2005 10:43PM
A web site exists at www.ministrywarning.com about Ken Parks and his ETC Ministries.
People can read through it and make their own decision about Ken Parks and his ETC Ministries.
People can read through it and make their own decision about Ken Parks and his ETC Ministries.
Ken Parks and his ETC Ministries
Posted by:
barrickrevealed
()
Date: January 24, 2007 11:49AM
The libelous and defamatory website of Paulette Buchanan has been responded to in [www.paulettebuchananlies.com]
Ken Parks is considering filing a Federal libel law suit against defendants, Paulette Buchanan, Scott Buchanan, Michael Barrick, Jason Saine, et al.
Ken Parks is considering filing a Federal libel law suit against defendants, Paulette Buchanan, Scott Buchanan, Michael Barrick, Jason Saine, et al.
Ken Parks and his ETC Ministries
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: January 24, 2007 09:32PM
barrickrevealed:
"Considering"?
How long has Ken Parks been considering?
The anti-Parks site has been up for some time.
Wasn't a lawsuit already filed by Ken Parks and then dismissed in Gwinnett County Superior Court?
See [www.paulettebuchananlies.com]
Whose the "loser"?
When a lawsuit is filed and then it's dismissed it is typically the plaintiff that is considered the loser not the defendant.
Seems like Parks should be carefully "considering" filing another lawsuit, since he has already lost one.
"Considering"?
How long has Ken Parks been considering?
The anti-Parks site has been up for some time.
Wasn't a lawsuit already filed by Ken Parks and then dismissed in Gwinnett County Superior Court?
See [www.paulettebuchananlies.com]
Whose the "loser"?
When a lawsuit is filed and then it's dismissed it is typically the plaintiff that is considered the loser not the defendant.
Seems like Parks should be carefully "considering" filing another lawsuit, since he has already lost one.
Ken Parks and his ETC Ministries
Posted by:
barrickrevealed
()
Date: January 27, 2007 08:06AM
Just read into [www.paulettebuchananlies.com]
You'll see what's been going on since Paulette Buchanan and Scott Buchanan were Court ordered to pay their legal fees of more than $4,800.00.
The Buchanans filed a "Motion For Attorney Fees" and that is where they lost badly. :wink:
The next case may very well be filed in a REAL Court instead of the Kangaroo Courts of Gwinnett County. Compilation of evidence is overwhelming in favor of the plaintiff of the next Ken Parks v. Paulette Buchanan, et al.
Unless of course you think the Buchanan's are God's perfect little angles. :twisted:
You'll see what's been going on since Paulette Buchanan and Scott Buchanan were Court ordered to pay their legal fees of more than $4,800.00.
The Buchanans filed a "Motion For Attorney Fees" and that is where they lost badly. :wink:
The next case may very well be filed in a REAL Court instead of the Kangaroo Courts of Gwinnett County. Compilation of evidence is overwhelming in favor of the plaintiff of the next Ken Parks v. Paulette Buchanan, et al.
Unless of course you think the Buchanan's are God's perfect little angles. :twisted:
Ken Parks and his ETC Ministries
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: January 27, 2007 09:44PM
barrickrevealed:
You are attempting to ignore the fact that Ken Parks lost his lawsuit, which was dismissed by the judge and never went to trial.
It is not unusual for a judge to refuse to order a plaintiff to pay for the legal fees of a defendant, because he or she lost their lawsuit.
Typically, each party pays its own costs and fees.
Parks still lost and paid for whatever costs he had.
You are attempting to ignore the fact that Ken Parks lost his lawsuit, which was dismissed by the judge and never went to trial.
It is not unusual for a judge to refuse to order a plaintiff to pay for the legal fees of a defendant, because he or she lost their lawsuit.
Typically, each party pays its own costs and fees.
Parks still lost and paid for whatever costs he had.
Ken Parks and his ETC Ministries
Posted by:
barrickrevealed
()
Date: February 10, 2007 07:05PM
[i:a63c650444]You are attempting to ignore the fact that Ken Parks lost his lawsuit, which was dismissed by the judge and never went to trial. [/i:a63c650444][/color:a63c650444]
I think you are ignoring the “fact” Parks allowed for his side of the case to be dismissed on the merit of “forgiveness.” The defendants, claiming it was “frivolous”, pursued the balance of the case. The so-called “never went to trial” is where Parks submitted evidence to prove otherwise… in other words, there was a hearing on the motion of “Attorney Fees” and that is where Parks won.
[i:a63c650444]It is not unusual for a judge to refuse to order a plaintiff to pay for the legal fees of a defendant, because he or she lost their lawsuit.[/i:a63c650444] [/color:a63c650444]
Obviously, you have never presented yourself Pro Se in Gwinnett County whereby your statement does not hold water.
[i:a63c650444]Typically, each party pays its own costs and fees.[/i:a63c650444][/color:a63c650444]
Again, you would think that would be the way things are in a “normal” Court. However, Gwinnett County operates in a totally different realm of what they consider “justice.”
[i:a63c650444]Parks still lost and paid for whatever costs he had.[/i:a63c650444][/color:a63c650444]
Parks won without a doubt and proved in a “trial hearing” that the defendants had done him wrong, libel and defamation. Hence the matter of it being so-called “frivolous” was disproved.
I think you are ignoring the “fact” Parks allowed for his side of the case to be dismissed on the merit of “forgiveness.” The defendants, claiming it was “frivolous”, pursued the balance of the case. The so-called “never went to trial” is where Parks submitted evidence to prove otherwise… in other words, there was a hearing on the motion of “Attorney Fees” and that is where Parks won.
[i:a63c650444]It is not unusual for a judge to refuse to order a plaintiff to pay for the legal fees of a defendant, because he or she lost their lawsuit.[/i:a63c650444] [/color:a63c650444]
Obviously, you have never presented yourself Pro Se in Gwinnett County whereby your statement does not hold water.
[i:a63c650444]Typically, each party pays its own costs and fees.[/i:a63c650444][/color:a63c650444]
Again, you would think that would be the way things are in a “normal” Court. However, Gwinnett County operates in a totally different realm of what they consider “justice.”
[i:a63c650444]Parks still lost and paid for whatever costs he had.[/i:a63c650444][/color:a63c650444]
Parks won without a doubt and proved in a “trial hearing” that the defendants had done him wrong, libel and defamation. Hence the matter of it being so-called “frivolous” was disproved.
Ken Parks and his ETC Ministries
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: February 10, 2007 08:42PM
barrickrevealed:
You have admitted that Parks lawsuit was dismissed and never went to trial.
That is called "losing a lawsuit."
You may attempt to spin this, but the facts remain the same.
Parks filed a lawsuite, which never made it trial.
He lost his lawsuit.
Any attempt to somehow interpret the legal facts otherwise is ridiculous.
You have admitted that Parks lawsuit was dismissed and never went to trial.
That is called "losing a lawsuit."
You may attempt to spin this, but the facts remain the same.
Parks filed a lawsuite, which never made it trial.
He lost his lawsuit.
Any attempt to somehow interpret the legal facts otherwise is ridiculous.
Ken Parks and his ETC Ministries
Posted by:
barrickrevealed
()
Date: February 12, 2007 10:37PM
Again, Parks won the "trial."Quote
rrmoderator
You may attempt to spin this, but the facts remain the same.
Parks went to "trial" against the defendants. If it didn't go to trial, then how did evidence and testimony get to a judge's ears and a decision was rendered? Parks easily won the trial. I would have to say this with all honesty, Your "spin" about there was no "trial" is "ridiculous." Parks won the "trial" as Pro Se, something of which is considered embarrassing to the court and the good ole boy comraderie of the judges/lawyers of Gwinnett County.Quote
rrmoderator
Parks filed a lawsuite, which never made it trial.
Ken Parks and his ETC Ministries
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: February 12, 2007 10:45PM
barrickrevealed:
The Parks lawsuit was dismissed as you previously admitted.
The judge made a decision regarding legal fees to be paid, which is not a "trial."
Legal fees and costs are rarely awarded to a defendant when a lawsuit is dismissed.
Are you Parks, a member of his family or ministry?
What is your interest?
The Parks lawsuit was dismissed as you previously admitted.
The judge made a decision regarding legal fees to be paid, which is not a "trial."
Legal fees and costs are rarely awarded to a defendant when a lawsuit is dismissed.
Are you Parks, a member of his family or ministry?
What is your interest?
Ken Parks and his ETC Ministries
Posted by:
barrickrevealed
()
Date: February 13, 2007 12:18AM
It's quite apparent that you edited my last posting, purposely omitting the "legal facts" and my comment about your "micro-knowledge" of the law
I provided Parks with the "legal facts" and it was his decision later on to "forgive" the Defendants, hence the dismissal of his motions.
I provided Parks with the "legal facts" and it was his decision later on to "forgive" the Defendants, hence the dismissal of his motions.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.