Researching any info re: Paul Cunningham, Competition Cobra privateer

[mrmustang]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

I will guess the investigator you were working with was named Richard ********. If that is correct, you were right to believe he is no longer with us. He is the same individual who said he was working with the FBI and sent us a totally incorrect history of 2049 that made it into the 2008 Registry before we learned he was full of $#!+. He had a brain tumor that his doctor said had rendered critical thought impossible for many years. He left a wonderful trail of lies for SAAC to try and undo for years to come.

Ah yes, C-r-a-n-f-o-r-d not an expert in any sense of the word. I'm sorry for the OP if that is who he was relying on when he started this thread.

Bill S.

[USC_COWBOY]

Ned, I will be obtaining a copy of the Wessellink v. Kress case.

In the meantime, who were the Experts that gave testimony as to the correctness of the frame? What was their testimony and court finding?

Why not start sharing as I will when I get my copy. As Registrar, I would think you would want the SAAC followers to be properly educated regarding CSX2049.

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by USC_COWBOY

Ned, I will be obtaining a copy of the Wessellink v. Kress case.

In the meantime, who were the Experts that gave testimony as to the correctness of the frame? What was their testimony and court finding?

Why not start sharing as I will when I get my copy. As Registrar, I would think you would want the SAAC followers to be properly educated regarding CSX2049.

Michael,

I am not a lawyer, but the thought occurs to me that if you, Ned or even me needs to pay to get a copy of these court documents, once you have paid the appropriate someone for these documents, are you allowed to just publish those documents publicly for anyone to read on the internet?

Perhaps patrickt would know.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by 1ntCobra

Perhaps patrickt would know.

He doesn't, but he's going to send you a big-ass bill nonetheless. If Ned can help him, he should just share the information with him and ask him to use good judgment and discretion. On the other hand, if he's not then he should just come out and say it and we can close the thread.

[USC_COWBOY]

Originally Posted by 1ntCobra

Michael,

I am not a lawyer, but the thought occurs to me that if you, Ned or even me needs to pay to get a copy of these court documents, once you have paid the appropriate someone for these documents, are you allowed to just publish those documents publicly for anyone to read on the internet?

Perhaps patrickt would know.

I am not going to publish for all, it will provide details that we have already been discussing, but without factual documents.

Topical discussions and not what ifs, not the entire, cover to cover, document. I am looking forward to the rational discussions, not emotional tirades, simply debate.

[Nedsel]

Originally Posted by USC_COWBOY

Ned, I will be obtaining a copy of the Wessellink v. Kress case.

In the meantime, who were the Experts that gave testimony as to the correctness of the frame? What was their testimony and court finding?

Why not start sharing as I will when I get my copy. As Registrar, I would think you would want the SAAC followers to be properly educated regarding CSX2049.

If I had that information, I would likely share it. But it's not in the material I have.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

If I had that information, I would likely share it. But it's not in the material I have.

Why not just send him a list of what you have and put the list in two categories, one that you're willing to share with him and the other not? Or, you could make him play "guess what's under my hat" and you only send him something after he guesses that you have it and it's something you are willing to share with him.

[USC_COWBOY]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

If I had that information, I would likely share it. But it's not in the material I have.

To bad Ned. I guess you will get a lot of new documentation for the CSX2049 history when I release it as part of this discussion thread.

Wouldn't it be better for you, the Registrar of SAAC to educate the followers rather than have a nobody like me bring such strong documentation to the group.

IMHO, best for you to educate than me. Just saying, it's only public information after all.

[Nedsel]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Why not just send him a list of what you have and put the list in two categories, one that you're willing to share with him and the other not? Or, you could make him play "guess what's under my hat" and you only send him something after he guesses that you have it and it's something you are willing to share with him.

Better idea: why don't you go piss up a rope?

[Nedsel]

Originally Posted by USC_COWBOY

To bad Ned. I guess you will get a lot of new documentation for the CSX2049 history when I release it as part of this discussion thread.

Wouldn't it be better for you, the Registrar of SAAC to educate the followers rather than have a nobody like me bring such strong documentation to the group.

IMHO, best for you to educate than me. Just saying, it's only public information after all.

Maybe I am hallucinating, but I do not recall ANY documentation, much less STRONG documentation, beyond claims that your stepfather must have owned the car.

[USC_COWBOY]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

Better idea: why don't you go piss up a rope?

Why so nasty? I have purposely kept my side civil but passionate.

[USC_COWBOY]

This is an open request to followers on this discussion thread.

If anyone has a copy of the court case Wesselink v. Kress please open it up and let's start an open discussion regarding it. It might just be illuminating.

PS/I am awaiting the response from the court on my end, anxious to read its contents, maybe nothing, maybe revealing. JMHO

[USC_COWBOY]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

If I had that information, I would likely share it. But it's not in the material I have.

Please post what you know, open up the discussion, I did that regarding my frame pieces and posted the results of my inquiry from AC Cars, even though it didn't help my cause.

I say again, why not be in front of the discussion rather than having someone with less status than you bringing it to light, for all to see?

BTW, I would gladly piss up a rope if it would help this investigative discussion.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by USC_COWBOY

Please post what you know, open up the discussion, I did that regarding my frame pieces and posted the results of my inquiry from AC Cars, even though it didn't help my cause.

I say again, why not be in front of the discussion rather than having someone with less status than you bringing it to light, for all to see?

BTW, I would gladly piss up a rope if it would help this investigative discussion.

I'm done beating around the bush.

What are you trying to accomplish?

State it in three sentences or less.

[Buzz]

Originally Posted by USC_COWBOY

Why so nasty? I have purposely kept my side civil but passionate.

You do realise that wasn't directed at you, right?
I see no reason to be antagonistic or accusatory towards Ned - he's been very up-front and candid throughout this discussion. It's best to maintain a collaborative relationship lest we lose his valuable participation, especially if there is in fact some new, pertinent information that you (or anybody else) can bring to light.

[Nedsel]

Originally Posted by USC_COWBOY

Please post what you know, open up the discussion, I did that regarding my frame pieces and posted the results of my inquiry from AC Cars, even though it didn't help my cause.

I say again, why not be in front of the discussion rather than having someone with less status than you bringing it to light, for all to see?

BTW, I would gladly piss up a rope if it would help this investigative discussion.

I have posted what we know about CSX 2049 in both the SAAC printed and Cobra Experience online Registries, and have provided snapshots here. The details you demand to know about have nothing to do with CSX 2049 relative to its legitimate ownership back in the '60s, which is the crux of the issue being discussed in this thread. Rather, the 1992 legal papers you want to see relate to the theft of the 2049 chassis from a warehouse in Long Beach in the late '70s. Until or unless you can offer valid evidence to show that Cunningham's ownership of the car was violated prior to this theft, I am not aware how this particular case is in any way relevant to your cause.

[USC_COWBOY]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

I'm done beating around the bush.

What are you trying to accomplish?

State it in three sentences or less.

How about in three words?

Correct the history!

[USC_COWBOY]

Originally Posted by Buzz

You do realise that wasn't directed at you, right?
I see no reason to be antagonistic or accusatory towards Ned - he's been very up-front and candid throughout this discussion. It's best to maintain a collaborative relationship lest we lose his valuable participation, especially if there is in fact some new, pertinent information that you (or anybody else) can bring to light.

At first I thought that I was the target. Then realized it was aimed at another. Bottom line is that should not be the type of response to be given to anyone participating in this discussion forum.

[Buzz]

Patrick was having fun taking pokes at Ned and got exactly the response he was hoping for.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Buzz

Patrick was having fun taking pokes at Ned and got exactly the response he was hoping for.

No, but your post makes me miss ERAchas.