Centennial law Offices Debt Relief Help

  • +7
    anon replies to Reply
    It's not hard to conclude you're Mr. Amador.  Dummy.
  • +7
    Nondeplume
    | 2 replies
    I find it amusing that he only threatened a few here and not all. Having gone back over all the posts here, seems to me others have said far worse then the ones he has threatened, an action which I must say, isn't making him look good at all. Could the person he names actually be tango one or is it all wind? We have no proof Tango One is actually the person he claims he sued. After all, how many people are likely to use the same ID on many many forums? Did he get the IP for this person here and was it the same everywhere? Many many questions abound. We may never know the real answers to..

    What I do know is that Mr. Amador has done himself no favors here sadly.
  • +7
    anon replies to Nondeplume
    | 1 reply
    Exactly.  I see nothing that he could remotely point to and say it's "defamation" from the one's he's threatened.  Way to give yourself a black eye, Mr. Amador!
  • +6
    CelticDragon replies to CENTENNIAL LAW
    Threatening to get my IP? Yeah...TOS violation there. I only post as myself, but you are the one who will be going bye-bye, not me. Besides, you have to go through the owner of the website, and Ms. Julia doesn't take kindly to threats.
  • +7
    Nondeplume replies to anon
    Definitely a doozy of a shiner he's got going on there for sure!
  • +9
    paul replies to CENTENNIAL LAW
    | 12 replies
    Here's some more info on the defamation suit from the Ventura .courts.ca.gov/via.html right from court records.   Apparently there is some problem with making good service on the defendant.  


    CASE INFO from http://www.ventura.courts.ca.gov/via.html.

    CASE REPORT:  
    Case Title:  Robert Amador vs. Ray Thompson
    Case Category: Civil- Unlimited
    Case Type:  Defamation
    Filing Date:  8/14/2013
    Case Status:  Pending
    Location Ventura


    FUTURE EVENTS:

    Event Type:     MANDATORY APPEARANCE CMC/Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions/Dismissal for Failure to File Proof of Service.    

    Event Description:    -none-
    Event Status:    Scheduled
    Event Date:    6/6/2014
    Event Time:    8:15am
    Location:  Ventura    
    Department: 22B


    PAST EVENTS:

    Event Type:     MANDATORY APPEARANCE CMC/Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions/Dismissal for Failure to File Proof of Service.    

    Event Description:    -none-
    Event Status:    Scheduled
    Event Date:    4/11/2014
    Event Time:    8:15am
    Location:  Ventura    
    Department: 22B


    Event Type:     MANDATORY APPEARANCE CMC/Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions/Dismissal for Failure to File Proof of Service.    

    Event Description:    -none-
    Event Status:    Rescheduled
    Event Date:    3/10/2014
    Event Time:    8:15am
    Location:  Ventura    
    Department: 22B

    Event Type:     MANDATORY APPEARANCE CMC/Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions/Dismissal for Failure to File Proof of Service.    

    Event Description:    -none-
    Event Status:    Rescheduled
    Event Date:    1/17/2014
    Event Time:    8:15am
    Location:  Ventura    
    Department: 22B

    The plaintiff has apparently  repeatedly attempted to submit  substituted service re the "Proof of Service of 30-day Summons & Complaint,"  But the court keeps rejecting his submissions.  

    If you want to see the whole "Register of Actions," go to http://www.ventura.courts.ca.gov/via.html and type in the case number.
  • +8
    Paul replies to paul
    Sorry, forgot to include the case number:  56-2013-00440556
  • +9
    darkshado
    Wonder if Mr. Amadork knows Defective Ronnie?
  • -12
    U9V4 replies to paul
    | 10 replies
    I wonder why people are stupid enough to defame someone in the first place, especially a law firm.  You would think some bells would go off in their head.  Just this month on Yahoo news articles there was another crazy person defaming their physician and got sued for over $100,000 like this guy did here.  Any illegal activity is of course wrong  but I can see the logic behind crimes for profit.  Defamation is not motivated by profit but I suppose spite or jealousy.
  • +10
    D'oh replies to U9V4
    Just curious - where is the spite or jealousy - or defamation??
  • +10
    darkshado replies to U9V4
    | 1 reply
    It isn't defamatory if it's true.
  • +6
    CelticDragon replies to darkshado
    Exactly...and besides, I wouldn't use a law office that had a P.O. Box anyways!
  • +6
    Tamianth replies to U9V4
    As Anon said above once before. >>>It's not hard to conclude you're Mr. Amador.<<<
    In agreement with Darkshado here also. And if a person would say it to your face, being their opinion and how they personally feel, its not libel either..
    Touche` Monsieur.. take a walk, the doors that way --->

    PS: Stop with the alias screen id's, you fail epically at trying to hide behind them.
  • +5
    heywood jablomy
    | 1 reply
    "WAAH! YER JUST JELLUS"... sounds like the whine of a One Direction fangirl.
  • +5
    Nondeplume replies to heywood jablomy
    Shall we serve some cheese with that whine?

Reply to topic