|
|
Post by BadCompany on Feb 11, 2004 8:31:48 GMT -5
Tsk, tsk, tsk, Mr. Bozo. Very unlike you to leave a story hanging like that, especially when the ending is known... Alert ! Alert! Breaking news.....! Ron Hainsey tells it all (La Presse) about the $11 000 law suit against him! The lease for his appartment in Quebec was automatically renewed... then the farm team moved from Quebec to Hamilton. Bottom line, he paid for every month he was there. We rented our house last year and one of the tenants got caught the same way. Since we are not the "greedy" type, we let her go and lost a bit of money in the process but quickly found someone else to replace her. That owner in Quebec is "legally" right but... And Hainsey did not fail to appear before a judge, his lawyer appeared for him. There is nothing that says he has to be there. TQS ran with a story, without ever speaking to Hainsey about it. In short, they only reported one side (makes for a more sensationlistic story). One could argue that is what you are doing here...  |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Feb 11, 2004 9:20:24 GMT -5
And Hainsey did not fail to appear before a judge, his lawyer appeared for him. There is nothing that says he has to be there. That he was represented in court was made clear in the article I quoted on the previous page of this thread: "Yesterday, in front of the Régie du logement, Hainsey was represented by Jacques Blanchard, a lawyer for the Canadiens. The case was deferred to next month. Hainsey was said to be unaware the situation, according to TQS. There could be an amicable setlement in the next few days, according to the television network." One could accuse you of disingenuousness.  There is nothing to indicate that TQS did not attempt to contact Hainsey. In fact the following excerpt from the article referred to above suggests that they did at least attempt to do so: "Hainsey was said to be unaware the situation, according to TQS." However, whether TQS was stonewalled by Hainsey, on the advice of his lawyer or not, is not at issue here. What I found disquieting (in conjunction with other reports of the young man's behaviour) was the following: "Again, according to TQS, Hainsey ignored the many notices of lease renewal and left Quebec without paying, also leaving the apartment in a lamentable state. "The cleaning lady found used condoms on the floor", said Mr. Thibodeau, owner of the building and a Saint-Georges de Beauce businessman. In April 2002, Hainsey gave an $1850 rubber check to the owner. "It bounced. I called his father, who said to me that the problem would be solved. I haven't heard anything since. That's more than a year ago and I was never paid", added Mr. Thibodeau, on TQS." Sensationalism? Perhaps. Yet this is just one in a series of anecdotal references which point at the very least to a degree of immaturity that if not overcome could easily become unsustainable by a professional organization. Let's hope young Ron straightens out and flies right. He has the talent to significantly help the Habs. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Feb 11, 2004 9:39:00 GMT -5
That he was represented in court was made clear in the article I quoted on the previous page of this thread: "Yesterday, in front of the Régie du logement, Hainsey was represented by Jacques Blanchard, a lawyer for the Canadiens. The case was deferred to next month. Hainsey was said to be unaware the situation, according to TQS. And made unclear by your previous post: Judge Judy is a real judge, as is the one Hainsey failed to appear in front of in a Québec City court when required to answer his ex-landlord's claim for rent owing. There is nothing to indicate that TQS did not attempt to contact Hainsey. In fact the following excerpt from the article referred to above suggests that they did at least attempt to do so: "Hainsey was said to be unaware the situation, according to TQS." Mr. Bozo citing a Journal de Montreal article citing a TQS article that states Hainsey is said to be unaware... Sounds like a pretty good game of telephone tag, to me. "Again, according to TQS, Hainsey ignored the many notices of lease renewal and left Quebec without paying, also leaving the apartment in a lamentable state. "The cleaning lady found used condoms on the floor", said Mr. Thibodeau, owner of the building and a Saint-Georges de Beauce businessman. In April 2002, Hainsey gave an $1850 rubber check to the owner. "It bounced. I called his father, who said to me that the problem would be solved. I haven't heard anything since. That's more than a year ago and I was never paid", added Mr. Thibodeau, on TQS." More telephone tag, except this time we are quoting the alleged wrong party, who has nothing to gain by painting Hainsey in a rosy light. Sensationalism? Perhaps. Yet this is just one in a series of anecdotal references which point at the very least to a degree of immaturity that if not overcome could easily become unsustainable by a professional organization. You're darn right its sensationism. And the fact that we subsequently heard nothing about it, even though Hainsey's second court appearance was supposed to have happened months ago leads me to believe that the media rode the story for as long as they could, and when it turned out to be minor, and rather blasé, with no lurid sex tales, bloody murders, or spoiled rich kids, they quietly let it die. Let's hope young Ron straightens out and flies right. He has the talent to significantly help the Habs. Indeed he does. But as Doc Holiday pointed out, he seems to be in a situation, like many a young Hab prospect before him, where nothing he does or says is ever seen in a positive light. Maybe we should start booing him? |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Feb 11, 2004 11:50:32 GMT -5
... That's the way yah do it. ... yah play your guitar on the MTV. ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Feb 11, 2004 14:49:10 GMT -5
Maybe we should start booing him? ...that way Gainey can project his wrath on the paying fans again rather than on the poor millionaire... Hey, it worked before |
|
