We would like to take this opportunity to provide our readers with a detailed explanation surrounding the absence of phone books since 2008. It is important to shed light on the events that transpired, which ultimately led to the court case and its outcome. We aim to present a fair and comprehensive account of the situation. It is unfortunate that John Newton and the people
This absence of a telephone directory goes against the policy mandates of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is the licensing authority under which ASTCA is allowed to operate its telephone service. The present Contract, which has a termination date of December 1, 2015, has been made impossible to perform even in part due to the defendant’s continued refusal to supply Plaintiff with its subscriber
After meeting with JD, Newton agreed to take on the task of producing future directories. Newton insisted that a new contract must be provided for these future directories. In-house counsel, Gwen Langkilde, was asked, in March of 2010, to prepare a draft agreement to facilitate the publication of the telephone directories.
The notes pointed out inconsistencies and potential contradictions in Gwen’s testimonies, particularly regarding accuracy requirements and responsibilities for the General Information section. The court’s acceptance of Gwen’s version of facts in the MOU was criticized, and there were claims of misunderstandings and obfuscations throughout her testimony. Additionally, it was emphasized that Newton’s proposed contract was never executed, rendering those discussions irrelevant to the case.
An Arbitrary Rule Set by Kruse for this Trial In a pretrial hearing, Kruse ordered that Gwen Langkilde would not appear at trial because she is a sitting judge and for her to be questioned in open court would be a bad image. Kruse required Gwen’s testimony to be given by way of deposition. Normally, a deposition is an opportunity for parties in a civil
This response to the Opinion and Order of 6/27/23 criticizes the document, highlighting various errors and omissions. It argues that the court did not adequately review the trial or supporting exhibits and questions the judge’s understanding of the case. The response disputes derogatory remarks about the time lapsed in the litigation and asserts that the delays were not caused by the plaintiff.
The response discusses
The basis for this motion is that this Court erred in its decision when it found the contract to be unenforceable due to the parties’ failure to “agree upon a delivery date for ASTCA’s subscriber listings.” It is Plaintiff’s position that despite the ambiguity of the language of the contract, the Parties understood their obligations under the contract and the urgent nature of the information
Filing the Notice of Appeal. An appeal permitted by law as of right from the trial division, the land and titles division, or the district court to the appellate division shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the clerk of court within the time allowed by 4 ACR. Failure of an appellant to take any step other than the timely filing of
Appellant John Newton, dba Pago Pago Consultants, appeals the Trial Division’s dismissal of his breach of contract claim against ASTCA. The appeal challenges the court’s ruling that the 2010 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was not an enforceable contract due to the absence of a written mutually agreed upon start date. Newton argues that this interpretation is both legally and factually incorrect, as performance under the
