Comments on FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Very well stated arguments.  Some possible corrections and changes...







page 2, section 7:  "lost control ..." could be changed to "inadvertently cut the arm of DULBERG"

Question:  How were the amounts $260,000 and $250,000 arrived at?



page 3, section 11:  "property" should read "properly".



page 3, section 13:  Incorrect.  MAST incorrectly informed DULBERG that the insurance policy limit for Gagnon was only $100,000, when in reality the policy limit was $300,000. (Proof:  see file 2-104.pdf in email folder).

At no time was DULBERG ever informed of the McGuires' policy terms or limits.

In addition, when MAST later gave DULBERG all documents related to his case, DUlberg noticed that the Gagnon policy information and the McGuires' policy information was not included among the files.  The medical depositions were also missing from the files.   (Much email proof of this.)




page 3, section 15:  correct.  direct quotes from file 2-207.pdf and 2-205.pdf email exchanges from file 2-208.pdf to file 2-182.pdf show clearly that DULBERG does not agree or understand why McGuires are not liable for injury.



page 3, section 16:  correct.  Direct quote from 2-201.pdf.  Extracted from the sentence:  "We don't have to accept the $5,000, but if we do not, the McGuires will get out for FREE on a motion."



page 4, section 17:  Why the quotations?  It cannot be proven that this is a direct quote, though the emails quoted above can be proven.  Not sure about the quote.  Not sure that the meeting was the day before a court appearance.

Why the statement "DULBERG would not see a dime from either case"? McGuires' and Gagnon's?  No proof of this.  Not sure of the claim.

He claimed the McGuires would be dismissed for nothing if DULBERG did not accept the offer promptly.  This can be proven through DULBERG as a witness and by his brother, THOMAS KOST, who was also present at the meeting.  The claim can also be proven through emails.




page 4, section 18:   It is written "having no choice in the matter".  This can be replaced by "feeling he had no choice in the matter".  (This is proven through the email record from file 2-208.pdf to 2-182.pdf.)  In the email exchanges he is clearly in disagreement with McGuires' liability and clearly reluctant to accept the offer.





page 4, section 20:  correct.  Proof of direct quote in file 2-180.pdf.




page 4, section 22:   correct.  Proof of direct quote is in file 2-104.pdf





page 6, section 29:  "reasonable" should read "reasonably".  "forcing" could be changed to "pressuring".




page 7, section 31 j):  correct.  Direct quote from file 2-201.pdf.