Replies to post #77025 on RCC Holdings Corp fka RCCH

[frogdreaming]

The reason it keeps coming up is because you don't understand what is going on.

Not really sure why Case UDRS902827
- MICHAEL G. RADEMAKER -V- RCC HOLDINGS
keeps getting brought back up. Afterall, I previously posted the outcome, which was "SATISFIED" on October 16, 2009.

Nothing was 'satisfied' on October 16 except the "Writ of Possession".

10/16/2009 WRIT OF POSSESSION RETURNED FROM SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY WRIT RETURNED SATISFIED WITH ADDED COSTS OF $ 125.00.

A writ of possession is a legal precept directing a sheriff to put a person, in peaceable possession of property recovered, in ejectment.

It was 'satisfied' on October 16 by the Sheriff, when he threw Gene out on the street with the additional cost of $125.00.

The award of damages to the landlord has not yet been satisfied as evidenced by the landlord himself.

Trying to hide behind legal jargon and court proceedings is only a workable tactic if you understand the jargon yourself. LOL

[doughboy2]

It is being brought up again because your understanding of legalese is incorrect.

The judgment HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED.

I spoke with Radamaker on October 29th, 2009 and he confirmed to me that it has not been paid.

You have no verifiable link proving that the JUDGMENT has been satisfied.