Here we go again...

It seems Casey is trying to justify that he did hold up the contract with his wife. In a comment on the new incarnation of his his blog, he writes the following in relation to the original contract with his wife back in the good ol' bad days (and he provides a link to a photo of the original contract). Now, lets see what really happened:

Casey says, today:

“Shut down the blog IamFacingforeclosure.com permanently, to never be reopened again. This means all the content will be pulled down and replaced with a blank page. The domain cannot be sold and must stay registered in Casey’s ownership
indefinitely. May not start a new blog with similar theme and contents.”

Well obviously I didn’t follow this “to a T”. I believe I did better. I shut down the blog and SOLD the domain for 50K to pay off all her debt.
That’s an example of following the intent of what’s written (the spirit) instead of
following it verbatim (the law) and missing out on opportunities. One must stay flexible and not too narrow minded. If I didn’t sell the domain and following that part precisely, she would still be in debt.

And look, an example of selective editing (for want of a better term). The original contract adds that:

The domain cannot be sold and must remain in Casey's [s]posetion[/s] ownership
indefinately. [sic]

So, really, in selling the domain, he broke the contract again. And then he goes on to talk about not starting a new blog with a similar theme again:

As for the “May not start a new blog with similar theme and contents”. I explained that in the post above and previous post and comments.

So the selective editing or interpretation of his contract is incredibly selective; he literally ignored a phrase in the middle of those two clauses.

Moving on!

There's this:

She is taking me out like trash.

Well, somebody has to. Remember, Casey was not 100% successful in taking out the trash when staying at his sister-in-law's place.

Casey goes on to complain about the "wordiness" of the contract:

“Give up my laptop and cellphone for 2 years. I may not buy a new laptop,
any kind of computer or any kind of phone or PDA or borrow anybody else’s to use
for business. Personal use of borrowed equipment is OK. I may get a new phone
with a new number for personal use only.”

First, what is your impression of this thing? Its pretty wordy isn’t it. Well I think this was also sort of a weird promise because it was not being open to the possibility that some jobs may not issues you a computer. As in a contractor job, more on it next.

Aw. Poor muffin. You might have to live without a cellphone or a PDA. Lots of people do, snookums.

As for the "weird promise" bit - you agreed to it. If you thought it was "weird" why did you agree to it in the first place?

And contract language is sometimes pretty wordy as it has to be explicit in its terms in order for all concerned parties to get the most out of the contract. Deal with it.

This makes me wonder what his new contract with Damion Lupo says and how it says it. And since we're on the subject of contracts, the original agreement says in no uncertain terms:

Get a full-time W-2 job based on my skills.

Casey justifies his current (contract) employment as follows:

If you throw out the “W2″ part I’m actually following this one!
I have a stable consulting job for Foreclosure Help Book / Damion, here in Phoenix area.
Before that I looked at doing other jobs, including programming, tech, IT but there wasn’t quit a good fit for me.
What I have now is really the best option and the highest paying option for me right now.

The original agreement clearly said a W-2 job. No other jobs were a good fit (which, from the employer's perspective means: "We are running away, fast, from any ideas of hiring you because you don't fit in here." In Casey's situation, it probably means his skills don't fill an employer's need. If he actually did apply for "looser W2 jobs", which I doubt).

I have to say, I made an error above when I was talking about the PDA/cellphone thing. Casey did get rid of these toys:

Well, I did get rid of my PDA/phone and gotten a new phone with a new number.
That was mainly ‘cuz them collectors would bug me day and night and at one point
enough was enough.

He got rid of the phone and PDA because his creditors were calling. Not because there was an issue with the massive cellphone bills, but because they were disturbing his beauty sleep.

Because it was in the original agreement, it was probably an issue with him and his soon-to-be ex-wife.

In other words, Casey hasn't changed. He selectively edits, points to his interpretation of the intent of the contract rather than what it actually says, and continues to justify why he didn't stick to his end of the agreement. All in all, he shows absolutely no respect for his soon-t0-be ex-wife and deserves what he's getting from her.

Contracts. Agreements. It boils down to respect for both parties and Casey shows, as usual, he thinks only of himself.

Anyone else? Comment away.