Posted On: 03/30/2016 8:08:42 AM
Post# of 7803
That lawsuit was about protecting (ahem) shareholders who were misrepresenting the current permit.
Nothing more.
In my letter I explained to Mr. Hunt, that Mr. Huffman made similar legal threats, and I wouldn't be intimidated.
They can either provide proof of the four items I mentioned or pursue legal action. It matters not to me. But they need to understand the legal ramifications of the abuse of process.
Heck, they still have NOT shown how the company was damaged in the current lawsuit. Judge Cook said they presented no competent evidence. Those were Her Honors words.
SFRX has until 5 pm tomorrow. After that all bets are off.
Funny, not one shareholder can point out "3 items" or an 80/20 being mentioned in the current permit, which has been linked.
Nothing more.
In my letter I explained to Mr. Hunt, that Mr. Huffman made similar legal threats, and I wouldn't be intimidated.
They can either provide proof of the four items I mentioned or pursue legal action. It matters not to me. But they need to understand the legal ramifications of the abuse of process.
Heck, they still have NOT shown how the company was damaged in the current lawsuit. Judge Cook said they presented no competent evidence. Those were Her Honors words.
SFRX has until 5 pm tomorrow. After that all bets are off.
Funny, not one shareholder can point out "3 items" or an 80/20 being mentioned in the current permit, which has been linked.
(2)
(1)
