Posted On: 04/03/2016 5:50:12 AM
Post# of 7795
I saw the exhibits. They used posts on another ticker. I never saw Kyle mentioned or SFRX. That was what the ORDER said.
It reminds me of their claim about the permits in item 82 of the original complaint....
For one, he did inquire (not enquire). You challenged him to email Roger Smith, and he did. So that's one false statement.
Secondly, there is no agreement in place for a recovery permit. The current permit states there is no guarantee of a future permit being issued. In fact, they appear to want to move to a new area. But there was never such an agreement in place with the state per the info Mary provided.
Likewise, none of those posts mention SFRX or management. But I suppose they'll try and say it does because they have no expert witnesses. They need to try and get him somehow, because they know their lawsuit is a sham just like Judge Cook said it was. Well, She said their evidence wasn't competent.If she only knew how much they told the Court that was false and misleading.
Besides, you stated the other day you didn't see him posting about SFRX, and I agreed.
Here's the lineup for next month's depositions. I'm sure item 82 will be discussed, don't you think?
Then there's the "alleged" conversations with Mary.
03/29/2016 NOTICE
DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF MARY GLOWACKI 05/02/16 @ 10 AM; TIMOTHY A PARSONS 05/02/16 @ 11 AM, AND ROGER SMITH 05/03/16 @ 1 PM
It reminds me of their claim about the permits in item 82 of the original complaint....
Quote:
82. In the above section of the post, XXXX is untruthful here, and when he continuously reposts such matters, since the permit issued by the State of Florida is in two parts being a survey permit, and a dig and identify permit, with complete transition to a recovery permit under such agreements with the State. XXXX makes such untruths without due enquiry into the actual agreements in place or the status of such permits.
For one, he did inquire (not enquire). You challenged him to email Roger Smith, and he did. So that's one false statement.
Secondly, there is no agreement in place for a recovery permit. The current permit states there is no guarantee of a future permit being issued. In fact, they appear to want to move to a new area. But there was never such an agreement in place with the state per the info Mary provided.
Likewise, none of those posts mention SFRX or management. But I suppose they'll try and say it does because they have no expert witnesses. They need to try and get him somehow, because they know their lawsuit is a sham just like Judge Cook said it was. Well, She said their evidence wasn't competent.If she only knew how much they told the Court that was false and misleading.
Besides, you stated the other day you didn't see him posting about SFRX, and I agreed.
Here's the lineup for next month's depositions. I'm sure item 82 will be discussed, don't you think?
Then there's the "alleged" conversations with Mary.
03/29/2016 NOTICE
DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF MARY GLOWACKI 05/02/16 @ 10 AM; TIMOTHY A PARSONS 05/02/16 @ 11 AM, AND ROGER SMITH 05/03/16 @ 1 PM
(1)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
