Posted On: 04/19/2016 5:16:46 PM
Post# of 7795
It's a good thing this one was recorded. It's quite the read. I will post it later.
What's interesting is the Judge says the Defendant can post derogatory comments about this POS as long as the comments are true.
He recognizes the Injunction, agreed to by the Defendant, can't infringe on his First Amendment rights.
Further Judge Stephens suggest if the Defendant made false statements the market would have corrected itself at some point.
In other words.......SFRX has a weak case.
Live by the lawsuit, and LIE, I mean DIE by the lawsuit.
So the Defendant posted on the SFRX board in July 2015, huh?
Ihub shows his last post was in 2014. I'm sure it's just a clerical error, don't you think?
What's interesting is the Judge says the Defendant can post derogatory comments about this POS as long as the comments are true.
He recognizes the Injunction, agreed to by the Defendant, can't infringe on his First Amendment rights.
Further Judge Stephens suggest if the Defendant made false statements the market would have corrected itself at some point.
In other words.......SFRX has a weak case.
Live by the lawsuit, and LIE, I mean DIE by the lawsuit.
So the Defendant posted on the SFRX board in July 2015, huh?
Ihub shows his last post was in 2014. I'm sure it's just a clerical error, don't you think?
(2)
(2)Scroll down for more posts ▼
