Quote:

---

To harm the company and shareholders, some people like to try the case on the Internet with limited/partial/wrong information.

---

That's your claim and the claim of others, but for some reason you nor the others never post what you claim is the right information.

Is this not an EXACT copy of the permit issued?

https://www.scribd.com/doc/298727048/2014-07-...t-EXECUTED

If so, where does it mention "3 items", and doesn't it say propwash deflectors are PROHIBITED?

If not, provide the correct copy. Or show/explain how it's incorrectly interpreted.

SFRX said in court documents the information was available to the public and claimed the Defendant didn't do his DD.

Let's see the correct information and explanations.

Further, if Kyle is shown to have LIED, will you speak out and/or call for or even file a complaint with the SEC? Or do you think Kyle just made a "mistake" like another has said?

Quote:

---

I prefer to let the court decide.

---

Me too. But SFRX wanted the Defendant to lose his First Amendment privilege with the sham settlement. Judge Stephens even said it violated the Defendant's rights at the last hearing. The burden is on the company to prove anything posted is FALSE, but as long as it's true he can post whatever and wherever he likes.

As far as the final decision is concerned, and just like Judge Cook ORDERED, Judge Stephens said SFRX has to show the Defendant's postings made the stock price drop and it damaged the company. Read it for yourself. Or is this not the transcript from the April hearing?

https://www.scribd.com/doc/309769190/4-7-16-S...ne-Hearing

Quote:

---

Looking forward to some justice this week.

---

Relax, it's just depositions.