TX court dismissed CWRN's motion to dismiss Texas case for lack of venue

imo Geo is using ambulance chaser tactics designed to poison the field-Geo used Bobs conviction for the Mar 2010 promo designed to raise money to begin operations as an exhibit

1st-Bobs conviction for a totally unrelated situation-the Mar 2010 promo,and a woman suing shirley and another person in NY in 2010 have nothing to do w Geo from what I can see and have no relevance to this case and thus cannot rightfully be considered by the court-ambulance chaser tactics imo- if the ct does consider those things its grounds for reversal on appeal

I read the 2010 complaint against shirley and another person in NY which had nothing to do w Geo or cwrn as far as i could see-the complaint doesnt even make sense -e.g alleges iron ore was 170-200mt in early 2008 and that plaintiff received far less than that for 981 tons (who deals w only 981 tons?) because Chinese recipient claimed ore was lower quality-surprise surprise-what does that have to do w shirley? - thats why ore is tested/certified before it leaves for China because unscrupulous operators in China will play those games-also why a DLC/escrow is used- otherwise ore recipients play  a game of "sue for the money promised for the ore if you can"  anyway this has nothing to do w the case or CWRN

well iron was only something like 45/ton at the time-would have to check charts- and there were problems w middlemen and shipping co and 2010 complaint re occurences in 2008 doest even state what Mexican mine was involved -not CWRN whose operations began july 2010-and Geo of course does not include Shirleys defense nor the adjudication of the matter, which tells me Shirley was found not guilty

from memory to the best of my understanding and belief

re Texas Juris-

Geo claims Texas Juris based on 1) CWRN contacts prior to JVA apparently in Tx- (though those contacts are not specified except for the claim that CWRNs place of business is Texas-CWRN has no place of business in Texas)--irrelevant if the cause of action arises out of the JVA

2) that Bobs principal  place of business (ppb) was Texas- not true, once or after case was filed-once operations began july 2010 ppb was defacto Ensenada/the mine and the official corp ppb has been Nevada for some time

3) that Geo did not assent to JVA Calif J provision---makes no sense -Geos attorneys allegedly drew up the JVA (CWRN's complaint) and thus the doc is construed against Geo re ambiguities by law

that Geo verbally objected to Ca JVA J- -Geo allegedly put it in JVA (CWRN's complaint) and oral objections are not even heard when theres a writing on the subject

that Geo has spent time and costs bringing TX action- -that doesnt change the venue law and shouldnt have brought action in TX in 1st place

that CWRN had 1 year to object to venue- CWRN did object to venue-via answer to complaint I believe and in Bob and Shirleys answers -though they didnt bring formal motion to dismiss backed by cites etc until lately- which they should've done in 1st place imo- but judge should've also read CWRN/BOB /SHIRLEYS objection to venue and asked the parties to brief the judge/note a hearing on the subject in the beginning

that CWRN switched agreements- thats what CWRN claims in Calif case

Geo emphasizes CWRNs failure to comply w Tx discovery orders-which bob ;shirley previously-e.g March 2013, responded to w defenses such as TX didnt have J -

EVERY case in which I've had personal knowledge of the facts has resulted in a travesty of justice btw

1 of the great frauds of the legal system is that the judge often has no idea what is going on- doesnt have a true grasp of the case or which parties are truthful and which are not-and thus is easily manipulated by unscrupulous operators- the judges motion to dismiss doesnt give judges reasons so we dont know on what basis judge ruled on venue-and those reasons should be noted

Geos exhibit A was Geos inclusion of the 2010 NY case against Shirley and another -which had nothing to do w cwrn or geo from what I read

I have not seen CWRN's answer to these things-not on file yet anyway