MS BB's Explanation of Revocation of LIENS
Based on having read the Supreme Court dockets as well as BGL's former press releases concerning the development of their case against MSJ/Barnett (emphasis added), the lien has also been revoked because prior rulings were reversed.
It has always been the case that BGL's case against MSJ required the following conditions: 1)MSJ had to hold titles to Cinco and G.C., 2)J.V. agreement between the two parties had to be in place, and 3)The J.V. agreement had to be found as that which would entitle BGL to land rights. The third condition is why this case must be heard in the Supreme Court, and any lien must come from this court because AGAIN the lower courts, 5th and 9th, do not have the powers to grant remedies on issues that concern "land" or national treasures.
If somehow BGL were to be heard again in supreme court, and were found to have sustained damages, they would be entitled to monetary compensation from the former owners of MSJ (Barnett). But titles to land is highly unlikely, especially since Marnett/MSJ no longer owns titles to Cinco and G.C. and no court would direct new owners to "give up" their property based on the act of a former owner.
A lien is not right to property, and this is key to understanding the BGL position. A lien entitles them to money in this case.
Based on having read the Supreme Court dockets as well as BGL's former press releases concerning the development of their case against MSJ/Barnett (emphasis added), the lien has also been revoked because prior rulings were reversed.
It has always been the case that BGL's case against MSJ required the following conditions: 1)MSJ had to hold titles to Cinco and G.C., 2)J.V. agreement between the two parties had to be in place, and 3)The J.V. agreement had to be found as that which would entitle BGL to land rights. The third condition is why this case must be heard in the Supreme Court, and any lien must come from this court because AGAIN the lower courts, 5th and 9th, do not have the powers to grant remedies on issues that concern "land" or national treasures.
If somehow BGL were to be heard again in supreme court, and were found to have sustained damages, they would be entitled to monetary compensation from the former owners of MSJ (Barnett). But titles to land is highly unlikely, especially since Marnett/MSJ no longer owns titles to Cinco and G.C. and no court would direct new owners to "give up" their property based on the act of a former owner.
A lien is not right to property, and this is key to understanding the BGL position. A lien entitles them to money in this case.
