I don't see this in Judge Cook's order, perhaps yo
Post# of 7795
Posted On: 04/01/2016 8:26:11 PM
I don't see this in Judge Cook's order, perhaps you can enlighten us.
Judge Cook never mentioned "messages." Here's the ORDER.
He volunteered that after hearing from the Plaintiff in the prior hearing he had no problem in refraining from posting online criticisms of Plaintiff, and that in fact he had not posted anything negative regarding Plaintiff for over 48 hours. Accordingly, the Court accepts Defendant's consent to this injunction but notes that absent such agreement the Court would not be authorized under the law to compel such a broad based injunctive relief.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/279245500/Judge-Co...-Volentine
A "posting" by definition is for public view. But you said the other day you didn't see him posting.
Quote:
in an Order by Judge Martha Cook on October 7, 2014, and affirmations to the Court after such Order during hearings held the Defendant agreed to refrain from such internet postings, messages or any other matters relating to the Company, its officer, directors, or related parties either directly or indirectly.
Judge Cook never mentioned "messages." Here's the ORDER.
He volunteered that after hearing from the Plaintiff in the prior hearing he had no problem in refraining from posting online criticisms of Plaintiff, and that in fact he had not posted anything negative regarding Plaintiff for over 48 hours. Accordingly, the Court accepts Defendant's consent to this injunction but notes that absent such agreement the Court would not be authorized under the law to compel such a broad based injunctive relief.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/279245500/Judge-Co...-Volentine
A "posting" by definition is for public view. But you said the other day you didn't see him posting.
(0)
(0)Seafarer Exploration (SFRX) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼