SFRX didn't acknowledge they didn't lose contracts
Post# of 7802
Posted On: 04/02/2016 8:48:44 PM
SFRX didn't acknowledge they didn't lose contracts? It sure looks like it to me.
I thought they did in the Interrogatories. Here it is again.
14. Identify all contracts and vendors that have been lost by SEC as a result of the postings of Defendant.
There have not been established vendor losses. However, the company did suffer sales of shares that were sold by shareholders.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/270687669/Seafarer...se-6-15-15
They said they lost contracts in the original complaint, but they changed their story, did they not?
And Ihub admin banned you, posters cannot.
There has only been one other Judge and he disqualified himself, so I don't know what you mean when you claim......
No, She said no competent evidence had been presented. SFRX has to prove the Defendant caused damages "and" SFRX has to prove entitlement to damages.
As far as the injunction, She mentioned online postings only in Her ruling. I wasn't aware another Judge ruled the Defendant violated the injunction, but you said they affirmed it.
When?
I don't see it on the docket.
Quote:
Let's just start, the whole post is an opinion that is not backed up by one shred of fact.
I thought they did in the Interrogatories. Here it is again.
14. Identify all contracts and vendors that have been lost by SEC as a result of the postings of Defendant.
There have not been established vendor losses. However, the company did suffer sales of shares that were sold by shareholders.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/270687669/Seafarer...se-6-15-15
They said they lost contracts in the original complaint, but they changed their story, did they not?
And Ihub admin banned you, posters cannot.
There has only been one other Judge and he disqualified himself, so I don't know what you mean when you claim......
Quote:
We really do need to correct Judge Cook's Order. She did not let Volentine off from the permanent ban and every Judge after her has affirmed her ruling. The only piece she said would need further adjudication was the penelty.
No, She said no competent evidence had been presented. SFRX has to prove the Defendant caused damages "and" SFRX has to prove entitlement to damages.
As far as the injunction, She mentioned online postings only in Her ruling. I wasn't aware another Judge ruled the Defendant violated the injunction, but you said they affirmed it.
When?
I don't see it on the docket.
(1)
(0)