I think you are confused as Huffman was. He didn't
Post# of 7795
Posted On: 05/22/2016 7:51:35 AM
I think you are confused as Huffman was. He didn't amend the Injunction, it's a separate ORDER going forward. Nor was the "gag order" in the Injunction lifted as you said, because it never existed, except in Craig's, Kyle's, and the sheeple's minds. You can't violate the US Constitution with any Injunction. But Huffman said.....but he agreed to it.
Now that's telling about just what kind of human debris he and Kyle are.
The Defendant has the full right to post anything truthful. SFRX has to prove the posts are false (see below). The burden is on them, and it's all part of separate ORDER.
They wanted sanctions NOW, including jail time, but that was all DENIED. Attorney fees have not been determined at this point.
But you understand what "prospective" means, don't you? How 'bout "additional order?'
18 MR. HUFFMAN: Just so we're clear, that would be
19 -- since I'm the one who will be drafting this order,
20 that would be the Court's order , then, perspectively
21 going forward?
22 THE COURT: It's to amend the injunction going
23 forward -- as a matter of enforcement, to amend the
24 injunction to, perspectively, going forward, provide
25 that the gentleman will be -- you know, this is how we
1 coerce people going forward in civil contempt -- right?
2 -- is we give them a consequence that they don't want
3 if they continue to do it.
4 If he does that, it turns out that he had some
5 sort of a right to do it, maybe a protected privilege
6 or something like that, then we deal with that after
7 we can see what it is.
8 MR. HUFFMAN: So we're not going to have an actual
9 order to show case hearing
10 THE COURT: Well I think that the order to show
11 cause hearing has presented enough evidence to justify
12 as an alternative -- you're basically -- the order to
13 show cause hearing and the last one, if you put them
14 together, you have sought to enforce the injunction,
15 and you're asking the Court to enforece the injunction
16 with the criminal or -- or civil contempt power.
17 And the Court, in order to do that, is going to
18 amend the injunction or enter an additional -- I guess
19 a separate order enforcing the injunction by specifying
20 that you've shown that the gentleman has -- by showing
21 that the gentleman has continued to do in the past what
22 the injunction prohibits, that going forward he has to
23 be -- in order to coerce him to not do that, he'll face
24 a fine of $2500 every time he does it.
25 But, of course, it's still going to be up to you
1 to prove that he's actually done it order to have that
2 fine actually attached.
3 MR. HUFFMAN: Right.
4 THE COURT: It doesn't fall from the sky.
5 MR. HUFFMAN: Okay.
6 THE COURT: You have to bring in the evidence of
7 the post. You have to bring in the evidence that it
8 was false. You don't have to bring in evidence that it
9 damages you.
10 MR. HUFFMAN: Right.
11 THE COURT: But you'd have to do all those thing
12 to do that.
13 And if that doesn't serve to deter him, then we'll
14 have the kind of hearing that we have to have and we'll
15 deal with it that way.
16 MR. HUFFMAN: Very well.
17 THE COURT: So that's all the remedy that you can
18 get that's prospective , that's within the scope of
19 civil contempt, that you can support based on the
20 various different kinds of things -- requests that
21 you've made so far.
22 MR. HUFFMAN: Very well.
Wasn't Huffman going to write the ORDER for the Judge to sign? Is he having trouble with it? I don't see it on the docket.
The statements above were made before Kyle the LYING KOWARD opened his mouth, and this was after.
3 So the court has two rulings that it makes today .
4 One of them, as I mentioned before, is that in order to
5 enforce the injunction, we need to prospectively
6 coerce the gentleman to not to do these posts that
7 contain either factually false or false factual
8 implications. To do that, the Court would assess a
9 $2500 fine against each one to occur in the future.
10 That's my way of trying to prevent it going
11 prospectively.
12 And with regard to what's already happened, a
13 reasonable attorney fee for having to bring this
14 proceeding could be -- will be assessed against the
15 defendant, the amount to either be agreed upon by the
16 parties or resolved at a separate evidentiary hearing.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/309769190/4-7-16-S...ne-Hearing
I got a feeling there won't be any further such motions claiming the Defendant violated the Injunction. And I'm sure they wouldn't have brought that one if they knew the Judge was going to be so......LOGICAL.
Let's see Kyle explain to the Judge why he LIED about the posts being on the SFRX board. I'm sure that should entitle Huffman to some HUGE legal fees, huh?
Now that's telling about just what kind of human debris he and Kyle are.
The Defendant has the full right to post anything truthful. SFRX has to prove the posts are false (see below). The burden is on them, and it's all part of separate ORDER.
They wanted sanctions NOW, including jail time, but that was all DENIED. Attorney fees have not been determined at this point.
But you understand what "prospective" means, don't you? How 'bout "additional order?'
18 MR. HUFFMAN: Just so we're clear, that would be
19 -- since I'm the one who will be drafting this order,
20 that would be the Court's order , then, perspectively
21 going forward?
22 THE COURT: It's to amend the injunction going
23 forward -- as a matter of enforcement, to amend the
24 injunction to, perspectively, going forward, provide
25 that the gentleman will be -- you know, this is how we
1 coerce people going forward in civil contempt -- right?
2 -- is we give them a consequence that they don't want
3 if they continue to do it.
4 If he does that, it turns out that he had some
5 sort of a right to do it, maybe a protected privilege
6 or something like that, then we deal with that after
7 we can see what it is.
8 MR. HUFFMAN: So we're not going to have an actual
9 order to show case hearing
10 THE COURT: Well I think that the order to show
11 cause hearing has presented enough evidence to justify
12 as an alternative -- you're basically -- the order to
13 show cause hearing and the last one, if you put them
14 together, you have sought to enforce the injunction,
15 and you're asking the Court to enforece the injunction
16 with the criminal or -- or civil contempt power.
17 And the Court, in order to do that, is going to
18 amend the injunction or enter an additional -- I guess
19 a separate order enforcing the injunction by specifying
20 that you've shown that the gentleman has -- by showing
21 that the gentleman has continued to do in the past what
22 the injunction prohibits, that going forward he has to
23 be -- in order to coerce him to not do that, he'll face
24 a fine of $2500 every time he does it.
25 But, of course, it's still going to be up to you
1 to prove that he's actually done it order to have that
2 fine actually attached.
3 MR. HUFFMAN: Right.
4 THE COURT: It doesn't fall from the sky.
5 MR. HUFFMAN: Okay.
6 THE COURT: You have to bring in the evidence of
7 the post. You have to bring in the evidence that it
8 was false. You don't have to bring in evidence that it
9 damages you.
10 MR. HUFFMAN: Right.
11 THE COURT: But you'd have to do all those thing
12 to do that.
13 And if that doesn't serve to deter him, then we'll
14 have the kind of hearing that we have to have and we'll
15 deal with it that way.
16 MR. HUFFMAN: Very well.
17 THE COURT: So that's all the remedy that you can
18 get that's prospective , that's within the scope of
19 civil contempt, that you can support based on the
20 various different kinds of things -- requests that
21 you've made so far.
22 MR. HUFFMAN: Very well.
Wasn't Huffman going to write the ORDER for the Judge to sign? Is he having trouble with it? I don't see it on the docket.
The statements above were made before Kyle the LYING KOWARD opened his mouth, and this was after.
3 So the court has two rulings that it makes today .
4 One of them, as I mentioned before, is that in order to
5 enforce the injunction, we need to prospectively
6 coerce the gentleman to not to do these posts that
7 contain either factually false or false factual
8 implications. To do that, the Court would assess a
9 $2500 fine against each one to occur in the future.
10 That's my way of trying to prevent it going
11 prospectively.
12 And with regard to what's already happened, a
13 reasonable attorney fee for having to bring this
14 proceeding could be -- will be assessed against the
15 defendant, the amount to either be agreed upon by the
16 parties or resolved at a separate evidentiary hearing.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/309769190/4-7-16-S...ne-Hearing
I got a feeling there won't be any further such motions claiming the Defendant violated the Injunction. And I'm sure they wouldn't have brought that one if they knew the Judge was going to be so......LOGICAL.
Let's see Kyle explain to the Judge why he LIED about the posts being on the SFRX board. I'm sure that should entitle Huffman to some HUGE legal fees, huh?
(1)
(0)Seafarer Exploration (SFRX) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼