A few posts back you said SFRX was standing up to

A few posts back you said SFRX was standing up to bashers, etc.

Now you acknowledge First Amendment rights.

SFRX clearly has issues with the First Amendment. Remember, Huffman reminded the Judge that the Defendant agreed to the Injunction, which I have said repeatedly is quite telling.

That said, there are ways to settle disputes. They don't have to involve lawsuits. Kyle could have reached out to the Defendant in an attempt to resolve any differences. Why pay Huffman all the money you claim he is?

But more importantly, why has SFRX changed the language in their filings regarding the permit? It went from "recovery" to "exploration" in a year and a half. That's just one example. That shows deceit.

I think any obsession was by the company. They wanted the Defendant silenced......period. He invested here and when the scales were removed from his eyes he warned investors.

He got played by Kyle and spoke out. Kyle's response was to sue.

Yet you complain about the cost, and say that's my fault. You sound like Kyle.

But then you acknowledge First Amendment rights. Maybe you're coming around and just need more time to realize both arguments can't be true.