I agree with others on here about moving forward a

I agree with others on here about moving forward and settling. I still havent read the filing or the language but if nothing else - it DOES let them know what they DO need to bring to the court in the future. Summary Judgement was for HJOEs counter suit - not the other way around (if I understood correctly). I unfortunately had to do some research in the past on a Supreme Court case involvingthe over and misuse of summary judgement. Long story short - the defendant is the be given every chance/benefit of the doubt when making a case/defense. It does NOT mean it is viableor will end up being plausible - but that is up for the jury to determine (unless the judge rules in favor of the judgment.)

That being said - I had a judge grant it against me while completely contradicting himself in the process. Ironically - the plaintiff broke state and federal statutes in the filing, purposely mislead/lied to the court (which I proved in court), repeatedly broke/breached the contract before I finally stopped paying and the judge STILL granted summary judgement because i wasnt able to prove a negative (no need to go into details). It was later appealed and quickly reversed.

Point being - the judges have wide latitude in their courts and if they are fed up with one or both parties abusing the legal process or tying up their courtroom - they can make it happen. For me - where I thought they had a strong potential for judgment/dismissal was the lack of "proof" on how the alledged breach caused injury to the plaintiff or on the flip side - usury.

Now KBM will be forced to "open up the books" which as most here assume- is really against their best interests. Further, it becomes more apparent every day that HJOE has the financial means to see this through.

I can see a judge forcing a cash settlement or driving it hard through arbitration. I dont see how any judge would consider the contract on its face as NOT being usurious based on total return and penalties which can NOT be used in lieu of interest when dealing with a usurious loan. Here the burden ofnproof is on the Plaintiff to argue how they were i jured by the breach. They will also have to counter any proof that HJOE has that they did not operate in good faith during the terms of the contract. Unless they come to the table or judge forces to arbitration- this could go on another 12-18 months if it goes all the way through trial.

Final point - I dont see how KBM convinces 12 common people that they were injured in this process.