Seafarer Exploration Corp (SFRX)

[hedge_fun]

It's what happened April 7th. All motions......

were denied. There will be a separate order that I think Huffman is suppose to draft for the Judge to sign that basically says going forward the Defendant will be fined $2500 per violation of the Injunction. But before the new order is enforced SFRX has to prove any future posting is false and does damage, which is the EXACT same thing Judge Cook's ORDER says. Maybe one day Huffman and Kyle will get it. They think the Defendant is already liable simply because he agreed to it. But sham lawsuits are filed all the time and some Judges get that. Some don't or are just lazy and don't care. Those are the type Huffman preys upon, and frankly has had some success with, if you want to call it that. Regardless, judge Cook ORDERED and evidentiary hearing AND prove of damages, which is the same thing Judge Stephens said.

One reason Huffman hasn't completed the draft, or so it seems, is because they don't want to have to prove anything is false. That's where they run into trouble.

Of course Huffman could have already drafted the order and the Judge sent it back to him. One would think it should have been signed by now and on the docket.

I DON'T think they will ever bring such a motion again. This one didn't turn out the way it was suppose to. They wanted the Defendant to do jail time.

From the 4/7 hearing:

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.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/309769190/4-7-16-SFRX-vs-Volentine-Hearing