My favorite part was when the Judge said.....
the Motion Dismissed without Prejudice. Couple that with Huffman saying KK Fudd (aka Kyle G. Kennedy) swore under oath he would give his opinion and it makes for rather amusing reading.
THE COURT: Well, your efforts were
2 nothing short of heroic, under the
3 circumstances, but you still have the result
4 that you have.
5 Basically what you're asking me to do is
6 to re-litigate that decision and the one that
7 was made before.
8 And I'm not telling you that that's out of
9 the question, but to do it in the context of
10 the Motion for Sanctions, again, I know that
11 that wasn't your personal choice, but that's
12 most inappropriate.
13 Because the first thing that you would
14 normally do is to show that the change in the
15 injunction or that the initial entry of the
16 injunction was made in error and ask the Court
17 to set it aside or something. That hasn't
18 happened yet.
So, you know, I'm going to deny the motion
13 because you asked for sanctions. But it's
14 without prejudice to any sort of request to
15 modify or dissolve the injunction that is
16 frankly, in retrospect -- you know, I know that
17 you never had the opportunity personally to
18 make that decision, but you can go tell your
19 client now that he doesn't have the opportunity
20 to make any different decision now.
21 That's the only remedy that's open to him
22 under these circumstances for the things that
23 you made reference to.
24 And like I said, you've got something to
25 work with. They've acknowledged that some of
1 the things that they said in that process were
2 not correctly attributed. But that doesn't
3 mean that everything they did was dishonest
4 somehow. All of us make mistakes. And
5 hopefully, when we find them, we own up to them
6 and reckon the consequences of them.
Looks like the next move should be to have the Injunction dissolved, but hopefully the Judge rules on Summary Judgment and it's dissolved anyway. Mr. Kidd seems to struggle with procedure but Huffman can't seemed to get a Court to rule that SFRX can't be criticized.
Is that why they cut back on "legal adviser" fees per the Q?
