InvestorsHub Logo
Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
Subscribe Login/Register
S&P 500
5,010.60
(
0.00%
)
US TECH 100
16,828.00
(
0.45%
)
Dow Jones
38,239.98
(
0.00%
)
Brent Oil
85.76
(
-0.75%
)
Bitcoin
66,104.11
(
-1.13%
)
Post# of 29969
Next 10
Reply Private New
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (1) Keep Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (1) Next 10 Prev Next

Tibby

Send PM Follow Ignore
Followers 5
Posts 3283
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 02/21/2010

Tibby

Re: None

Tuesday, 03/07/2017 11:15:06 AM

Tuesday, March 07, 2017 11:15:06 AM

Post# of 29969
Based on what I am seeing re C1912-2001 and who is who as far as the real recognised litigants in the case FROM START TO PRESENT, it would appear that JL would have,as in most OF THE EXPLETIVES HE HAS OFFERED "overstated" his position otherwise it would not be THIS murky ON THESE BOARDS!

The injunction is a real mystery in its many developments over these many years.

The other troubling matter as always involves JL/MSX's ability to sell their case and the possible rewards to any funders to get monies to see this through.

We have always been sold a bill of goods as far as this is concerned
TROUBLING VERY TROUBLING!

NO ticky no laundry? We have no ticky but we want our laundry!


MOVIE WILL BE ON HOLD FOR A WHILE.............................
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (1) Keep Last Read Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (1) Next 10 Prev Next

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.

Sign Up