rfarmer - I read it, studied it, and damned it.
The plaintiff clearly failed to convince the court. He was also up against the same lawyers who represented Fibertower in the most recent district court 'Remand' to the FCC - meaning attorneys Gump is not on the side of common shareholders in any aspect, either in the example case you mention nor in the current tussle with the FCC.
If it comes down to just another court battle of one guy (no matter how many shares he holds) vs lawyers and previous court decisions that the bankruptcy court said were consummated, the one guy loses is the example you sight. You can read that numerous times in the decision you linked to here.
100 times zero is what? 100 percent of zero is what?
I think we are in a hard place, depending only on the FCC to place conditions on their approval of the license transfer and AT&T to see it favorably to maintain public Goodwill by doing something for the common shareholders.
Somebody can drag the dying carcass around town and to an appeals court, using up time, but the math will be the same as your example where the appeals court upheld the other court - based on the 'rules' not the moral justice, IMO. The judges hang together and have each other's back.
Sadly, define 'OLIGARCHY' and then I think you find something very similar to the example you said is interesting. Interesting but devastating to the common good. Or one could also argue, define 'Incompetent' as it describes the Appellant's lack of particulars and specific proofs on which the case was dismissed.
I understand the example best this way, don't go to court without a law firm on your side, never think you can go 'Pro Se'.
