Followers | 64 |
Posts | 27707 |
Boards Moderated | 0 |
Alias Born | 12/28/2008 |
Saturday, October 21, 2017 10:23:03 AM
re the catch 22 related to judicial castration clause - 4617 f - it is there on paper but we see how judges have responded
As I read it all courts have said 4617 f ties their hands and have granted motions to dismiss based on this clause (i.e. no hearing of the arguments) . By inference those judges have found the solution to the Catch 22 is to grant a motion to dismiss
One judge (not court) has found strongly that there is no barrier as the actions were illegal
Sweeny is in the middle
Sweeny has not ruled on GOV motion to dismiss
Sweeny instead agreed with plaintiffs arguments that without discovery the judge could not determine if 4617 f
Avant Technologies Equipping AI-Managed Data Center with High Performance Computing Systems • AVAI • May 10, 2024 8:00 AM
VAYK Discloses Strategic Conversation on Potential Acquisition of $4 Million Home Service Business • VAYK • May 9, 2024 9:00 AM
Bantec's Howco Awarded $4.19 Million Dollar U.S. Department of Defense Contract • BANT • May 8, 2024 10:00 AM
Element79 Gold Corp Successfully Closes Maverick Springs Option Agreement • ELEM • May 8, 2024 9:05 AM
Kona Gold Beverages, Inc. Achieves April Revenues Exceeding $586,000 • KGKG • May 8, 2024 8:30 AM
Epazz plans to spin off Galaxy Batteries Inc. • EPAZ • May 8, 2024 7:05 AM