InvestorsHub Logo

dubs_money

02/15/17 1:27 AM

#387262 RE: obiterdictum #387261

As always a most sincere thank you for breaking it down for the laymen.

Travel5

02/15/17 1:31 AM

#387265 RE: obiterdictum #387261

Thank you Obi!!

Digra Ive

02/15/17 6:18 AM

#387280 RE: obiterdictum #387261

Did F-home schedule date in Court's to discuss such motion ?

10bambam

02/15/17 7:05 AM

#387284 RE: obiterdictum #387261

Obi, Thank you for the clarifications. This unsealing does not seem important to me but it was important enough to the plaintiffs for them to request. Can you answer why it is important or why you think it is important?
Go FnF

Donotunderstand

02/15/17 9:05 AM

#387305 RE: obiterdictum #387261

That makes 100% sense

Question

if the attachment to the third motion is the "documents" are they unsealed as the motion is heard and decided on by the court?

and if - are those the documents that the court that rejected 90% of the mandamus approved to be used?

summary

do we now get to see - as an attachment to a still to be resolved motion - 52 documents heretofore blocked by the GOV (because the appeals court (mandamus court) said yup

?