InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 245
Posts 55847
Boards Moderated 12
Alias Born 04/12/2001

Re: scion post# 333

Saturday, 01/17/2015 11:51:27 AM

Saturday, January 17, 2015 11:51:27 AM

Post# of 489
From the actual court records ...

They had no Conditional Use Permit, no licenses, and no insurance.

That sounds just like what good ol' TED has been saying for several YEARS.

********************

The appeal involves depreciation for solar thermal lenses that are allegedly in Utah; the manufacturer/seller is in Utah. The portions of Defendant’s Exhibit E referenced by Defendant during trial concerned the lack of a local conditional land use permit and other required permits, licenses, and insurance for the manufacturing of thermal solar lenses, stainless steel turbines, heat exchangers, and circuit boards in 2011 (and before), and the eventual approval of a conditional use permit by Millard County (Utah) in April 2014. Gregg’s objection was based on Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6, which is a letter signed by the three Millard County Commissioners dated February 12, 2014, expressing enthusiasm for the solar lens project in Millard County, Utah. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6 does not conflict with Defendant’s Exhibit E, and the court therefore admitted Exhibit E over Gregg’s objection.


Sure is a pretty day.

TED

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.