![](http://investorshub.advfn.com/images/default_ih_profile2_4848.jpg?cb=0)
Monday, August 29, 2016 1:47:45 PM
"I understand that dismissal was partly on the basis of similarity to Perry and questions of the parent company of C-W being involved in the Perry case, but I specifically refer you to the lengthy commentary from Judge Pratt that confirms the correctness of the Lamberth ruling. This can be found on page 19, footnote #6."
You quite clearly did reference Lamberth as "precedent". You also refer to Pratts reference of Lamberth as "precedent".
You are right that Im dismissing your argument. For one simple reason...ITS INSANE! You are claiming that the appeals court will rely on DIRECT RULINGS in opposition of what they are figuring out the legitimacy of.
I will repeat my original post before we went down this rabbit hole with Alice in Wonderland. There is NO existing precedent for the appellate court to rely on in determination of whether Lamberth is correct or not.
Element79 Gold Corp Appoints Warren Levy to Board of Directors • ELMGF • Aug 28, 2024 9:51 AM
Integrated Ventures Announces Strategic Entry Into Health & Wellness Industry with Focus on GLP-1 Products • INTV • Aug 28, 2024 8:30 AM
ELEMENT79 ANNOUNCES UPLISTING TO OTCQB VENTURE MARKET • ELMGF • Aug 26, 2024 10:03 AM
North Bay Resources Announces Gold Assays up to 2.2 Ounces per Ton, Fran Gold Project, British Columbia • NBRI • Aug 26, 2024 10:00 AM
PickleJar Unveils Latest Venue Managed Services Innovations in Upcoming Webinar • PKLE • Aug 23, 2024 1:11 PM
Element79 Gold Corp Provides Update on Nevada Portfolio • ELMGF • Aug 23, 2024 8:00 AM