you didn't evidence. they didn't present it all. the judge has all of the exhibits and evidentiary items that the defense provided her. blakely actually made a very compelling case, if you were not biased and did not have money riding on this. for those who have money here, it's hard to be objective, i understand. it's natural to be swayed by your own interests. but, the facts are what they are. and, the statute is what it is. as long as the defense proves that the company does not meet statutory circumstance for custodianship transfer to a shareholder, none of the other stuff matters. do you think that the "dozens" of companies that sharp has attempted to gain custodianship over didn't have fiduciary issues and were not delinquent in their filings? takes more than that. he admitted that revocation and delinquent sec filings were his motivations to seek custodianship. he did not prove abandonment, so that rules out one of the two circumstances for custodianship, and there is no irreparable harm because the company has maintained operations, they have now reinstated their business with Nevada, and they have an audit underway. i don't know why anybody would think a judge would think it is in the best interest of the company to stop an audit already in motion to get the company current, and throw the operations in a state of chaos to award custodianship to a person who admits they have never been a custodian of a company before. the judge sounds reasonable and measured. i don't think she will do that.
