Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[nyt]

Also I noticed someone saying there is no "guilty" in a civil case.. That may be just semantics. There are charges made & a jury finds one way or the other. So if the jury "finds in favor of" one side, it means they find against the other side & since the findings are based on very bad, negative things, ie, "breach of fiduciary duty" & "unjust enrichment", as far as I'm concerned, that's guilty of or innocent of. I don't give a damn about the semantics. Any reasonable person can see clearly, that one side was charged w/bad stuff, stuff that rips off the shareholders & then a trial is held & a jury of peers reached a verdict that rules against, in this case, vplm. Sure as hell equates to GUILTY in my way of seeing things, regardless of what they officially call it. I'll look that up, as far as the use of guilty in civil trial. Mind you that the source of this point about the use of the term guilty in civil cases, is the same one who long ago argued that the IPRs were NOT trials held in a court. Again, in that case, I did the research and posted the proof that it was indeed a trial held in a court. As far as I concerned, it's ridiculous to say that vplm, incl Emu, were not guilty of the allegations made against them. See the quote below:

"... and having duly rendered its verdict, in favor of the above-named Plaintiff Locksmith Financial Corporation, and against the Defendants Emil Malak, Dennis Chang, Thomas Sawyer, Colin Tucker, Edwin Candy, and Mike Waggett"