Followers | 64 |
Posts | 27681 |
Boards Moderated | 0 |
Alias Born | 12/28/2008 |
Thursday, April 25, 2024 12:55:36 PM
As I understand it ---- for purposes of the claims court and the case that went to SCOTUS (same or not?) ---- the thought process was something like --- NWS is so insanely obviously illegal - "on its face a taking" (all our equity profit?) --- that it was best to attack at what was viewed as the most vulnerable GOV action (BO starting the NWS - all profit) . We lost . Yet I am not sure there was no logic there at thinning the issue to one viewed by the plaintiffs and their attorneys as the most blatant clear illegal act
Others have argued for 5 10 ++ years they suits should have gone after HERA ---- I assume Charter Act and ... and
That is way beyond me --- . I see the logic of that!!!! I also see the logic of trying to slice off what was viewed as the most vulnerable action by GOV
Lawyers did not prove themselves right or particularly able? We suffered and they got paid
NanoViricides Reports that the Phase I NV-387 Clinical Trial is Completed Successfully and Data Lock is Expected Soon • NNVC • May 2, 2024 10:07 AM
ILUS Files Form 10-K and Provides Shareholder Update • ILUS • May 2, 2024 8:52 AM
Avant Technologies Names New CEO Following Acquisition of Healthcare Technology and Data Integration Firm • AVAI • May 2, 2024 8:00 AM
Bantec Engaged in a Letter of Intent to Acquire a Small New Jersey Based Manufacturing Company • BANT • May 1, 2024 10:00 AM
Cannabix Technologies to Deliver Breath Logix Alcohol Screening Device to Australia • BLO • Apr 30, 2024 8:53 AM
Hydromer, Inc. Reports Preliminary Unaudited Financial Results for First Quarter 2024 • HYDI • Apr 29, 2024 9:10 AM