InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 1
Posts 109
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 05/22/2009

Re: emerald bay post# 109695

Wednesday, 06/23/2010 8:48:12 PM

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 8:48:12 PM

Post# of 212233
I read it. But to do it properly, you really need to take pauls complaint and go paragraph by paragraph with sams counter-suit. I did not do this, non the less here are my feelings.
Sam's response is weak and overreaching and lacking any solid grounds. If you notice, most of their denials state that it is an interpretation of law. That's just legal maneuvering. Accusing paul of unclean hands, laches and all of the rest are bottom of the barrel window dressing boilerplate speak when you don't got a hand to play. Trust me on this, it's bull.
Sam really didn't accuse paul of doing much. Paul broke a nondisclosure by press release and did not get Sams permission to do one.Very minor almost childish. That's hardly as breach NDA.
So like we've been saying; Sam signed it, he took the consideration of 500MM shares, he didn't back out during the 30 weasel clause and he isn't disputing that because he can't. That my friends is the heart of what signing a contract is all about. Besides, paul did not defraud sam as sam says. No way.
Most of what he complains about is what took place after he signed and took the $$.
Sorry, that's the stuff that has to be reconciled just like any good marriage.
Now we must wait for Paul's lawyers to respond in affidavit fashion to sams counter-suit. Interrogatories to follow.
Paul has a way better hand and i'm not selling. This is not going to play out overnight, but i told you that a while ago.