Liberty Star Uranium and Metals Corp (LBSR)

[lilpuppy6]

King, as a matter of prudence, we must acknowledge the same LAW in which you reference, to have a criteria/requirEment/hurdle/bar needing to be satisfied in lieu of pursuit of legal remedy.

As yo uwell know, in order to sue, plaintiff must first have "standing". Therein lies th efirst hurdle where propsed suits, are allowed to be dismissed or proceeded.

Acknowledgement of this fact, certain proponderences of "evidence of fact" weigh mightily on the presiding judge to make such a decision.

The fact the suit was allowed to proceed, We must first observe with simple fact, the plaintifs were sucessfull in fulfillment of the well established legal requirements, in order to be allowed to proceed with litigation.

Any judge must use a strict set of guidelines, not so much relying on hunches or imaginitive speculations, but rather evidential data.

So must we not further allow logically; for this so called "an established pattern in HOUSE of issuing SHARES IN LIEU OF CASH FOR WAGES" to be an indefensible argument, and moot. They were allowed to proceed,logically predicated on other mitigating issues.

What am I missing?

p.s excuse typos..multi tasking currently

TIA