HLNT/NIR/Ribotsky/Humphries/Walters/PWC Lawsuits Update 08/02/2012:
It was brought to our attention yesterday by the new poster jimboy1 that Humphries has filed a lawsuit in the state of Texas, Nothern District, against HLNT and Charlie Foster and Mel Robinson. As many quickly found out, the case number referenced was not correct. However, the case was quickly found. The correct case number by the way is: 3:12-cv-02614.
Interesting thing about finding the case, at first, while the case header existed, the complaint had not been posted to the court records on PACER. In fact the complaint document was not posted to the site until about 15 to 20 minutes later. This indicates that the new poster had advance information and didn't actually find the case on PACER. This is confirmed by the wrong case number that was cited by him also. Would love to know who fed him the information on the case in advance, and why so coincidentally, they did so now. That invites more scrutiny than the case filing itself, especially as this was the very first post by the new poster. The complaint was written by Espinoza, and a review of the date by his signature shows that it could have been filed July 9, 2012. The computer written 'July 9' was crossed out and 'Aug 1' was hand written into the document. Any bets as to why the timing of yesterday? People should be careful as to how they are being used.
On the the filing itself. The filing mirrors a response on Humphries Bankruptcy case to the complaint filed against him there by HLNT. One of the first things that jumps out is that this was a retaliatory move on Humphries part. The other motivations by Humphries would be intereting to know, especially the timing of it.
I won't rehash the case here, it is almost as though it were a synopsis of PD's postings here on IHUB and other places, and if you have read them, you practically know the whole case.
There are several things that puzzle me. If Humphries is bankrupt, where is he getting the money to litigate this case? A filing fee does have to be paid at the time of the filing. Humprhies had one of his bankruptcy filings dismissed because of lack of payment of a filing fee.
Another thing that puzzles me. Why is Humphries still using Espinoza? The judge in the bankruptcy case has on more than one occasion asked Espinoza if he is sure he is a lawyer. One would think that Humphries would get smart and find a better lawyer. Guess he is stuck with this guy since he must not be paying his own legal expenses. Or is it a case that Humphries is really that slow to learn? May be a combination of the two.
Back to the case. This should be thrown out in 3 months or less. There are reasons for this that I will not go into here, don't want to give Hump any advice on how to handle his litigation, especially as I am invested in the company he is suing in this case. At the best, this is a nuisance action by Humphries that was doomed to failure before it started, might explain why it wasn't originally filed. At the worst, it is a waste of paper, or cyber space, or both.
The opinions presented herein are my own and investors should
conduct their own due diligence and decide for themselves if there is any merit at all to this case.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
