InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 131
Posts 4727
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 05/10/2004

Re: cp44 post# 199540

Wednesday, 10/10/2012 2:20:23 PM

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 2:20:23 PM

Post# of 312016
This is basically like a restraining order. We all see TV & movies where some guy.... an ex-boy friend or a black-widdow type of gal..... has a retraining order slapped on them where they are told to keep away from someone else.

Its a common theme. First, the court imposes a non-financial, non-criminal set of restraints.

Then, if these get violated, the next phase ups the penalties and various punishments get put into the mix.

So, analagously, there is a set of people who are restrained by some rather precise restraints as a result of JB and JBII raising the ante on their defamers by taking them into court.

Now, is the argument a legitimate argument; that the events that happened to the defendants are not a big deal simply because there are neither criminal not financial elements found in the judge's words?

I don't think so.

The idea is a stage is set to levy harder punishments if the "restraints" are violated in the future, jusst like what happens when a court decided to start down the road of employing a restraining order.

And lets all be clear about who got slapped with restraints: the defendants.

The court did not put out even a single word that retrains JB or JBII as a result of their having taken this to a court for a ruling.

There was a ruling & it was 100% AGAINST the defendants and not at all a negative in any way, form, fashion, or manner as regards JB or JBII.

Imperial Whazoo

"Just my opinions, folks. Do your own due diligence & make your own decisions. DO NOT... I repeat... DO NOT make any investment decisions on my comments. They are my opinions. That's all they are... OPINIONS."