I've been saying this for a long time. This will be the last time. Mrs. Wallace agreed to mark the judgment in reliance on the sworn statements made by the spencers submitted to the court that she was the legal owner of the shares and that the certs provided to her were valid as required by court order. Subsequent to those statements by the spencers, martin spencer stated online and in a lawsuit in GA that Mrs. Wallace was not the legal owner and the certs were not valid. Mrs. Wallace then properly declined to mark the judgment unless and until spencer affirmed his sworn court submissions. Otherwise, spencer is now asserting he did not provide valid certs as required and she is not the owner. And the case, according to spencer, isn't over. I hope this clears up any remaining confusion.
If Mrs. Wallace has the legal autonomy to offer a settlement, then I don't see why she doesn't believe that the judgment should NOT be marked.
Mrs. Wallace believes the case is over and the judgment should be marked. It is spencer who is saying the case is not over--yet wants the judgment marked anyway. He is also saying he violated the court order by providing invalid certs. This is why the court has not dismissed his arrest warrant.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
