The Judge told them the Injunction was worthless......
See page 9. This is an absolutely beautiful understanding of the Constitution and our rights as US citizens.
2 THE COURT: It would be a really difficult
3 situation if somebody asked me to proceed on an
4 injunction against making posts on the internet if the
5 truth defense was successfully brought forth. Right?
6 Even though your right would technically be in
7 violation of the injunction, it may be a privileged
8 violation of the injunction.
What worthless human being actually brings such an action before a court? Further, why would Kyle LIE to the Court and say he violated the Injunction because he posted on this stock board, when his own Exhibit A shows those posts were on another stock board? The Judge said the post had NOTHING to do with SFRX.
So Kyle LIED once again. He's a rather pathetic and sick individual.
See page 48. Here's the Defendant's post Kyle read, that coupled with a few more is suppose to be sooooooooooooooo damaging to this POS, according to the motion.
17 A. 7.19.2015. It says, "I held the stock and other
18 "scammy, trashy, so called cover stocks before and
19 "they all lost value. Because unknown to shareholders,
20 "they were meant to be scammy from the beginning.
21 "E-A-H" and then "O-R-V." I don't know what that
22 means. "More ammo for their evil master." That was in
23 reflection to me. "But remember, some ducks were
24 "never meant to fly. But this one is real. Glad to
25 "be part of it."
1 THE COURT: What in there, in your estimation, has
2 referred it to your company? None of the part you read
3 did.
4 THE WITNESS: This all these posts are posted
5 under Seafarer Explorations post.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
