A number of weeks ago, somebody suggested that JRL's posts were a deliberate attempt to portray a case of mental instability... which could be used as evidence in a defense effort against a charge of fraud. I tended to discount that possibility at the time, but now my thoughts seem to be swaying in the other direction.
If he were indeed serious about what he claims in this latest post, surely he wouldn't have made nearly as many obvious blunders as this post contains. You've pointed out a number of them, and it's hard to imagine that anyone in his position would have made some of those statements.
I wonder what Brent thinks of all of this? Will he seriously heed JRL's command to clam up when it comes to the BCSC hearing? Does he really believe there's some sort of a conspiracy against him and JL? The whole thing seems surreally ludicrous to me.
And what the heck is a "fake decision" anyway? Maybe an example of a fake decision is when you stand at the edge of a cliff, dangle a foot over the brim as if you're going to step off, look over your shoulder and smile and say "haha... just kidding!" Then turn around and hop off the edge anyways. Maybe that's what the judges were doing... looking sternly at the defendants and scowling miserably... nodding and postulating and saying "ah yes JT, your patron JL is THE man... we agree with everything you've said"... and then huddle and confidently announce their decision that he's lost yet another one. A "fake decision" eh? Hmmmm...
I think the only realistic reason that JL doesn't want BJ to attend the hearing is that he doesn't want the BCSC to hear anything that BJ has to say about their dealings over the past half dozen years. I mean, if you truly owned the goods as claimed, why not send Brent down there with a suitcase full of valid concessions and domain certificates and a troop of reporters in tow?
That probably won't happen though, 'cause the concessions are probably a lot like those fake court decisions.
And one other thing... does anybody know what a "live trial" is? Does it mean that it's in a REAL court room with LIVING, breathing, healthy judges and stenographers and bailiffs and so forth? As opposed to a tele-conference trial? (No personal opinions and no paraphrasing of Lopehandia's ramble. Just a verifiable description or a link please). I have a feeling that this is one of Jorge's inventions, but I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
