Replies to post #69250 on GRN Holding Corp (GRNF)

[e-ore]

The defense has not refuted a single plaintiff claim or piece of evidence, even after submitting multiple filings to the court over the last month. Their entire defense is to get the case dismissed on technicalities, and before the discovery process begins.

I've said several times you can't rely on a plaintiff's assertion as true fact until both sides have an opportunity to present their case

The judge disagrees with that assessment of yours, seeing enough "facts" and "factual basis" in the evidence to grant an injunction.

Right now, it's not looking so good that CANN presented their case accurately or factually

.
Please explain what is not accurate or factual in the CANN case

We'll see soon what else they forgot to mention.

It's the defense that has "forgot to mention" things. Like why they failed to maintain a "principal office street address," and failed to maintain a registered agent, as required by Washington state law, making their "not properly served" defense laughable. Almost as laughable as their "we're guilty of money laundering too" defense.