News 
Market Data 
Discover
Replies to post #29525 on Sector 10 Inc (SECI)
10/31/20 3:45 PM
Respectfully, there are a few problems with that interpretation of the court filings. First....the "settlement conference" your post refers to is AKA the pre-trial conference, which was CANCELLED. The 4 day bench trial was also cancelled. Reason: Case was SETTLED. The Judge in this case did not....and would not have taken it upon herself to dismiss the case with prejudice prior to the pre-trial conference and 4 day bench trial in which all evidence would be heard. It just does not work that way. It was the defendant who filed a STIPULATED MOTION TO DISMISS which followed the motion from the plaintiff to classify all documents as private being granted by the Judge.....THIS WAS THE SETTLEMENT). In a "stipulated motion to dismiss" BOTH the PLAINTIFF and the DEFENDANT must agree to the motion...for the Judge to NOT issue a judgement AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. Thus, the Judge did not make any ruling here.....both parties themselves agreed to the motion to dismiss. Why? Settlement. I have been through many of these kinds of cases. The legalese to me is like reading the morning newspaper. Shareholders WILL see SETTLEMENT.....and it will be substantially higher than where we are now.
10/31/20 3:47 PM
10/31/20 3:47 PM
11/01/20 1:55 PM
Respectfully, there are a few problems with that interpretation of the court filings. First....the "settlement conference" your post refers to is AKA the pre-trial conference, which was CANCELLED. The 4 day bench trial was also cancelled. Reason: Case was SETTLED. The Judge in this case did not....and would not have taken it upon herself to dismiss the case with prejudice prior to the pre-trial conference and 4 day bench trial in which all evidence would be heard. It just does not work that way. It was the defendant who filed a STIPULATED MOTION TO DISMISS (which followed the motion from the plaintiff to classify all documents as private being granted by the Judge.....THIS WAS THE SETTLEMENT). In a "stipulated motion to dismiss" BOTH the PLAINTIFF and the DEFENDANT must agree to the motion for the Judge to NOT issue a judgement AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. Thus, the Judge did not make any ruling here, both parties themselves agreed to the motion to dismiss. Why? Settlement. I have been through many of these kinds of cases. The legalese to me is like reading the morning newspaper. Shareholders WILL see SETTLEMENT.....and it will be substantially higher than where we are now.
11/01/20 11:16 PM
Respectfully, there are a few problems with that interpretation of the court filings. First....the "settlement conference" your post refers to is AKA the pre-trial conference, which was CANCELLED. The 4 day bench trial was also cancelled. Reason: Case was SETTLED. The Judge in this case did not....and would not have taken it upon herself to dismiss the case with prejudice prior to the pre-trial conference and 4 day bench trial in which all evidence would be heard. It just does not work that way. It was the defendant who filed a STIPULATED MOTION TO DISMISS (which followed the motion from the plaintiff to classify all documents as private being granted by the Judge.....THIS WAS THE SETTLEMENT). In a "stipulated motion to dismiss" BOTH the PLAINTIFF and the DEFENDANT must agree to the motion for the Judge to NOT issue a judgement AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. Thus, the Judge did not make any ruling here, both parties themselves agreed to the motion to dismiss. Why? Settlement. I have been through many of these kinds of cases. The legalese to me is like reading the morning newspaper. Shareholders WILL see SETTLEMENT.....and it will be substantially higher than where we are now.
11/02/20 1:17 AM
Respectfully, there are a few problems with that interpretation of the court filings. First....the "settlement conference" your post refers to is AKA the pre-trial conference, which was CANCELLED. The 4 day bench trial was also cancelled. Reason: Case was SETTLED. The Judge in this case did not....and would not have taken it upon herself to dismiss the case with prejudice prior to the pre-trial conference and 4 day bench trial in which all evidence would be heard. It just does not work that way. It was the defendant who filed a STIPULATED MOTION TO DISMISS (which followed the motion from the plaintiff to classify all documents as private being granted by the Judge.....THIS WAS THE SETTLEMENT). In a "stipulated motion to dismiss" BOTH the PLAINTIFF and the DEFENDANT must agree to the motion for the Judge to NOT issue a judgement AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. Thus, the Judge did not make any ruling here, both parties themselves agreed to the motion to dismiss. Why? Settlement. I have been through many of these kinds of cases. The legalese to me is like reading the morning newspaper. Shareholders WILL see SETTLEMENT.....and it will be substantially higher than where we are now.
11/02/20 9:32 AM
Respectfully, there are a few problems with that interpretation of the court filings. First....the "settlement conference" your post refers to is AKA the pre-trial conference, which was CANCELLED. The 4 day bench trial was also cancelled. Reason: Case was SETTLED. The Judge in this case did not....and would not have taken it upon herself to dismiss the case with prejudice prior to the pre-trial conference and 4 day bench trial in which all evidence would be heard. It just does not work that way. It was the defendant who filed a STIPULATED MOTION TO DISMISS (which followed the motion from the plaintiff to classify all documents as private being granted by the Judge.....THIS WAS THE SETTLEMENT). In a "stipulated motion to dismiss" BOTH the PLAINTIFF and the DEFENDANT must agree to the motion for the Judge to NOT issue a judgement AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. Thus, the Judge did not make any ruling here, both parties themselves agreed to the motion to dismiss. Why? Settlement. I have been through many of these kinds of cases. The legalese to me is like reading the morning newspaper. Shareholders WILL see SETTLEMENT.....and it will be substantially higher than where we are now.
11/02/20 8:42 PM
Respectfully, there are a few problems with that interpretation of the court filings. First....the "settlement conference" your post refers to is AKA the pre-trial conference, which was CANCELLED. The 4 day bench trial was also cancelled. Reason: Case was SETTLED. The Judge in this case did not....and would not have taken it upon herself to dismiss the case with prejudice prior to the pre-trial conference and 4 day bench trial in which all evidence would be heard. It just does not work that way. It was the defendant who filed a STIPULATED MOTION TO DISMISS (which followed the motion from the plaintiff to classify all documents as private being granted by the Judge.....THIS WAS THE SETTLEMENT). In a "stipulated motion to dismiss" BOTH the PLAINTIFF and the DEFENDANT must agree to the motion for the Judge to NOT issue a judgement AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. Thus, the Judge did not make any ruling here, both parties themselves agreed to the motion to dismiss. Why? Settlement. I have been through many of these kinds of cases. The legalese to me is like reading the morning newspaper. Shareholders WILL see SETTLEMENT.....and it will be substantially higher than where we are now.
12/11/20 2:01 PM
02/17/21 2:02 PM
AI
