InvestorsHub Logo

Laurent Maldague

10/13/21 12:32 PM

#356901 RE: marjac #356898

"As an added benefit, and most germane to our Reply, under Ninth Circuit law, the exposure of fraud is a recognized exception granting a non-party standing to intervene to file a Rule 60 motion."

This is something that both Du and Hikma did not contend with if I remember correctly, and yet it's a crucial point. We don't even need rule 24 under the exception do we?

ziploc_1

10/13/21 12:33 PM

#356903 RE: marjac #356898

Marjac...QUOTE "Defendants deserve to have “the full weight of legal remedies” fall upon them as a party who gets caught with its hand in the proverbial cookie jar “must suffer the known consequences”."

I would be satisfied if we just get our Anchor patents restored...and no longer have to contend with this "skinny label' distortion of HW, which is not in the public interest.

vtem01

10/13/21 1:20 PM

#356906 RE: marjac #356898

Marjac,


Kudos to your excellent work, justice will prevail!

Much thanks

Meowza

10/13/21 4:36 PM

#356922 RE: marjac #356898

But... marjac, kool-aid. They already invoked kool-aid. I'm now too thirsty to think about stuff like "evidence" or "do I look like a dupe".

ralphey

10/14/21 10:30 AM

#356944 RE: marjac #356898

Marjac ...many thanks for your brilliant work !

KashSmooth

10/14/21 10:33 AM

#356945 RE: marjac #356898

Here Here. I am a small investor but have been following your posts for quite some time. Thank you for all your hard work in exposing this injustice.