InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

lilpuppy6

09/13/10 12:22 PM

#25029 RE: Dreamchaser #25026

SGR,
You are one of the very few inteligent people on here.

I accept your reasoning. You may find it surprising that I tend to agree with your initial assesment,having perused the documents myself.

Although..my experience has shown..the law is a tempermental mistress at times..not so black and white as we would like it to be in some cases..that is my only point.

And if it turns out to be one of those strange occurences,I would not have a problem getting my order filled IMHO..that is my dumb opinion. We can certainly agree to disgree like gentlemen.

Can be dangerous to be so over confident,without considering the posibility that things may not go as planned in the near term. Some weak hands will bail,if you are truly long..you won't care.

I have noted your silence on the issue of the $5,000.

good luck to you.
icon url

Crystalballz

09/13/10 12:23 PM

#25030 RE: Dreamchaser #25026

Exactly correct, they also don't want to acknowledge the 2009 R/S (as if it doesn't apply to warrants). If this case does goes forward after tomorrow, it is because Briscoe would not take the abuse from these tricksters. And I don't blame him for going from a conference table to a cage fight. The way I see it Briscoe's attorney already has a good upper hand with several similar cases submitted as exhibits, setting a precedent favorable opinion with Briscoe's defense.