Replies to post #37998 on Calypso Wireless (fka CLYW)

[litton51]

Probably just to delay as long as possible. It's part of waging "lawfare." You make the plaintiff wait forever by endless delays or changes of juristiction or changes in judges
or simply skipping the country, or for as long as it takes to make the plaintiff run out of money. On the other hand, such tactics can and do result in a summary judgment for the plaintiff. With the stock still up 400% it seems shareholders aren't too worried.

[downsideup]

I think it says they've finally recognized that there isn't an escape from it (the problems inherent in the risks that exist as fixed elements in the situation from and prior to the original judgment... that were made fixed BY the original judgment) without going back and revisiting it...

Perhaps that means that in October of 2010, they've finally caught up to what the shareholders group had already figured out back in Feb 2008... which the last 2 1/2 years of dithering about and playing with the "side show" in the efforts related to the 2008 Settlement... did not enable them in avoiding.

So, look at the scam from the origin... and note there are a couple of "fixed points" in time where the dynamic was suspended as a function of a court ruling "this or that". A proper perspective of "the whole thing" has to include ALL of those "scenes" in which there was an operative dynamic, plus the "still shots" taken at those points where a court provided a snap shot... AND it has to include those elements which HAVE NOT YET been made APPARENT, either in the dynamic revealed in any "scene" or in any of the "still shots"...

There is a still incomplete picture of the whole...

The battleground in court, is going to be over how those elements are applied in the next round... either in the dynamic, or in the result developed from the next "still shot"...

Which picture will we see in the end result ? The one Daic hoped would result from the original judgment ? Or, the one Daic decided he needed to avoid as a risk by abandoning the original judgment to "try again" under the 2008 Settlement ? Or, neither one of those, and something quite completely different ???