InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

nobody12378

07/11/11 5:53 PM

#15850 RE: loophole lawyer #15849

The implication of your statements is that the GERS patent attorneys are incompetent, is that correct?
icon url

mitoo

07/11/11 7:00 PM

#15851 RE: loophole lawyer #15849

isnt texas oil friendly? arent we trying to displace oil? given the cronyism in the justice system, wouldnt texas be a place for gers to ... stay out of?
icon url

vineyardstock

07/11/11 8:13 PM

#15856 RE: loophole lawyer #15849

The venue GERS finds itself in is do to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, which in this case was initiated by the judicial panel and not Greenshift. Greenshift initiated sep. litigation in differing venues which were then consolited by the panel. In order for a a Tex venue or Wis, or Calif Greenshift would of had to directly initiate that action, whereas in this instanct they files sporatically. At least that is my understanding under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. The reasoning of the judicial panel for the current venue is that; it was a secondary choice initially as well as it's locale to the ethanol producers involved.

Just some quick DD