A reply to a Post>
First of all, let's look at the quote from the post:
"MPs objection was disallowed over technicalities and uncertainty over the amount. (better straighten that out, CDEX!! Do not want a lawsuit or apppeal from MP!!)"
LOL, The Judge never one time said that Mp's objection is getting disallowed over technicalities and uncertainty over the amount. LOL That is what the post said, BUT not the Judge. The Judge never utter one word about the objections presented by Mr. Sparks. This is NOT a discredit to Mr. Sparks, this is a discredit to the lying post. LOL
I am not dishing the Cdex Lawyer, the post you posted is lying about why Mp's objection was disallowed, LOL. Get your facts together, and not from "OUT OF THIN AIR", lol.
LOL, yes the winning side of an argument before the court has final papers to draw up, DUH! lol.
The discredit has been properly attached via this post.
The substantial support that the plan received by all in the court room, the letters to the Judge supporting the plan, is ALL the Judge needed to base the verdict on. and that is exactly what he did. Imagine that. LOL
Not one thing to do with technicalities, LOLOLOLOL.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
