Replies to post #99268 on Pacific Gold Corp fka PCFG

[TRAPPER JIM]

Thanks blue dog.

[BBalls-N-CowTown]

Thanks BD!

[lumnari]

BD: Add my thanks. Lots of these things settle without going to court.

[blue dog]

The bad guys are late on their filing due October 29, but the Court probably was closed due to Hurricane Sandy. If so, the deadline bounces forward to the next/first business day when the Court re-opens. It will be interesting to see whether they seek another extension. Also, the Court had a hearing on October 22 on the bad guys' motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court reserved decision on preliminary relief, presumably until the Court decides the merits.

Couple things:

1. The docket (including links to a subset of the filed documents) is available at http://client-email.com/dockets/PCFGvBME.html ; if anyone wants documents not linked, please feel free to let me know.

2. I am not your lawyer unless we have a written engagement letter, signed by both of us.

3. I have not had a chance to review the documents. Too busy, plus this really is not my area of law. I am sorry about that. One thing to keep in mind as you read them is that you (like the judge) must distinguish between advocacy and accuracy. In other words, reading just one side's papers may sound very convincing. By the same token, reading the other side's papers may sound equally convincing. But only one side is going to win on any given issue.

I still look forward to taking a look at these myself, and I have not checked each link. Let me know if there are any technical problems; let your lawyer know if you have any legal questions.

[blue dog]

BME Litigation Update

BME responded to the complaint with a motion to dismiss. (A defendant can either answer or move to dismiss a complaint.) I do not practice in New Jersey, but as best as I can tell the date set for the motion (12/3/2012) means that PCFG must file its opposition 14 days prior to that, and BME must file any reply 7 days before that under Local Rule 7.1(d)(2)-(3). According to the docket entry, the motion will be decided without oral argument. I doubt that the judge will decide the merits of the motion by that date.

FYI, I have not read the motion or its accompanying memorandum and affidavits, so I will not answer any questions about their subtance. Also, I am having technical difficulties: new/updated page bodies are appearing below the left/navigation pane. My apologies for the technical glitch.

Couple things:

1. The docket (including links to a subset of the filed documents) is available at http://client-email.com/dockets/PCFGvBME.html ; if anyone wants documents not linked, please feel free to let me know.

2. I am not your lawyer unless we have a written engagement letter, signed by both of us.

3. I have not had a chance to review the documents. Too busy, plus this really is not my area of law. I am sorry about that. One thing to keep in mind as you read them is that you (like the judge) must distinguish between advocacy and accuracy. In other words, reading just one side's papers may sound very convincing. By the same token, reading the other side's papers may sound equally convincing. But only one side is going to win on any given issue.

I still look forward to taking a look at these myself, and I have not checked each link. Let me know if there are any technical problems; let your lawyer know if you have any legal questions.

[blue dog]

BME Litigation Update

Nothing of significance has happened since the last update. The parties are briefing motions to dismiss.

My apologies for not having updated the docket in a while; my interest here has flagged with the share price.

Couple things:

1. A subset of the docket is available at http://client-email.com/dockets/PCFGvBME.html ; if anyone wants documents not listed, please feel free to let me know.

2. I am not your lawyer unless we have a written engagement letter, signed by both of us.

3. I have not had a chance to review the documents. Too busy. I am sorry about that. One thing to keep in mind as you read them is that you (like the judge) must distinguish between advocacy and accuracy. In other words, reading just one side's papers may sound very convincing. By the same token, reading the other side's papers may sound equally convincing. But only one side is going to win on any given issue.

I still look forward to taking a look at these myself, and I have not checked each link. Let me know if there are any technical problems; let your lawyer know if you have any legal questions.