Thanks! What has surprised me (beyond the genuine legal aspects) was the chlorotic (weakling) character of their arguments as I have shown in my EGO OUT editorials of:
Sep 06- "A Stake in Dracula's Heart..(Exhibit 5); Sep 13- Myths of proofs You cannot go to a Trial with incredible storiesas half full pipes in the plant (you defended it heroically but I am convinced you do not take it seriously) and the other stories - the Judge already knows how was the energy consumed and who is Bass so now IH has to came with a better set, probably. Do not answer please without solid arguments it seems IH and Co has not 6 Aces in their cards just small values. Peter On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > you can now prove that you have good sources of information; >> can you please explain Item 49 from the Miami Court pacermaker >> explaining us what has Cherokee et al withdrawn and especially WHY? >> > > I know nothing about laws or lawsuits, and I have not read this document. > You should ask a lawyer. Perhaps Jones Beene can enlighten us. > > > >> Is this an "elastic" withdrawal? >> > > If it is "without prejudice" that means it can be re-introduced. See: > > http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/without+prejudice > > - Jed > > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
