On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thomas Darden shall not avoid the requirements of the Licence Agreement > and pay Rossi what is agreed upon. The positive ERV is the ONLY requirement > for payment defined in the LA. Even the Pope must follow the law. Being > a sainted person does not give that person the right to ignore > a legally binding agreement. > Why the blazes is this troll here defending a vulture capitalist outfit which is welching on a contract which has quite apparently NOT been voided on the Rossi side..? I read the entire legal complaint. This *all* hinges on the outcome of the long-term validation process. My understanding is that this *was* a success. Who's lying here... and why?
