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
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.
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 explaining us what has Cherokee et al withdrawn and especially WHY?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:
> - Jed
Dr. Peter Gluck