Like a Spanish speaking soap opera this thing keeps building suspense. These legal briefs seem emotion filled , and like Spanish, the SkunK does not grasp it all - but he cannot look away!
**************
In mid Feb the Judge grants GERS motion and schedules Oral argument in FIVE DAYS!:
"The Court having considered plaintiff GS CleanTech's ("CleanTech") Motion for Oral Argument on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and having determined that good cause exists for granting the Motion, it is
Ordered
1. CleanTech's motion for Oral Argument on order for Preliminary Injunction
GRANTED:"
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcMDg3YTMwZTgtOWI4OC00ZWFlLThjMGYtNGQ3ZDk4ZTljMmI4&hl=en
***********************
Now the SkunK is the FIRST to admit he does not understand all the nuances here in legal land. But he does have a BS meter. . .
First GERS proposes a schedule abbreviated here:
Plaintiffs motion 3 March;
Reply briefs by 10 March;
Hearing 17 March.
Second Cardinal proposes a schedule abbreviated as follows:
Briefs in opposition by 31 March;
Reply briefs by 12 April;
Hearing April 21.
So Cardinal asks for more time and then accuses GERS of "delay". They base? this on GreenShift filing numerous suits almost immediately after getting the patents in hand, but not filing on Cardinal for a few months. Giving them a chance to come clean is apparently now a fault? No good GreenShift deed goes unpunished? Next GreenShift is accused of "timing" the suit to match the National Ethanol Conference. I have no idea if that is true - or if it even matters if it was true. However I would take the bet that there is a "conference" or "workshop" in the biofuel industry at the state, national or international level every month of the year. GreenShift would have had to "time" the suit NOT to match up with a industry meeting.
**************
In mid Feb the Judge grants GERS motion and schedules Oral argument in FIVE DAYS!:
"The Court having considered plaintiff GS CleanTech's ("CleanTech") Motion for Oral Argument on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and having determined that good cause exists for granting the Motion, it is
Ordered
1. CleanTech's motion for Oral Argument on order for Preliminary Injunction
GRANTED:"
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcMDg3YTMwZTgtOWI4OC00ZWFlLThjMGYtNGQ3ZDk4ZTljMmI4&hl=en
***********************
Now the SkunK is the FIRST to admit he does not understand all the nuances here in legal land. But he does have a BS meter. . .
First GERS proposes a schedule abbreviated here:
Plaintiffs motion 3 March;
Reply briefs by 10 March;
Hearing 17 March.
Second Cardinal proposes a schedule abbreviated as follows:
Briefs in opposition by 31 March;
Reply briefs by 12 April;
Hearing April 21.
So Cardinal asks for more time and then accuses GERS of "delay". They base? this on GreenShift filing numerous suits almost immediately after getting the patents in hand, but not filing on Cardinal for a few months. Giving them a chance to come clean is apparently now a fault? No good GreenShift deed goes unpunished? Next GreenShift is accused of "timing" the suit to match the National Ethanol Conference. I have no idea if that is true - or if it even matters if it was true. However I would take the bet that there is a "conference" or "workshop" in the biofuel industry at the state, national or international level every month of the year. GreenShift would have had to "time" the suit NOT to match up with a industry meeting.
GreenShift is ridiculed by the defense for putting out press releases on the law suits. As a shareholder here, I appreciate finding out what is going on with my investment. . . especially when I find out that the hard earned capital I entrusted with a small start up has created not only breakaway intellectual property, . . but patented property. Real property that seems to have been taken from this company and its small investors through patent infringement. Do I and other potential investors have the right to know the details about the legal attempts to recover our stolen property? Damn Straight! It is not just the "GreenShift Corporation" that has suffered apparent patent violation; it is the small GreenShift investors - who has suffered through thick and thin to keep this innovation alive - who are not about to allow it to be snuffed out through either ham-fisted thievery or illegal prestidigitation.
Communicating with shareholders and potential shareholders through company updates is essential for a public company. The SkunK noted the press releases were not accused of containing inaccuracies. . .
Remember ICM is doing the legal work here. Not sure at this point what recourse Cardinal has if this turns sour for them. . . did they sign away various recourse to get free representation?http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcOTIyNmYwMjEtMDZlMC00ZjJmLTk4MTUtZGI3MTQyYWJhNDdm
The good judge then went on to order this compromise time frame.
Briefs in Opposition:March 24th
Reply to Briefs: April 5th
Hearing: April 15th
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcNGMwMTVlM2QtZGNiMy00YzQ2LTkwZ
In any case - read it yourself and I would be interested in your opinions. . .
SkunK
The good judge then went on to order this compromise time frame.
Briefs in Opposition:March 24th
Reply to Briefs: April 5th
Hearing: April 15th
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcNGMwMTVlM2QtZGNiMy00YzQ2LTkwZ
In any case - read it yourself and I would be interested in your opinions. . .
SkunK
Posts
